Last week the House passed yet
another bill placing sanctions on Iran and Syria, bringing us closer to
another war in the Middle East. We are told that ever harsher sanctions
finally will force the targeted nations to bend to our will. Yet the
ineffectiveness of previous sanctions teaches us nothing; in truth sanctions
lead to war more than they prevent war.
Until last year, Libyan
sanctions were touted as a great success story. The regime would change its
behavior. Yet NATO bombed the country anyway.
Last week we learned that
President Obama signed an intelligence "finding" directing the CIA
to covertly assist rebels in Syria. The administration seems determined to
fight yet another war in Syria that has nothing to do with American national
interests.
We already know that a similar
"finding" was signed under the latest Bush administration directing
US intelligence to undermine the Iranian government and promote regime change
there. Neoconservatives have long demanded that we overthrow the Syrian
government before moving on to war against Iran. This bellicosity continues
regardless of which party is in the White House.
In Syria we see once again we
see how our interventionist policies backfire and make us less secure. Recent
news reports point to ties between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaeda (and
other extremist groups). A recent article in the Guardian, a British
newspaper, exclaimed that, "Al-Qaida turns tide for rebels in battle for
eastern Syria." The article quotes an al-Qaeda leader in Syria saying
that he meets with the main US-backed Syrian rebel organization, the Free
Syrian Army, "almost every day." So by promoting civil war in Syria
we end up fueling al-Qaeda.
According to another recent
press report, German intelligence services estimate that nearly 100 terrorist
attacks have been committed by al-Qaeda or related organizations in Syria
over the past six months. Last month a suicide bomber in Syria killed a
defense minister and several top government officials. The US government,
which has been fighting a "War on Terror" for more than a decade
now, refused to condemn that act of terrorism.
This raises the question of
whether the US administration is supporting the same people in Syria that we
have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton expressed these same concerns earlier this year when asked whether
the US has been reluctant to arm the Syrian rebels. She answered, "To
whom are you delivering them? We know al-Qaida. Zawahiri is supporting the
opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaida in Syria?"
That is a very good question.
It clearly demonstrates that the United States has no business at all being
involved in the Syrian civil war. In the 1980s we supported a resistance
movement in Afghanistan that later gave birth to elements of al-Qaeda and the
Taliban. When will we learn our lesson and stop intervening in conflicts we
don't truly understand, conflicts that have nothing to do with American
national interests?
