Helping Syrian rebels a dangerous risk [Rand Paul]

CNN ^ | 5/30/13 | Rand Paul

[ek_hornbeck]

(CNN) -- The United States has a history of often picking sides in Middle East conflicts to its own detriment.

In the 1980s, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein to establish a relationship that helped the dictator gain access to American arms during Iraq's war with Iran. In the 1990s, the U.S. would drive former ally Hussein from Kuwait and impose a decade of sanctions that were devastating for Iraqis, but had little effect on the dictator. In 2003, we went to Iraq, overthrew Hussein, and became part of nation-building effort from which we only recently saw most of our soldiers return home.

Arguably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Iraq war was Iran, which now enjoys more power and influence with the elimination of its historic enemy. President George H.W. Bush did not pursue Hussein directly during Operation Desert Storm precisely because he feared the destabilizing effects it might have on the region, or as his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney explained in 1994, "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place?" Today, Iraq is unstable and its future uncertain...

Read the rest here

[ek_hornbeck]

Not only are there usually no angels in Middle Eastern sectarian and tribal wars, but "nation building" enthusiasts seem to have a bad record of picking the alleged lesser evil.

[ek_hornbeck]

Moammar Gadhafi eventually accepted responsibility in the 1988 bombing of an airplane over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed hundreds of people, including American schoolchildren.

President Reagan called Gadhafi the "mad dog of the Middle East."

Fast forward to 2008, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Libya to meet with Gadhafi to offer American support.

Rand is right. The time to have removed Qaddafi was in 1989, when it was clear that he supported the Lockarbie bombing, not in 2011, when he was cooperating with CIA agents in rooting out Al Quaeda cells in Libya.

There is also the quandary of nearly 2 million Christians who are uncertain of what to do. The Christian community in Syria has traditionally sided with, and been protected by, Bashar al-Assad's regime. It is troubling to think that American arms may be given to Islamic fighters who may in turn be firing them at Christians.

Can you blame Christians in Syria and Iraq for preferring rule by a secular despot to Islamists? Where's the sympathy for their plight from US Christians who want to leave their fate in the hands of Imam and Mullah-inspired rebels?

[cdcdawg]

Good grief. Take a look through the comments on that CNN page. Liberals are simply retarded.

[ek_hornbeck]

This one was really pathetic, even by liberal standards:

..we should be aiding the rebels because:

1 - We have been asked, This is a chance to be on the right side of history.

Sound logic there!

[cdcdawg]

I saw that one. Wow! I like how the Middle East is ready for change. Yeah, into what?

[layman]

Not to worry .... John McCain is taking a leading role in solving the Syrian conflict .... even though, as Michael Berry might say, “He’s all eat up with the dumbass”.

[ek_hornbeck]

Middle East is ready for change.

Are they taking their cue from America in 2008?

[expat2]

Yes, we should stay out of it (except to give israel support). Let the sunni and shia fight it out among themselves, without us involved.
Unfortunately, the whole Petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia is running our foreign policy.

[SunkenCiv]

• ---

  Here's the passage at issue:

  In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.

  Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
  
  Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]

  ---