One of the real questions I am still searching to answer is this: Why does NATO want to support terrorists/Jihadis to destroy the Assad regime?
I’m no expert on foreign policy, so maybe I’m supposed to not have an opinion on what is going on and leave it to the experts. But the problem is that our “expert” leaders give us explanations for what they do and expect us to support them. During the last presidential election, foreign policy was mentioned many times as an issue that voters needed to consider in deciding between Obama and Romney. Frankly it was an area where I could not see much difference between them since they both supported the use of rebels for both Libya and now Syria—and both pretended that these “rebels” were not dominated by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda related Islamists.
So, if we average Americans are being offered arguments to support American foreign policy, I guess we are supposed to form an opinion about it.
So again: Why support terrorists to destroy the Assad regime. The humanitarian reasons are pretty obviously bogus. The United States Federal Government supports and sends money to horrid dictatorships all over the world. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other anti-democracies in the Middle East are just a few examples. And there is no reason to believe that the results of our intervention through the use of Jihadis will improve the humanitarian situation.
Over the weekend, a United Nations envoy said that, unless Assad and the rebels negotiate, “the country risked slithering into ‘hell.’” And what did he mean by “hell”? He gave a this-worldly example: “The country faced two stark choices, he said – a serious, Syrian-led political dialogue between the rebels and the regime, or what he darkly called ‘Somali-isation.’”
Taking the report at face value, we are supposed to believe that no one wants “Somali-isation.” We are supposed to accept that NATO/US “policy makers” (a euphemism for our rulers) were hoping for a stable democratic, human-rights-honoring, government to replace the Assad regime. The possibility of the Syrian territory degenerating into a “failed state” like Somalia, is an evil to be avoided.
But is this really true? Look at Libya right now. Did NATO want a better government over Libya that what Gaddafi was providing? Or did they simply want no government to exist? What we have now is a chaotic, terrorist-infested mess—one that is so unsafe our own ambassador got killed, along with others. No one in the government or in the mainstream media has articulated the obvious fact that we have made Libya more of a human rights disaster than it was before, and that we have supported Al Qaeda even while we opposed them in other parts of the world.
We are doing exactly the same thing in Syria, and I don’t see why we should expect any other result. The fact that the rebels are fighting and killing one another over looting their victims, doesn’t give me any reason to think they will be able to establish a government that cares about the people and the rule of law. These fighters are fanatical religious zealots or mercenary criminals or both.
So why expect any other outcome beside “another Somalia”? And if NATO had no other expectation, then why would they want such a thing? I can only infer that they must think it is a good idea for the dictatorships of the Middle East and North Africa to be destabilized and replaced by tribal and religious violence –they want chaos and anarchy. Perhaps our allies like Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia think they will be more secure if there are no other real states to oppose them or to lead in the area.
How long will Americans allow the two major parties to pursue this kind of agenda? It is obvious that it does nothing to make the world a safer place for America or Americans. When do voters get the option of choosing a candidate who promises not to give money and guns to terrorists?