Monday, June 24, 2013

Whom Does the US Support in Syria?

As the US, without showing any proof, assures the world that we have evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons*(At bottom), we continually get reminded about what the mindset of the other side (See above).

-But what the other guys are doing are of no concern to the Obama administration.

The rebel forces appear to be overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim (The guys that we were always told were the nice Muslims - Shiites being the supposed bad ones), but the argument can be made that the government has a broader type of coalition:

"The new-found efficiency of Mr Assad’s men may owe a lot to his Iranian advisers. Armoured units of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and other regular troops fought alongside Syria’s recently formed National Defence Force, welded together from so-called “popular committees” of pro-regime paramilitary shabiha and trained by Iran’s elite Quds Force. As well as about 6,000 regime soldiers, some 2,000 fighters from Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shia party-cum-militia that is sponsored by Iran, were thrown into the battle.

For all the West’s attempts to create diplomatic momentum before the planned peace conference in Geneva, incentives for Mr Assad to compromise may diminish thanks to events on the battlefield. After the fall of Qusayr he may believe still more strongly that he can hold out and perhaps even vanquish the revolt. State media hailed the fall of the town as the first step in the reconquest of rebel-held territory. “The solution is the army, not dialogue,” said Dareen Nusra, a housewife in Damascus....."

The pro-government forces, although not the nicest guys themselves, at least seem to be somewhat representative of the different religious and ethnic groups of that nation. Alawites, Druze, and Shiiites have more than enough to fear from full-blown Sunni rule - the plague of Shiite mosque bombings in post-war Iraq leave no room for doubt there, and Christians had a least a measure of protection prior to the launching of of the  Syrian theater of the Arab Spring. Sunni Muslims who fear being unable to live as moderates in a Islamist-run state also have no desire for seeing the rebels win this war.

So the US, being beacon of freedom and a supporter of the rights of peoples to live free and in the manner of their choosing, should be rooting for the side with the broader representation, right?

As I noted in earlier posts, the US and the EU can't both be as foolish as to sincerely believe that the Near and Middle East would be a better place if autocratic regimes were run out of town, and they certainly can't be of the impression that the West will benefit from this move.

Let's hear what General Wesley Clark had to say about the intentions of US leaders that go back to the G.W. Bush administration:

".....we're gonna take out seven countries in five years"

For what?

Western democracies can no longer be described as being moved by "unseen forces". What the US and the EU are doing is the same thing that it occurring in Western Europe itself; the turning over of large potions of the world to a socio-political religion that by its very nature knows nothing of political boundaries. EU nations have imported vast amounts of Muslim immigrants, who will almost to a one identify themselves by their religion and not as Dutch or Swedish. In my wildest dreams, I could not imagine more than 1% of them having any problem with the final dissolution of what it left of national sovereignty in European countries. In the US, we are doing the same by preparing to make 11 million-plus illegal aliens (Who also have little real affection for what the US is) into ready-made Democrats. Nation-states in the Near and Middle East have been targeted for destruction; a new mega-battleground in which the Muslims Brotherhood and other Islamist groups will jockey for position in creating a new Caliphate. 

A restored Caliphate, or a strong confederacy of Islamic regions with not national boundaries, is exactly what the Left would want - an example that should be followed by all regions in the world. If they can't get one-world government, they will back the closest thing to it. Europe under full rule of the EU, the US at best a member of  a North American union, a Sino-led Greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and so on.

If Syria does fall (Though it is looking better for Syria now that it was last year), a country that has its own real, ancient, and pre-Arabic history will have gone down the tubes (Aside from 1,400 years of an Arab presence, Syrians are not even technically Arabs). Cultures that date back far before the Christian era will be submerged until they are but the smallest remnants, lost in a sea of stagnating Islam.

At this point, it looks as if only the US and the EU can give the rebels the grease that they need to win. Let's hope that a more assertive Russia uses her influence to keep that from happening.

No comments:

Post a Comment