Thursday, August 22, 2013

Syria - Obama's Next War

There has been a lot of commentary about a U.S intervention in Syria since a number of YouTube video have been posted by the rebels regarding a gas attack allegedly launched by Assad's forces that is supposed to have killed 500 people.

When seeing this stuff, its important to remember that both Muslim regimes and Islamist groups like al-Qaeda, the Palestinian Authority, Lashker e Tiaba, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al are very good at staging these sorts of things. al-Jazeera is based on this kind of propaganda.

The Arabs who refer to themselves as Palestinians are particularly noted for their use of propaganda, thus giving rise to the phrase ‘Pallywood’. Among many examples I could cite, during the so-called ‘Jenin Massacre’ ( heavily pushed by the BBC, which still has yet to apologize) a camera man actually caught a lot of the ‘corpses’ on their way to ‘mass graves’ jumping off stretchers and taking off. Maybe they thought someone yelled ‘cut’.

There was also ‘Green Hat Guy’, a Hezbollah operative who was caught carrying the same ‘corpse’ of a child at about a dozen sites during the 2006 war.

Assad’s people would also tell you that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda rebels in al-Nusra have used gas on their forces. It is impossible to sort out the truth, especially from a bunch of YouTube videos.

And what if the gas attacks actually happened? If Syria's Christians weren't deemed worthy of a humanitarian intervention when al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood were ethnically cleansing them, why should America get involved now on behalf of the Islamists?

With the alleged gas attacks, there's a new push on to get the U.S to intervene, and I'm personally convinced this is no accident. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood has been crushed in Egypt, the president is planing to use U.S. blood and treasure to help the Islamists take over Syria.

I've already reported about the 1,800 U.S. Marines we have deployed on Jordan's border with Syria that came off the USS Kearsage. According to my sources, not only is President Obama considering sending these troops into battle, we also have advanced plans ready for a no fly zone to use American air power against Assad's forces to give the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rebels a haven where they can be supplied and launch attacks from.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, who last surfaced calling for the U.S. to arm Hezbollah is in Jordan as I write this setting up a war room for CENTCOM's command staff. Over 3,000 Muslim Brotherhood rebels will occupy an enclave extending from the Jordanian border to front lines on the outskirts of Damascus, with Assad's forces kept at bay by drones, missiles and a squadron of U.S. F-16s I'm told is based in Jordan that nominally belong to Jordan but will be manned by U.S. pilots.

Our troops will be training and arming Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda forces like the al-Nusrah Front. And openly this time, not via clandestine operations like the failed Benghazi arms smuggling that cost 4 Americans their lives.

What Obama is trying to do here is what he tried to do in Libya..put an Islamist regime in power. That certainly turned out well, didn't it? Proponents of a U.S. intervention might also want to remember how that worked out when we armed the muhajadeen in Afghanistan. The Reagan Administration at least had the excuse of the bigger cause of fighting the Soviet Empire, and the fact that no one could have foreseen how this would lead to al-Qaeda and the rise of Islamic fascism. Neither of those excuses exist today.

As a side benefit for the Obama Administration, the reports of gas attacks provide an excuse for a program dear to our president's heart...the importation of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees into the U.S.

Syria is a front in the Islamic civil war between the Iranian mostly Shi’ite faction which includes the Brotherhood and the Sunni faction composed of the Saudis, the other GCE countries and now, apparently Egypt.

Which side we should back, the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda or Assad? And with what goal? Based on this president’s track record, do we really want him in charge of another illegal war?

And if the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda win, what happens to Assad's weaponry, his chemical weapons, his missiles? Since the Brotherhood is now allied with the Iranian bloc against the Saudis, its a sure bet that these weapons will either be used directly by the rebels against Israel or transferred to Hezbollah right next door. Hatred of Israel and Jews trumps everything, something that may not exactly concern the Obama Administration for reasons that ought to be obvious. Imagine a terrorist enclave on Israel's borders launching attacks on Northern Israel and protected by a U.S. no fly zone.

Not only that, but some of these weapons may very well be used to destabilize Jordan, where the Brotherhood is very strong, there's a significant tribal issue between the Bedouin ruling class and the 75% of Jordan's population that label themselves Palestinians and King Abdullah is holding on by his fingernails.

I fail to see how this benefits anyone but the Islamists. Certainly it doesn't benefit the U.S. or our ally Israel.

There are no good guys here, and a U.S. intervention has a good chance of making a horrible situation even worse.

It's time we stood up to this president's pro-Islamist agenda. Call your representatives in Congress NOW.


NT said...

Anyone would be better than Assad, even al-Qaeda, although al-Qaeda and the MB are a small part of the rebels so that's unlikely anyway.

The Assad regime is an extension of the Islamic Regime of Iran, even if it calls itself secular.

Syrian Christians who support the fascist Baathists are more anti-Israel than the Muslims, no sympathy here.

It's clear Obama won't do anything in Syria based on the recent comments from Dempsey and the White House. He's afraid that would spoil his rapprochement with Iran. So Assad will continue to genocide his people unless maybe France decides to stop him.

Anonymous said...

This is what comes of not dealing with Iran. That's the real issue.

Rob said...

Actually NT, the Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda rebels like the Al-Nusrah Front and the Syrian Free Army constitute the majority of rebels who actually have boots on the ground in Syria itself. That's where the power is , not a bunch of bureaucrats in Qatar like the Syrian National Council..although they are pretty much Brotherhood dominated too. Do a search on this site.

I don't agree they'd be worse than Assad,but you're entitled.

Actually, I think Obama is definitely preparing to intervene on behalf of the Islamists in Syria. That's why Dempseys's in Jordan right now setting up CENTCOM's command room.

B.Poser said...

Actually the lack of the "excuse" of a bigger cause may not be valid. Russia is now back and every bit as strong as it was during the Cold War and stronger in some ways. The name "Soviet Union" no longer exists but in substance it is back and we are going to have to deal with this somehow. The Cold War is back on.

With that said our situation is much different than it was during the Reagan Administration. Today we are facing a massive national debt, a military that is worn down from continuing war operations for going on twelve years to the point that even basic national defense of the American mainland could prove problematic, aging infrastructure that badly needs upgrades, a hollowed out industrial base, a shortage skilled personnel to address the issues with the infrastructure or the industrial base, and a financial situation that is going to make it problematic to pay for any of this. As such, getting involved in Syria would be a terrible idea for us. Both Sunni and Shia Arabs are bitter enemies of America. We need to plan accordingly. If these two sides tear each other apart, that could potentially be good for us.

Most important of all, if America gets involved militarily in Syria, the Russians are going to be involved as well. American leaders need to ask themselves "is Syria worth WWIII?" To be blunt, the Syrian rebels are not worth WWIII even if I were under the delusion America is currently in any position to actually be able to prevail.

1,8000 Marines and a command center are not going to be any where close to enough to actually alter the balance of power and will risk a war with Russia. If that happens, expect the other BRICS to get in on the side of Russia. I've known for some time that Barack Obama is misguided and perhaps insane. Has General Dempsey and other American military leaders gone stark raving insane. Not good. All of these men should not be prosecuted. Instead they should all be committed to mental institutions for the insane!!

B.Poster said...

It is definitely true that the "excuse" of a bigger cause of fighting the Soviet Union could be used. Furthermore it has the advantage of not being an excuse. In today's Russia, the Soviet Union is back and as strong as it was when it was at its height and in some ways stronger. The name is different but the enemy is essentially the same and has the same goals. Bottom line due a number of missteps the Cold War is back on. We are simply going to have to deal with this.

While it is likely that the Reagan Administration could not have foreseen what would happen with regards to Al Qaeda, it can be foreseen today. Several questions have to be proposed. 1.)Is it possible to identify the rebels who can deal Russia, Iran, and their allies a crushing blow without having them turn against us, our "western" allies, or our ally Israel? The answer to this question is very likely yes. At least in theory, however, it would be VERY difficult. 2.)Is there any one in the US government leadership structure who is capable of pulling off the strategy proposed in question 1? The answer to this appears to be a resounding no. In the case of BHO and his team, there is significant reason to question both their ability to pull off a strategy as well as their willingness to do so. For example there seem to be many on his team and possibly himself who would be very happy to see Israel harmed. Furthermore I don't think any of our "western" allies trust him. Additionally there seems to be no one "waiting in the wings" within the US government capable of pulling such a thing off. While there may be some who have good intentions, none seem to have the capability of actually implementing such a policy. As stated previously, it would be extremely difficult to pull off and the policy would involve much risk even for the most skilled individuals.

So far the answers to 1 and 2 are no. As such, prudence would be to stop right there and conclude involvement in Syria to be a misguided approach. However, for the sake of this post, if we assumed the answers to question 1 and 2 are yes and one decided it was worth the risk, keeping in mind that a key misstep or misunderstanding at a key time could lead to WWIII question 3 then needs to be asked. 3.)Assuming we have skilled leadership in place to implement such a policy and we have decided it to be worth the risk do we actually have the resources available to actually implement the policy? Given the very serious issues currently faced by the nation as I point in the previous post, the answer to that question is almost certainly no.

The Reagan Administration did not face any thing like these kinds of issues. If they did, they very likely would not have supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Essentially any way one wants to examine it, intervention in Syria of any type is a bad idea. Anyone supporting it is either very, very dumb, has an ulterior motive, or perhaps some combination of the above. Please understand that smart people can be made dumb by ideology even though they may not be "dumb" in the IQ or knowledge sense.