Tag Archives: terrorism

5 Reasons America Should Not Fight Iran, Russia and Assad in Syria, by Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky

This is a hard-headed and strategic analysis of political, military, and economic reasons why the US should not wade further into the Syrian morass, and in fact should start pulling away from it. From David Miller and Richard Sokolsky at strategic-culture.org:

The idea du jour circulating inside the Trump administration and among terrorism experts and Syria watchers alike is that ISIS cannot be destroyed in Syria unless Bashar al-Assad is removed from power and Iran’s presence and influence are drastically curtailed. And in a perfect world, this indeed would be the best possible outcome to prevent ISIS and other jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda, from ensconcing themselves there. But needless to say, the Middle East isn’t a perfect world. U.S. retaliation against another chemical-weapons attacks, as the White House threatened late Monday, would be both necessary and justified. (Assad and his military would “pay a heavy price,” the statementread.) But pursuing an ambitious mission against Iran, Assad and the Russians in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary to protect vital American security interests. Here are five compelling reasons why.

The United States Can’t Eradicate ISIS in Syria

In his inaugural address, President Trump spoke about eradicating radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth. It cannot be done. Syria alone will remain an incubator for jihadists and Salafists of all stripes due to a toxic brew of poor governance, bleak economic opportunities, sectarian hatreds and beleaguered Sunni communities. And its ideology and propaganda will still be able to feed on the resentments and sense of victimhood and grievance among the Sunni population. Those who argue for a more assertive policy in Syria are right that, unless these problems are addressed, ISIS and other jihadi groups will continue to thrive even without the caliphal proto-state. But even the most risk inclined in the Trump administration cannot envision that kind of U.S. commitment in Syria, which would entail the United States and its allies committing thousands of troops and billions of dollars to militarily defeat all of their adversaries in Syria and to occupy, stabilize and reconstruct the country. Indeed, the president himself has strongly argued against nation building. Containing jihadists is realistic; ridding them from Syria is a pipe dream.
Advertisements

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria, by Gareth Porter

The real US goal in Syria has never been to fight Islamic extremists, it has been to depose Bashar al-Assad. In furtherance of that goal, rather than fight the extremists, the US has armed them. From Gareth Porter at americanconservative.com:

Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.

Gabbard’s “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.

That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.

The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy’s history.  The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the heart of the Middle East.  

The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies—Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar—to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels, according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.

To continue reading: How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

The Iranian Question (and the Same Old Saudi Answers), by JP Sottile

It’s no contest: Saudi Arabia is far more of a state sponsor of terrorism than Iran. From J.P. Settle at antiwar.com:

When was the last time you heard of an Iranian running down people on a London bridge? Or stabbing Parisians? Or attacking Canadians? Or murdering American club-goers?

What was the last terrorist plot you can recall being “inspired” by Iran or by an Iranian proxy or by Shia Islam? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian? How much money have Iranians given Al-Qaeda? Or ISIS?

Now ask yourself why US officials and politicians and the news media reflexively label Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”? Is it just because of Hamas (contained in Gaza) and Hezbollah (rooted in Lebanon)? Is that enough to make Iran, which isn’t Salafist or Wahhabi or even Sunni, such a perennial target? Why isn’t Saudi Arabia also demonized for its behaviors and for its funding and for actively exporting a peculiar Islamic sect’s specific religious ideology to those who often end up “inspired” to commit the terrorism against which we are fighting a seemingly endless war?

And how it is that everything we hear said about “The Mullahs” of Iran is actually true of the Saudis, but the Saudis get baskets filled with carrots … while Iran is repeatedly threatened with sticks?

Of course, there is the issue of Iraq and the fact that Iran has actively supported the Shiites in its neighbor. But it wasn’t Iran that invaded Iraq under false pretenses. It sure seems pretty rich to criticize Iran for trying to solidify its allies next door, particularly given America’s bloodstained support for Saddam Hussein and the growing encirclement of Iran with US bases. Was their support for Shia militias “terrorism” or really just a sound strategy in a war that threatened them? What would the US do if Iran invaded Mexico to stop a mythical WMD program?

So, is it Iran’s fault that the US completely effed-up the Middle East by wantonly destroying a bystander nation? They didn’t create ISIS … or the conditions that made ISIS possible. That rare honor goes to the United States, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

To continue reading: The Iranian Question (and the Same Old Saudi Answers)

All We Need is Love…And Deportations, by Ann Coulter

To fight terrorism, a government has to prevent terrorists from entering the country, and it has to deport known terrorists. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be, “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”

After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”

What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.

Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)

Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.

Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.

Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.

In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, these are people who have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.

To continue reading: All We Need is Love…And Deportations

 

Operation Temperer – U.K. Will Likely Institute Martial Law Measures Within A Year, by Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith may be wrong about the U.K. instituting martial law that everyone will recognize as such within a year. However, he’s right about the way martial law is usually instituted via incremental steps, and that process has already begun in both the U.K. and U.S. By the time everyone recognizes what has occured, it will be far too late to do anything about it. From Smith at alt-market.com:

After the Manchester suicide bombing only two weeks ago I warned my readers that the repetition of terror attacks is breeding complacency within the public, in Europe most acutely. It is not uncommon now for attacks killing dozens to be forgotten within a week of the event. The news feeds are awash in distraction, and of course, sometimes these events themselves act as distractions.

In a recent newscast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, BBC anchor Katty Kay stated:

Europe is getting used to attacks like this, Mika. They have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out…”

To me, this attitude is rather indicative of the European victim-culture mindset. Many in Europe (not all, but many) seem to enjoy a steady routine of self-flagellation. Countless centuries of the feudal serf system will do that to a society. The British still pay taxes to maintain a royal family, after all. I also think that the results of the Brexit vote in the UK might mislead those of us in America into thinking that the the British are turning over a new leaf in terms of liberty and conservative-like values. While I do think there is a fierce underlying drive to protect sovereignty of the British nation, the British individual has all but abandoned any hope of their own personal sovereignty and self determination.

 

Trump’s Middle East Foreign Policy is a Disaster Waiting to Happen, by Michael Krieger

Lie down with venomous serpents and you may never get up. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

Today’s post will focus on Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, a revolting spectacle which I could barely bring myself to follow. It all started Saturday morning as I tried to enjoy a beautiful day with my growing family and parents who were in town for a visit. My day was more or less ruined upon witnessing the appalling scene of Trump and his top advisors dancing with the rulers of the terrorist sponsoring state of Saudi Arabia while clutching swords. I’m sorry for doing this to you, but in case you missed it…

– From last month’s piece: America Has Become a Total Joke

The main thing we learned from Trump’s grotesque, orb clutching spectacle of a visit to the 9/11-funding absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia, was that our demented President essentially green-lighted the Saudis to do whatever the heck they want in the Middle East. Considering Saudi Arabia is effectively being run by a 30-something princeling with sociopathic tendencies, absolutely nothing good can come of this. While Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East was an unmitigated humanitarian and geopolitical disaster, it appears Trump’s doing his best to one up his predecessor.

Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous entity in the Middle East, and the writing’s been on the wall for a long time. In fact, German intelligence warned about it back in 2015. As The Telegraph reported:

Saudi Arabia is at risk of becoming a major destabilizing influence in the Arab world, German intelligence has warned. 

Internal power struggles and the desire to emerge as the leading Arab power threaten to make the key Western ally a source of instability, according to the BND intelligence service. 

“The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy,” a BND memo widely distributed to the German press reads. 

Saudi Arabia has previously been accused of supplying arms and funding to jihadist groups fighting in Syria, including Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

To continue reading: Trump’s Middle East Foreign Policy is a Disaster Waiting to Happen

Beyond ‘Blowback’: Islam and Terror, by Justin Raimondo

Islamic terrorism is in part retribution, but it is also in part a strain of the Islamic religion, argues Justin Raimondo. From Raimondo at antiwar.com:

The latest attack in London – the third to hit Britain within seventy-five days – is once again provoking a debate about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. On one side we have those who say Islam is inherently violent, and is incompatible with the basic canons of Western civilization. On the other side, we have liberals who say that this is a libel on an entire religion, and that advocates of religious violence are a distinct minority within the Muslim faith.

These two views have distinct policy implications: the former would impose what amounts to a Muslim ban on travel to Western countries, and would furthermore mandate State surveillance of mosques and other religious institutions of that faith. The latter stance would oppose these measures, and proceed as if Muslims posed the same danger to us as, say, Presbyterians, i.e. none at all.

Both views are simplistic nonsense. Furthermore, neither offers an effective policy to deal with the problem as defined.

The origins of Islamic terrorism are not in dispute: the idea that “they hate us because we’re free,” i.e. because of our secular values and Western lifestyle, was not even worth considering, at least initially. After all, Japan, for example, which is not exactly an exemplar of Islamic values, has never been attacked by Islamic extremists. South America has proved similarly immune. The focus of the Islamists’ wrath has been on the United States and Western Europe – not coincidentally, those countries which have a long history of intervention in the Muslim world.

Which brings us to the theory of “blowback,” the idea that the root cause of radical Islamic terrorism is simple retaliation. Here the writings of Chalmers Johnson, whose book, entitled Blowback; The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, was published before 9/11, and also of Robert Pape, who has done yeomen’s work on this issue, are very useful. Johnson put the concept in its historical context, and Pape shows, with extensive detailed evidence, that occupied peoples routinely adopt such tactics as suicide bombings to fight the overwhelming presence of occupiers. And this is not limited to Islamists, by any means: the Tamil Tigers, fighting for the “liberation” of Sri Lanka, for example, employed these same tactics.

To continue reading: Beyond ‘Blowback’: Islam and Terror