Posted on 06/18/2013 8:42:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Two recent newspaper editorials illustrate the double-mindedness some feel about President Obama's decision to provide small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebels.
The Washington Post headlined an editorial: "No time for half-measures: Syria's rebels need a robust intervention from the Obama administration." The New York Times took a more realistic approach: "After Arming the Rebels, Then What? President Obama should be careful about being dragged into the brutal Syrian war."
I'm on the side of the Times.
Some promote U.S. involvement in Syria for humanitarian reasons. That might be sufficient if the outcome advanced humanitarian concerns, but exchanging one tyrant for another is not a long-term solution. One Syrian rebel group has reportedly pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's replacement, al-Qaida leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri. Deposing a mass murderer in favor of jihadists committed to "holy war" against America and the West is like choosing a firing squad over the guillotine.
The Washington Post reported the murder of a 14-year-old boy by Syrian rebels. The boy's crime? When he "was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee," the Post writes, "he reportedly refused, saying, 'Even if (Prophet) Mohammed comes back to life, I won't.'" A group of Islamist rebels took this as an insult to Islam. Are these the rebels President Obama's backing?
The United States has a bad track record in the Middle East. President Jimmy Carter helped topple the shah of Iran. Now the shah's replacements, in concert with Hezbollah, writes ABC News, "have been helping the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad..." Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently called Israel a "cancerous tumor" and vowed Iran's support to any nation or group that attacks it. Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The Independent newspaper in Britain reports that Iran has pledged to send 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Assad.
In Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, won the last election after the U.S. supported the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. The outcome in Libya, following U.S. support of rebels opposed to Moammar Gadhafi, is unlikely to be pleasant should that nation's draft constitution based on Sharia law be adopted.
The Obama administration reportedly is ready to consider a U.N. request to resettle some Syrian refugees in the United States. "...part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns," writes the Los Angeles Times. Can we be sure a number of them won't be jihadists?
For too long, American involvement in the Middle East has employed the wrong formula in the mistaken belief that we can change the thinking of radical Islamists. Many administrations have pressured Israel in the misguided and unjustified hope that this would produce a change in outlook and a reset in religious fanaticism. It hasn't. In fact, our "reach-out" efforts are seen as weakness in much of the Islamic world.
Arab and Muslim peoples have been at war with other nations and each other for centuries. The two major factions of Islam -- Sunni and Shia -- are in constant conflict over which one is Prophet Mohammed's legitimate heir. The "infidel" West can't help settle any of this and is more likely to unite the warring factions against us, as it has in the past.
Add to this a scenario that resembles the Cold War. Russia is "all-in," supplying anti-ship cruise missiles to President Assad's regime. Moscow, according to the Wall Street Journal, has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus. President Obama's token gesture of small arms and ammunition is the equivalent of dipping one's toe in the Mediterranean Sea and calling it swimming.
As in so many other instances, President Obama is, according to the Daily Telegraph, "leading from behind in Syria -- and can't see where he is going."
The president wants credit for withdrawing American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, but with Syria he is involving the U.S. in another war that can't be "won," at least not in a way that will advance American interests.
The World Police (U.N.) needs to overthrow all the Dictators who threaten them (Saddam, Ghadafi, Mubarak, Assad, etc).
THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS!
The very idea that we would support Al Quida groups, who themselves indicate that when they are finished with Assad they will turn on Israel and the US, is almost incomprehensible, until you realize that our own president himself is an Islamacist-in-Chief who has told us directly whom he will side with if the winds ever blow against Islam.
WHO BARACK OBAMA REALLY IS & WHAT HE REPRESENTS
READ AND SIGN THE MODERN AMERICAN DECLARATION OF LIBERTY...THEN PASS IYT ON
Interesting that in the collective mind of the “media,” those WE’RE helping to overthrow a regime are “rebels.” If they’re fighting against a regime we’re backing, they’re “insurgents.”
The Maghreb states, with those vast expanses of territory, can't take these "refugees," huh? Instead, let's bring them here and fast-track them to citizenship alongside the 25+ million illegals.
Choosing sides in Muslim ethnic and religious civil wars is somewhere far beyond stupid and insane.
Ever play Risk? This is the same w Israel and ME oil being the prize.
It's the time-honored liberal strategy at work here. They know that full-blown US military intervention is not politically possible at this time. So they propose a lesser solution that is designed to fail -- the supplying of small-arms with ammunition. When this does not work, there will be renewed clamoring for a "No-Fly Zone", which in turn will necessitate the decapitation of the air defenses of the Assad-regime.
So small-arms to the Syrian rebels is akin to Obamacare -- a solution designed by government with the intention that it WILL fail, so that they can replace it with their preferred solution.
For a war to succeed, first and foremost one has to have a clearly defined objective. What is it we want in Syria? To get rid of Assad? We could assist with that, but as this article says, then what? Syria run by competing gangs of Islamist killers? That should not be our objective. So do we want to create a moderate western democracy in tolerant peace and love? Good luck with that. Ain’t gonna happen. “The only way to win...is not to play.”
Humanitarian assistance, then...
Weapons shipments, then...
“Advisors,” then...
No-fly zone, then...
“Noncombat support,” then...
American boots on the ground, then...
Overthrow of the Assad regime, then...
Nationbuilding, then...
Rise of yet another MB/AQ regime, then...
Expungement of non-muslims, then...
Attacks on our Embassy/Consulate, then...
????
The Democrats aren’t stupid. They know that sending small arms to the opposition in Syria won’t be enough. The Saudis are stupid if they think the Democrat party will sacrifice itself for them. The Democrats like the Saudi money, but they aren’t going to jump on a grenade for them. This is all part of the Democrat charade. The real story continues to be Libya. Why did Obama and Hillary use American power to overthrow the government of Libya? To get weapons to send to Syria? Bulls**t. Where do you think those missing rifles from Kuwait went? It’s all about money. The Democrat leaders are scared to death about their supporters finding out that they are nothing more than thieves and murderers. The Democrats will fight to the death to keep Libya quiet. And their bought press is helping them.
So let me get this straight: Obama wants to give full automatic weapons and etc. to Syrian citizens that he says American citizens should not have?
How is it that Obama trusts Syrians with the kinds of weapons he’d NEVER want Americans to have????
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.
