Though it didn’t include any specifics about what exactly was going to be sent, the “Friends of Syria” conference of nations in favor of imposing regime change in the nation, held this weekend in Qatar, agreed in principle to “urgently” provide the rebels with “all the necessary materiel and equipment” to fight such a war.
Officials familiar with the deal say it will lead to a quick influx of additional anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, though indications are that they have been sending such arms to the Islamist rebels for quite some time.
Though the EU nations and Secretary of State John Kerry presented the announcement as a “collective answer” to the Syrian rebels pleas for weaponry to conquer the country, there was no indication that the statement will mean any change in their respective plans to arm the rebels.
The US has said it fully intends to do so, but has been extremely tight-lipped on the details, likely fearing the inevitable political fallout when their arms start falling into the hands of the al-Qaeda-aligned portions of the rebellion, something they promise to avoid but which seems virtually inevitable.
Arming these barbarians doesn't have to be a direct USA involvement arming them.., after all there are tyrants and other form of dictatorial regime whom are the "allies-friends" of USA and gladly will follow the orders.
Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, rage about national security being compromised by leaks of old news by Mr. Snowden while they are training al-Qaueda to use shoulder fired missiles to take down airplanes.
Hey, if the U.S. can arm people on both sides of any conflict, then it will rejoice. Guns and armaments are profitable and make the Oligarchs rich and open door to trenchant imperialism.
If the U.S. could get every person in the world wearing a six-shooter they would think that Nirvana has come to Earth.
Jason, why are you persecuting me with your moderation nonsense? I contribute to websites around the world and yours is the only one I have trouble with.
The irony is that when I comment on HIGHLIGHTS they are published immediately.
How about you stop making things difficult for your supporters?
[Moderator’s note: I thought we went through this before: Jason doesn’t moderate comments. I do. Yours was approved as soon as I saw it, which admittedly was several hours after you posted it (I do sleep now and again). It was one of 42 comments caught in our moderation filters overnight. It’s nothing personal. If you think you are special and should be immune from having IntenseDebate think your comments might be spam, then get an IntenseDebate account, use it when you post, and after you establish a record of posting comments that shouldn’t have been flagged for moderation, I’ll “whitelist” you – TLK]
Even if nothing falls in the (to be defined later) wrong hands, then what are they hoping to achieve? Shifting the balance a bit? Delaying defeat? Making the rebels a bit stronger so they become more willing to negotiate? I think the main motivation is to restore the balance a bit after the successes of Assad, and that logic can last a very long time.
"What exactly was going to be sent?"
A shipping pallet stacked to the brim with double barrel shotguns, each with Joe "Just fire through the door" Biden's signature engraved on each one.
"likely fearing the inevitable political fallout when their arms start falling into the hands of the al-Qaeda-aligned portions of the rebellion"
Oh, please. The only fallout will be Saint Obama getting another Nobel peace prize.
You want to understand what's going on?
Here's the deal. The U.S. political class is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand they can arm the rebels, continuing on the course to remove Assad. On the other hand, they can step back and allow Assad to defeat the rebels and thus remain in power.
(A third option, one not to be spoken of out loud, but which is gradually becoming the default plan B, is to provide the rebels with enough arms to continue fighting essentially indefinitely. This plan will never be acknowledged publicly because it is little more than a war crime, an intentional humanitarian disaster promoted for the purpose of strategic expediency.)
The first option is problematic because, the removal of Assad, the original goal behind the CIA plan to provoke and promote the Syrian Civil War (You don't really think it all "just happened" do you?), was and is strongly desired by the United States and Israel, it appears likely if not certain, that its accomplishment would destroy the nation of Syria altogether and generate a failed state dominated by al Quaeda. It's that "al Quaeda" part of course, that's the problem.
The alternative would be to step back and allow Assad to defeat the rebels. The problem there is that the United States would be humiliated by the "defeat" of its proxies, and frustrated by its failure to remove Assad and by doing so disrupt the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah linkage.
Either way, the U.S. shoots itself in the foot.
One valuable lesson to be learned however, will be whether the United States pursues its own interests or those of Israel. Replacing Assad with al Quaeda while weakening Iran is clearly in Israel's interest. Leaving Assad in place and the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah linkage intact is not. The current policy of supporting the rebels, notwithstanding the "al Quaeda problem", corroborates the widely held belief that American Mideast foreign policy is dominated by Zionist intrusion, if not subversion, of the United States government.
That arms will fall into the hands of al Qaeda "seems virtually inevitable"? How about 100% certain?