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.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)