The headline on the article in the New York Times says that the USA has cut off non-lethal aid to the rebels in Syria. The author goes on to report that America has decided that it cannot provide this aid anymore because so much of the Syrian rebel coalition is now affiliated with al Qaeda. The federal government is presently trying to figure out where the aid previously sent to the rebels has ended up. Finally, the Obama administration also says that it is not stopping humanitarian aid in Syria.
This article may seem unimportant and may even read like Obama is acting in a reasonable manner. That is, of course, unless one understands the history here. The article is confirming what we already knew: the situation in Syria has become one in which a brutal dictator supported by Iran and who has no problem shooting protesters in the streets and gassing innocent civilians is on one side, while the opponents of that dictator have become part of the terrorist alliance with al Qaeda. In other words, there are crazies in control on both sides, and the only characteristics that they share are that both sides are Moslems and both sides hate America. Not surprisingly, the Times article ignores the reality that it did not have to be this way; America could have swung this so that one side, the victorious side, would be a pro-Western more moderate group of Sunni Arabs who could bring peace rather than death to Syria and its people.
When the uprising began years ago, the opponents of Assad looked to the West for help. It would not have taken much for us to help the Syrian majority to wrest control of their country from the Assad dictatorship. No American troops were needed. Not even much of an investment was needed. But all that we got was the usual dithering and disinterest from Obama. That is not a surprise, after all Obama did not even bother to check on the progress of the Obamacare rollout until it had happened and failed, so why would he concern himself with a problem like Syria. Better to play golf, campaign and do fund raising. Nevertheless, while it was not surprising, it was a disaster. As the Syrian rebels saw that they were getting indifference only from America and its allies, they also saw that al Qaeda was sending fighters in to join the battle against Assad. Because the war went on for so long, al Qaeda was able to send enough people that it became a major presence in the war. Now the rebels have allied with al Qaeda since no one else is helping. Even the non-lethal aid that the USA just stopped was not even close to being sufficient to keep the rebels going. It is no wonder that they allied with those who support them rather than those, like Obama, who give speeches but do nothing else.
Syria is likely to be a mess for years to come. It will be a new home for terror groups, at least in the part of the country under the control of the al Qaeda people. Millions will starve, get injured or die.
Congratulations for a failed policy, Mr. President.
This article may seem unimportant and may even read like Obama is acting in a reasonable manner. That is, of course, unless one understands the history here. The article is confirming what we already knew: the situation in Syria has become one in which a brutal dictator supported by Iran and who has no problem shooting protesters in the streets and gassing innocent civilians is on one side, while the opponents of that dictator have become part of the terrorist alliance with al Qaeda. In other words, there are crazies in control on both sides, and the only characteristics that they share are that both sides are Moslems and both sides hate America. Not surprisingly, the Times article ignores the reality that it did not have to be this way; America could have swung this so that one side, the victorious side, would be a pro-Western more moderate group of Sunni Arabs who could bring peace rather than death to Syria and its people.
When the uprising began years ago, the opponents of Assad looked to the West for help. It would not have taken much for us to help the Syrian majority to wrest control of their country from the Assad dictatorship. No American troops were needed. Not even much of an investment was needed. But all that we got was the usual dithering and disinterest from Obama. That is not a surprise, after all Obama did not even bother to check on the progress of the Obamacare rollout until it had happened and failed, so why would he concern himself with a problem like Syria. Better to play golf, campaign and do fund raising. Nevertheless, while it was not surprising, it was a disaster. As the Syrian rebels saw that they were getting indifference only from America and its allies, they also saw that al Qaeda was sending fighters in to join the battle against Assad. Because the war went on for so long, al Qaeda was able to send enough people that it became a major presence in the war. Now the rebels have allied with al Qaeda since no one else is helping. Even the non-lethal aid that the USA just stopped was not even close to being sufficient to keep the rebels going. It is no wonder that they allied with those who support them rather than those, like Obama, who give speeches but do nothing else.
Syria is likely to be a mess for years to come. It will be a new home for terror groups, at least in the part of the country under the control of the al Qaeda people. Millions will starve, get injured or die.
Congratulations for a failed policy, Mr. President.
No comments:
Post a Comment