Failure Predicted for American Involvement in Syria Rebellion

The newspapers on Monday, March 25, 2013 contained three articles that clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy and stupidity of America's foreign policy with respect to the Syrian rebellion.

The first article, by C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmidt of the New York Times, describes how the CIA is assisting in a secret program to arm the Syrian rebels.  To give this effort a softer tone, Chivers and Schmidt call it an 'airlift' - sounds so much nicer than 'arms trafficking' - and go on to say how the CIA is making every effort to make sure only good guys get weapons - 'trying to steer weapons away from Islamist groups.'  The weapons are being purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whom Chivers and Schmidt refer to as 'Sunni states'.   This noble effort by the Saudis and the Qataris to aid their co-religionists is contrasted to the provision of arms by Iran - 'the Shiite theocracy' - to support the Assad government - invariably referred to as a 'regime' by the media.  Chivers and Schmidt do not mention that Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by ultra-religious Wahhabis, is the country that produced fifteen of the September 11 terrorists, a place where women cannot vote or drive or even go out in public with out a male escort.  But they want us to be very scared of Iran because it is a 'theocracy'.

Overall Chivers and Schmidt do a good job putting a positive spin - might just call it propaganda - on the CIA's collusion in providing weapons to known terrorists.  They briefly mention Secretary of State John Kerry's discussions with Iraq about that flights from Iran that are providing weapons to the Assad government.  This is the subject of the second article, by Matthew Lee of the Associated Press.  Kerry apparently had a tense meeting with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and confonted him about the continued flights from Iran that pass through Iraqi air space.  We can imagine that Kerry was shocked and appalled that Iraq would facilitate Iran providing weapons to Assad, when, of course, as we have stated publicly many times, we are only interested in a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria.  Kerry states in the article that we are trying to help 'a democratic process take hold' in Syria (though the Syrian opposition has done nothing to suggest that it is even remotely democratic) and - this is the best - Kerry warned al-Maliki that, unless the flights were stopped, 'Iraq would be excluded from the international discussion about Syria's political future.'

The third article is about just that - Syria's political future.  It doesn't look good.  Anne Barnard and Hala Droubi of the New York Times report that Mouaz al-Khatib has resigned as the president of the Syrian National Coalition.  This has caused the main Syrian opposition organization to be thrown into disarray.  Past reports about the Syrian opposition have indicated that it is a splintered and tribal group - to the extent that it can hardly be called a single organization.  Based on the Barnard and Droubi article, and many other similar previous reports, the political future of Syria looks more like tribal Afghanistan than it does Jeffersonian democracy.

Here at the Common Sense Pundit, these three articles cause us to ask many troubling questions.  First of all - What the hell is the CIA doing providing weapons to the known terrorists of the Syrian opposition?  These are the same people that only recently were killing our soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan.  Is it too much to ask that our foreign policy show just a little logic and consistency?  Or at least, don't we deserve an explanation?  The Chivers and Schmidt article quotes an American government official as saying, in effect, 'if we don't provide the weapons, someone else will.' This is the same rationale that fraternity members use for overdrinking - 'everyone else is doing it' - and it is deeply troubling that this type of mentality plays any role in the foreign policy of the United States of America. 

And Secretary Kerry - please tell us how on God's green earth you can lecture Nouri al-Maliki about allowing arms to be passed through Iraqi airspace.  Our active involvement in provision of arms to the rebels makes it very difficult for us to criticize other nations who might be involved in arms shipments.  Furthermore, the United States is the largest weapons manufacturer and weapons exporter on the planet.  We have no grounds to lecture anyone on the control of the shipment of weapons.  More importantly, history has shown over and over again that a diplomatic, non-military solution has the best chance for a lasting resolution of conflicts like the Syrian revolution.  And, history has shown over and over again that importing arms prolongs the conflict, causes more civilian deaths, and does not contribute to a stable and lasting democratic government.  Guatemala, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan - none of these nations were made more stable or peaceful by American military intervention.  So, perhaps Secretary Kerry should save his lectures for his friends at the CIA and the Pentagon.

Furthermore, even if the Saudi/CIA arms shipments were effective, and the Syrian opposition were to overthrow the Assad government, what type of government would Syria get in the end?  If the current opposition is any indication, we can expect each of the splintered opposition groups to take control of their own territories within a fractured Syria.  Afterwards, they will attempt to kill the remaining Assad loyalists, then they will turn their American-supplied weapons on each other.  We will see internal fighting in Syria for years to come - courtesy of the CIA, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Once we have made a complete mess of Syria, what will it mean for the United States?  The same groups that we are arming now have sworn to destroy us - have we already forgot September 11?  We can expect that they will continue to attack American interests at home and around the world.  If we provide them weapons, they will eventually use those same weapons against us.

Now that the failures of the current American policy with respect to Syria have been exposed, what is the path forward?  Here at the Common Sense Pundit, we don't like to only criticize American foreign policy - we like to offer suggestions also.  The most logical and effective path in Syria is to provide humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees and displaced persons that are suffering as a direct result of this conflict.  Once things settle down, the goodwill purchased with such aid will go a long way in improving America's image among the Syrian civilians and as such will blunt the call by the terrorists to attack America and its allies.  In the long run, blankets and bags of rice will be better for the Syrian people - and for American interests - than the ongoing shipments of weapons.

Gansler Gets It Wrong On Iran, Wall Street Journal, 3/9/2013

Douglas Gansler writes in the March 9 Wall Street Journal about why states should take action to prohibit investment of funds in companies that do business in Iran.  He worries that state funds could be supporting 'a regime known for harboring terrorists' and 'violations of international law and human rights.'  He states that Iran has 'ignored repeated international calls for peace' and has 'sponsored terrorist plots against the United States'.  He cites 'the threat of a nuclear-armed state sponsor of terror' as a call to action against Iran.  The title of his article is, in fact 'United States Against Iran'.

Mr. Gansler fails to make a logical connection between Iran's actions and any real threat to America.  As such, here at the Common Sense Pundit, we must wonder what his real motivations are.

Iran is, in fact, a sponsor of Hezbollah and other similar groups known to carry out militant and terrorist attacks.  In this regard, Iran is in good company.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and numerous other nations are currently providing weapons and other support to the Syrian rebels, many of whom are members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and many of whom carry out suicide bombings, kidnappings, and other terrorist activities.  And we must not forget that fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  (None were from Iran.)  If he is interested in penalizing nations that support terrorism, Mr. Gansler might want to direct his efforts towards Saudi Arabia. 

Same goes for Iran's alleged 'violations of international law and human rights'.  If such behavior were criteria for nations that states should not invest in, the list of available investments would be dramatically reduced.  Consider, for instance, that Saudi Arabia contributed to Bahrain's brutal suppresion of pro-democracy demonstrations in Manama.  How about China's abyssmal record on human rights in Tibet and even among it's own citizens?  Or Israel's construction of the Separation Wall and its ongoing confiscation of Palestinian lands?  Yet Mr. Gansler does not appear to advocate divestment from China, Saudi Arabia, or Israel.

And what about Gansler's concern that Iran could become a 'nuclear-armed state sponsor of terrorism'?  Recall again that Saudi Arabia, with its fundamentalist Wahhabi government and its ongoing support for al Qaeda, enjoys a quite cozy relationship with the United States.  Why the double standard?  Recall also that the United States facilitated or at least tolerated the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.  Pakistan's relationship with elements of the Taliban and its all but proven sponsorship of Lashkar-e-Taiba (whose members carried out the 2008 attacks in Mumbai), do not appear to bother Mr. Gansler.

The hypocrisy of Mr. Gansler's position with respect to Iran suggests that his real agenda has nothing to do the with security of the United States.  In fact, we have little to fear from Iran.  Of all the nations previously mentioned in this article, Iran is one of the few whose military or citizens have not attacked our nation.  The same cannot be said for Saudi Arabia and Israel (USS Liberty, June 8, 1967)  In fact, Iran is one of the few countries in the region that has not attacked another nation.  Iran does, on the other hand, have a legitamate concern about the intentions of the United States.  The US has invaded and overthrown the governments of two nations that share significant borders with Iran - Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east.  The United States and two of its major allies - Israel and Saudi Arabia - have made no secret of their aggresive stance vis-a-vis Iran.  No one can support Iran's apparent desire to acquire nuclear weapons, but it should not come as a surprise considering the current and past aggressive actions of America and its allies, and considering America's unpleasant history with regard to Iran, going back to the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 1953 and the hostage crisis of 1979.

Because Iran poses no significant direct threat to the United States, and because we appear to tolerate or even support other nations who sponsor terrorism and/or possess nuclear weapons, here at the Common Sense Pundit, we must ask why Mr. Gansler and just about everyone in Washington, D.C. support aggressive sanctions and even military action against Iran.  The answer is quite apparent.  Other nations of the region, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, feel threatened by Iran.  And, since each of these nations enjoys unlimited and unconditional support from America, Washington feels obliged to do their dirty work for them.  But at the Common Sense Pundit, we see it differently.  America has no bone to pick with Iran.  Of all the nations in the world that may harbor some enmity towards us, Iran is certainly not the worst.  Let us focus our resources on real risks to America and its security.  If Israel and Saudi Arabia are worried about Iran, they have the money and military resources to take care of their own problems.
 

Legal Marijuana

Now that Amendment 64 has passed, Coloradans should give some thought to what this means for our state. Some will envision an enclave of personal freedom where responsible drug users enjoy their marijauna use while causing no harm to others. The pessimists will be concerned about trying to live and work with people who are constantly stoned. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

First of all, one unintended consequence of Amendment 64 will be to end the charade of medical marijuana. We all know that medical marijuana is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on and by the people of this state. Anyone who knows anyone with 'a card' knows that their medical marijauna registration is solely to allow their recreational use of this drug. So, we will see the number of medical marijuana dispenseries and the number of medical marijuana card holders plummet once recreational marijauna is available. Those of us who did not support medical marijuana will at least be gratified that the falsehoods of medical marijuana will finally be exposed.

Another effect of Amendment 64 will be changes to the distribution and sale of marijuana, but perhaps not in the ways that many people have predicted. It is assumed that the current marijuana distribution network - a criminal enterprise - will suddenly become a series of tax-paying, law abiding companies. Not likely. These people are criminals. They enjoy making money outside the legal framework that legitimate businesses must operate under. They certainly will not be transformed overnight into law-abiding business owners and upstanding members of the community. Newsflash: Drug dealers are not altruistic advocates for marijuana use and personal freedom. They are criminals operating a criminal enterprise in order to make money. If compliance with the law will cut into their profits, they will continue to produce and sell marijuana on the black market.

We will see an increase in marijauna use among teenagers. Supporters of medical marijuana somehow believe that legal recreational use by those over 21 will actually reduce use by teens. Either they are stoned or they think the rest of us are. According to a recent article in the East High School student newspaper, since medical marijuana was established, marijuana use incidents at East have increased dramatically. I have personally witnessed a person get on a bus on East Colfax, profer a baggie clearly marked with a label from a dispensary, and ask if anyone 'needs to buy some medicine'. I doubt he was checking ids. Such incidents will only increase with Amendment 64.

We will, of course, see a reduction in marijuana convictions under state law. Currently, the demographics of marijuana convictions show that there are disproportionately more young African American and Hispanic men in jail for marijuana possession. While Amendment 64 will reduce the numbers of people in prison, it will not address the underlying causes of disproportionate drug use among minorities. Do legalization advocates really believe that the thousands of people in jail for marijuana possession or distribution are otherwise fine, upstanding citizens?   Legalization of marijauna will not address the underlying causes of drug use and criminal activity in minority and white populations. The economic and opportunity obstacles that many face will remain and will continue to feed the desparation and despair that contribute to drug use and other criminal activities.

The mental health toll of drug abuse will also increase with legalized marijuana. No one can deny that the use of strong psycho-active substances contriubutes to mental health issues. Will the white and well-off aging hippies who voted for Amendment 64 share the burden of increased addiction counseling among the poor and minority populations that are typically hit hardest by drug abuse?

Colorado's reputation as a state with a healthy and well educated population will be eclipsed by the perception that we are all a bunch of stoners. The late night TV jokes have already started. Businesses considering to expand or relocate will not consider Colorado. Business growth and the jobs that go along with it will move to other states where employers can count on having a workforce that is fully functional. Furthermore, any reduction in respiratory health issues that we have recently seen due to reduction in tobacco use will be reversed because of increased marijuana use - it is smoke, after all.

Thanks to the college kids, old hippies, and stoners who voted in favor of Amendment 64. I hope you enjoy your exercise of personal freedom. There will be numerous and long-lasting negative consequences for rest of us and for the state of Colorado.

Engaging Iran - Wag the Dog

In the January 6, 2013 New York Times, Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Ali Shabani write about the Persian concepts of expediency, self-interest, and saving face, and how those concepts affect Iran's interactions with America.  Mousavian and Shabani conclude that we must come up with creative ways to attain our goals of containing Iran's nuclear program while, at the same time, allowing Iran to maintain its national pride.  If only it were that simple.  While it would benefit the American side to understand the Iranian perspective, there are outside forces with significant influence on the American's motives.

Let's first look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons, at four nations in particular - India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.  American actively supported the first three as they sought to attain the technology and expertise to build their nuclear arsenals.  Recall that, in 2006, when George W. Bush authorized non-military nuclear assistance to India, it was abundantly clear to even casual observers that India would take advantage of that opportunity to increase its nuclear military capabilities.  And even in the case of North Korea, one of the most belligerent nations on earth, we have tolerated their possession of nuclear weapons even as we continue to attempt to negotiate with them.

Contrast American policy with regard to these nations to that with Iran.  Our last two presidents have stated unequivocally that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, with the stated reason that such weapons might be used against America or fall in to the hands of terrorists.  Poppycock!  With regard to the chances of Iran attacking the US - or any other nation - it must be noted that, in the 34 years since the Iranian revolution, Iran has not attacked another country.  The same cannot be said for India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea - as noted, nations which we have allowed or actively encouraged to obtain nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, the leaders of Iran must certainly understand that any agression directly against America would be suicide for their nation.  We have toppled governments for far lesser infractions.  With regard to Iranian nuclear weapons being used by terrorists, we should recall that the Sunni nations of the Persian Gulf produce most terrorists - fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia - and that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are certainly at a greater risk of being used by terrorists, such as the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and numerous other terrorist groups that the Pakistani ISI is chummy with.  Certainly the terrorist risk - nuclear or otherwise - is far great from Gulf nations and Pakistan than it is from Iran.

So why the double standards?  This is what Mousavian and Shabani are missing:  America does not oppose Iran's nuclear weapons program out of of concern for American security, but out of concern for the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. 

In the case of Israel, the Israelis feel justifiably threatened by the rhetoric coming from Iran's leaders.  So threatened, in fact, that they would gladly allow their lap-dogs in Washington to take whatever measures might be necessary to send Iran's nuclear program back to the stone age.  So threatened that Benjamin Netanyahu would attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election so that his old friend Mitt Romney would win and promptly order the bombers into the air.  With the influence of the Israel lobby in Washington, there should be no doubt that the some American decision makers would gladly manufacture a reason to bomb Iran if the Israelis wanted it to happen.

The Sunni Arab nations of the Persian Gulf feel similarly insecure about Iran, though for different reasons.  The Saudi royal family, in particular, consider Shiites to be second class citizens, and they do not like the uppity lower caste Shia of Iran attempting to become a regional influence.  Similar to Israel, the Saudis enjoy close relations with many prominent American politicians - who can forget Bandar Bush from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"?  We need oil, the Saudis need to pacify Iran, and the Pentagon stands ready to do the dirty work - this is how things work in the world.

So what's the upshot of all of this?  Here at the Common Sense Pundit, we think America should mind its own business.  If and when we have any indication that Iran might threaten the United States with nuclear weapons, we certainly must act to contain such a threat.  However, as noted, this is not the case right now and it is unlikely that Iran would be so stupid as to do so in the future.  So, America should stand down, and - while we must keep a close eye on the developing situation - we let Israel and the Saudis take care of themselves.

This approach has many advantages.  In the first place, we do not need to expend American diplomatic efforts to take care of the perceived problems of other nations.  We certainly have enough to keep us busy looking after our own affairs.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, even the perception that America is taking sides in the Israel-Saudi-Iran dispute will lead the angry young men of the Arab/Muslim world to hate us even more than they do already.  And when enough angry young men are manipulated into turning their anger into actions, we know where that leads.  So, America, keep out of it.  And, if we cannot prevent the next terrorist attack, at least we can hope that it is not directed at us.