Remembering 9/11 by Arming Al-Qaeda in Syria

Our nation certainly has an odd way of remembering the horrible events of 12 years ago. According to a just-released news article from the Washington Post, the CIA has started arming the Syrian rebels with weapons and munitions. According to the article:

"The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war."

I mean, what? We are now providing the same faction who flew airplanes into buildings and killed 3,000 people with "light weapons and other munitions"? Isn't that a slap in the face to the families of the victims of 9/11 and all of our brave young men and women who volunteered to fight this threat and lost limbs and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan abroad?

It's this same confused foreign policy that's gotten us in this mess to begin with. The more we meddle the more of a quagmire it becomes which requires ever more meddling. Is this gross ineptitude on our part or a devious plan by those beholden to the military-industrial complex to keep us mired in war and lining their coffers decade after decade?

What you must remember is that this extends further than just this past decade. The kindergarten fairy tale that our government wants us to believe and that was peddled to us in the days following 9/11 is that these people hate us for our freedom. At the time, I was a young, naive 20 year old college student and, believe it or not, I was never taught about the Soviet-Afghan war in any of my high school history classes. Only people with a Bachelor's or higher degree in history would have been able to connect the dots between our support for the Mujahideen in the Soviet war in Afghanistan to Osama bin Laden to the fateful day in September twelve years ago. With the internet still in its adolescence, it wasn't as widely known back then about our support and training of Osama bin Laden by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war and how our one time ally turned on us and became our enemy a decade later.

This is precisely the phenomenon that Ron Paul was referring to when he talked about "blowback". Blowback is the unintended consequences of a covert operation that is suffered by the aggressor. While our intentions might have been good, well-meaning, and even rational at the time, we could not have predicted that our allies would turn on us years later. Blowback was also the cause of the embassy ambush that occurred in Libya last year that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. In our rush to oust Gaddafi, we once again armed and aided "rebel" troops that consisted of al-Qaeda elements. Less than a year after we ousted Gaddafi, our embassy was attacked.

Now it seems we are embarking on yet another foolish venture and trying the same thing that hasn't worked anywhere else in the Middle East at any time. What's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I have two other points to make about this:

1) Did all the rebels pass background checks before we handed out their "light weapons" to them? Are these weapons capped at a 15 round magazine capacity? I mean, if these laws are good enough for Americans, aren't they good enough for al-Qaeda as well?

2) If we're arming al-Qaeda in Syria, does that mean Obama and others are now eligible for indefinite detention under Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA for rendering assistance to known terrorist groups or associated forces? I don't have to prove this, I just have to suspect it in order to lock him/them up and throw away the key forever.

To be fair, not all of the rebels fighting in Syria are al-Qaeda. But how are we to know who's who? Do they wear separate uniforms? Do they wear name badges attached to lanyards hung around their neck? If the rebels do win (with our assistance), do we then have to stay in Syria even longer to make sure that none of the al-Qaeda elements assume power? You know, check their lanyards and say that those with the "Syrian Rebel-Official" designation can stay but those with "al-Qaeda", "al-Nusra" or "Other" have to pack their bags and get on the next train to Kabul? The rebels win and then what? Another 9/11? Another Libya? Based on previous events, this is not difficult to imagine.

What if we just stopped arming or financing either side of this fiasco? Held our hands up and said, "You know what, you guys fight this one out for a change". Sure, someone else might fill the void, but at least the blood is off of our hands. Maybe without the interference of the international power players these wars would fizzle out on their own or perhaps never even occur. The questions are endless and the answers are few.

I may be young-ish, but in my experience if there is a situation that presents no good, immediate solution, then often the best course of action is to do nothing. Wait it out and see if another course of action presents itself further down the road. Unfortunately, our government seems to be comprised more of the "jump and build your wings on the way down" ilk. But how many times do we have to splat to the ground before we figure out that this isn't working? In the words of the great political philosopher, Thomas Sowell, "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than to put those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong". Couldn't agree more, Mr. Sowell. Now we just need more to start agreeing with you as well.