We don't know who they are, but we know that we are for them. And it is possible that we are helping people that we have claimed to be against.
As we strongly condemn violence wrought in support of the Assad government, recent allegations of war crimes committed in the name of rebellion should give us pause to reexamine elements within the uprising. Before we declare our support for any side in a civil war, shouldn't we know who and what we are supporting?
"Sixteen months into the uprising in Syria, the United States is struggling to develop a clear understanding of opposition forces inside the country," The Washington Post reports. According to a report (PDF) by the Strategic Research and Communications Center, and adopted by the Syrian National Council, "The Syrian opposition continues to suffer from disunity... The current structure of the insurgency is atomized, hapless and beholden to no decisive authority. Many of these forces are housed in dozens of independent 'brigades,' named either for historical figures or recent victims of the Syrian uprising."
The report continues:
"In Western media portrayals, however, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is presented as the encompassing organization under which all rebel soldiers operate. Estimates for the total number of forces under the FSA's direct command range from 1,200 to 17,000."
Like in Libya and Iraq, the conflict has opened the floodgates to destructive outside influence. The Post reports "Arab intelligence services [are] eager to overthrow Assad," but cautions, "The foreign official cited concern that the opposition is at risk of becoming dominated by Islamists pushing for a Muslim Brotherhood government after Assad."
Without knowing who the disparate groups are and which group is responsible for which attack, how can we trust motivations or declarations? The Washington Post cites "U.S. intelligence analysts" reporting, "In contrast with the string of bombings earlier in the year, the latest attack has not been linked to al-Qaeda." (Emphasis added). The New York Times reports, "The evidence is mounting that Syria has become a magnet for Sunni extremists, including those operating under the banner of Al Qaeda."
Al Qaeda, Sunni extremists, the religious fundamentalists, Arab intelligence agencies... Who else might be operating in Syria?
Scores of people have died in Iraq from bombings carried out by al Qaeda. There is now growing evidence that al Qaeda and other jihadist groups have already moved into Syria. For countries like the U.S. playing an active role in encouraging this conflict, this should raise serious questions about fomenting instability and endless conflict.
Yesterday, Reuters reported a secret order from the White House to provide the rebel groups support to overthrow President Bashar Assad of Syria. We don't know who they are, but we know that we are for them. And it is possible that we are helping people that we have claimed to be against. Have we learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
Not to worry, give a war, and America will be there! Go Yankees Go!
How is this double the pleasure idea: Why can't America fight on both sides in Syria?
The real mystery here is going to be; which side is Israel going to support? Israel has borders with Syria and could influence this civil war. Do they run the risk of supporting the rebels who might become even worse than Hezbollah? Also, the extremists in Israel want to attack Iran, for reasons I find incomprehensible. If the Syrian Civil War finishes this year, will we see an attack on Iran so as to boost the shares and bonuses of the military-industrial complex?
Any revolution is a maelstrom in which it is difficult to understand the political sides involved. As regards Syria, however, one objective is perfectly clear. The tyrant must go!
For the moment, the US is giving intelligence advice as regards the movement of the Syrian Army, who are entering cities and indiscriminately slaughtering civilians, including non-combatant women and children.
And we should "tread carefully", you say? Because al Qaeda might be there lurking underneath the covers? That is NOT the problem.
The only real threat is this: That after all is said and done, there is a bloodbath of a massacre of the Alawite minority (located in an enclave close to the Lebanese border) that has ruled Syria since Hafez Assad (Bachir's father) assumed power in a putsch.
Hey, here's a fine idea. Two of our allies in the Middle-East have dreams of regional leadership: Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Let's let them lead for a change and not get involved in another shooting war in an Islamic country.
Both of those countries are better situated to recognize the players for exactly who they are and both have more interest in the outcome. If Middle-Eastern regional powers can't come up with a solution to a Middle-Eastern political problem, what makes anyone think the US can?
Have we learned nothing of our armed forays into the Middle-East?
The only good solution (in terms of minimizing human suffering) is Syria's (and Lebanon's) split along sectarian seam lines: an Alawite state around Latakieh, a Druze state in Djebel Druze, a Christian state and the Kurds joining their brothers in Turkey, Iraq and Iran -- in a free Kurdistan.
The real problem, imho, is the sectarian division between the religious facets (Sunnis and Shias). If that is settled and the Kurds can be given a semi-autonomous government (but remain part of Syria) as has happened in Iraq, then the dismembering of Syria would not be necessary.
No doubt, settling matters between the Sunnis and Shias will not be easy. They are still killing one another daily in Iraq. (Makes one wonder who is behind that and I am inclined to think it is Iran.)
Because were complete autonomy applied, then same would have to happen in any other country with the same components of Sunnis and Shias.
Besides, let's not look too far down our noses. The same sectarian divisions, often bloody, exist with the Christian West. Northern Ireland being a case in point. Funny enough, it is part of Great Britain and not an "enclave" on an island of the coast of England.
Syria is an artificial state designed to serve colonial interests. It's not worth preserving. Northern Ireland is different in many ways, but let me remind you that the Republic of Ireland separated from Great Britain through a similar process. Yugoslavia. Czechs & Slovaks. Soviet Union. Cyprus.
Even in the civilized world, people prefer to live in more homogeneous states. And where they are not homogeneous, there are always separatist tendencies, though they might not manifest themselves with the same violence they did in the Middle Ages -- or as they do in the Middle East. See Quebec, Scotland, Pais Basque & Catalunia, Belgium...
In fact, Congressman Kucinich, the irony is that our continued lack of any substantive support for the opposition may very well lead to an increasing radicalization of the opposition as they become increasingly desperate for aid from any source.
Look at it from the Syrian street: Survival and victory against your immediate oppressor trumps all other considerations. If you are facing weekly massacres from a ruthless regime hell-bent on retaining power, you will naturally embrace the hand of ANYONE who comes to your aid-even if you very well know that your "benefactor" one day can become a menace the next.
For the sake of both the Syrian people and our own national interests, that "benefactor" can, should, and must be the international community-not Al Qaeda and their ilk.
What you suggested here has been tried before (with disastrous results):
+++
"In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."
The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen.
Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 commonly known as the term blowback. The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
As is the present insurgency that is capturing Russian arms from the Syrian Army.
So, just what IS the difference between Syria and Afghanistan? The latter was occupied by a foreign power and the former has been occupied by a local sect. Aside from that, not much is different. In both places, an illegitimate power was in occupation of the country.
double down
You and Ron Paul are the last REAL Representative for the American People
PLEASE, run a 3rd Party these other Evil choice leaves most American choosing to be evil, even if it is the lessor of 2 evils in their MINDS
Good point. Who are we supporting in Syria?
You know...MIND YOUR OWN BUISNESS