Lawmakers Bash Obama’s Delusional Syria Policy
In a recent post I noted Turkey Plans Military Intervention in Syria, Bans YouTube for Leaked Reporting. As a followup, please see Outrageous but Highly Believable Rumor Involving Syria, Turkey, Kerry.
Meanwhile, back in the US Lawmakers Bash Obama’s “Delusional” Syria Policy.
U.S. lawmakers lashed out at the Obama administration’s handling of Syria’s civil war on Wednesday, demanding a stronger American response to the conflict and better communication from the White House about its plans.
Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed deep frustration after Anne Patterson, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, declined to answer a question about strategy in a public setting.
“I have a problem with a generic answer to a generic question that I can’t believe is classified,” Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, said during a committee hearing.
Members of the Foreign Relations panel in particular are frustrated by the administration’s failure to do more in Syria, where 140,000 people have been killed, millions have become refugees and thousands of foreign militant fighters have been trained as rebels have fought to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
Arizona Republican John McCain, a frequent critic of Obama’s foreign policy, called U.S. Syria policy “a colossal failure.”
Secret Deals and the Failure to “Do More”
Once again McCain proves he is little more than a war-mongering puppet for the military “offense” industry. “Defense” has nothing to do with involvement in Syria.
Late January, Reuters reported Congress secretly approves U.S. weapons flow to ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels.
It seems that was about as secret as Turkey’s secret discussion on intervention in Syria.
Rebel Infighting
And what are the rebels doing with the weapons the US sent?
Here is the answer: Syrian Rebels Fighting Each Other: Al Qaeda Clash with Rival Islamists.
The Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front have sent an ultimatum to the rival Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to cease killing fellow rebels or face “expulsion” from Syria.
ISIS have waged a bloody campaign against fellow rebels, whom they regard as being insufficiently devout, and are widely suspected to be responsible for the killing of Suri. They have become known for the brutal enforcement of their extreme interpretation of Islamic law in the territory they control.
While Julani admitted that some Syrian rebel groups were guilty of “takfir” (unbelief), he accused ISIS of indiscriminately killing rebels and labelling them all as takfir.
Infighting between the Syrian rebel groups has intensified in recent months, with ISIS and Al Nusra severing links and fighting one another for territory. While Al Nusra have tried to build links with other rebel groups, including more secular ones, ISIS have focused on religious purity and stamping out more moderate voices.
US Backing Al Qaeda “Moderates”
That’s right. McCain wants more US weapons for Syria, perhaps even a US invasion (when dealing with war-mongers it is usually correct to assume war is the real goal).
Yet, those weapons either go straight into the hands of Al Qaeda or eventually end up in Al Qaeda hands anyway.
This is precisely the idiocy of the policy “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“. Supporting the overthrow of one corrupt regime for another corrupt regime typically makes matters worse.
Clear Policy Statement
The US needs a clear, consistent, easily explained policy on Syria.
And I can sum it up in two words “stay out“.
If we supply arms and the Syrian government falls, the next government is likely to be run by Al Qaeda or militant extremists, and McCain and his ilk will be back at it, hoping to overthrow the next government, or worse yet, invade Syria to impose our will.
Clearly, the only winning option is to not get involved.
How Do Warmongers Get Elected?
Given that it’s crystal clear that involvement is a losing option, some might wonder: “How Do Warmongers Get Elected?”
Here’s the easy to understand explanation: The “offense” industry supports any and every candidate that supports war. If you are a candidate against war, the “offense” industry will label you “weak on defense“, then toss massive amounts of campaign money at your opponent.
Democrat-sponsored pro-union advocates get elected the same way. In fact, it is difficult to get elected if you do not take campaign bribes.
This explains why those on the outside want campaign finance reform. But, once elected, bribes come in from every corner. The newly-elected want to stay in power so they too take bribes. Campaign finance reform dies in the process every time.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
