Sunday, May 26, 2013

Rand Paul: Senate Is Arming Al-Qaeda And Voting To Enter The War in Syria

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted to send a bill to the floor for a vote that authorizes “critical support to the Syrian opposition through provision of military assistance, training, and additional humanitarian support.”

The bill's official title is the Syria Transition Support Act, and its  two co-authors were Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN). Aside from providing weaponry and armaments, the bill includes:

• “Creation of a $250 million transition fund each year through FY2015 drawn from funds otherwise appropriated for regional transition support”;

• “Sanctions on arms and oil sales to Assad: Targeting any person that the President of the United States determines has knowingly participated in or facilitated a transaction related to the sale or transfer of military equipment, arms, petroleum, or petroleum products to the Assad regime.”; and

• “Amendment to the Syria Accountability Act: To allow for sanctions removal once a transitional government is in place and certain terrorism and WMD criteria have been met.”

That last one is important, and we'll return to it later.

The bill easily got through committee  15-3, and the only Senator to offer meaningful opposition was Senator Rand Paul ( R-KY).

“This is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda,” Paul said.

 He's 100% correct.

The biggest and most prominent armed factions in the Syrian resistance are outright al-Qaeda affiliates like   Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian Free Army, which is a mixture of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda dominated factions. Even the new 'official' Syrian resistance groups President Obama formed as a figleaf,  the Syrian Opposition Coalition,(SOC)and the associated Joint Military Council are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.The leader of the SOC is one Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus,  a religious cleric closely allied to the Damascus branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and fairly hardline and radical himself.

Senator Paul tried to tack two amendments on to the bill, one that would have forbidden the transfer of weapons to the radical Islamists of the rebel forces and another that would have prevented the use of U.S. military armed forces in Syria.

Both were voted down.

There were the usual pro-forma remarks from Paul's colleagues about 'oversight' and transparency' but in the end, there's nothing to stop the Syrian rebels from simply telling us what we want to hear to get weapons and our money, and then turning those guns on whomever they wish...including us. The Qu'ran tells Muslims explicitly that any promise made to kuffars (non-Muslims), any treaty or agreement is null and void whenever it's convenient.

Anyone taken a look at what's happening in Afghanistan lately?

Just for the record, (not that it matters), the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted after 9/11 specifically called for finding and destroying al-Qaeda..and here we are a few years later voting to supply arms to them!

What this is setting the stage for is a formalization of President's Obama's desire to put Islamists in charge of yet another Muslim country.

What happened in Benghazi was a failed Fast and Furious style covert attempt to purchase and send weapons from Khaddaffi's arsenals to the Syrian rebels. That failed, so now we're going to be doing it openly.

I would not be at all surprised to see U.S. boots on the ground in Syria in the next few months if Assad continues to hold out. That could have been what's behind the deployment of those 1,800 Marines off the USS Kearsarge who landed at the Israeli port of Eilat nine days ago and are now stationed on Jordan's Syrian border.

Americans traditionally rally behind a sitting president when there's a foreign intervention or crisis, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a U.S. intervention in Syria wasn't timed to head off the fallout from the massive scandals the Obama regime finds itself entangled in of late.

This is a major strategic error on steroids.


B.Poster said...

If the US intervenes in Syria, as long as Russia supports Assad, there is zero possibility of success for the US in removing Assad. The US military is in no condition to take on Russia which has the most powerfulr armed forces on earth. Such a mission would be sucidial for US military forces and would very likely mean the end of American itself. Where are the military leaders who will point this out to the President and Congress?

Given our massive national debt, horifficaly struggling economy, and inferior scientific knowledge relative to the Russians and the Chinese and there is absolutely no possibility of us closing this gap at any time in the next generation, there is absolutely nothing we can do here. The Russian, tbe Syrians, the Iranians, and the Chinese have to be laughing hysterically at us. Why humilitate us further?

"Training" for these groups, this is completely silly. If we had good trainers, would they not be better utilized training our own poorly trained military? Rand Paul is right to oppose this. I wish he would be man enough to point out to the American people the gravity of our situation. Of course to do such things is not good for reelection prospects nor is it good for high paying speaking engagements should one fail to get reelected.

If America gets involved directly in Syria or continues to piss off Iran and Russia by its current level of involvement, the best case scenario is complete and utter defeat for US forces against vastly superior Iranian and Rusian forces which will likely mean the complete overthrow of the US by these forces. The most likely case scenrio will be a complete destruction of our country with a very small remnat of 1% or less left alive to be sold into slavery to the conquerers. None of the elites who would vote for such foolishness or their families would be left alive.

God help us all. Please restore or at least bring about some sanity to our foreign policy.

Rand Paul is right to oppose this, however, he needs to be pointing out to the American people our dire situation. You are correct that Americans typically rally behind a sitting president during a foreign intervention or crisis. with Barack Ovama as our first African American president, a left leaning populace, and a general feeling of guilt about America among the populace as a whole, there is a vast resivour of goodwill among this populace toward Mr. Obama

B.Poster said...

Hopefully the House can put a stop to such foolishness. Also, it seems unlikely to me that the Israelis would allow these troops to land at Israeli ports if such foolishness were being planned on the part of Americans.

Rob said...

A personal question if you don;t mind, Poster.

Your usual meme (to be polite)is that the US military is worn out, poorly equipped, poorly trained, far less able and well equipped than Russia's or Iran's, or China's, etc. etc.

Your points (which you continue to repeat in almost every comment)are pretty easily demolished, frankly. But rather than go there, I'd really like to know exactly what empirical evidence you have for your POV.

Have you ever been in the US military or the Russian military? Have you ever seen either force in actual action, or even in training exercises? Do you know what kind of equipment they have, or what kind of training they receive? How about Iran's military?

What kind of actual evidence do you have that Russian and Iranian forces would 'utterly defeat' the US military?

I'm not being rude or dismissive here...I really am interested in how you come by these views,since the facts indicate something quite different.


B.Poster said...

It's really quite simple. Talk to the men and women who serve, not strictly the ones who serve in non combat roles. Quite frankly their bravery and guile is the only thing holding things together allowing them to perform well against overwhelming odds.

Also, I'd suggest getting outside of main stream media sources. The main stream sources always tend to over state American capabilities while understating the capabilities of adversaries or would be adversaries.

There are several reasons for this that I think I've touched on before. 1.)If American power is overstated, it makes it much easier for some elements to demonize it. After all if we make out America to be some sort of hyperpower it becomes much easier to demonize it. If America is recognized for what it is as a powerful nation with limits simply trying to make its way through a hostile world such an entity is not so easy to demonize. 2.)Leaders generally don't like to get bad news or to be told "no." As such, when assessments are presented to government leaders, they tend to be rosier than they actually are. Within the private sector there is a need to make a profit. As such, these tendencies to be kept in check. After all a small business who refuses to face reality will soon be extinct. Within the government there is no need to make a profit and within many large companies profits are assured through various associations with governemtn entities. 3.)To level with the American people about the true nature of things would require elected leaders to admit what a cluster f*ck they've made of things and likely lead to them losing their high paying, comfortable, cush jobs, and could lead to significant jail time for some of them.

America's military is a bloated inefficient force that will need to be revamped significantly in the coming years if it is to be an effective fighting force. Unfortunately given the rapid advancemnets being made by other powers its very likely we don't have years to make these changes.

America's days as a major world power are likely all but over in the near future. Prudence would be to recognize this reality and chart our foreign and domestic policies in accordance with this reality. It's vitally important that we recognize things as they are and not how we wish they were.

All of America's problems are solvable. For starters, it's going to require the right leadership.

Tantric Logic said...

I call BS, Poster.

Rob asked for specific evidence to back up your ain't got it.

Personally speaking, I'm sick of what you post on every comment about our military.

The U.S. is a lot richer than Russia, China or Iran. If we're so much weaker than them, why haven't they just taken us over and looted us?

They haven't and that alone proves you're full of it.

Four years ago I served in Europe and I got a good look at the Russkie forces. What they have are a handful of elite units, with most of the rest getting by with the equivalent of gear our Army dropped over a decade ago. And a lot of the Russkie gear is in piss poor condition at that.

I doubt you've talked to any of our serving military who would say that the Russians are better trained and better equipped than us. Because it's BS. Anyone who's seen the Russkies up close knows it.

The one real danger we have is the way Obama is throwing experienced military out of the service and forcing qualified and experienced generals and officers into premature retirement, but that won't last in the event any real sh*t goes down.

As for China, they lack a decent blue water navy and haven't even been able to produce a decent stealth fighter..and let's not even talk about Iran's military with a straight face. they have no air force or any decent excuse for a navy ( you read this site...remember that article??) and we could turn Iran into a radioactive sand pile anytime we chose.

Quit posting this crap unless you can back it up. As a vet, it offends me.

B.Poster said...

"As a vet, it offends me." As an American, I'm offended by our warriors not getting the training, equipment, or the leadership they need to properly carry out the missions they've been asked by our government to carry out. I'm additionally offended by our governemnt wasting their lives and health on missions that not only don't further our national security interests but in many cases actually undermine it. Furthermore I'm offended by the fact that they are being sent on fruitless missions to promote things like "democracy" in far off places while our own national security is being neglected. I should think these things should offend you far more than any thing I might say or write.

It's no wonder their morale is very low at this time. Perhaps the troops you've met had a different experience than the ones I've met with. I'm sorry I offended you.

I very much appreciate your service to our country. I very much wish I could have served when I was younger but my eyesight is not good enough.

B.Poster said...

The US and Russia currently each have about 1,500 strategic nuclear war heads. Russia currently has about 3,800 tactical nuclear war heads to about 500 for the US. These facts can be found by a google search. Initially I did not understand the difference between a tactical and strategic nuclear weapon.

Once I understood the difference, I realized that while America's situation is still dire perhaps it is not as dire as I thought. If America will maintain the strategic nuclear deterrent, we may have a fighting chance. This will likely require removing the so called "nuclear umbrella" from countries such as Japan and South Korea. By agreeing to defend these countries we place our own national security in danger.

The Korean war ended over 60 years ago. WWII ended almost 70 years ago and Japan is not the same country that it was during WWII. These nations have had plenty of time to develop capable militaries. It's time for them take care of their own. Also, removing our forces from these areas would likely reduce a significant source of tension between us and them. This should help our relations with these countries.

Why are we still in Europe? The Cold War supposedly ended over 20 years ago. At least that's what we are told. I think it's a debateable proposition but for the purpose of this post I'm going to assume its correct.

The last Nazi was vanquished almost 70 years ago. Why are we still there? Germany like Japan is not the same country today that it was during WWII. Redeploying should enhance our national defense and it would likely remove a significant source of tension between our two countries which should better our relations with them.

B.Poster said...

"The US is allot richer than Russia, China, or Iran." I'm not so sure that statement is true. The US is deeply in debt, lacks a sufficient industrial base, and it has a severe shortage of the personnel knowledgeable in how to create these things. At this point in time, the best way to describe the US is "Potemkin village." A definition of this is avaliable online or in a dictionary.

"...why haven't they just taken over and looted us?" Interesting question, I think it is a matter of timing and they are concerned about those 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons we are still said to have in our arsenal. Once they are able to determine how to neutralize this, I'd expect them to move. Since we have not updated our arsenal in quite some time, it's questionable just how effective this deterent will actually be.

Even if it assumed that the talking head pundits are correct regarding according to American convetional capabilities, which for the remainder of this post I will do so, those 3,800 or so tactical nuclear weapons would likely very quickly neutralize American conventional forces then Russian and allied forces could act with impunity to do any thing they wish.

It may not be an accident that those facts get left out of a typical analysis. After all there's an agenda that must be advanced!!

As I've stated before, I find it peculliar that the only two nations singled out for their possession of nuclear weapons is America and Israel. Both of these nations need nuclear weapons far more than the other nations who curently possess them. Both countries are vastly outnumbered by their enemies and both nations lack the resources their enemies have. As such, it's mission critical for Aemrica to maintain its nuclear deterrent.

As I've stated before, America's top national security priorities should be to maintain the strategic nuclear deterrent and to secure the borders. I think we are really not that far apart. We all want what is best for America, its military service personnel, and its people. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Tantric Logic said...

You still have no proof that our military is inferior in training and equipment to Russia, China or Iran. And no proof our military isn't getting the training and equipment in needs.

You have no facts to back that up.Zip.

The fact that you don't like some of the missions they've been sent on (I agree with you there) has nothing to do with the point you raised originally that I challenged.

No answer either from you for why, if we're so week Russia and China don't just use these super, wonderful militaries you keep yapping about and invade and loot us. According to you we're just sitting ducks.

So why haven't they invaded? We have more gold in our reserves than China or Russia - why haven't they looted Fort Knox?

All I ask is that you quit posting crap you can't back up.

B.Poster said...

TL: The proof can be found in meeting with soldiers currently serving and those who have recently served and checking outside of main stream news media sources. These sources are available from standard google searches. In fact, there were multiple instances of troops not getting the proper armour they needed during the Iraq war.

Your "facts" apparently are your experience in your limited corner of Europe where ever you were stationed. Did it occurr to you that the Russians might have wanted to look weak before you? After all they are masters at chess and they have a strong understading of the philophisies of Sun Tzu. "When you are strong, appear weak to your enemy", to roughly paraphrase.

It's not just me who does not like the missions. The troops don't like them either. It is sapping their strength, their morale, the equipment capabilities, its hurting troop retention, and recruitment. Essentially the missions are undermining national security. Where are the top officers who will speak up for these brave men and women and for America?

Why haven't they invaded? I think I answered that previously. They are likely concerned about the 1,500 or so strategic nuclear war heads allegedly still in our arsenal and its likely a question of timing.

Also, it's likely they find it most entertaining watching their main adversary implode from within and wasting its strength and energy on fruitless things. For example, why is the US concerned over what organization Britian wishes to belong to? Why is it concerned about trying to obtain favorable trade deals for Turkey? Why is it supporting Al Qaeda in Syria? Why did it waste lives of its military personnel and wear down its military equipment and personnel in fruitless efforts to bring about "democracy" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did it help Western Europe jeopardize perfectly good and valuable oil contracts with Libya to overhtrow a dictator who was largely contained and may have even been helping us against Al Qaeda?

I could go on. Essentially the Russians and others take a long view. Let us continue to destroy ourselves then kick the whole rotted edifice over at a time when it is much less risky. This is espcially the case if we don't get the resources devoted to properly maintaining and upgrading the nculear arsenal. Besides they have got to find the whole thing most amusing.

I have admitted here and elsewhere that I could be mistaken about American conventional capabilities relative to certain adversaries and potential adversaries.

Even if I am, Russia's 3,800 or so tactical nuclear weapons would likely eliminate America's conventional forces very quickly should active combat break out between our forces which would leave Russia's inferior conventional forces to act with impunity once the tactical nuclear weapons have eliminated America's superior conventional forces.

Trying to keep it constructive here. How do you propose we neutralize this Russian advantage? My suggesting would be that we develop our own tactical nuclear arsenal that is at least comparable to what the Russians have.

B.Poster said...

"...we could turn Iran into a radioactive sand pile any time we chose." I'm assuming you are correct. I will try to explain to you very briefly what would happen if we did this at this time. 1.)Immediately after we did this, if not before, Iran's operatives operating in the US would launch massive terrorist attacks against us using a variety of dirty bombs and perhaps even suitcase nuclear war heads. Tens of millions of our people would be killed very quickly and many others would succumb to radition posioning within days. The reason it may happen before we launch the attack would be Iranian operatives would very likely learn about what we are doing ahead of time. 2.)There would be an emergency meeting of the UN general assembly and the UN security council who would forcefully condemn the US for its actions. 3.)This would be followed up by massive trade sanctions against the US by the entire world. This would include China cutting off all trade with America. While this does harm China, it harms America far worse. 4.)We would have no assistance from anyone in dealing with the fallout from the Iranian attack. 5.)Russia and China would be given carte blanche approval from the world to relentlessly go after and eliminate American assets any where they wish around the world. 6.) Whatever is left of the US would be placed under the control of some type of coalition probably led by Russia and China. 7.) They will probably eliminate most of the native population and deport much of the rest. They are not going to want to risk something like the attack on Iran happening again and, again, they will have the complete support of the world in this endeavor.

While this may not be the result of American military action on Iran, it is the most likely outcome. As such, I can't imagine a sane general supporting such a mission.

Maybe America turning Iran into a radioactive sand pile is not such a good idea. With that said, there are ways we can deal with Iran. First and foremost we have to recognize the Iranian threat for what it is. Iran poses a far greater threat to us than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. While the threat is greater, Iran is not the same country as either of our main adversaries in WWII and the US is not the same country today that it was in the 1940s. As such, our strategies for winning will be different. For starters, we will need a robust coalition of nations to work with us in a united front to deter and combat Iran if that becomes necessary.

One suggestion here would be to strengthen NATO and bring it back to its original mission which is to defend allied nations when they are under attack. In recent decades, its simply become a platform for ambitious Europeans and some Americans to make a name for themselves and perhaps to acquire wealth. This needs to change.crowd

B.Poster said...

I apologize for multiple posts here. I'm trying to keep them brief and it is never my wish to offend. I do recall the article about the Chinese development of a stealth fighter or lack thereof. As I recall, some American analyists believe the equipment on the aircraft to be equal and perhaps superior to ours. At this time, they seem to lack the engine for the craft.

This problem is solvable by an engine from the Russians or the Chinese could develop their own. Since we've largely stood pat in this area, its hard to envision us remaining ahead here for much longer assuming we still are. Also, its questionable at best whether we are going to have the available funds in coming years to fund such projects.

Perhaps we could trade our engine for this air craft with the Chinese in exchange for something. If we could create some separation between Russia and China, this would be extremely helpful for us. If we could offer this to China, perhaps we could create a win/win for both nations.

As for Fort Knox, very respectfully there are probably targets with more strategic value. Also, many nations have been asking for their gold that is and has been stored in the US back. They no longer trust us. Quite frankly with our current policies in place and our overall situation I don't blame them. I'd do the same. Frankly, its better to have it in your possession just in case Russia, China, or someone else decides to make a move.

As for our own gold, as I pointed out earlier, America is currently imploding. Why get in the way of an enemy who is devouring itself. Also, it'g got to be extremely entertaining to them to watch.

I would suspect at some point we would have to liquidate our gold to cover a portion of the national debt. This may become especially problematic when the dollar loses its role as world reserve currency. As such, even it made strategic sense to loot Fort Knox, it might be best to wait for when the US is forced to liquidate the holdings to cover operations. Then acquire all they want without firing a shot.

All of the problems faced by the US are still solvable but it will require an honest assessment of our situation and radical changes to our economic, foreign, domestic, and social policies.

Rob said...

Poster, I feel I should weigh in here.

You are all over the map.I feel I gave you a chance to come up with empirical proof of your statements on Russia and China and Iran's military and you couldn't, as TL pointed out.

You can get yahoos on the internet who will say anything,but the truth of the matter is that our military is far superior to Russia, China or Iran's. Just a casual comparison via Jane's or other respected military analysts will tell you you;re simply wrong about that - in fact VERY wrong.

There are numerous accounts of how badly the average Russian soldier is equipped that date back to the Chechen Wars and the War in Georgia. They have some elite units and some showpiece equipment, just like the Soviets did, but not all that much, certainly no comparison to what we have. In addition, the strife between Muslim and native Russian soldiers in endemic and makes the average Russian army unit a lot less cohesive than our troops.

Not only that, but remember that a lot of Russia's nuclear arsenal is antiquated stuff that predates the Cold War. That's why START is such a lousy idea...Obama is offering to take SOTA nukes out of commission on parity with these fossils,many of whom may not even be functioning. I wrote several articles about this.

Ditto when it comes to the PLA. Why in G-d's name you think America would or should give them our stealth technology for any reason is beyond me, but I'm afraid you're also incorrect as to what's involved. It's not the engine, it's the panels on the wings, tail and body of the aircraft that repel radar. They have no real blue water navy and an air force far inferior to ours, and remember, China is still a developing nation.

Not only that, but both countries have severe demographic problems. Either would swap problems with us in a second.

I can't even imagine where you got the impression that Russia is richer than us,let alone Chine, who have a lot of IOU's but also a lot of expenses - remember, no oil.

I don't want to embarrass you Poster, and if I had your e-mail I'd do this privately,but I need to tell you this - I will no longer post comments of yours that contain what's become your standard rant about how our military's broken, our country's imploding, Russia China and Iran's military are all powerful, yadda yadda.

It's become ridiculous.

You're welcome to comment, but please stick to things that are at least somewhat factual.


B.Poster said...

I've done some additional studies on this and may have been in error on some points. It is the conventional wisdom that the US has superior conventional forces over Russia and China.

Also, you are quite correct that any yahoo can say any thing on the internet at any time. With that said I do hope the military and civilian leaders are doing something to counter a potential tactical nuclear weapons edge that Russia may have.

I will primarily stick to reading rather than posting comments for the time being. I may learn something. I'm sorry if I offended any one.