Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks during an interview with French magazine Paris Match, in Damascus
Jack Murphy, Business Insider/SOFREP: Here's how US special-ops spies caught Assad letting jihadis pass through Syria to kill Americans
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US military, the regime of Bashir Assad gave de facto permission to foreign-fighter networks operating in Syria to cross into Iraq via a clandestine ratline.
There, they would kill and maim American soldiers. Such a move was hardly unprecedented; during the same timeframe, he allowed the Kurdish PKK safe transit through northern Syria as they moved in and out of Turkey, just as long as they did not conduct operations in Syria itself.
WNU Editor: And today .... those same Jihadists are at war with the man who permitted their entry into Iraq to wage war against the U.S. and its allies. I guess this is what happens when you dance with the devil.
3 comments:
Yes and the same for the americans with the talibans
Good God!
We did not create the Taliban.
The Pakistani ISI did circa 1994. The CIA had packed up 2 or 3 years before 1994. Was it wise? The CIA has a limited budget and like the military takes orders from civilians, who are more likely to be students of political campaigning than military history or statecraft.
The Soviets just about broke the back of the Mujaheddin by 1986. That is if you believe the author of "Charlie Wilson's War" and maybe others.
Would it have been wise knowing ahead of time there would be blowback? Anytime you ally with someone who is not 100% simpatico there will be blowback. No two countries are ever 100% simpatico. For example Britain which is as close of a country to the U.S. with perhaps Canada or Australia suffered a lot of blow back from allying with the U.S. First, all their scientific advances were shared with the U.S. It certainly made economic competition after WW2 different. Second, their preferential trade system with their colonies was broken. It may have broken anyway in 5 to 15 years. But having broken sooner it sure changed relative bank accounts.
The Soviets were in Afghanistan for multiple reason. It was more than spreading the revolution or hegemony. They had an interest in protecting Central Asia from Muslim radicalization coming form the south. If the Soviets had won and gone further to build naval bases in Pakistan, would the U.S. be worse off than by aiding the mujaheddin?
Before sticking it to the U.S. for aiding the mujaheddin, you have to do some what if analysis. But if feels much, much better not to do any what-ifs.
The U.s. was still reeling form the political induced debacle of Vietnam, If the Soviets were victories in Afghanistan, what would the world look like? Form 1974 to 1979 the soviet Union looked very strong. They had allies or clients in Ethiopia, Somalia, Angola, Mozambique, etc.
Planners worry about more than oil. They worry about metals that you alloy steel with for all these modern wonders. the situation in sub-Saharan Africa was very worrisome in that regard. Add Afghanistan onto the tends in Africa and the recent debacle in SE Asia, what do you have.
The Soviet Union may still have imploded, but a win Afghanistan might have given it a 2nd wind or kept it going for another 2 or 3 years. The body bags also hurt the Soviet ideal even though it was hushed up.
I was for paying Assad back. The U.S. certainly owes him regardless of how many teas and selfies Pelosi and other Democrats had with him around 2007.
About 2 years after the demonstrations and start of the civil war I changed my mind. You would not want to break a corrupt junta only for it to be replace by Al Qaeda, ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood.
America has no business going to war. If it pivots one way is criticized. If it pivots the other way it is criticized. Neither enough politicians or citizens pay enough attention. And IMHO many of those that do pay attention have such wretched view points that all they do is poison the well.
Post a Comment