How do you say fast and furious in Arabic?

I’m surprised the American-imposed limits on arms transfers to the Syrian opposition from Qatar and Saudi Arabia are front page news today in the New York Times.  It has been common knowledge for some time that the United States does not want shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons (man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS) transferred to Syrian rebels. Anti-tank weapons are likewise blocked.

I thought it obvious why.  But apparently not, so let’s review the merits of the case.  These weapons pose a serious threat to commercial aircraft and other civilian targets.  Washington does not want to transfer weapons that fall into extremist hands and are then used against Americans.  “Fast and furious” comes to mind–the scandal surrounding a transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to track them that ended in the murder of American border patrol agent.  So, too, does the Washington-sponsored mujahideen effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which armed radical Islamist forces that are now fighting against the Americans.

Rumint has it that there are hundreds of thousands of MANPADs already in circulation.  If so, it is hard to understand how none have made it into Syria.  I am told that American ones come with a difficult-to-replace 90-day battery.  If effective, that would make them relatively unattractive.  I don’t know whether Russian, Chinese, Iranian, British and other systems have similar immobilizing measures.  There have been a number of incidents in which MANPADS have been used against civilian aircraft:  in Rhodesia, Georgia, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Iraq.  Some attempts were successful, others not. It does not take a lot of imagination to picture why officials in Washington would worry about MANPADS getting into the wrong hands.

Anti-tank weapons come in a bewildering variety, wire-guided and not.  Some seem to have made their way to Syria, where the rebels have often destroyed the regime’s tanks.  I have a hard time understanding why Washington would worry much about the transfer of these weapons, especially if they are already in theater. It would of course be wiser to transfer them to more reliable people, but war doesn’t allow a lot of fine distinctions to be made.

A birdie tells me that the Syrian opposition is getting all the AK-47s and other “light” weapons it needs.  It is not doing them a whole lot of good.  The Syrian army is using artillery, tanks, snipers and the occasional aircraft to project force far beyond the range the rebels can target effectively when they shoot back.

The real question for Washington at this point is whether to allow the Syrian opposition to get MANPADS, which it would use to enforce a de facto no-fly zone over the areas that it controls.  This could level the playing field and allow the opposition to hold on to liberated areas.  I haven’t been enthusiastic about the arming of the opposition, not the least because it strengthens extreme Islamist and other anti-democratic forces that should not inherit Syria from the Asad regime.  But with the civic opposition yesterday demonstrating in favor of arming Free Syrian Army, it is hard to oppose a shift in Washington’s stance that would allow MANPADS with appropriate self-limiting technology and anti-tank weapons to reach it.

U.S. government officials have been insisting that they draw the line at “lethal” assistance, presumably to bolster their so far unsuccessful efforts to turn the Russians and Chinese around on Syria and allow a UN Security Council resolution with teeth to pass.  But with Iran, Hizbollah and the Russians pouring arms and men into Asad’s efforts to crush the rebellion and Syria repeatedly firing artillery into the territory of NATO-member Turkey, isn’t it time to consider leveling the playing field, as the diplomats say?

If that shift takes place, we have to recognize that there is a real possibility that the weapons will some day be used us.  How do you say “fast and furious” in Arabic?