Has anyone else noticed a change public discourse regarding foreign affairs after passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012? Why do I get the feeling that freeing the State Department to direct their “strategic communications” toward American citizens helped create the “fog” that lead us into this latest war?
In its haste to act in its own political interests, rather than doing its job and tending to the country’s best interests, Congress approved $500 million in support for “Vetted Moderate Syrian Rebels;” without barely a mention, much less a debate, about the need to re-authorize the use of military force. Immediately thereafter, Congress ran home and began campaigning for midterm elections. Bob Schieffer commented on this cowardice on CBS’ Face the Nation last Sunday:
[W]hen congress approved arming the Syrian rebels, they stuck the legislation in a bill that also provided money to keep the government from shutting down. That way, if arming the rebels turns out to be a debacle, members can say, “I was never for arming the rebels, I just voted to prevent a government shutdown.”
Well, it turns out that “one of those same “vetted moderate” rebel groups currently receiving heavy weaponry from the U.S. has condemned the U.S. for airstrikes on ISIS in Syria earlier this week.”
Harakat al-Hazm, which was one of the first Syrian rebel groups to receive heavy weapons from the U.S. this year, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing the U.S. for the anti-ISIS attacks. Harakat al-Hazm has been hailed by the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment as “rebels worth supporting” and “a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”
As reported by the L.A. Times:
One of the administration’s favored moderate rebel factions, Harakat Hazm, part of the Free Syrian Army alliance and a recipient of U.S. missiles and training, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing the “external intervention” — that is, the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Syria — as “an attack on the revolution.”
The group said its main goal was toppling Assad. It is demanding “unconditional arming” of the Free Syrian Army, yet its members also acknowledge fighting alongside Al Nusra Front, the official Al Qaeda force in Syria.
Still, the country’s motley bands of fighters labeled as moderates may well be the White House’s best hope for now. It has few other options.
You would think that when the people we’re allegedly helping begin turning against us, it would make the front page. So I’ll ask again:
Has anyone else noticed a change public discourse regarding foreign affairs after passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012?