US debates arming Syrian opposition as “defense strategy”

NOVANEWS

www.theuglytruth.wordpress.com

 

ed note–readers of TUT will note that it has been the position of this website that all the ‘revolutions’ in the Middle East–while certainly genuine in the sense that the average person in the street IS oppressed and wants change, nevertheless–have been nothing more than Israeli/American intelligence operations aimed at regime change. It is a cheaper way of waging war than putting boots and equipment on the ground.

As far as this piece is concerned, we encourage the readers to see through all the posturing taking place from Israel and her supporters as they pretend to ‘worry’ about what is taking place. Not only is Israel as happy as a pig in s*** about it all, she is the one managing the chaos from behind the scenes.

Until the world begins to understand what it is that makes the Zionist mind tic, there will NEVER be a solution to the problem of GLOBAL war and destitution.

 

Foxnews.com

To arm or not arm? That is the question. The Syrian  opposition is being crushed by forces loyal to President Bashar al Assad, any  attempts at diplomatic pressure are being thwarted by Russia  and China vetoing  resolutions at the UN, and economic sanctions aren’t much use when a dictator  seems to have decided it’s a case of kill or be killed.

So what to do about Syria  and the dictatorial Assad? Republican Sen. John  McCain, an influential voice in foreign affairs as the ranking member of the  Senate Armed Services Committee, believes we should think seriously about “arming the opposition.” The White  House says that’s not an option being “considered” right now. Perhaps not  actively considered, but it’s hard to believe it hasn’t been discussed at some  pretty high levels.

And a lot of experts believe, like McCain, that in  the wake of the complete failure of diplomacy, it’s a question that has to be  reconsidered. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies  believes we should use the model the Clinton White House used for getting  weapons to the Bosnians, running so-called “black ops” to get weapons to the  Syrians. It’s something the U.S. also did to fight the Soviets in

Afghanistan

  after the 1979 invasion.

“I’d look to engage/recruit proxies to run the arms  into the Syrian resistance from member states of the Arab League,” said Shaffer, “much like we did using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence agency and  Army during the support of the Afghan resistance. Again, this is a known method  of black ops the U.S. has done – we have folks around who could advise and put  it together.”

Like Shaffer, Josef Olmert, a professor at the  University of South Carolina (who formerly taught Middle Eastern Studies at Tel  Aviv, Hebrew, and Bar-Ilan universities) accepts that there are risks, not the  least being control of who gets the weapons and how they are used.

But Olmert believes that concern can be  addressed.

“Orderly delivery of arms from Turkey and Jordan will  enable the west an effective measure of control over rebels activities,” he told  me, while adding, “Nothing, I repeat, nothing can prevent chaos and huge, repeat  huge, bloodshed when the final downfall happens, but closer contact with the  rebels now will help mitigate the inevitable carnage.”

As for what kind of weapons, Olmert says the most  urgent need is for anti-tank missiles as it is the tanks of the Syrian Army that  are currently doing most to lay waste to the opposition and the cities in which  they are strongest.

Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington  Institute for Near East Policy, is more circumspect about the whole idea of  sending weapons into Syria. He says arming the opposition can’t simply be  dismissed, but needs to part of a well-considered overall strategy.

“For me, it is not satisfactory to talk in isolation  about arming the opposition or any other particular tactic,” Singh  said.

“What we truly require is a comprehensive strategy  for aiding the Syrian people and compelling Assad to step down, and should  consider all tools at our disposal which could support such a strategy,” Singh  continued. “We should not preemptively rule out options, nor should we fail to  consider what will come after Assad in Syria and how we can help to shape  it.”

And that last comment from Singh points to some of  the biggest risks of arming the opposition: Who are they? What is their vision  of Syria’s future? What will they do with those weapons if and when they defeat  Assad and seize power? On top of that, there’s the risk of Arab backlash if a  U.S. hand is seen behind the arming of any one group in Syria. And Iran might,  according to Shaffer, step up its efforts to carry out terrorist attacks against  U.S. targets overseas.

But the gathering view among the experts seems to be  that with all else failing, and the slaughter of Syrian civilians continuing,  arming the opposition may be one of the very few options left. It’s clearly not  without risks, it’s understandable that it’s not something any nation, including  the US, is rushing into. But, Olmert said, “The pros far outweigh the cons.” And  Shaffer sums it up by arguing, “at this point it is our only real and best  option.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *