« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The NYT needs to read *itself* on the Syrian rebel situation.

Because first it’s writing things like this: “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” and then it visibly wonders why it is that such a thing could be happening. Well, it’s probably happening at least in part because the Saudi and Qatar governments are being bullied by the Obama administration into not providing official support for the rebels, leaving private subjects in both countries to take up the slack: ” …there are signs of an uptick in the number of young men crossing illegally into Syria from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, and of private fund-raising efforts across the gulf to help the rebels acquire heavier weapons.” Note: both quotes are from the New York Times.

Let me take this opportunity to say I told you so: if we don’t arm the Syrian rebels, somebody will, and that somebody might (read: ‘probably will’) not like us very much. More importantly, not only did I tell you so: so did Mitt Romney. From his VMI speech:

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

Note: “develop influence.” You think that Obama’s hide-our-head-in-the-sand policies are developing influence with the increasingly best-armed contingent of the Syrian rebels? No, neither do I. And neither does the New York Times, although they’d rather cough up blood than admit it.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Joe Biden lied his guts out about this in last week’s debate. But you knew that already.

PPS: There are no good answers. Merely ‘less bad’ ones. Obama’s ‘do nothing’ is promising to be one of the ‘more bad’ ones that will eventually and inevitably cause us headaches down the road.

COMMENTS

  • pekka2009

    FUNNY VIDEO =) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&feature=relmfu

  • scmom

    I wonder when the NY Times will finally become unnecessary to the Obama Administration. It’s got to be soon, because they will soon not have enough readers of the Comics Page to keep themselves afloat!

  • fightnright

    I’m not sure that mixing…

    * a moral relativist President who kowtows to theocratic dictatorships which seek nuclear weapons and turns a blind eye to terrorists which use those nations as bases for recruitment and training, with,

    * an administration which positions a sad-sack videographer living in California as scapegoat by way of apology to terrorists who brutally murdered 4 Americans – in a global depiction of disavowal of our First Amendment right to free speech,

    * a pragmatic team of foreign policy ‘realists’ who prefer to kick the can of a nuclear acceleration competition throughout the M.E. down the road rather than supporting our commitment to our allies and our longstanding American principles,

    …doesn’t create the perfect recipe for compromising our future homeland and international security, while expanding the eventual prospect of war against a set of new nuclear states with larger, more highly organized, better trained and armed militaries which despise us.

    I’d love it if RedStaters with military/military history expertise could reassure me, but that’s why I don’t feel at all certain this will end well for the US. And worse, I can’t say I’m sure that ‘ending well’ means the same thing to me as to a POTUS whose primary allegiance seems to lean toward multiculturalism, moral equivalency and reducing our economic and military strength to undercut our global dominance.

  • streiff

    there are no good options if we let events take their course. If we had something that resembled leadership in the White House we’d have more options.