America: Al-Qaida’s Army?

How interesting that, nearly 12 years after Al-Qaida pulled off the worst terrorist attack to ever occur on U.S. soil, the United States Senate is debating whether or not our nation should provide direct military aid to Al-Qaida forces in Syria.

I think we can all agree that Bashar Al-Assad is a bad guy, but how far should we really be going to stop him when his enemy is also our enemy?  Have we truly fallen so far, so fast, that our political leaders are ready to throw in with our sworn enemies – who, by the way, will not suddenly turn into our friends just because we might help them out in Syria.

This entire exercise of rushing headlong into war is just a major CYA play for President Obama, whose “red line” gaffe is what kicked off the entire debate in the first place.

wpid-2012-12-22T201143Z_1_CBRE8BL1K3Y00_RTROPTP_3_POLITICS-US-USA-OBAMA-KERRY-NEWSMAKER_JPG_475x310_q85.jpg

Not that the president is willing to take credit for his own words – according to his statements today, he “didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line.”  Because everyone knows that it doesn’t matter what President Obama said a year ago – the only thing that matters is the international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons; a treaty that Syria never signed, and therefore would not be beholden to anyway.  But facts have never been President Obama’s strong suit, so he is now claiming that his own credibility (if there is such a thing) is not on the line.  Now that he has passed the buck to Congress, it is Congress’s credibility that is at stake…and since the United Nations and other nations across the globe are also debating taking action in Syria, it is their credibility at stake, as well.  But not President Obama’s, of course.

I’m only surprised he made his political motivations behind kicking the issue over to Congress so transparent so quickly, but as time goes on, it seems that the president displays less and less political finesse – he just doesn’t have it like he used to.

But the truth behind military action in Syria can truly be found in that old adage: “follow the money.”  At a hearing in the House, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that Arab countries are willing to pay for U.S. military action in Syria – up to and including a full invasion.  This is nice, since the United States can hardly afford a war right now, but it begs the rather significant question of “WHY?”

Syria_map

Remember the shouts on the Left in the lead-up to the Operation Iraqi Freedom: “No War For Oil?”  Well, the situation in Syria may be exactly that – only for real this time.

As it turns out, Syria is a gateway for getting oil from a major Middle Eastern oil field to Europe, and there are two alliances interested in building a gas pipeline through Syria.  Coincidentally enough, they just happen to align on the question of retaliation against the Assad regime for the use of chemical weapons.  On one side is Russia, Iran, and the Assad government, who are backing an Iranian pipeline – and since Russia is in bed with Iran, it would allow the Iranian regime to profit, while giving Russia the right amount of control over the situation to protect their own oil interests.  On the other side are Saudi Arabia and Qatar – in all likelihood the very “Arab nations” offering to bankroll U.S. military action in Syria, basically using the United States military as their own mercenary army.

Oddly enough, all of the lies from Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 about the war in Afghanistan seem to be coming true in President Obama’s push for war in Syria.

Advertisements

1 reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s