U.S. Wants to Bomb ISIS In Syria … Maybe We Should (cough) First Stop ARMING THEM?

9 comments

Posted on 23rd August 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , ,

Via Washington’s Blog

 

If We Stop Arming, Funding and Training Terrorists, then Maybe We Won’t Have to Bomb Them Later

U.S. foreign policy is schizophrenic.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says we need to attack the Sunni militants in Syria.

The deputy national security adviser to President Obama says we should go after ISIS in Syria.

Okay …

But the U.S. and our closest allies have long supported Sunni militants.

And the U.S. and our closest allies have been arming and training Islamic jihadists in Syria for years. And see this, this, this and this.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a fortune-teller to have known this was a bad idea.

As Michael Shank – Adjunct Faculty and Board Member at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and director of foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation – warned a year ago:

The Senate and House Intelligence committees’ about-face decision last week to arm the rebels in Syria is dangerous and disconcerting. The weapons will assuredly end up in the wrong hands and will only escalate the slaughter in Syria. Regardless of the vetting procedures in place, the sheer factionalized nature of the opposition guarantees that the arms will end up in some unsavory hands. The same militant fighters who have committed gross atrocities are among the best-positioned of the rebel groups to seize the weapons that the United States sends to Syria.

Congress can still join with the 70 percent of Americans who oppose arming Syria rebels and heed former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s caution against arming the rebels (he called the Obama administration’s decision to do so “a mess in the making“) ….

Arming one side of Syria’s multi-sided and bloody civil war will come back to haunt us. Past decisions by the U.S. to arm insurgencies in Libya, Angola, Central America and Afghanistan helped sustain brutal conflicts in those regions for decades. In the case of Afghanistan, arming the mujahideen in the 1980s created the instability that emboldened extreme militant groups and gave rise to the Taliban, which ultimately created an environment for al Qaeda to thrive.

There is no unified command or control in the Syrian opposition, as was the case of the Afghan mujahideen. And due to the United States’ long history of diplomatically isolating Syria, we know even less about the nature of Syria’s opposition. The excuse that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is often invoked to justify anti-Assad forces. This short-sighted excuse has gained the U.S. enemies around the world, undermining U.S. national security. The same justification was used by the Bush administration in its collaboration with the Assad regime to torture suspected militants in Syria. Arming the enemies of our enemies hasn’t made the U.S. more friends; it has made the U.S. more enemies.

***

Some armed opposition factions, including powerful Islamist coalitions, reject negotiation altogether. Yet these are the same groups that will likely seize control of U.S.-supplied weapons, just as they’ve already seized control of the bulk of the rebels’ weaponry.

***

When you lift the curtain on the armed groups with the most formidable military presence on the ground in Syria, you find the Al Nusra Front and Al Farough Brigades. Both groups are closely aligned with Al Qaeda and have directly perpetrated barbaric atrocities. The Al Nusra Front has been charged with beheadings of civilians, while a commander from the Al Farough Brigades reportedly ate the heart of a pro-Assad soldier.

Shank’s warning was ignored, and his worst fears came to pass.

And the U.S. is still financing the jihadis in Syria. For example, the government is pushing an additional $500 million in arms to the jihadis.

We are literally bombing our own weapons.

A similar dynamic is operating in Iraq. Specifically, the U.S. is now arming the “Peshmerga” (i.e. the Kurdish soldiers).

But the Wall Street Journal notes that there are reports that Peshmerga are fighting side-by-side with the PKK  … a group designated as terrorists by the U.S.:

A U.S. defense official couldn’t confirm whether the meeting took place and stressed in response to reports that the PKK was fighting alongside the Peshmerga that “it’s hard to tell from Washington who’s on the front line in a Kurdish-Iraqi fight.”

The U.S. has designated the PKK a terrorist organization, and the U.S. “doesn’t do business with them,” the official added.

By arming the Peshmerga, the U.S. is also putting weapons into the hands of the PKK.

If we stop arming, funding and training terrorists, then maybe we won’t have to bomb them later.

9 Comments
  1. James Strait says:

    Can’t argue with the article…we love to shoot ourselves in the foot.

    I’ve already written about terror coming to the streets of America.

    http://www.amazon.com/World-War-III-Not-Imagined-ebook/dp/B00K14WUK8/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1399685078

    23rd August 2014 at 11:53 am

  2. Rise Up says:

    The object is to sell arms, not win wars. The Military Industrial Complex must survive and prosper.

    23rd August 2014 at 12:42 pm

  3. Stucky says:

    Good article.

    Not arming them is only half the story. Not bombing and occupying them is the other.

    Imagine what some of us would do if … lets just pick Egypt …… started bombing Kentucky because Egypt doesn’t like our foreign policy. Cities destroyed, innocent men, woman, and children killed, houses destroyed, and jobs lost due to a decimated infrastructure. How long would it take Billy to start chopping off mooslim heads?

    Not that I like ISIS, or even respect them. They are amoral and devoid of any semblance of humanity … especially towards other “wrong thinking” mooslims. But, at least they ain’t a bunch of fucking pussies. Really … did Amurika think it could endlessly bomb mooslims forever … without repercussions?

    23rd August 2014 at 1:26 pm

  4. ottomatik says:

    Looks like Langley end around to get into Syria, pick the worst arm to the teeth, see how they do vs. Assad. Poorly, Assad competent with powerful friends. Re boot turn on kurds, malaki, and force Pentagon into action, fall back into Syria…..presto Pentagon spittng distance from Assad. False flag, followed by collapse of uneasy Pent/Assad truce and goodbye Assad. Followed by a rainbow of Quatari pipe lines and a very angry The Putin.

    23rd August 2014 at 6:52 pm

  5. donna says:

    Its all about oil and gas who own it.Saudis were pissed Obama did not take the gas lines in Syria for them with US military in exchange for petro dollar-Russia teamed up with Asad for a cut in gas lines-Iraq its all about resources for Saudis most likely petro dollar-Wish for once some one will tell the truth cut the msm propaganda for another phoney war- US Military is sacrificed for petro dollar-If they live they come back to the US only to have Feinstein call them home grown terrorist and be denied care through the veterans admin.To which vet admin is generously rewarded by US gov for doing their dirty work.Now through B Ocare the gov has the right to do home inspections of vets day or night-

    23rd August 2014 at 7:00 pm

  6. Econman says:

    It is hard to tell a lot of US news is not from the Onion.
    That is sad. The gov’t is a farce.

    23rd August 2014 at 10:27 pm

  7. GilbertS says:

    It only seems schizophrenic if you don’t understand we WANT ISIS to exist. We WANT to bomb them later. Why else go to all the trouble of arming and training them in the first place?

    Someone pointed out last week the government was talking about coexistence with ISIS, not wiping them out. And we’re not exactly doing much to really fight them. A few bombs here and there do not a campaign make. We’re playing at war, not fighting a war. We can stretch this out for a long, long time.

    And why wouldn’t we? If we actually “fought” ISIS, the “war” would be over in a weekend. It would be like Mike Tyson vs. a 99 year old lady in a wheelchair. That’s not fun and it certainly doesn’t give Americans something to fear. Just look at the insanity in the last 3 days about the ISIS “Terrorists” coming here to “blow up an entire city!” (this is what I heard on the news a few times)

    I find it very hard to believe there is an ISIS plan to make an entire city explode. I also find it hard to believe they’re stopping their war in Syria and Iraq to go to America to blow up an entire city. They’ve got enough money at this point, you would think they could just pay a few million to the first terrorists to do the attack for them.

    Also, I don’t think we should call them terrorists anymore. Terrorists use terror to get whatever political ends they want. Insurgents and rebels fight to topple governments and seize power, becoming the government. ISIS has replaced the failed Iraqi state with their new wacky one. They’re not just terrorizing Iraqis; they’re conquering them. They’ve announced their own country-that’s not what terrorists do. That’s what insurgents and rebels do.

    So, the US Govt funds the ISIS insurgency in Iraq and Syria. The US govt arms the ISIS insurgency. And in return, the US govt gets to scare the pants off its citizenry, gets to justify never ending war (we’ve always been at war with Eastasia), gets to maintain massive spending, sell more weapons, and keep messing with the middle east. Hell, I wonder if it helps us put pressure on Israel or Jordan or Turkey or Iran or Saudi to do what we want? “Dear angry, upset, indebted voters-you can’t possibly afford to waver in your support for us, because we’re all that protects you from the murderous scourge that never ceases looking for ways to kill you. They hate you for your freedom!”

    Oh no, you can’t keep a popup insurgency going just for those limited returns…

    24th August 2014 at 12:21 am

  8. dunce says:

    Donna and Ottomatik:

    Please DO NOT defile this beautiful blog with grammar and literature that is appallingly disgusting to read/comprehend.

    We only want intelligent commentary that reflects a well-informed and educated TBP community.

    I wanted to try to understand your assertions but was discouraged to read them due to bad grammar.

    Only bb is somewhat allowed to dispense his gross linguistics upon us. But even bb is annoying to read sometimes.

    : P

    24th August 2014 at 3:48 am

  9. ottomatik says:

    dunce,
    My first mental response, born of instinct, is to tell you: “Suck my dick, Fuck.” Although Barbaric, I think it captures the essence of my cogent response, as homoerotic as it seems. I could further add personal attacks, insulting your lack of meaningful contribution, but, as “Suck my dick,Fuck” implies, I have no time to quibble over commas.
    If you cannot find value in what I have say, as presented, do not read it…….and……”Suck my dick, Fuck”! Good day.

    24th August 2014 at 12:03 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.