Trump Ends Obama Era Program to Arm Syrian Rebels

In a rare positive foreign policy move, the Trump Administration is reportedly ending the CIA policy of training, funding, and arming “moderate” Islamic groups in Syria. The policy, instituted by the Obama Administration in 2013, has been used to arm rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war and by extension, against Russia in the deep state’s proxy war in Syria.

Just who are these “moderate” anti-Assad rebels fighting for peace in the middle east? None other than ISIS and al-Qaeda, of course. It should be painfully obvious that such a covert policy is destructive and counter-productive to the goal of lasting peace in the middle east.

Not to mention, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have a terrible track record when it comes to picking the lesser of two foreign evils; decades of policies that have led to blowback, death, destruction, and endless war across the globe. One only has to remember that the CIA armed, trained, and funded Osama bin Laden and other Mujahedeen “moderates” during Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1980’s. The Mujahedeen, which became Al-Qaeda, responded by attempting to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people in the process, then by carrying out the 9/11 attacks less than a decade later.

This isn’t the first attempt to end the controversial policy. Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” in the Senate and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced similar legislation in the House.

Though the move is clearly a step in the right direction i.e. a cease-fire in Syria, not everyone views the move so positively. Take the Washington Post’s first sentence in their take on the story:

“President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.”

Even a move towards a cease-fire in Syria must be told in the light of their desperate need to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Does Russia favor the U.S. ending a covert program that ultimately saves Russian lives? Obviously. But why wouldn’t the U.S also favor ending the program? The U.S. is purposefully arming terrorists to fight a proxy war against Russia in Syria. Without this program, the civil war there may have ended months or years ago, saving tens of thousands of lives.

There are many issues to be critical of regarding Trump’s foreign policy, this is not one of them.

Tucker Carlson Eviscerates Neocon Warmonger in Primetime

Fox News host Tucker Carlson absolutely demolishes neoconservative foreign policy advisor Max Boot in this 10 minute interview. In addition to calling out Boot for being “consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade”, he questions his career choice, asking him whether he’d be better at “selling insurance or housepainting”.

Though it may seem a bit sophomoric, this is exactly the type of derision and mockery the interventionist neoconservative foreign policy deserves. Their policy of regime change in the middle east and elsewhere has failed miserably and spectacularly. It has caused millions of deaths, the proliferation of Islamic terrorism, and the destabilization of the entire region.

 

Memorial Day

ronpaulpatriotism

Today is Memorial Day in America. Memorial Day began as Decoration Day in 1868 by a union army veterans group to honor union army vets that died in the civil war. In 1967 Memorial Day was made a federal holiday and had informally switched from honoring only those who died in the civil war to honoring American veterans who died in all American wars.

Libertarian anarchy is explicitly an anti-war political philosophy. This is because libertarian anarchy is an explicitly anti-aggression philosophy. The same Non-Aggression Principle that governs the behavior of individuals also applies to nation-states. Combined with a non-interventionist foreign policy and radical laissez-fair economics, libertarian anarchy can be seen as having an attitude of live and let live pacifism. Nothing could be further from the truth. While there are undoubtedly some anarchists who consider themselves pacifist, the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists wouldn’t hesitate to use violence in the case of self-defense. This extends to defense of country.

It’s unfortunate that being anti-war is seen as anti-American in our modern-day political culture. Maybe it’s more unfortunate that in order to qualify as a patriotic American today you must support all of the empire’s wars of aggression without question.

It isn’t unpatriotic to say that spending trillions of dollars, while selling our grandchildren into debt slavery, to prosecute wars in the middle east has made us less safe as a country.

It isn’t unpatriotic to say that actively supporting, funding, and arming rebel groups in Syria and elsewhere (the same groups that perpetrated 9/11, by the way) is a bad idea.

And it isn’t unpatriotic to say that dropping tens of thousands of bombs and killing tens of thousands of civilians across the middle east probably isn’t the best way to win the hearts and minds of the people. And that maybe, just maybe, the alarming rise in Islamic terrorism is, at least in part, blowback from the decades of intervention in the region.

The best way to honor fallen veterans isn’t to wrap yourself in the flag, it’s to start questioning the policies that have created so many of them in the first place.

US Launches Missiles at Syria over Suspected Chemical Weapons Attack

Yesterday, President Trump authorized a U.S. Military strike on an air base in Syria, over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected chemical weapons attack that killed over 100 people earlier this week.

Early reports of casualties range between seven and nine, with injuries to at least nine more. Per the Guardian:

A Syrian official told the Associated Press that at least seven were killed and nine were wounded in a US missile attack on the airbase. Reuters reported that the Syrian state news agency said the strikes killed nine civilians, including four children, in areas near the targeted airbase. The death toll has not been independently verified.

There is some controversy over the chemical weapons attack to occurred in the province of Idlib on April 4th. It is known fact that the Syrian government is not in possession of chemical weapons, after giving them up in 2014. In the meantime, there has been zero evidence that Assad’s military has acquired new chemical weapons. We do know, though, that rebel ISIS and al-Qaeda forces in Syria and Iraq have chemical weapons stockpiles because they have used them dozens of times, killing hundreds, since 2014.

So who is responsible for this recent attack? Is it Assad or the ISIS rebels? In matters like these it’s helpful to stay emotion free and follow evidence and logic to see who benefits.

It is well-known and widely reported that the Syrian civil war was almost over. In recent months, Syrian forces had taken back key cities and territories and was closing in on ISIS in both Mosul and Raqqa, which is essentially the ISIS caliphate’s territorial capital. So why would Assad gas his own people now, which he knows will turn the entire world against him, when he’s so close to winning the war? On its face, it makes no sense.

As noted above, though, ISIS does have chemical weapons and has proven they have zero qualms about using them. Why is it so hard to believe then that ISIS would perpetrate this attack in order to bait the U.S. into bombing Assad and turning the tide of war in their favor? False flag events are not uncommon.

Even if one doesn’t buy into the possibility of the chemical attack as a ISIS perpetrated false flag event, why assume Assad did it? If we use Occam’s Razor, where the simplest explanation is generally the most plausible, the Russian’s may have the answer. Kremlin sources claim that a Syrian airstrike hit a weapons silo where ISIS rebels were building bombs loaded with chemical weapons destined for fighters in Iraq. It was in these strike that the chemical weapons were released into the surrounding area.

If that’s true, and it seems a likely scenario, then why attack Assad? Why risk indefinitely prolonging an already waning civil war, killing thousands more, including the potential for American troops, unless the goal all along was to remove Assad and institute a more western friendly puppet?  One only has to look to Iraq or Libya to see how well that policy has worked out.

Only time will tell if Trump succumbs to the pressure of the domestic neoconservatives, deep state establishment, and an Israel that are all hell-bent on taking down Assad in Syria. Trump campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy and a desire to avoid the mistakes of Iraq and Libya’s regime change, but the sad fact is that drone strikes are up over 400% since Trump took office.  This latest foray into war doesn’t bode well for those of us who wish to not see the beginning of World War III.

John McCain and Rand Paul Clash Over NATO

Last Wednesday, Arizona Senator John McCain (R-AZ) slammed his Republican colleague, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) for not only “achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin”, but directly “working for” the Russian President.  That’s a pretty serious charge to level against a United States Senator. The actual story, though, is much less controversial and really shows the level of petulance and lifelong war mongering of John McCain.

First for some background. To say that the history between the two senators is rocky would be an understatement. In 2013, McCain took shots at Paul over his filibuster of the nomination of CIA director John Brennan. Sen. Paul was critical of the idea that the then Obama Administration would be able to use drone strikes to murder American citizens on American soil. Also in 2013, as Sen. Paul was preparing to run for the Republican Presidential nomination, McCain said that if the 2016 Presidential race was between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, he’d have a hard time making up his mind. Senator Paul shot back at McCain, calling him “stale and moss covered”.

The fact is that the men have radically different views on foreign policy matters. Rand Paul, much like his father Ron, is a non-interventionist. This means he is skeptical of interference into the external affairs of other sovereign states, especially military interference. Non-interventionists prefer to use diplomacy and avoid any wars that are not explicitly in self-defense. Fundamentally, non-interventionism is the Non-Aggression Principle applied to sovereign states.

John McCain, on the other hand, is a warmonger, more commonly called a defense hawk, who has never met a war he didn’t like. In 2003, McCain slammed then President George W. Bush for not committing enough troops to Iraq. Per Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute, McCain “has also advocated hardline policies toward Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and has even staked out confrontational positions toward such major powers as China and Russia. The evidence suggests that a McCain administration would be even more reckless and aggressive than the current [George W. Bush] one.” And just in case you’ve lost track of all the countries that McCain wants to bomb, here’s a handy map.

Fast forward to last week. This current dustup between the two senators occurred over a resolution put forth by McCain to expand the NATO alliance to include the former Yugoslav republic of Montenegro. For a country to be added to NATO, the senate needs a unanimous vote. When the voting started, Sen. Paul walked into the chamber, voted no, and promptly left.

McCain wasted no time in attacking Sen. Paul and, without proof of any kind, claimed he was ‘working for Vladimir Putin”. To McCain, because Paul left after objecting to the inclusion of Montenegro he had zero valid reasons for his opposition.

This is clearly not the case as Paul explained in a later statement, “Currently, the United States has troops in dozens of countries and is actively fighting in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen (with the occasional drone strike in Pakistan). In addition, the United States is pledged to defend 28 countries in NATO. It is unwise to expand the monetary and military obligations of the United States given the burden of our $20 trillion debt.”

It’s obvious that this kind of logical thinking is too much for McCain to handle. It seems that no price is too high to pay for escalating aggressions with Russia.

It didn’t take long for Sen. Paul to strike back, saying, “We’re lucky John McCain is not in charge” and that what McCain says should be taken with a “grain of salt” because “John McCain’s the guy who’s advocated for war everywhere.”

Senator Paul will get no arguments from us there.