Let’s take a brief look over the foreign policy successes the neocons have brought us: Iraq = disaster. Libya = disaster. Syria = disaster. All someone has to do is basically just the opposite of what these people tell us and things will more than likely work out better. This is essentially what Trump is saying he will do. Now these same people who have brought us disaster after disaster are telling us that this time, THIS TIME they are right if we will just listen to them.
President-elect Donald Trump explained for the first time since his election victory his position on the crisis in Syria. In his remarks, he laid out his determination to ramp up the fight against the Islamic State and to cease support to those fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime
These people are like the global warming / climate change folks, they don’t grasp the concept that everyone has caught on to the game that ISIS and the so called moderate rebels are one and the same. They are still running around as though they control the narrative and we’re all fooled.
Trump says he wants to focus on destroying the Islamic State. But the main effect of the policies he describes would be to eliminate the moderate opposition to the Assad regime and to empower extremism.
Rendition #2,451 of “If we fight the terrorists, they win!”
Before considering all the disastrous effects of Trump’s policy, we should examine why even his stated justification for it doesn’t hold water. A brief history lesson should suffice to demonstrate the Assad regime’s lack of counterterrorism qualifications.
Sure, Assad has been blowing the shit out of ISIS but he doesn’t have the proper qualifications. You might think that blowing ISIS up would suffice but that just shows how ignorant you really are.
This is the government whose intelligence apparatus methodically built al Qaeda in Iraq, and then the Islamic State in Iraq, into a formidable terrorist force to fight U.S. troops in that country from 2003 to 2010.
Wait a minute, I thought Al Qaeda were the good terrorists now and it is ISIS who are the bad terrorists? Now they’re swapping the narrative yet again in hopes that you don’t catch on.
Meanwhile, Trump’s suggestion to partner with Russia in “smashing” the Islamic State is little more than a non sequitur, given Russia’s near-consistent focus on everything but the jihadi group. According to recent datamonitoring airstrikes across Syria, only 8 percent of areas targeted by Russian airstrikes between Oct. 12 and Nov. 8 belonged to the Islamic State.
Look, there are no moderate groups vs ISIS. This is just stupid. There are the U.S. and their allies terrorists vs the Assad regime and Russia. Anytime Russia bombs the terrorists these people can just say “Oh these were the moderate terrorist freedom fighters, not ISIS.”
…the Kremlin’s focus has unequivocally and consistently been on fighting Syria’s mainstream opposition, not the Islamic State. Much of its targeting has been against U.S.-linked members of Syria’s opposition.
Does it seem like this guy is dancing around quite a bit? It’s because he’s trying to make a case without coming out and admitting that ISIS is the U.S. ZOG’s dudes.
And contrary to Trump’s statement, the United States knows precisely who “these people” receiving U.S. support are.
The CIA has been running an intricate web of relationships with dozens of moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups since late 2012. Today, this program, code-named Timber Sycamore, continues to provide support to 80 such “vetted” groups across Syria in coordination with international and regional allies.
Why the quote marks around vetted?
The U.S. role in this multilateral effort has ensured a modicum of control over the breadth of international support for the Syrian opposition, and over the risk that extremists will gain control over opposition weapons or fighters.
You see all that nice equipment and uniforms and such that ISIS always has? Don’t worry, you didn’t pay for any of that because the CIA is on top of it and if there is one thing that the left and the right can agree on, it’s that the CIA is totally trustworthy.
In fact, contrary to an increasingly popular narrative, fighters in these vetted groups are not, with very few exceptions, handing over U.S. weapons to jihadis, nor are they wandering off to join the extremists themselves.
It’s increasingly popular because it’s become undeniable.
The cornerstone of the CIA effort has been to supply rebel groups with U.S.-manufactured BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missiles, which have ensured that the moderate opposition has remained a relevant actor in the conflict.
Sounds brilliant. What could possibly go wrong?
Of all the groups that have enjoyed “vetted” status, only two have been defeated by groups linked to al Qaeda and one was withdrawn from the program for questionable activities.
Yeah, they haven’t been defeated because they’re on the same team.
Trump appears to be indicating a preference for combating the symptoms of a crisis — that is, terrorism — while strengthening their principal cause: Assad’s dictatorship and his refusal to negotiate.
The U.S. and its allies in the region have flooded Syria with terrorists and supplied those same terrorists but it’s all Assad’s fault that his country is a mess. If he would have just given the U.S. what they demanded and handed his country over to a puppet regime, none of this would have been necessary.
Although Syria’s moderate opposition is far from perfect, withdrawing U.S. support and thus the basis of its international legitimacy will only undermine U.S. interests in Syria.
Ok, tell us exactly what are those interests? What is it in Syria that is a vital American interest on the other side of the world? Wouldn’t it be nice if the government was as concerned about stopping invaders coming over the border as they are about these so called vital interests on the other side of the world?
….erroneously labeling the mainstream opposition as universally “extremist” today will produce a self-fulfilling prophecy and create a threat of far greater magnitude than what was posed by the Islamic State in 2014.
These guys, I tell ya they’ve been absolutely wrong on everything when it comes to foreign policy for 20 years now yet they have the nerve to present themselves as intellectual experts on the topic.
The lack of a punitive response for a sarin gas attack in August 2013 served as one conspiratorial justification, as did the perceived ease with which Russia intervened to save Assad from possible defeat in late 2015.
Do these people not grasp that the internet is a thing? The gas attack was debunked years ago. Do they think we’ve forgotten that? Oh yeah that’s right, I forgot that Assad decided to gas his own people one day just for the lulz. “Hey Assad, why you gassing your own people?” “LOL IDK”
Every flagrant war crime committed by Assad and his backers before and since these events has pushed Syrians closer and closer toward believing al Qaeda’s narrative.
Yes, that’s why he enjoys the overwhelming support of the Syrian people.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar in particular have been determined supporters of Syria’s armed opposition since its earliest days, often with a cooperative U.S. ally in hand
Wow, these also happen to be the known supporters of ISIS. It’s just a pure coincidence.
Although a U.S.-Russian alliance would likely increase the threat to the Islamic State’s territorial holdings in Syria, at least in the short term, such a partnership would be an invaluable long-term boon to the group’s propaganda.
Ah yes where have we heard this line of reasoning before? Oh yeah, it reminds me of when these same people tell us that if we hurt the feels and expel the Moslem invaders from Europe we are actually playing right into ISIS’ hands and making more terrorists. How do these people have any credibility?
You might think this looks like the sort of guy you would want giving you foreign policy advice but that just shows how stupid you are.
This guy, THIS GUY is the real expert. Sure, the neck beard and low T cuck face might make this seem counter intuitive but he’s a foreign policy mastermind in disguise.
Trump has spoken frequently about the dangers posed by domestic terrorism. But a potential U.S.-Russian partnership in Syria could also further energize the Islamic State’s calls for attacks against targets in the West, particularly in the United States.
So here Mr. Neckbeard tells us literally that if we start blowing up ISIS it will make them mad and they will start doing a terrorism in our base. However why would they be in our base to do a terrorism to begin with? Oh yeah, because these same people are also telling us that if we don’t let them in our base it will make them angry and they will then want to blow us up in our base.
Since the Syrian crisis erupted, Iran’s role in protecting the Assad regime has been of paramount importance, consistently outweighing the role played by Russia on the ground. This is for one simple reason: An Assad defeat in Syria would dismantle Iran’s regional empire, leaving a gaping hole at its heart. It would also pose a serious threat to Hezbollah, the world’s only terrorist organization whose armed forces are a recognized paramilitary actor in a nation-state.
I’m actually surprised this guy was able to write this paragraph without fitting the Holocaust in there somewhere. Iranian empire? LOL Wut? I’m looking at his boogyman list here and it seems to me it’s just people in the region who won’t bow to Jew Israel. How is this our problem?
Trump has indicated that he thinks Vladimir Putin is a “great” man and has described how he is “doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia.” This ignores the fact that Putin seeks to secure a Russian rise at the expenseof American power and influence, not in equal partnership with them.
At what point exactly has the U.S. ever treated Russia as an equal partner? There is more unadulterated bullshit in this one article than at a sale barn on Thursday.
Trump must urgently acknowledge the inherent threat posed by Assad’s continued grip on power. If he chooses instead to abandon Syria’s moderate opposition and ease up on the regime, the United States will be directly contributing to the growth of violent extremism — and not just in Syria.
The situation in Syria that we are dealing with was brought about by these same idiots who preen as being some sort of experts. Here’s the situation on the ground in a nutshell: the U.S. and it’s allies at the behest of the Jews who don’t want anyone in the region who can oppose them, stirred up a civil war in Syria and armed terrorists to try to topple Assad. As usual they grossly miscalculated and it didn’t work. Now they’ve lost but instead of walking away they want to double down, even if it could escalate to direct confrontation with Russia. Because there is no way they can be honest with the American people about what they’ve been doing and why, they have had to put out positions that are nonsensical on their face. Think about it, they are basically telling the public that we should get involved in a civil war on the other side of the world and fight against both sides in that war. Who does that? Nobody does that. It doesn’t even make any sense. The reason it doesn’t make any sense is because if they were completely honest with the people about exactly what they have done and why and for whose benefit, the entire public would go full fash and put them in camps, which is what they deserve.