David Ignatius and the "savior of the Syrian armed opposition of the week"

I received this from a Western NGO person in the Middle East region:
"What an incredible coincidence, Foreign Policy just published a similar puff piece about the same guy by a lazy journalist new to Syria and therefor ignorant of local dynamics and context ()
And earlier in 2013 the New Republic had a similar article about Maarouf and the leader of Suqur Asham, Abu Issa Sheikh. Every month or two there is an article in American media with the theme of "is this the man who can save Syria"? Reminds me of stupid reporting about Iraq and Afghanistan

Ignatius still speaks of “strengthening Syrian moderates.” This argument was relevant two years ago, if ever. He is not even ashamed to admit that this is lazy journalism. He admits he spoke to Maarouf over the phone! So he has nothing to base his judgment of Maarouf on. Ignatius has not been to Idlib (Maarouf’s base), we know. Its bad enough when “journalists” try to write about events and people in Syria from across the border in Lebanon or Turkey, but this is over the phone!

Maarouf has for well over a year been decried as a corrupt warlord by all the other groups in Idlib. Maarouf has also long been a recipient of Saudi money and promoted by Saudi media (including al Arabiya). As Saudi influence has been reduced to southern Syria (in fact Jordan just expelled Qatari backed Syrian leaders to Turkey), Maarouf remains the last Saudi man in most of Syria, and often meets people with a Saudi sidekick. More importantly in the Syrian context, his main area of operations is Idlib and he has a small reach into northern Hama and western Aleppo. Yes, Maarouf did fight ISIS. His new opposition to Jabhat al Nusra is a result of the recent Saudi statements against that group too. But Maarouf was only involved in anti-ISIS fighting in parts of Idlib. Numerous other groups were involved, including Islamist groups. Maarouf also previously undermined the FSA command known as the SMC, which was an American backed structure, stealing its weapons stores. He is among the least respected insurgent leaders in Syria, and while not an Islamist extremist, he and his men have engaged in numerous sectarian killings and kidnappings and extra judicial killings. But how would Ignatius know any of this over the phone?

Ignatius is wrong to say that Maarouf expelled ISIS from northern Aleppo province. That was mostly other groups including the Civilian Protection Commission and its umbrella organization Jeish al Mujahedin, as well as elements of the Islamic Front such as Liwa Tawhid.

Yes Maarouf certainly does want more money and weapons, that’s what all his critics have been saying for a year and a half at least. He has no chance of taking the fight to Raqqa let alone Deir al Zor though, he doesn’t even have the manpower, let alone the desire, and there are numerous other groups that compete for control there.

Ignatius speaks of the “previous Free Syrian Army leader in the north, Gen Salim Idriss.” Everybody knows Idriss never actually led anything, the most that could be said of his organization was that they distributed some weapons on behalf of outside backers of the insurgency who were in no way under Idriss’ chain of command. And he never seemed particularly “thoughtful.”

Its hard to see how Ignatius would know where Maarouf is sectarian or not. Obviously he wont call for the extermination of Alawites over the phone.

Its funny to still read articles about “after Assad is replaced as president.” That seems like a fantasy. Assad is not going anywhere. Thats clear to anybody in Syria or the region, but perhaps not from Washington. The insurgency is losing ground in many places and lacks the manpower or ability to halt the regime’s momentum. And the regime’s crude reconciliation tactics which slightly resemble what the Americans did in Iraq beginning in 2007 are also expanding the area it controls and removing insurgents from the fight. Certainly Maarouf lacks the manpower or military knowhow to expand his control into regime held areas. He has not been able to score any significant victories in the last year and a half at least against the regime. And his men have been involved in killing Alawite civilians as I said. And Sunni civilians for that matter.

 Ignatius writes about “corrupt warlords” who “plundered the northern areas” without even knowing that Maarouf is universally regarded as a corrupt warlord.

“Maarouf appears to be the kind of commander the United States and its allies will need to trust.” This statement is based on what knowledge? These are the same arrogant and baseless judgments Ignatius and other fake authorities made about Chalabi, Ayad Alawi, Afghan warlords and all kinds of bad guys who failed to live up to expectations and were soon forgotten. Reporting on Syria has made me dislike American journalism even more. I can only imagine that the articles I read in the New York Times or Washington Post on areas outside my expertise but on which we all rely upon for knowledge of current events are equally fundamentally flawed at the epistemological and methodological level. When you visit northern areas in Syria you realize that half the armed men have abandoned the fight, they are exhausted, lost hope (they thought it would be over in two months and two or more years into it find themselves on the same front), they have switched to predatory activity, manning checkpoints for taxes, looting to support themselves, or are just sickened by all the infighting and corruption. Maarouf will never be able to be more than a warlord in part of Idlib (not even all of Idlib). Even now he is also in touch with the regime, like many leaders of the insurgency. Eventually, if he remains alive, he’ll make a deal with the regime and be awarded control over part of Idlib. These Washington based reporters should stick to telling us who is meeting who at Cafe Milano."