Posted on 07/28/2013 2:23:37 PM PDT by neverdem
As they have from the start, the Free Syrian Army was rolling out the welcome mat for al-Qaeda. They are welcome to help us fight the regime, explained Colonel Abdel Rahman Suweis, a member of the FSAs Supreme Military Council.
This is not ancient history. The report from Al Jazeera (which Bill Roggio excerpts at the invaluable Long War Journal) has the FSA commander making these remarks less than two weeks ago. Just a couple of days later came another nugget from the al-Qaeda side of the rebel equation: A top leader of one of the terror networks two major Syrian affiliates, which calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, told Al Jazeera that the FSA is actually providing al-Qaeda with weapons. We are buying weapons from the FSA, he asserted. We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti-tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.
It is to Islamic-supremacist megaphones like Al Jazeera that we must turn for a reality check on the Syrian civil war. When it comes to the anti-Assad forces denominated the rebels in hopes that no one will notice they self-define as mujahideen (i.e., jihad warriors) American media outlets are as flush with Spring Fever as they have ever been. A dozen years of American effort prohibitively expensive in blood and treasure have left us with Iraqs return to its default condition of internecine Sunni-Shiite butchery; Afghanistans implacable determination to remain the same medieval Islamic dystopia it has always been; a massacre of Americans by the jihadists we empowered in Benghazi; and Egypts ongoing implosion. Yet even in the conservative press, the very un-conservative ambitions of the bipartisan Beltway establishments Islamic-democracy project continue to hold sway.
Typical of this kind of thinking is Why Rand Paul Is Wrong about Syria, by the Foreign Policy Initiatives Robert Zarate and Evan Moore. Published here at NRO on Thursday, it is an attack on the Kentucky Republican senators objections to U.S. intervention in Syria. Messrs. Zarate and Moore prefer a Libya-style alliance with the rebels, the Obama-administration gambit ardently endorsed by Senator John McCain, the erratic compass on which the GOP establishment relies for foreign-policy guidance.
In making their case, the authors while accusing Senator Paul of promoting false claims and distortions present the now familiar fairy-tale depiction of the Syrian conflict. They would have you believe that, under the auspices of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), there are throngs of moderate Syrian rebels who are just as opposed to al-Qaeda as they are to Assad. It is a laughable contention. There are no moderates in Syria. There are bad factions and worse factions virtually all of them virulently anti-American.
The FSA is not an army. It is a gaggle of militias. For appearances sake, it is currently commanded by General Salim Idriss, a secularist who is portrayed by Zarate and Moore as if he were a prototype rebel. But the power behind the anti-Assad rebellion is the Muslim Brotherhood.
Idriss is part of a smattering of secularists highlighted to give the mujahideen a patina of moderation. The Brothers are no fools: They have been trying to take the Baathist Assad regime out for decades, and they know they dont have a chance without Western and particularly, American support. So Idriss is presented as if he were in charge and as if what the authors describe as his commitment to a tolerant and inclusive vision of Syria were broadly shared across Assads opposition. But the commander has no capacity to exert control over the militias, which are shot through with Islamic supremacists.
There are not enough secularists in the opposition to cause Assad to lose a nights sleep, much less threaten his grip on power. To oust him, the opposition needs legions of Islamic supremacists armed by the United States. Zarate and Moore try to navigate around this inconvenience by omitting any mention of the Muslim Brotherhood and suggesting that there are only two camps: moderates and al-Qaeda. This distortion may be marginally less risible than the Obama administrations laugh-out-loud tactic of conceding the Brothers significance but misrepresenting them as largely secular. Still, it is unavailing all the same.
Contrary to the authors claim, foreign fighters are not flocking to Syria because they are affiliated with al-Qaeda. They are reacting to a fatwa issued in May by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the worlds most influential Sunni sharia authority and the Muslim Brotherhoods chief jurist. Qaradawi declared that the jihad in Syria against Assad and his Shiite backers primarily, Iran-backed Hezbollah is a duty for every able-bodied Muslim who is trained to fight.
Qaradawi, who also serves as the backbone of international support for Hamas the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhoods Palestinian branch is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israeli. His prior fatwas, in addition to fomenting murderous rioting over such trivial slights as the publication of unflattering cartoon images of the prophet Mohammed, have called for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq, as well as suicide bombings against Israel. Crucially for current purposes, Qaradawi has been the powerhouse behind the Brotherhoods Syrian enterprise drumming up international political and financial support for the rebels. It is no coincidence that shortly after Qaradawis fatwa, Egypts Islamic-supremacist government then led by the Brotherhoods Mohamed Morsi cut off diplomatic ties with Assad, called for a no-fly zone over Syria, and declaimed that Hezbollah must leave Syria.
Qaradawi, it is worth emphasizing, is not al-Qaeda. Like all Islamic supremacists, he and the Brotherhood share al-Qaedas dream of installing sharia in every Islamic country and, ultimately, establishing a global caliphate. As a result, they work with al-Qaeda on common goals, such as vanquishing Assad. But knowing he has the ear of the Obama administration which, shockingly, just rolled out the White House red carpet for his deputy, Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah (who also endorsed terror attacks on Americans in Iraq) Qaradawi is now laboring to relegate al-Qaeda to the rebel sidelines, playing into the Washington fiction that al-Qaeda is Americas only enemy.
There are two major al-Qaeda affiliates operating in Syria: the aforementioned Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the group cited by Senator Paul, Jabhat al Nusra. The latter, which employs all the savage tactics for which al-Qaeda is infamous, is among the most able of the anti-Assad militias. Consistent with the Obama/McCain approach of blinking at reality, the administration formally declared Nusra a terrorist organization back in December, as if that would deter the FSA militias many of which publicly scoffed at the maneuver. Despite what Zarate and Moore assert, Nusra continues to work closely with the FSA.
Among those lavishing praise on Nusra for doing very well in its jihad against the tyrant regime of Damascus is Qaradawi. Through his International Union of Muslim Scholars, he has urged Nusra to reconsider its pledge of fealty to al-Qaeda, reasoning that this pledge causes internal and external dangers, and its impact on the revolution is dangerous because it breaks the ranks of the mujahideen. Translation: Hey Nusra, go right ahead with your savage methods, but could you pipe down about the al-Qaeda connection? That way, the morons in Washington will pretend youre a moderate and keep giving us the money and weapons we need.
The Brothers have decided they need Nusra, so Nusra will remain a key force regardless of Obamas paper terrorist designations and Idrisss dreamy vision. Nusras vision, like the Brotherhoods, is that Syria will become an anti-Western sharia state in the Sunni mold.
As for ISIL, it is true enough that FSA leaders are squabbling with that al-Qaeda affiliate. ISIL has killed a couple of FSA commanders and is imposing its sharia dictates on territories the rebels have captured. But more than anything else, the disputes illustrate the impotence of the FSA. Idriss & Co. can huff and puff, but they cannot enforce ultimatums against al-Qaeda, and they cannot stop their component militias from fighting side-by-side with al-Qaeda.
The stubborn fact of the matter is that Islamic supremacism pervades Assads opposition. Al-Qaeda is only a small slice of the problem. There are legions of Islamic supremacists, both indigenous and foreign, in Syria. Even if al-Qaeda were to vacate the scene, arming the rebels means arming what Qaradawi more accurately calls the mujahideen.
Pace Messrs. Zarate and Moore, Senator Pauls assertion that there is no clear U.S. national interest in Syria was not a false claim. It was an accurate assessment of the totality of the situation. The authors insistence that we have an interest in keeping rogue regimes from using weapons of mass destruction is tunnel vision. There are WMD in Syria. Assads use of them is reprehensible (albeit in character), and the specter of his transferring them to Hezbollah is alarming (though no more alarming than the fact that Assad has them in the first place, as does Iran the patron of Assad and puppeteer of Hezbollah). But the possibility of WMD falling into the hands of the Brotherhood and its jihadist allies who, by the way, have been colluding with Iran for two decades and have energetically sought WMD is no more comforting. Paul did not say there were no American national interests implicated; he said there was no clear national interest. Obviously, he meant it is by no means clear that ousting Assad over his apparent use of chemical weapons would be an improvement from an American security perspective. Sadly, that is true.
Paul was clearly also right that arming the FSA means arming al-Qaeda affiliates. Contrary to Zarate and Moores contentions, the FSAs loosely tied, largely autonomous militias cannot be controlled by central commanders. Not only do the militias, many of which share al-Qaedas core convictions and goals, frequently collaborate with al-Qaeda affiliates; indications are that they already provide arms to their al-Qaeda allies in addition to receiving support from al-Qaedas backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Finally, Paul is quite right that there is no clear moral choice for us in Syria. To claim, as Zarate and Moore do, that there is a patent difference between Assads barbarism, on the one hand, and General Idriss and other moderate rebels, on the other, is a gross distortion. Idriss and the moderates are window dressing. The only forces who stand a chance of ejecting Assad are Sunni Islamic supremacists the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and jihadists the world over who answer the summons of the rabidly anti-American Qaradawi.
Assad turned his border into a sluicegate from which jihadists flooded into Iraq to kill Americans. Qaradawi is the sharia eminence who exhorted them to do the flooding and the killing. To see a clear moral choice between those two indeed, to fail to see that that is the choice is to imagine a Syria that does not exist.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.
Most people fail to recognize that Islam cannot embrace Judeo Christian concepts, such as the evolution of our “democracy”. At the core are the infrastructure of rights, freedoms,liberty all of which were codified by the cornerstone, the Magna Carta.
All of this was the product of Christianity. It was the Magna Carta which spring boarded socio-epolitical-economic development. In there we also had the reformation of the Church.
In contrast, Islam did not experience any evolution. Thus they still sit there trapped in the 7th century, bowing down to the serial rapist and pedophile Mad Mo.
Funny how the rebels suddenly demanded that Kerry promptly deliver the guns he promised. Guess those 600 al Queda terrorists that broke jail in Iraq have arrived in Syria. They were the same terrorists that many brave young Americans died in operations that captured the. They probably have been joined by many of the 1000 who escaped the Libyan prison. Also many very strange Western jihadists are arriving in Syria every day and they really want to fight. What a tragic mess.
In contrast, Islam did not experience any evolution. Thus they still sit there trapped in the 7th century, bowing down to the serial rapist and pedophile Mad Mo.
On the contrary!!! NASA has been working diligently at the deman of our fraud and chief on its fell good campaign to convince the world of it’s evolvement into the 21st century.
There is not a word in this article about the genocide of Syria’s 2-1/2 million Christians that will occur if the al Qaeda/MB ‘rebels’ prevail. The only country that cares about the Syrian Christians is Russia.
McCain’s people.
i’m going to attack this from a different standpoint: something has to be done in Syria. If one side stands victorious, you have a madman dictator willing to use chemical weapons on his own people to maintain power, and that is a threat to America’s allies (primarily Israel) in the region. If the other side wins, you’ll have no political infrastructure, no real government; out of this, as we all know, breeds chaos; chaos favors the most powerful, and naturally Al-Qaeda linked terrorists who have outside funding and weapons will reign supreme. Neither is a favorable outcome, and if the US doesn’t do anything, there is a 99.99% chance one or the other outcome will occur. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the United States, and her allies, to push somehow for a third outcome, and that is of a western supported monarchy or dictatorship. Yeah yeah, i know you’re all going to oppose this because it isn’t democracy, but in some regions, with some people, democracy just doesn’t work. exhibit A: Egypt; exhibit B: Iraq. However, I digress. This monarchy should be removed from the sectarian antics of an Islamic world, therefore should be a Christian leader in Syria. I am not talking about a theologian, rather a Christian military or political man with whom the West could reliably work. How do we get to the point of propping up this type of regime? Well, the first step is boots on the ground. Again, i expect stiff resistance from nearly everyone on FR. However, if a favorable outcome is sought, this is really the only way to achieve it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.