White House Cites Threat To Israel In Explaining Decision Not To Arm Syria’s Rebels -- McClatchy News
WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday defended its decision not to endorse a CIA plan to arm the Syrian rebels, saying it was worried that U.S. weapons could “fall into the wrong hands” and worsen the situation in the civil war-torn country.
In his remarks, Press Secretary Jay Carney specifically mentioned danger to “our ally Israel” as one of the reasons President Barack Obama rejected providing lethal aid to rebels fighting to topple the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“We don’t want any weapons to fall into the wrong hands and potentially further endanger the Syrian people, our ally Israel or the United States," Carney said. “We also need to make sure that any support we are providing makes a difference in pressuring Assad.”
Read more ....
My Comment: The rebels in Syria are getting arms from other sources, and as a result U.S. influence over the Syrian rebel movement is becoming less important with time. The ones who are becoming important in the Syrian rebel movement are the Gulf Arabs who have shown no hesitancy in supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels .... and they will be the ones who will be able to influence the new Syrian government when Assad is gone.
As to the White House's explanation that the reason why the U.S. is not supplying weapons to the rebels is that they may one day be used against Israel .... no one is buying that. The rebels want guns, bullets, and the means to knock out tanks .... they do not want weapons that would threaten Israel like F-16s, advanced weaponry, and missiles. And while I do understand why the White House wants to keep a low profile in the conflict because of Russia's insistence that the U.S. should stay out, in the eyes of the rebels we are becoming complicit in supporting Assad by not supporting them.
2 comments:
Americans must have a short memory...
Look at the history of cases where the CIA have armed rebels, particularly Afghanistan in the 1980's, when the CIA spent millions arming the rebels. How did that turn out?
Look at Libya. Do you think they are in open arms and thankful for the help towards NATO? I'm sure their all hugs an kisses over there...
Look at Iraq, and what it is turning into.
Yes, it be great to have the power of hindsight. But unfortunately, what one can only do is look at the past and analyse the mistakes that have been made, and prevent from making those same mistakes again.
It is foolish to assume that the rebels will suddenly become more favourable towards the US or anyone else for the sake of arms. They seem to operate on a short memory once they get into power.
Nor do I believe they will harbour a deep grudge to those who don't supply them arms. That grudge may already have been there long before the conflict broke out. That grudge may already be there as a result of extremist views. What's the sense of arming them now?
I believe their sufficiently armed enough, from weapons they've looted to weapons they've gained from other sources.
Arming them now is pointless, and arming them for the sake of saying, "Hey, look! We're your friends, here's some guns," isn't going to forge a bond with them.
Thank you D. Plowman for your comment.
What's my take on your comment .... you will have no disagreement from me.
Post a Comment