Middle East Math Now Says: US Will Support Syria’s Assad!

Is Barry Obama thinking: "Bashar with your nose so bright, will you bomb Qaeda tonight?" Or is the US president thinking: fuck, now I need to be nice to that child-killer dude, who just a couple of months ago I was going to go to war against, until the American people and Congress told me—shut up, bitch!—and then I had to go fix my little website and shit. President is HARD!
The New York Times has an interesting analysis today of the bizarre political implications of the continuing crisis in the Syrian civil war.

Just a few months ago, before he went and laid in Vladimir Putin’s lap, President Barack Obama was preparing to go to war against Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria.


Oh, you may recall, something about some dead children and poison gas. Whatever. That was ages ago after all.

Many people, including The Guillotine, questioned the wisdom of going to war—with all that blowing up stuff and killing people—to attack the bad guy who was in fact at war with allegedly even worse guys: Qaeda.

You know, Al Qaeda, the Saudi supervillain that blew up those buildings back on 9/11, and then magically rose from the ashes and kept killing people, despite the USA’s best (and stupidest) efforts to stop him. That guy.

As I pointed out back in August, had the US gone to war with Assad, they would have been allies with Qaeda in full force. As it was, the US policy, that is Obama’s policy, was aligned with that of Qaeda in Syria, with the small difference that even though Qaeda and its affiliated fighters were doing most of the effective killing and destroying of Assad’s forces, the US did not want Qaeda to “win” in the end.

And now, The Times informs us, one of the effects of the Qaeda mission in Syria is:
“[M]ilitants aligned with Al Qaeda could establish a base in Syria capable of threatening Israel and Europe.”
The Times quotes Ryan C. Crocker, “veteran diplomat”, representing voices now calling for the US to forget its little problems (over weapons of mass destruction) it used to have back in August, and instead “start talking to the Assad regime again.”

Talking about what? Oh you know, the shared interests of Chemical Assad with Bungling Barry in tamping down mean old Al Qaeda’s ever-lengthening reach in the world.

The Times points out:
“It is not clear whether or when the White House would be willing to make such an abrupt shift in approach after years of supporting the Syrian opposition and calling for Mr. Assad’s ouster.”
Yeah, that could make President Obama look really stupid and inept—again—huh?

It is important to understand some key points:

  • Al Qaeda is now the default insurgency model across the Islamic world. Instead of having been destroyed by the United States in the Terror Wars, Qaeda is the brand name for Islamists who are devoted to Qaeda ideals (of killing infidels wherever you can find them), while not necessarily directly linked to or ordered around by the official Qaeda managers.
  • The war polices of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have killed, maimed and tortured thousands of Muslims, many of them innocent people, and mere children and babies. The hatred this has grown in the hearts and minds of Muslims who would not normally think of violence as a means to justice, is incalculable. Al Qaeda always knew this was part of the plan—poke the stupid American giant, get it to whack a lot of poor people with its club in retaliation, and next thing you know everyone will hate the giant.
  • The Arab Spring, much praised by idiot American politicians and pundits, who actually believed the chaos created by the welling up and forth of resentment against Western-supported dictatorships, would create a solid wall of Islamic democracy and freedom, has instead led to the best recruiting and training opportunity Al Qaeda has ever had for his burgeoning army of crazy exploders. While it is true there are “moderate” forces all over the place in the North African and Middle East struggles, their moderate ways don’t stand up to the highly committed and effective violence of Al Qaeda. In the one place where a democratic solution seemed like it just might have a chance, in Egypt, the army has reestablished the traditional military dictatorship, slaughtering and imprisoning hundreds of Islamists, and creating real openings for Al Qaeda to bring his ideas and bombs back to his ideological homeland. Now that’s some Arab Spring, huh?

On the last point, The Times reports:
“Despite extensive Egyptian military efforts to confront them, the Sinai militant groups remain strong and have powerful new weapons—including surface-to-air missiles that could take down airliners—obtained from Libya after its civil war, said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based security analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.”
Let’s understand the bottom line, the Middle East Math: the war mongering fools in the American government, who have helped make these new, insane, equations, functional and operative in the world, have spent billions upon billions of dollars making places like Egypt and Syria bulwarks against terrorism. Yet, the militaries of those nations are struggling to contain the vast, highly committed, and increasingly effective, Al Qaeda insurgency.

The Times quotes one “jihadist” expert, William McCants, saying all these events add up to:
“[W]e are back to counterterrorism as a guiding focus for American policy.”
And that means tolerating and even supporting dictators who crush democratic movements, and, in the case of Assad, it means patching up thing with leaders whose war crimes just a short time ago seemed (to Barack Obama anyway) horrible enough to warrant the US going to war against Assad and his regime.

As with so many aspects of Barack Obama’s domestic and foreign policy calculations, it would seem the US president has once again failed to see the longer term implications of his diffident attempts to hug a non-existent piñata. Being (or looking) prudent, and getting it wrong anyway, might end up being a lot worse than being wrong from a faith-based abandon (à la George W. Bush).

The latter can be dismissed with “Jeez, was the president stupid on that one, or what?”

But with Obama, it seems the answer the White House would employ is: Obama was right, it was the world that would not listen to reason.

Well, anyway, not Obama’s reason(s).