Calling it “a major setback” to President Barack Obama’s strategy for fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), The Washington Post reported Sunday that American-backed rebels were defeated by Jabhat al-Nusra, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda, in the northern Syrian province of Idlib.

Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts.

Other moderate fighters were on the run, headed for the Turkish border as the extremists closed in, heralding a significant defeat for the rebel forces Washington had been counting on as a bulwark against the Islamic State.

Moderates still retain a strong presence in southern Syria, but the Islamic State has not been a major factor there.

In addition, the Post reports that Jabhat al-Nusra has also captured a “capturing significant quantities of weaponry.” The report notes that this defeat ends “hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.”

In ISIS: Can the West Win Without a Ground Game?, which appeared in the October 2014 issue of The Tower Magazine, Jonathan Spyer noted that two of the U.S.-backed groups mentioned in the Post report, Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, have been willing to “work with salafi groupings whose worldview is essentially identical to that of the I.S.” and share an “anti-Western component” with ISIS.

Given the problems with many of the Sunni rebel groups, Spyer recommends that the West shift its focus elsewhere:

Such a policy must rest on the identification and strengthening of non-Islamist forces willing to band together and partner with the West. Not all of them are perfect characters, but they all understand the threat that political Islam poses.
Most obviously, there is a line of pro-American states along the southern side of the arena of the war. These are Israel, Jordan, and in a far more partial and problematic way, Saudi Arabia. Both Israel and Jordan have demonstrated that they are able to successfully contain the spread of the chaos coming out of the north. Both are well-organized states with powerful militaries and intelligence structures. Jordan has clearly benefitted from the deployment of U.S. special forces to prevent incursions by the I.S. Israel has also made clear that its resources will be available to assist the Jordanians should this be required. (Egypt, too, while not in the immediate vicinity of the conflict, can be a silent partner as well—as its campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood and tough line against Hamas have shown, it is nothing if not a virulent opponent to political Islam.)

…

As part of a strategy of containment, the West should increase support for and recognition of both the Kurdish enclaves in the north of Syria and the Kurdish Regional Government itself. Both are elements capable of containing the spread of the jihadis from the north. It has become clear in recent days that the Pesh Merga, despite early setbacks, is a useful instrument in preventing the further advance westward of the Islamic State, and in so doing protecting the investment of international oil companies in the oil-rich parts of Iraq. The YPG militia, though poorly equipped, has also avoided major losses.

[Photo: Eretz Zen / YouTube ]