“Vetted Moderate Syrian Rebels” Condemn U.S. Air Strikes

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.

Article continued here: U.S.-Backed Syrian Group Harakat al-Hazm Condemns U.S. Strikes on ISIS as ‘Attack on the Revolution’

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?   

 

This entry was posted in Neoconservatives, Propaganda, Syria, Uncategorized, War, War on "Terror". Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to “Vetted Moderate Syrian Rebels” Condemn U.S. Air Strikes

  1. buckaroo says:

    Well with all the talk concerning the Congress running home, are we not forgetting that our President has been doing the same surreptitiousness

  2. Anonymously Yours says:

    How’s that song go… On the eve of destruction…..

  3. randyjet says:

    As part of the military aid package, we should insist that the so called moderates join in a coalition with Assad against ISIS. If they do not, stop all aid, and give it to Assad. There are FAR worse groups and people than Assad as we have seen.

  4. Mike Spindell says:

    Our Foreign Policy “experts” are amateurs compared to the rulers in the Mid East and are constantly being outmaneuvered, by the supposedly “backward” Arabs. And those are the “experts” I’m referring to who haven’t been bought outright by Arabs.

    See this for some further enlightenment on this topic: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/09/20/saudi-connections-to-isis-nah-cant-be-true-after-911/

    To answer Bob’s question: “Has anyone else noticed a change public discourse regarding foreign affairs after passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012?”. Yes, I have, but then given the corporate media it was pretty bad before.

  5. Elaine M. says:

    Mike,

    “Yes, I have, but then given the corporate media it was pretty bad before.”

    I agree. Remember Judith Miller? Remember how so many members of the mainstream media were cheerleaders for a war with Iraq?

  6. Mike Spindell says:

    “Remember Judith Miller?”

    Elaine,

    As the song goes: “Ah yes I remember her well”. Another Foreign Policy “expert” who was merely a self-serving shill for the CMIC.

  7. Bob Kauten says:

    Moderates. Folks who shoot, incinerate, and torture, moderately.

  8. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    What do you suppose the “vetting” process was like?

  9. Bob Kauten says:

    Elaine,
    “Ferguson cast a pall upon militarizing police departments. Will you take this weaponry, so that we can distribute more tax money to manufacture more? You’re vetted!”
    Something like that?

  10. Bob Stone says:

    Randyjet,

    Who or what convinced you that the primary goal in this “war on ISIS” is to actually defeat ISIS?

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/

    • randyjet says:

      Bob, I seriously doubt that Syria will demand an end to US bombing of ISIS. When they do that, THEN you can say the US violated international law. What the article is postulating is that McCain and the other idiots will get is mission creep to get rid of Assad. I think and hope that the realists in the Pentagon and the CIA will prevail and the campaign will be limited to blowing ISIS back to hell. The fact is that a more realistic policy would demand that the Syrian rebels make a peace agreement with Assad and join the fight against ISIS. If they do not do that, all US aid should be cut off. The one good thing about ISIS is that it is showing the world that there are worse people than Assad and they may convince the Shias in Iraq that they need the Sunnis to survive. Sort of like when Hitler invaded the Ukraine. Initially many of the people welcomed the Nazis, but their genocidal acts soon convinced them that Stalin was not so bad after all. That was a singular achievement on the Nazis part. I hope that voices in the US will convince Obama that Assad may well have a place in the Mideast and can be useful.

  11. Bob Stone says:

    Mike & Elaine,

    Judith Miller is still offering “analysis” on Fox News.

  12. Mike Spindell says:

    “Who or what convinced you that the primary goal in this “war on ISIS” is to actually defeat ISIS?”

    Bob,

    An interesting take on this idea: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/09/20/saudi-connections-to-isis-nah-cant-be-true-after-911/

  13. bigfatmike says:

    In the past I have not been very complementary to Obama, basically accusing him of being a political opportunist changing positions and direction depending on the group that offers him the next best opportunity.

    I found this article by Drezner useful in understanding what seem to be recent, inconsistent changes in Obama’s foreign policy.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/28/zen-and-the-art-of-american-foreign-policy/

    Whether you think Obama is an opportunist or a Zen Master in the difficult position of learning on the job, we are still left with some hard questions.

    How much of a threat is ISIS? And, whether it is ISIS or so other group of Islamic radicals, what is our best strategy and next best step in the Middle East?

    I have long thought that we were tricked in to a wasteful war that ranks as a great historical error. But I have also thought there is great threat in that region, and that resolution will require decades if not generations of effort. Peace in that area favorable to western democracies will require patience and commitment rarely seen in a country were every decision seems based on the next news cycle and the next election.

  14. Bob Stone says:

    Mike,

    You would rather focus on who funds ISIS rather than the way members of our government are using it as dog whistle for an invasion of Syria?

  15. Mike Spindell says:

    “You would rather focus on who funds ISIS rather than the way members of our government are using it as dog whistle for an invasion of Syria?”

    Bob,

    It’s all of the same piece. The drumbeats of war are sounding again in the ME and the people aren’t being given a clear picture of the reality there. The Saudis are using us to gain ME hegemony and at the same time ensure that everyone there hates the US because of its intervention. We’re being played and their guys are smarter than our guys. You forget I wrote about the phoniness of this war scare months ago.

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/06/18/simple-truths-about-iraq-history-and-why-we-should-stay-the-hell-out/

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/06/13/back-to-iraq-the-madness-continues/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.