This should be Wednesday morning’s headline in every newspaper and on every TV news show if on Tuesday as expected President Obama continues to advocate an attack on the Assad regime thereby providing de facto support for Al Qaeda rebels in Syria.
Whether you believe Assad personally ordered the use of chemical weapons in Syria or not–and there appears to be no evidence one way or the other–an attack on Assad’s government directly supports Al Qaeda.
The civil war in Syria has devolved to 2 sides: Assad and his government versus the rebels, led by Al Qaeda. When Secretary of State Kerry delusionally says we are supporting moderates in Syria he is going against all the experts assessment of the situation. From government contractors Stratfor:
” The opposition groups that have been the most effective on the battlefield have tended to be the jihadist-oriented groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. Not surprisingly, one reason for their effectiveness was the skills and tactics they learned fighting the coalition forces in Iraq. Yet despite this, the Saudis — along with the Qataris and the Emiratis — have been arming and funding the jihadist groups in large part because of their success on the battlefield. As my colleague Kamran Bokhari noted in February 2012, the situation in Syria was providing an opportunity for jihadists, even without external support. In the fractured landscape of the Syrian opposition, the unity of purpose and battlefield effectiveness of the jihadists was in itself enough to ensure that these groups attracted a large number of new recruits.
But that is not the only factor conducive to the radicalization of Syrian rebels. First, war — and particularly a brutal, drawn-out war — tends to make extremists out of the fighters involved in it. Think Stalingrad, the Cold War struggles in Central America or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans following the dissolution of Yugoslavia; this degree of struggle and suffering tends to make even non-ideological people ideological. In Syria, we have seen many secular Muslims become stringent jihadists. . . .”
. . .When these ideological factors were combined with the infusion of money and arms that has been channeled to jihadist groups in Syria over the past year, the growth of Syrian jihadist groups accelerated dramatically. Not only are they a factor on the battlefield today, but they also will be a force to be reckoned with in the future.”
The height of cynicism has climbed the Western anti-terrorism policy in Syria. There, more than 50,000 armed rebels fighting against the Assad regime. 40,000 of them, according to democratic opposition are Islamist extremists. At least 15,000 of them to confess to the Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate – including thousands of foreign jihadists. Fighting for democracy only a minority of the rebels. In a victory of the extremist rebels waving not a democratic model state, but a “emirate” religious fanatics involving Al Qaeda. It would be the greatest political triumph of Al Qaeda since its inception.
And what happens to these mostly foreign Al Qaeda rebels in Syria when they return home:
A U.S. official familiar with intelligence reports said the influx of Americans and Europeans to Islamist rebel forces in Syria is increasing the threat of future terrorists attacks here and in Europe.
“There’s a real concern in the U.S. government about what happens to these guys when they are done and they come home,” this official said. “Right now they are getting training to be al Qaeda terrorists.”
fact fantasy that the Obama administration will only support the “good” rebels and isn’t for regime change belies the facts on the ground; The experts make it clear that it is Assad versus Al Qaeda fighting in Syria, and an attack on Assad’s government is a major step toward regime change.
Since Assad is a war criminal, entering the war on his side should not be an option either. The only civilized and reasonable response to this civil war and the use of chemical weapons is an indictment against whomever used the chemical weapons, and an arms embargo against all sides in the Syrian civil war, forcing Syrians to the negotiating table(which would preclude the foreign Al Qaeda jihadis from having a say in the negotiated peaceful outcome of this civil war).
But the USA has been thwarting any hope for peace in Syria:
As Haytham Manna, a leader of the National Coordinating Body for Democratic Change (NCB) in Syria recently told Le Vif, the largest French language news magazine in Belgium, “The Americans have cheated. Two or three times they have withdrawn at the very moment that an agreement was in the works… Everything is possible but that will depend mainly on the Americans. The French are content to follow. A political solution is the only one that could save Syria.”
So the only logical conclusion is that the USA’s goal is regime change resulting in an Al Qaeda victory in Syria.
Now why would the USA and its military side with what Americans have been told are their sworn enemies? with the organization responsible for 9/11, 7/7, 11-M, beheadings and atrocities around the world? The most logical answer is that the USA has lost its war with Islamic Jihadists and has surrendered to Al Qaeda.
Why else would Obama side with Al Qaeda in Syria? why else would he spit in the face of anyone who believes Al Qaeda is our enemy?
And why else would the USA and President Obama announce our alliance with Al Qaeda in Syria this Tuesday, on the eve of the 12th Anniversary of 9/11, unless the terms of surrender by the USA to Al Qaeda called for a humiliating admission of an alliance with them including entering a battle on their side as Al Qaeda’s Air Force?
The conclusion is inescapable: The USA has surrendered to Al Qaeda.
The question for my Congresswoman, and for all Congressmen and Senators: Do you support a negotiated peace with a war crimes tribunal in Syria or like the Obama administration have you surrendered to Al Qaeda?