Backing the Syrian rebels is clearly backing the wrong side, unless supporting terrorists is your goal
President Obama decides — again — to support the wrong side in a geopolitical question; let’s look at three stories I saw just in the last 24 hours about Syrian rebel atrocities to show how depraved and opposed to Western liberal ideas like freedom and human rights that side really is.
- U.S.-backed Syrian rebels reportedly massacre Christian village
- Syria rebels ‘beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs’ as fears grow over Islamist atrocities
- Syrian ‘cannibal’ rebel explains his actions
Even worse, the word ‘rebels’ is vague and misleading because "nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of." - in other words, the ‘Syrian rebels’ are Al-Qaeda-backed terrorist militias that murder and pillage their way through the country, killing everybody who speaks poorly of them, including a 14-year-old boy who was killed for “insulting Islam”, But they didn’t just kill him, they executed him in front of a large group of people including his parents:
The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta’s parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy’s head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck.
But President Obama sides with these brutal savages for some unknown and unfathomable reason. Somehow, these are sympathetic figures in his world view. How an American president comes to that conclusion is a mystery for the ages. I can think of a few explanations, none of them good.
Yes, atrocities happen in every war, and the moral lines are not always clear, and sometimes you have to hold your nose and support a particular side anyway. I get that.
While the Assad regime is surely guilty of many atrocities, as all Middle Eastern dictators are — it comes with the territory, quite literally — it is surely not in our best interests, or in the interests of freedom in general, to sow chaos and to arm and empower ‘rebels’ who practice barbarity at every opportunity. Imagine these thugs in control of the Syrian military and police force - does anybody suppose they would be less barbarous than today? Of course not. The ‘rebels’ represent exactly the kind of regressive, power-based, anti-Western, anti-freedom culture that Bush launched TWO wars to stop or at least slow down.
Obama, by supporting this side, commits several very large errors. He tells the world that we are bipolar, lurching first in one direction and then the next, and therefore ultimately not to be trusted from one war to the next, or from one decade to the next. We spilled a lot of blood in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly to stand against tyrannical governments that subjugate their people and support Wahhabism and Al-Qaeda-branded terrorism in general by looking the other way to protect themselves. Thousands of our good young men and women died in support of this cause. Now comes Obama to survey this landscape and decide to completely undo any and all progress the region has made - and let’s be honest, there has been some progress - by backing the bigger and more backward thugs. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Obama is right much less often than that.
And so we’re back where we started. All because Obama consistently picks the wrong side in every geopolitical struggle. Call me crazy, but I like American presidents to view the world from an American, pro-freedom perspective. Obama consistently does not do this. He picks the wrong side every time.
Then there is this: we tried arming rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980s in their war against the Soviets - and so they defeated them with our Stinger missiles and then turned into the Taliban and welcomed Osama bin Laden with open arms, and provided funding and sympathy to Al-Qaeda, resulting in 9/11 and our subsequent invasion which has had mixed results at best. Please explain to me how this could end up better for not just us, but for the people of Syria. These thugs kill others for daring to criticize them. Why on Earth would the U.S. support them?
Yes Syria is a mess and so is the entire Middle East, along with much of Asia and Africa and most of the rest of the world. Yes the Assad regime is not great. How does arming and supporting Al-Qaeda-based ‘rebels’ improve anything? What is the strategic goal here?
But somehow Obama looks at all this and still thinks, yes, let’s support these ‘rebels’. Let’s hear our president go ahead and argue that this side is the right one to support vs. the Assad regime. For all these reasons and more, this requires a major speech on national television to define just what in the hell we are doing in Syria and how this is not a giant mistake that we should have learned to avoid by now.
Have at it. I can’t wait to hear this.