Wednesday, February 11, 2015


So the President wants authority to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and why not? His policies helped create it. As in Libya, where the administration's decision to overthrow a secular Islamic leader gave rise to terrorism in that country, Obama's ill-fated decision to arm the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has directly lead to ISIS leaders brandishing American weaponry. Nice.

Of course, if you listen to the unrelenting 'threat of terrorism' campaign by the armchair warriors on cable news, the fault lies in our unwillingness to engage the Middle East. Really? Well, we've spent anywhere from $3 to $6 trillion (depends on whose estimate), lost nearly 5000 American lives, and over 30,000 young men and women will suffer a through a lifetime recovering from their wounds. And after 10 years of war--and a new domestic surveillance apparatus in place--we are no closer to eliminating terrorism than we were before 9-11. In fact, as a result of our misguided interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria, we have contributed greatly to the rise of further Islamic extremism by destroying its historic counterweights in the region.

Assad, and yes, Iran, both Shia nations, would gladly destroy these radical Sunni groups within a month--if we would only let them. Shiites are outnumbered 9 to 1 and generally don't export their 'terrorism' worldwide. Sunni extremism, however, is global in nature and its affiliates, whether al Nursah, Al Qaeda or ISIS, are responsible for nearly all of the recent attacks on the West. Alas, America's foreign policy establishment, from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to John McCain and Lindsey Graham, has blindly backed the regimes of Sunni Monarchs for decades. These same folks are now all a twitter over Jordan supposedly getting tough with their fellow Sunni radicals. Don't count on it.

Our putative allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc., all have a 'history of directly supporting or at least allowing private funds to flow to terrorist groups,' according to even neoconservative outlets like the National Interest. 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9-11 were Saudis and just this month, the so-called 20th, Zacarias Moussaoui, testified inside federal prison that Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, received funds from the Saudi royal family.

In fairness to Obama, why he is he being criticized for not doing enough, given Afghanistan, Lybia, and Syria? Only Rand Paul is making any sense of the issue by going after the President for what he has done--but of course the Kentucky Senator is being demagogued by the very same folks who got us into this mess. Funny, I thought conservatives were philosophically opposed to 'government intervention.' Regardless, the fact is we will never be able to solve the problems in the Middle East--nor should we try. Indeed, American foreign policy should follow its own hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.

No comments: