Inconvenient truth – the West's intervention in Syria is key reason for growth of ISIS
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Inconvenient truth – the West's intervention in Syria is key reason for growth of ISIS
More importantly, not only is the ‘West inaction in Syria is to blame for ISIS in Iraq’ argument wrong, it also hides a far more significant, inconvenient truth – that the West’s intervention in Syria is a key reason behind ISIS’s growth.
This argument contradicts the popular notion that the West’s role in Syria has been one of inaction and indifference. But, as with the common perception that President Obama is ‘intervention-averse’, the facts tell a different story.
As I’ve explained elsewhere, the Obama Administration, often along with the UK and France, has been supporting the rebels in Syria since at least mid-2012. As the Wall Street Journal noted, from the early stages of the war the US has been ‘acting in Syria through proxies, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates’. The CIA has played a key role, coordinating large arm shipments to the insurgents, training them in Jordan and providing significant amounts of non-lethal and financial support.
This support has likely prolonged the war. Citing the academic literature on the subject, Professor Lynch notes: ‘In general, external support for rebels almost always make wars longer, bloodier and harder to resolve.’
Middle East analyst Hassan Hassan has explained how many of the Western-backed rebels in Syria have changed their allegiance to ISIS.
Linking all this with the current crisis in Iraq, Cockburn makes the key point that: ‘US government as a whole – and foreign powers steer away from one very crucial aspect of the rise of ISIS, which is that in Syria, the West backed the uprising against President Assad, and still does, and this enabled ISIS to develop, gain military experience and then use it back in Iraq.’
This is not just the clarity of hindsight. In June 2013, referring to the possibility of directly arming rebels or conducting military strikes against Assad’s forces, two former Secretary Generals of NATO argued:
"Rather than secure humanitarian space and empower a political transition, Western military engagement in Syria is likely to provoke further escalation on all sides, deepening the civil war and strengthening the forces of extremism, sectarianism and criminality gaining strength across the country. The idea that the West can empower and remotely control moderate forces is optimistic at best. Escalation begets escalation and mission creep is a predictable outcome if the West sets out on a military path [emphasis added]."
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/13501
This argument contradicts the popular notion that the West’s role in Syria has been one of inaction and indifference. But, as with the common perception that President Obama is ‘intervention-averse’, the facts tell a different story.
As I’ve explained elsewhere, the Obama Administration, often along with the UK and France, has been supporting the rebels in Syria since at least mid-2012. As the Wall Street Journal noted, from the early stages of the war the US has been ‘acting in Syria through proxies, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates’. The CIA has played a key role, coordinating large arm shipments to the insurgents, training them in Jordan and providing significant amounts of non-lethal and financial support.
This support has likely prolonged the war. Citing the academic literature on the subject, Professor Lynch notes: ‘In general, external support for rebels almost always make wars longer, bloodier and harder to resolve.’
Middle East analyst Hassan Hassan has explained how many of the Western-backed rebels in Syria have changed their allegiance to ISIS.
Linking all this with the current crisis in Iraq, Cockburn makes the key point that: ‘US government as a whole – and foreign powers steer away from one very crucial aspect of the rise of ISIS, which is that in Syria, the West backed the uprising against President Assad, and still does, and this enabled ISIS to develop, gain military experience and then use it back in Iraq.’
This is not just the clarity of hindsight. In June 2013, referring to the possibility of directly arming rebels or conducting military strikes against Assad’s forces, two former Secretary Generals of NATO argued:
"Rather than secure humanitarian space and empower a political transition, Western military engagement in Syria is likely to provoke further escalation on all sides, deepening the civil war and strengthening the forces of extremism, sectarianism and criminality gaining strength across the country. The idea that the West can empower and remotely control moderate forces is optimistic at best. Escalation begets escalation and mission creep is a predictable outcome if the West sets out on a military path [emphasis added]."
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/13501
confuzzled dude- Posts : 10205
Join date : 2011-05-08
Re: Inconvenient truth – the West's intervention in Syria is key reason for growth of ISIS
campaign IRAN.org ???
Yeah rite... very unbiased indeed... leave out the stinker in their own ass and blame everyone else for their stink.
Yeah rite... very unbiased indeed... leave out the stinker in their own ass and blame everyone else for their stink.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Similar topics
» Syria intervention even less popular than Congress
» The inconvenient truth: There's no easy military answer to war on ISIS
» Job growth not GDP growth matters for India
» India's economic growth predicted to outclass China's economic growth next year also
» Was Putin right about Syria?
» The inconvenient truth: There's no easy military answer to war on ISIS
» Job growth not GDP growth matters for India
» India's economic growth predicted to outclass China's economic growth next year also
» Was Putin right about Syria?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|