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.

Advertisements

Collapse of the Anti-war Left: Dems turn on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

What do you call a U.S. Representative that’s skeptical of American military interventions, traveled to Syria to speak directly with the Assad administration about their civil war, and has the audacity to ask for some proof of Assad’s alleged gas attack before launching bombs at Damascus? Well, if you’re Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), you get called a Trump apologist that should be ousted from Congress.

This is just the latest in a line of events signalling the total collapse of the antiwar left that started under President Obama’s murderous reign and is finding its hastening under a now warmongering President Trump.

Per The Hill:

Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, both took to Twitter to bash Gabbard for what they see as a shameful defense of Bashar Assad, the Syrian president long accused of brutal attacks on his own people in the country’s ongoing civil war.

Dean said in tweets that Gabbard “sounds like Trump making excuses” and that she “shouldn’t be in Congress.” Tanden, on the other hand, called on the people of Hawaii’s 2nd District to oust Gabbard for “meeting with a murderous dictator.”

There was a time, not long ago, when one could rely on the left to be antiwar. After all it was the left, with libertarians, that put up any opposition to the Bush administration’s lies in the run up to the Iraq war in 2003 and it was only the left and libertarians that held the administration accountable during the war.

That all changed once Obama took control of the war machine.

Even though Obama campaigned as an antiwar candidate and was bolstered by a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office, he left the oval office with the dubious distinction of having been the only U.S. President to be at war for every single day of his two terms. Obama escalated the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in his first term; and proceeded to indiscriminately bomb Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Syria in his second term.

At no point during Obama’s two terms was there any meaningful antiwar opposition from the left. In fact, the left all but abandoned the antiwar movement under Obama. Even when Obama sought congressional approval to enter Syria in 2013, it wasn’t Democrats that stopped him, it was the Republican led House of Representatives.

Under a President Trump, I fully anticipated the antiwar left to return with a vengeance. Needless to say, it hasn’t. Never underestimate the crushing hegemony of the establishment, I guess. In fact, the strongest antiwar sentiments are currently coming from the right-wing, particularly from Trump’s own supporters. Stefan Molyneaux, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and even white nationalist Richard Spenser all oppose intervening in Syria.

It’s unlikely that Rep. Gabbard will receive a serious primary challenge in 2018, as she was reelected in November with over 80% of the vote. It does, though, look like she’s learning the lesson of Ron Paul: when you oppose the establishment’s rush to war, you can become very unpopular.

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.