« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

U.S. Officials: Al Qaeda in Iraq Behind Deadly Bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, Syria

U.S. officials have reportedly confirmed that deadly bombings in the Syrian cities of Damascus (in December and January) and Aleppo (Friday) were the work of al Qaeda in Iraq, whose members were acting with authorization from al Qaeda central head and Osama bin Laden successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. According to McClatchy:

The Iraqi branch of al Qaida, seeking to exploit the bloody turmoil in Syria to reassert its potency, carried out two recent bombings in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and likely was behind suicide bombings Friday that killed at least 28 people in the largest city, Aleppo, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

The officials cited U.S. intelligence reports on the incidents, which appear to verify Syrian President Bashar Assad’s charges of al Qaida involvement in the 11-month uprising against his rule. The Syrian opposition has claimed that Assad’s regime, which has responded with massive force against the uprising, staged the bombings to discredit the pro-democracy movement calling for his ouster.

The international terrorist network’s presence in Syria also raises the possibility that Islamic extremists will try to hijack the uprising, which would seriously complicate efforts by the United States and its European and Arab partners to force Assad’s regime from power. On Friday, President Barack Obama repeated his call for Assad to step down, accusing his forces of “outrageous bloodshed.”

The U.S. intelligence reports indicate that the bombings came on the orders of Ayman al Zawahiri, the Egyptian extremist who assumed leadership of al Qaida’s Pakistan-based central command after the May 2011 death of Osama bin Laden. They suggest that Zawahiri still wields considerable influence over the network’s affiliates despite the losses the Pakistan-based core group has suffered from missile-firing CIA drones and other intensified U.S. counterterrorism operations.

More will be said about this in the near future, and it remains unknown just how the U.S. government confirmed AQI’s involvement. However, the expansion of al Qaeda in Iraq beyond that state’s borders – evidently for the first time – demonstrates AQI’s strength in Iraq’s post-America phase. Despite years of hunting terror cells and individuals within AQI, the U.S. was not only unable to defeat the AQ franchise, but left it in good enough condition that it has now begun to carry out acts on an international (if still regional) scale.

Along with a testament to AQI’s resilience, the three deadly attacks in Syria over the course of three months show the risk of assuming the makeup of the centers of protest or the active anti-regime population. The risk of al Qaeda and other criminals and terrorists having a presence among the Libyan opposition was intentionally ignored or glossed over during the NATO action there, and the ongoing fighting within that nation and the steady stream of weapons across its borders into neighboring countries in the weeks and months since NATO’s involvement ended demonstrate the problematic nature of that decision. As discussions about aiding the Syrian rebels in any number of ways (from arming them to intervening militarily on their behalf) continue, the likelihood that AQI is operating among the rebels (even without their approval) will need to be taken into very serious account.

Finally, it is worth noting (even if only for its ironic value) that Assad played a role over the last near-decade in arming and supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, counterterror analyst Leah Farrall notes that “the most recent place [al Qaeda] is known to have held a “summit” of leaders [circa 2004] was Damascus.”

As with the rest of the developments in Syria, this will bear watching. However, the presence of an active AQI in revolutionary Syria should give all of us pause – particularly those calling for support of the rebels through such means as arms shipments, which have the distinct potential to put firepower in the wrong hands.

COMMENTS

  • znjs

    However, the expansion of al Qaeda in Iraq beyond that state?s borders ? evidently for the first time ? demonstrates AQI?s strength in Iraq?s post-America phase.

    is the strongest case that can be made against us involving ourselves in more ME fights as can be made. Yes, if we’re attacked or in danger we should go in. Yes, right now horrible things are and will continue to happen in some countries. Yes, we could (temporarily) put a stop to them. But what comes after?

    You can’t force civilization on people. Our involvement, even well-meaning, too often has the exact opposite affect as we desired.

    • Creedo

      Conceding Iraq to Al Queda is not an option. What you’re saying is that our military can’t get the job done, and that is unacceptable. Huckabee said iit best in 2008 – we owe it to the Iraqis to make this right. He said “If you pick something up off the shelf – you broke it, you buy it.” We have the responsibility to fix this before we just turn away, tuck tail and run. Huckabee was right: this is a matter of honor – something a ronulan wouldn’t understand.

      • bk

        “What you?re saying is that our military can?t get the job done, and that is unacceptable.”

        More like our military isn’t allowed to do the job the way it should be done. Seems like they operated to a great extent under Bush with one hand tied behind their backs. Then Obama has tied the other hand and added a blindfold.

      • znjs

        Our military is very good at defeating our enemies. It is capable of protecting allies to an extent – although suicide bombings and the like will sometimes happen.

        Our military is not capable of setting up a competent, stable, non-corrupt government in other nations. It’s just not. That’s not Paulbotish, that’s facing reality. Our military has limits, just like any other man-make institution. Pretending otherwise is a delusion, and a dangerous, expensive (in terms of dollars and lives) and foolish one at that.

    • Dave_A

      If we don’t intervene, they will – and they will use these interventions to rebuild themselves.

      If we do not side with the people against oppressive and Anti-American regimes (Syria fits both of these requirements), then the people will turn to anyone who is willing to help them…

      Al Qaeda was formed precisely for this purpose – to depose the secular-ish dictatorships of the ME and replace them with AQ-led ones.

      In fact, our conflict with AQ exists because we prevented them from coming to the ‘assistance’ of the Saudi people against Saddam (and thus crushed what they saw as their golden opportunity to overthrow the King afterward).

      Saying ‘Hey, AQ is helping the rebels, therefore we should let them hang’ is looking at it wrong. Our own failure to act is what gets AQ an ‘in’, and if they successfully depose Assad while we sit on our hands, the resulting regime will be a nightmare.

      The only way to ensure this doesn’t happen, is to make sure it’s the USA, not Al Qaeda, who gets credit for deposing Assad. Yeah, it will make Qaeda hate us more – but so what, they’re already blood-enemies with us, who cares if they want to kill us all twice over instead of once?

      • znjs

        They didn’t exist there before we went in. It was our trying to set up a government in Iran that turned them into such a dangerous enemy today. People don’t like outside countries telling them what type of government they should have. Their welcome for our help usually turns out to be pretty short term, and our help usually blows up in our face. See training/arming Osama Bin Laden.

        • Dave_A

          First off, Al Queda did exist, in a small presence, in northern Iraq prior to the invasion… Al-Zarqawi’s organization (Which we now know as AQI) had an ongoing feud with the Kurdish tribes, that was notable enough to make the New York Times.

          Second, Al Qaeda ‘invaded’ Iraq just as much as we did – they were not ‘invited’, but rather came there to fight us & conquer Iraq for their own cause…

          The actual ‘Sunni resistance’ to US occupation was separate – focused around Saddam loyalists & Iraqi Sunnis afraid of Shiite vengeance for decades of oppressive rule, and that largely died out after we captured Saddam & killed his sons, about when AQ began their influx. The Shiite ‘resistance’ was led by Iranian proxies such as Al Sadr.

          Yes, they came to Iraq to fight us (this was one of the main reasons for invading Iraq in the first place – it provided a battlefield AQ would actually stand and fight on, as opposed to Afghanistan which they abandoned (leaving the Taliban to fend for themselves)) – but not as champions of the people, and rather as an opportunistic invader.

          The ‘blame America’ paulist clap-trap simply doesn’t fly.

        • Dave_A

          Pakistan did.

      • Scope

        in Iraq pre-Iraq war. There are clear reasons that Russia voted against any actions against Syria, and the Assad regime. It goes far deeper than just trade with Syria. Read this article about the movement of the WMD’s with reference to photos showing the caravan of vehicles moving the chemical and biological weapons to underground locations in Syria. Some also went to Lebannon. Click on the first link on the page and it will take you to another article about what Assad is hiding in his own country.

        I have to think that the caution being used with respect to Syria may include the fear that Assad will not hesitate to use the WMD’s on his own citizens, just as Hussein in fact did. Assad has no conscience with slaughtering his own population, no doubt he would use WMD’s if pushed over the edge.

        The above linked articles were written long after the war had wound down, but, the information seems to have been available at a time when George Bush could have squashed the false stories that there were no WMD’s which the liberals, and Obama, used against him with their insistence that “Bush lied, people died.” He never defended anything, to the discredit of those that defended his War on Terror efforts.

        I’m still very curious just what Hillary’s big red reset button, presented to the Russians, was all about. What was reset? It sure didn’t help our relationship with Russia at the useless and worhtless UN this past week.

        • bobguzzardi

          thanks for the link. There are valid reasons to think that WMD were moved to Syria. Iraqi General Sada wrote a book on this as well.

          Generally, the topic has not gotten much attention.

      • duncer

        As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Assad let al qaeda use Syria as a supply conduit during the Iraq war facilitating the flow of arms and fighters from many countries into Iraq to kill American soldiers. Assad has a long history of cross border mischief in Lebenon as well, but what goes around, comes around and his terrorist revolving door has no lock and the terrorists have no respect for him and feel they owe him nothing for past services because he did no more than his duty in supporting a muslim cause.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      being CINC and a short time after Obama affirmed his surrender…that is instructive

  • retrocon87

    Al Qaeda’s enemies are not just the Americans and the Jews, it’s the Americans, the Jews, and the “apostate Persians”…. not only that, but with their goal of reinstating the caliphate they are against all secular Arab dictatorships to begin with– even the Sunni ones. It is not at all surprising that they would try to support a revolt against a Shiite Syrian regime. The issue here is still, though, that a new Sunni Syrian government aligned with Saudi Arabia would probably be much better for us than Iran still having Assad as a key regional ally. Many would argue that striking a strategic death blow to Iran by bringing down Assad is worth the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Syria. It is a tight one, though. Essentially it is a proposition of helping to pave the way for absolutely horrible people to take over the country from even more horrible people when we have no way of knowing how successful the intervention would even be or what the fallout would look like. And of course if we do nothing, then everyone starts to bitch and complain about how we’re “sitting idly by while Assad commits genocide.”

    Typical “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

  • SteveM

    Back in 2008 even Walid Phares was noting the positive developments in Iraq:

    http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/how_to_measure_al_qaedas_defea.php

    But in short, al Qaeda is now contained in the very battlefield it chose to fend off the Infidels in: Iraq. But this is just one moment in space and time, during which we will have to fight hard to keep the situation as is. Our favorable situation is a product of the US military surge and of a massive investment in dollars. It is up to this Congress, and probably to the next President to maintain that moment, weaken it or expand it.

    How prophetic that last sentence turned out to be. We’re out of Iraq completely, so there’s no one there to do anything about these guys. It says something that they’re already feeling their oats enough to cross the border and start trouble. Granted, Syria may be a softer target than Iraq is at the moment, but that will change shortly.

    • Dave_A

      We beat them up badly in Iraq – we convinced the Sunni Arabs to fight with us against Qaeda & showed them to be a bunch of oppressive tyrants rather than the ‘saviors of the Sunni world’….

      HOWEVER, if we sit by while Assad murders his people, and allow AL QAEDA to become the ‘Saviors of Syria’, then all we did in Iraq will be for naught, and AQ will once again be the ‘people’s champion’.

      We need to take out Assad’s regime before this can happen. The people will support whoever removes Assad – do we want that to be us & regional allies, or Al Qaeda?

      Simple answer, really…

      And yes, I’m essentially advocating my own deployment – but that’s the part of Army life I actually like, so NBD there…

      • aesthete

        that shows signs of civil disorder being quashed by their governments… because Al Qaeda might get there first? Funny how that doesn’t seem to apply to Saudi Arabia or the rest of our ostensible allies, like Egypt.

        The following sentence is simply absurd: “The people will support whoever removes Assad”

        Is that true in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other Middle Eastern countries where we’ve helped depose truly tyrannical regimes?

        • Dave_A

          Because our actual allies don’t engage in the level of brutality we see in Syria… There was no shelling of towns or mass-murder in Mubarak’s attempt to retain power, and eventually he left mainly because the west said ‘Time to Go’…. Similarly, the US holds a significant level of influence with the Saudis, that makes direct action un-needed.

          The point, is that we have an opportunity to ‘Flip’ Syria here – their anti-American position is largely due to the Alewife alignment with Iran – a new, representative Sunni regime would align itself with Saudi & our other more reliable Arab allies…

          If we fail to take that opportunity, Al Qaeda will intervene instead, and at that point no matter who wins the US loses.

          In the end, when everything shakes out, the people of nations we liberate will NOT retain the anti-American views of their former leadership… Give Iraq and Lybia time, and you will see something closer to the view of the US (note, not the Serbs, the US. Most ‘grand war on Islam’ types tend to characterize violence in Kosovo as anti-Christian, when it is really anti-Serb) in Kosovo….

          Afghanistan is a special case, since this country is NOT actually a country in the minds of anyone living outside the top-3-or-so major cities – their loyalty is to their tribe/family only.

          • aesthete

            This claim is simply untrue.

            (And no, I do not support the Yemen rebels — I’m just pointing out that there are parallels on the “pro-American” side.)

          • JSobieski

            if we insist on elections?

            There is no evidence that the people of Syria have certain fundamental convictions on human rights, rule of law, etc.

            There is no evidence that the US or any modern western power is going to be able to support a tolerable strong man who can actually make our intervention pay dividends in the long term regarding a pro-US regime.

            Given the lack of evidence above (and lots of evidence ot the contrary), I can see arming the rebels to prevent their annihilation by Assad. I can even see wanting Assad gone in an effort to further push back against Iran.

            However, I do not see any “opportunity” to “flip” Syria into being any type of pro-US state.

            We have to face the reality that a lot of people over there (not saying all, not even saying a majority—but I am saying a large enough number of motivated people), that any US experiment is going to be back asswords.

            Human rights first
            Rule of law second
            Voting/elections third

            Instead we do the reverse.

          • Dave_A

            We just need to break their ties to Iran.

            In this case, elections would do just that, because the reason that the Assad regime is allied with Iran is ethnic/sectarian, and booting them out of power would remove those ties…

            The Sunni Arabs who would come to power would then naturally align with Saudi Arabia, and the ‘flip’ would be complete…

            It doesn’t matter if they vote in Shariah law or what-have-you – part of a representative government is the fact that the government’s legislation will represent the people… Now, this may offend the sensibilities of liberals and the ‘Islamophobia’ lobby, but to those of us who only care about the power-politics, it’s not a problem… We’re not involved in the Middle East to force Arabs to adopt the US Constitution – we’re there to promote US interests – and a more democratic middle east is in our interest – even if they do vote to chop off thieves hands & execute people for adultery.

            In the case of Syria, all that matters is that they move from Iran-aligned to Saudi-aligned. Which is a fact-of-life if Sunnis replace Alewites (sp?)…

          • aesthete

            if we are in the ME to stop non-state actors from perpetuating and attacking us again. Libya as of today is a friendlier environment for non-state actors than it was under Gadhaffi; ditto Egypt. Who’s to say that the same is not true for a post-Assad regime? Certainly, none of the usual suspects barking for war in Iraq warned us or expected an Iraq more aligned towards Iran than it currently is, or any of the other problems which faced us in our occupation.

            It’s not Islamophobia to point out that the differences in worldview between an orthodox Muslim living in a Muslim majority country, and a Westerner, are largely irreconcilable at present. This is the milieu whence international terror groups like Al Qaeda can emerge and thrive, where such groups do not emerge in the context of other Third-World colonial experiences, such as are found in Africa, Latin America, and the non-Muslim parts of Asia.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and maybe even now, esp if ObamaDems are going to throw away any glimmer of hope after Iraq was won and given the Libyan experience.

          • aesthete

            It is disappointing that so few are willing to re-evaluate given new data. ObamaDems and the left, of course, have a plethora of areas where this is true both foreign and domestic; hopefully Kristol and co will come to the same epiphany as you and I have — and if they don’t, they need to be marginalized on matters of foreign policy.

          • JSobieski

            The problem with our ME policy is that we focus on one variable to the exclusion of others.

            There is a greater chance that ditching Assad will result in a Iranian-like theocracy that it will in something better.

            You totally miss my underlying point.

            A democracy cannot exist when 84% of the population thinks that the government should kill people for beliefs in their head.

            Elections do not equate to democracy.

            The USSR had elections.

          • Dave_A

            The conflation of democracy with rights-centric constitutional government has no basis in fact.

            Who cares if they elect a Sunni theocracy, so long as they don’t support Iran or Al Queda? And a Sunni theocracy would have no reason to remain in Iran’s orbit…

            Like I said, the path to separating our enemies from the local population’s support, involves recognizing that the people of the region should be able to govern themselves their way, and not worrying about the fact that it will NOT involve a US-style secular republic.

            Syria’s only tie to Iran is the Assad regime & the ethnicity it represents. Break that, and they will move to a Saudi-centric orbit.

          • JSobieski

            otherwise, the losers cease being able to run again.

            If you want to support the principle of one man, one vote, one time—-that is your right, but I think it is a short sighted view.

            An election that results in theocracy is the end of elections, with the worst possible people in power.

            I am all for ditching the focus on elections when it comes to ME foreign policy.

            Sunni theocracies will support terrorism and attacks against the west just as Shia theocracies. do.

            The fact that Hitler was elected didn’t make him less of threat.

            The USSR had elections all the time.

          • JSobieski

            After all AQ, is Sunni.

            I agree that we should promote US interests. Spending time and treasure to create Sharia-lite states where elections are held is the worst cost-benefit option I can envision.

            Unless we are serious about a long term propaganda effort re: Western values, we need to seriously shut up about elections in ME hot spots.

          • Dave_A

            If you take away the disparity between the people & their rulers – by allowing them to elect their government AND to enact the laws they wish, then you take away AQ’s opportunities in that country…

            Most of the hatred for ‘the west’ in Sunni nations has to do with western support for autocratic regimes. Take that away, and while they may still elect a theocratic government, said government won’t be a threat to the US & our allies, or a supporter of Al Qaeda.

            In a religiously homogenous nation, theocracy & democracy are not incompatible.

          • JSobieski

            This sounds like Ron Paul analysis to me. Plenty of contrary evidence.

            “Take that away, and while they may still elect a theocratic government, said government won?t be a threat to the US & our allies, or a supporter of Al Qaeda.”

            Again, this sounds more like a Code Pink analysis–they hate us because we support bad guys.

            “In a religiously homogenous nation, theocracy & democracy are not incompatible.”

            Absolute bunk. Europe was almost uniformly Christian for centuries, and elections in the 20th century created 2 world wars.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    that was their staging area for entry into Iraq, and their sanctuary and support area for the Sunni insurgency. I have personal experience on that issue.

    Assad made a faustian bargain by permitting them access to his country. It was inevitable his pet crocodile would turn on him.

    Events are pretty much out of our control. It’s hard to think of a place where we have less leverage and influence. Intervention is out of the question. We are spectators on this one.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      LOC interdiction between Iraq and Syria was a key SOF task in the early portion of OIF. The road between the two nations has been well-traveled by terrorists and weapons alike during recent history, and the present is no different,

      • Dave_A

        Syria was more than happy to shelter/support both the Saddamists AND AQ all the way through OIF…. It was also seen as a likely destination for materials/money Saddam’s regime smuggled out of Iraq in 03….

        So it’s kind of ironic to see Queda stabbing Assad in the back… But that’s what they do, that’s who they are…

        The problem is, we can’t let them be the rescuers of the Syrian people, or we will (A) undo everything we gained by fighting them in Iraq, and (B) allow Syria to simply slip from an anti-American pro-Iran regime to an anti-American pro-AQ regime…

        • aesthete

          that they would be wholly undone by non-action in Syria.

          Funny how that dichotomy doesn’t apply in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

          • Dave_A

            Is that both the Mubarak and Saudi regimes were at a minimum nominally pro-American, whereas Syria and Iraq were both ruled by anti-American despots.

            The difference this makes, is in the outcome: A regime that cares about it’s relationship with the US – as both Mubarak and the House of Saud do – can be influenced or even toppled by peaceful protest, without our direct intervention. Mubarak’s regime wasn’t shelling towns, and where the Army showed up to protests, you saw soldiers & citizens behaving as if neither felt threatened by the other….

            An anti-American regime CANNOT be toppled peacefully, and thus you see the scenario that played out in Iran and Libya, and is playing out in Syria – since the leadership does not care if we in the USA approve of their actions, they are free to murder & destroy at will unless SOMEONE takes effective military action.

            If the US fails to be that someone, it opens up a spot for any of our enemies/rivals to swoop in and cement the support of the population, by saving them from their despotic regime.

            Al Queda was immensely weakened by the way AQI conducted themselves in the Iraq War, to the point where they largely lost the support of the common man in the Arab world…. Syria presents a chance for them to do some image re-hab by saving the ‘common man’ from Assad while America stands by and does nothing.

            This ‘chance’ does not exist in Saudi or Egypt, simply because the level of violence used by the Assad regime is absent – largely due to the fact that both countries do care about how the US sees them.

          • aesthete

            Bahrain’s government had soldiers fire live rounds into protesters to get them to back down. Yemen’s government has likewise been brutal in its crackdown during the Arab Spring.

            Mubarak was an anomoly — and given what he got for his mostly peaceful response (a trial and likely execution in the future), will likely not be emulated by the despots in the region.

            There is a certain extent to which “pro-American” despots are constrained, but it is not nearly as great as all that. Certainly, it’s a distinction that would be lost on the citizens in those countries who have legitimate claims of oppression. The state of affairs in Egypt vis a vis Islamists is not encouraging, despite the aforementioned “peaceful response” of “pro-American” Mubarak. If this is a branding and imaging battle, then it’s a race to the bottom between the US and Al Qaeda, neither of which is seen favorably in the Middle East.

          • JSobieski

            but I think you overestime the degree to which the Syrian people (or any other people of the MIddle East) are influenced by what America does or does not do.

            Elections in the Middle East inevitably result in suprise victories by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

            Don’t know if you recall a poll taken of Muslims in various middle eastern countries, but 84% of the Muslim population in Egypt supported the death penalty for apostates. 82% support stoning adulterers, while 61% are concerned about extremism and 59% prefer democracy. The numbers were worst in Egypt, but similar schizophronic everywhere else in the Muslim Middle East.

            The odds of replacing Assad with someone better in a long term scenario is highly doubtful so long as we are focused on having elections in the countries we are trying to help.

            Even in “secular” Turkey, 16% support stoning adulterors.
            .
            In such places populated by people with beliefs that inherently contrary to the idea of individual rights, the US is not well equipped in the long term to replace any kind of government with an effective western-style government.

            So while we have a chance to topple Assad (and it might be worth doing solely for the purpose of denying Iran a vassel state), I think the idea of trying to create something positive in Syria is no “opportunity” at all—it is an obstacle to be avoided.

            http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/egypts-conflicting-views-democracy-and-religion/110079

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/pew_poll_offers_insights_in_eg.html

            http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

          • Dave_A

            Is that I don’t have the slightest bit of concern over Muslim-majority states legislating Muslim morality.

            I don’t care what moral violations of their religion they want to criminalize, nor how they punish the same.

            In fact, I expect a democratic regime in the Middle East to have a code-of-law based on Islam, just like I expect and support my own government enacting laws based on Christianity.

            My concern, is who these nations ally themselves with, and how the power-politics game plays out in the region.

            We’re not trying to create a libertarian democracy, we’re using representative rule as a tool to ‘wedge’ states away from hostile powers and organizations. In fact, this ONLY works if we let them legislate morality as they see fit…

            Let them have the government they want, and there’s no angle for Iran or Al Queda to work.

            It may not be the sort of government Americans would live under, but they’re not Americans and we’re not trying to make them into us…

            We’re just trying to give them the freedom to govern their own nations as they wish, so they will stop supporting our enemies as a means of trying to acquire the same.

            The point where you can have an elected conservative Islamic government that does not support terror, is the point where we win.

          • aesthete

            between JSob and myself, and you:

            “Let them have the government they want, and there?s no angle for Iran or Al Queda to work.”

            This is not the case — violent non-state actors in the ME exist and perpetuate to a large degree because nationalism and ideology are not as great of factors in the ME as in other parts of the world. Nationalism and the other -isms are not as great of factors because the Enlightenment has not reached the Islamic world, to a large extent. The Enlightenment has not reached the Islamic world because it is a religion which wholly rejects (at least, in its orthodox iterations) the principles which undergird it.

            For all your pooh-poohing of libertarians not understanding social conservatism/”traditional values”, it seems to me that you don’t understand the importance or distinction between religions — the various religions are more of a label or brand to you, rather than overarching frameworks which inform people’s thoughts and actions, and demand certain actions of them. In the case of the ME, then forces of nationalism and political philosophy are far weaker and less unifying than extra-governmental institutions such as religion, family, tribe, etc. There is something more to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Iranian theocracy — particularly in the minds of the footsoldiers, but also among substantial portions of the leadership — beyond power politics as thought of in the Westphalian sense.

            The proof in the pudding is the thriving nature of repressive non-state actors in regions where we have provided the option of ostensibly acceptable governments which endorse democratically-sanctioned religious violence and domination through law (for that is what an imposition of Sharia is for those who resist): in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly the latter, but also the former), there currently exist many violent non-state actors which interact violently outside their own borders, the current example being AQI. AQI today is certainly larger than it was during Hussein’s reign — and is nowhere near the size that it was when we first offered the choice of democratic government to Iraqis. The current Iraqi government is pro-America only to the extent that it has to be, and is gravitating more and more towards the Iranian orbit. None of this would be the case if your assertion (“Let them have the government they want, and there?s no angle for Iran or Al Queda to work”) were true.

          • Dave_A

            I don’t see religions as ‘labels’, far from it…

            As a socially conservative Christian, I am well aware how much one’s religeon impacts the way they act. I also personally believe that Muslims have been misled to follow a false religeon, and that Christiantity is the one true way to salvation.

            As a veteran of the Iraq and Afghan theaters, I am well aware how family, tribe & religion-centric the people are… To the point where I’d say Iraq is best suited to being a provincial confederacy, and Afghanistan cannot be a real nation in the minds of it’s people any time soon.

            However, once you stop worrying about HOW the people rule, once they are allowed to rule, the need for an ‘Enlightenment’ goes away.

            I accept that the people of these nations do not want to live under Western-style classical liberal values. And I believe it’s their right to make that choice.

            However, I do not accept that this renders them incapable of self-government.

            I also do not accept that the US should ‘non-intervene’ simply because we can’t make them trade Mohammed for Thomas Jefferson.

            Rather, we should accept that an Arab democracy will govern itself in an Arab manner, and focus on the way the nation orients itself in the regional arena, rather than worrying about what they do and do not allow.

            I also recognize that this position is something a libertarian can’t really reconcile themselves with, simply because of your over-arching belief in universal natural rights – to someone like you, a democracy that still doesn’t respect liberty is no improvement over an authoritarian dictator.

            To me, the key ‘right’ is the right of self-government, to include the right of the majority to legislate morality. Thus, while I don’t agree with their religion or their brand of morality, I do not have a problem with toppling the despot running their country simply because I know they will govern according to said religion rather than according to the principles of modern western governance.

            My concerns are entirely about how it will impact the ‘game’ being played between the US, Iran, Queda, and Saudi.

          • aesthete

            of the functionality of your approach? I can accept that, in some Islamic countries, a stable — albeit illiberal — democratic equilibrium can be reached. What isn’t clear to me from past precedent is the following:

            1) That violent non-state actors which export terror will not be part of this equilibrium. Indeed, they may even be tacitly supported by the government of the country they operate in: see Venezuela, which (despite massive discrepancies) has a democratic component, a legitimate government — and substantial ties to, and interplay with, FARC.

            2) The notion that illiberal, democratic societies are particularly peaceful abroad, or sufficiently stable internally to justify their establishment as opposed to an illiberal autocracy. Experiences across the third world with democracy speak to the difficulty of maintaining democracies without some recognition of liberal principles.

            I do agree that I can’t accept a country . Frankly, I’m more bothered by

          • aesthete

            I didn’t finish my last paragraph at all; apologies. What I meant to say was that I don’t think it’s just libertarians who should be bothered by the gross human rights violations occurring in the Middle East (including Iraq and Afghanistan). There is plenty of reason to oppose the death penalty for apostates, stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, and the other gross violations that are rampant inmost Muslim-majority countries.

          • JSobieski

            lead to problems for us.

            First, as “democracies” they have PR cover.

            Second, just as internal American values impact external American foreign policy—the same is true for the ME.

            Giving people “freedom” to try and come back to kill us again is hardly a solution.

            Do you go out of your way to “give freedom” to someone who is as inclined to commit violence against you as anything else?

          • JSobieski

            This is the crux of our disagreement.

            Instead of conservative, lets go with “orthodox”?

            Or maybe we acknowledge that in virtually every ME election, the west is “surprised” that groups like Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. always do better than expected.

            What rational basis do you have to suggest that your statement is even possible? And by that I mean in the long term? or even medium term?

            Toomey had a much better chance to win in 2004 than an elected Islamist government has of not supporting terrorism.

            The best we can hope for is something like Saudi Arabia, where a certain percentage of their people and money (including people in government) are dedicated to killing us.

            Unleash elections and you get something far far worse. Unless there are at that point in time US marines guarding the election booths.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            was wrong to let the Shah fall, Obama was wrong to intentionally lost the Iraq War after it was won and we should have bombed Iran to smithereens many years ago…more later

          • aesthete

            Part of the motivation for the Sunni uprising was the election of these charmers — who, among other things, had close ties to (and openly modeled themselves after) the Iranian revolutionary government, dating back to the 80s. Admittedly, the Sunnis did themselves no favors by boycotting the election — but what does it say about Shiites in Iraq that the second their preferences were put to the vote, they voted in a bunch of Shia theocrats?

            The current trend in Iraqi politics is soft Shia majoritarianism — somewhat softer at the present than exists in Iran or which was elected into power in the 2005 elections, but by no means moderate. What will happen when the political movements which dominated during our occupation return to power without a US-led coalition to babysit Iraq and prevent such groups from establishing themselves more assertively and with the force they can bring to bear?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Arm both sides, put drones – and air force – over the countries and seal the borders and when the shooting stops, air drop more ammo.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            smile

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Relative to other Arab and Muslim governments, despite its flaws, it is quite distinguished from any other such governments. The trend is very bad thanks to Obama. Might it have been ultimately “bad” anyway? Very possibly.

          • aesthete

            Sunni + Shia + Kurdish Muslim extremists in the 2005 elections made up ~65% of the votes in the — and this is without taking into account the Sunnis who would have voted, but didn’t to wreak religious havoc on the country for another couple of years. The rest of the vote was mostly made up of Kurd nationalists of various stripes. The secular alternative netted IIRC ~8% of the vote. It is certainly the case that the extremist Shias unified and were a strong plurality (~45%) in that same election. This is better than the results of the Egyptian elections, perhaps (~70% Sunni extremists), and the 2010 election provided better results, but it is nowhere near as secular a result as we were led to believe by those who advocated OIF. I wonder what will happen if the same trend as in 2005 prevails in Iraq without us there on hand to babysit: after all, the Ayatollah in Iran didn’t have much more than a plurality when he gained power, either.

          • JSobieski

            US troops just left.

            Given the recent story about all those Americans holed up in the mega-embassy with disappointing little activity outside, I fear that it is a matter of time before folks cease to distinguish between Afghanistan and Iraq.

            Lets hope Iraq is the source of a true Arab spring… but I wouldn’t bet money on the proposition.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            tea

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    In Egypt and Libya have made sure every man, woman, and child in the Middle East and Northern Africa has at least 3 machine guns and that more women than ever have genital mutilation. What we did in Iraq was an excuse to remove over a trillion hard earned US taxpayer dollars, strangle our economy, kill and maim American soldiers, and facilitate the driving out or killing of Christians. Al Qaeda is not the problem. It doesn’t matter what the problem is. Our military is just a vehicle for diversity training, crony business deals and organized crime and everyone knows it. All anyone knows is that money must go out the door. The Middle East is now safer for radical Islam (or as the BBC says “conservative” Islam) and Africa is on its way to being the same. Samantha Power said a massive military force must be assembled in the region for the liberation of Palestine. It looks like she got her wish.

    • Dave_A

      First off, it’s not a holy war, it’s a war for political power. We aren’t there to ‘fight Muslims’ or ‘save Christians’, we’re there to remove anti-American regimes and promote regional stability.

      The two primary points of resistance to this, are Al Queda and Iran – both for secular reasons. Iran wants to be the #1 economic and military power in the Gulf. Al Qaeda wants to transform itself from stateless international movement to a pan-Arab government. Islam is just a tool to recruit foot-soldiers – nothing more, nothing less..

      AQ wants to become the government of every Sunni nation – which is why they immediately set up a ‘shadow government’ in Iraq & tried to force the Sunni population to accept becoming an emirate…. All the Sunnis wanted, really, was protection from the Shiites they had oppressed for so many years – hence the initial Saddamist insurgency (03-05)…. Queda pushed them too far, we used this to drive a wedge between them & the Sunni population, and that’s how we stabilized Iraq.

      As for having machine guns, so what? Really… It’s the 3rd world, law enforcement is non-existent at best in most areas, and if you lived there you’d have an AK or RPK in your house too (for those of you that don’t have one in the USA, anyway)… The problem for us, is the guys with RPGs, recoilless rifles, mortar tubes & 107mm Chinese rockets – weapons of offensive war, not personal defense…. Which is why we let them keep 1 AK per household in Iraq, and why we let the Afghans keep their Einfelds & shotguns…

      And finally, there’s your disgusting characterization that “Our military is just a vehicle for diversity training, crony business deals and organized crime and everyone knows it.”

      That’s a load of BULL, period… As a 7 year veteran of the US Army – both active & reserve components – your characterization is right out of Ron Paul/Code Pink propaganda. And I’m fairly confident that you’re probably a Paul/Rockwell anarchist, based on the complaining about ‘diversity training’ (something that the Army does about as often as any large organization – between 1 and 4 times a year, for 1 workday each time)….

      Do they let people crap on the services on this site & stay members? Somehow, I don’t think so….

      • snowshooze

        You have both types there…

      • bobguzzardi

        This is not a “holy war” but it may be a Clash of Civilizations.

        I found that most military vets have a much better appreciation of the the threat of Radical Islam.

  • realcountrymusic

    If they weren’t so obsessed with attacking birth control, which is not only a losing issue, but will cost the GOP female support for a generation if we keep it up. National security is the main issue for me. It’s why we elect presidents, and always has been, even more than the economy.

    Tell me what credibility either of the remaining three frontrunners on our side have on the issue of terrorism? None of them have had a single coherent thing to say about it.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      …who denigrate the vital social conservative population within the GOP for no clear reason. There’s a “libertarian party” out there that may be more in line with your views; perhaps you should cast your vote with them. It might help them climb all the way to 0.04% of the electorate!

      • Bill S

        .

        • jakeofalltrades
    • realcountrymusic

      I guess that’s why our “conservative” coalition is falling apart. Those of us who are libertarian-style Republicans (and I’m no Paulite, for foreign policy reasons alone) believe that “conservatism” extends to government telling us what to do in our private lives and with our own bodies. Rick Santorum and his wife can use no contraception if they like. If you think he can win a national election proposing that the entire United States of America become a birth-control-free zone, you are smoking the good stuff.

      • Dave_A

        What he is saying – not very well, but this is what he is actually saying – is that Griswald V CT and Roe V Wade are both abominations to the Constitution and should be overturned.

        This means that if a state’s people wanted to ban contraceptives or return to the ‘married couples only’ standard of CT in CT v Griswald, the state has the power to do so & the feds have no business being involved.

        It’s the legally correct position to hold.

        Now, he needs to acknowledge that no state would actually do this, so as to disarm the Democrat attack that he wants to ‘ban contraception’….

        But he is absolutely right, from a legal perspective.

        Griswald V CT, and the ‘Penumbra of the 14th’, are abjectly wrong.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        For all their grandstanding about freedom, they haven’t got a clue about property rights.

        • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

          Hint, realcountrymusic: it’s the folks whose names are in red.

        • aesthete

          Trolls are everywhere and always an internet phenomena, to paraphrase the opening of “A Monetary History”.

          Libertarians (classical liberals in general, really) certainly have more developed thoughts on private property and its use than conservatives.

          • Scope

            grow the Libertarian Party movement, rather than trying to influence the Republicans to see and accept things their way? Would I be far off to believe that your vote this year may in fact be for Gary Johnson? I’ve just read the Libertarian Party platform, and found much in that platform that seems to meld with many of your comments here.

          • aesthete

            the Libertarian party is insane and structurally incapable of delivering electoral results?

            You might as well ask why social conservatives haven’t abandoned the Republican party for the Constitution party.

            As for voting in Presidential elections, it’s really quite insignificant, especially in AZ. I certainly won’t be supporting anyone in the elections with my time or money: why would I waste my time with the Libertarian party, if I have no plans of wasting my time with the two major parties as pertains the Presidential elections?

          • JSobieski

            DeMint would say if that libertarians go their own way, both conservatives and libertarians will lose and we get permanent Obamacare and a Europeanized welfare state.

            As you yourself have pointed out, a lot of the tea party folks are somewhere between the two. Why split a powerful voting block.

            Besides, isn’t a 10th Amendment Conservative pretty hard to distinguish from a libertarian anyway?

          • Dave_A

            Is found in exactly the subject Santorum was discussing…

            ‘Should individual states be able to ban birth control?’ (or drugs, porn, booze, tobacco, anything without a federal Amendment protecting it (because I know if I don’t say that, someone will say ‘what about guns?’ – and the answer to that, is 2A vs no ‘right to keep & smoke weed’ in the Constitution))

            A 10A conservative will answer ‘Yes, if it makes it through the legislature or referendum process’

            A libertarian will answer ‘NO’.

            That’s your difference.

          • aesthete

            Ron Paul opposed the SC decision made in Lawrence v Texas, and agrees that states have the right to make their own laws about drugs.

          • JSobieski

            the difference is that at the state level, they may disagree as to what should be done.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Even according to you, they should know better.

          • aesthete

            I don’t know why an large and diverse movement should be held accountable for the actions of immature trolls, though.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Not unless something’s changed since yesterday.

          • aesthete
      • Bill S

        …do it in your own diary. Not here.

    • JSobieski

      To say that Santorum is attacking contraception is like accusing Ron Paul of attacking healthcare.

      Ron Paul doesn’t want the governemnt deciding how healthcare is provided, and Santorum doesn’t want the government forcing contraception policies on hospitals.

      What credibility do you have if you can’t distinguish between offense and defense?

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      of providing that free birth control, or the fact that it includes coverage of abortifacients doesn’t bother you much, but this diary isn’t about that. There are several others on that issue if you want to discuss it further.

  • johnt

    slaughter each other. Goes back hundreds of years in the religion of peace.
    Yet excuses and willful ignorance prevail in the precincts of leftism and leftist media. They have other targets, domestic, for whom they reserve their bile.

    • Dave_A

      War, and all manner of evil, is in our nature….

      If we like the life we have here, we have to be prepared to fight for it – preferably elsewhere in the world…

    • jamesm

      Many in the media and politicians spew this without reading.
      Read their book.

      • Dave_A

        Humanity, in and of our own devices, is incapable of any lasting form of peace.

        War, conflict & evil are in our nature – all of us, regardless of creed…

        Which is why you will see me advocate Americans remaining the world’s best in combat – because in the end, no amount of ocean & no amount of kind words/good intentions will override human nature.

        Until Christ returns & sets us all straight… It’s going to stay a brutal world out there, and the only way we’ll tame any of it, is to fight for that end…

        • johnt

          you know, red light stop, green light go, that sort of thing. Much as I appreciate your message of equality the fact is that there is nothing in the spectrum of humanity that is comparable to the 1400 hundred years of slaughter and mayhem of our muslim brothers[?]. The extent, the dedication, the hate, the need to conquer and kill, maim and torture is unmatched, I repeat, unmatched. They take the prize.
          Remember, distinctions, shades of, etc.

  • spinoneone

    which most Muslims consider to be a schism sect of Shi’ite Islam. The Alawiites are about 12% to 15% of the Syrian population. They came to power in a military coup in 1970 led by Hafez Assad. During the French Mandate [1920 - 1943] the Alawites held the area around the port of Latakia as an Alawite controlled, autonomous area. As Syria become more unified, the Alawites found that they could gain acceptance in the military and security services. The Sunni leaders of Damascus scorned the Alawites,but did not send their sons to be officers in the military. Big mistake. Religion defines one’s existence in Syria. The nation is about 74% Sunni, 3% Druze, 10% Christian, and 15% Alawite/Ismail Shi’ia/Twelver.

    Most of the “rebels” are Sunni who are trying to regain control of the country, which they lost in 1970. Are we smart enough to jump into the middle of a religiously inspired civil and land on the “winning” side? I wonder.

  • radicalrighty

    Al Qaeda is our ally now, not the enemy. If you don’t think so, read up on the Muslum Brotherhood’s relationship with the current White House, and their hatred of the West.

    The Muslum Brotherhood = Al Qaeda.

    • jamesm

      Hillary’s deputy chief of staff is Huma Abedin. Her mother and brother are reported to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a story the media should explore

      • Scope

        n/t

        • jamesm

          Apparently she has a “higher calling” . Weiner is Jewish and she is muslim. Hmmm. Never heard of a muslim woman marring a jewish guy.

          • radicalrighty

            Boy, the Muslum Brotherhoodmust be really busy with the Arab Winter to let that go . . .

      • bobguzzardi

        It is no secret that Huma Abedin is very close to Hillary Clinton and that Huma Abedin has very close ties to Saudi. This is public. Yet, there is little discussion about the implications of this conduit to a less than reliable ally.

  • Scope

    From this Israeli news site chemical weapons have been moved into the Homs area, and the Syrian military members are being given gas masks.

    Hmmm, I wonder if those were the chemical weapons moved out of Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq War?

  • chriser

    Is anyone else just a little bit suspicious about this revelation? I look forward to hearing more about the nature of the evidence (“. . . it remains unknown just how the U.S. government confirmed AQI?s involvement. ” ). Maybe I’m really missing something, but it just seems a bit odd that an ally (Assad) of one of the primary sponsors of terrorism in the world (Iran) is being targeted by one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. I suppose with these types of people the possibility of turning on your former supporters is always there or maybe the Iranians have decided that Assad if finished and their best bet for future influence is with AQI. It will be interesting to see what additional informaion comes out in the next few weeks.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I am amazed we have once again plunged headlong into alliances we have either ignored or hidden from the public.

    The main opposition fighting Assad for years has been Islamic extremists including, once again, offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. That includes groups such as Tali’a muqatila, et al who have now apparently become allies.

    For at least 20 years in Syria, one could be put to death for simply being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were never completely wiped out in Hama and now are currently represented in an alliance with Hamas. My guess is MB positioned itself to reenter Syria in a meaningful way, apparently now with our help. Should this stand, the idea that by driving Assad from Syria will have a meaningful positive impact in places such as Lebanon and Iran is fallacious.

    The inept bungling by this administration in the Middle East will have troubling implications for years to come. Their piecemeal attempt at trying to achieve quick tactical victories (such as Libya) without long-term strategy is more a cheap political trick than policy. I believe it is based on their abhorrence for what they termed “nation building” under the previous administration. But they have missed the point and in the process laid waste to our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq.

  • bobguzzardi

    Bashar Al-Assad is a serial mass murderer. The public record is undeniable.

    The Hariri indictment is still sealed because the UN is frozen.