Timm writes: "The latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East?
Give more weapons to current members of al-Qaida."
Our new friends? Fighters from al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front
drive in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo flying Islamist flags as they
head to a front line. (photo: Fadi Al-Halabi/AFP/Getty)
David Petraeus' Bright Idea: Give Terrorists Weapons to Beat Terrorists
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
02 September 15
Former CIA director David Petraeus is advocating giving arms to members of
al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida off-shoot, to beat Isis. That is madness
The latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East? Give more
weapons to current members of al-Qaida. The Daily Beast reported that former
CIA director David Petraeus, still somehow entrenched in the DC Beltway
power circles despite leaking highly classified secrets, is now advocating
arming members of the al-Nusra Front in Syria, an offshoot of al-Qaida and a
designated terrorist organization. Could there be a more dangerous and crazy
idea?
Petraeus was forced to respond on Tuesday, the day after his article
provoked a firestorm, telling CNN's Jake Tapper that he doesn't want to arm
al-Nusra itself, just "some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements,
within Nusra". He thinks the US could somehow "peel off" these fighters and
convince to join the much weaker rebel army that al-Nusra recently
decimated. Oh okay, then. He's in favor of arming only the "moderate"
members of al-Qaida: that sounds so much better.
Let's put aside for a second that there's not much difference between arming
al-Nusra and arming "some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements,
within Nusra." How the US can possibly "peel off" fighters from a terrorist
group is a complete mystery. In Iraq - Petraeus is apparently using part of
the largely failed Iraq "surge" as his blueprint here - he convinced some
Sunni tribes to switch sides temporarily, but that was with over 100,000 US
troops on the ground to do the convincing. Does Petraeus think we should
invade Syria to accomplish the same feat?
The idea that we should add more weapons to the equation, let alone give
them to militants who the US considers terrorists, is preposterous at this
point. Depressingly, escalating our involvement is the dominant talking
point in Washington's foreign policy circles these days.
History could not matter less to war planners, as the dangerous cycle of
arming dangerous factions in the Middle East and escalating US involvement
is about to start anew. The CIA armed the Mujahideen in the 1980s in their
guerilla fight against the Soviets, many members of the Mujahideen would end
up forming the core of al-Qaida in the 1990s.
Isis, which was originated inside squalid US prison camps from George W
Bush's invasion of Iraq, and which also has billions of dollars in US
weapons and armored vehicles thanks to a series of embarrassing mistakes and
battlefield routes of all the foreign militaries we arm, eventually turned
on al-Qaida. So now an ex-CIA director is suggesting that we also arm a part
of al-Qaida directly, since they are now the enemy of our (larger) enemy.
Remember that one of the reasons the US claimed it could go ahead and bomb
Syria without any congressional authorization in the first place was because
of the allegedly ultra-dangerous "Khorasan Group" which was a group of
supposed terrorist masterminds within al-Nusra, and that the US was in
"imminent" danger from this previously non-existent group. The US has
continued to target with al-Nusra with missiles in recent months.
Continually ignored in the debate over arming Syrian rebels, is that the CIA
itself produced a study that concluded that arming any rebel force, whether
they are a notorious terrorist group or not, is generally a bad idea. The
study found that most of the time such attempts either fail spectacularly or
backfire in the face of the US, even if they initially succeed. This study,
which is still classified, was apparently disregarded by the Obama
administration and there's no proof Congress even saw it when voted to arm
the "moderate" rebels in the first place.
There's also the much larger question over the Obama administration's
continued refusal to require a war authorization from Congress. As the
Guardian's Sabrina Siddiqui first pointed out, how could this half-baked
plan possibly square with the administration's already-absurd theory that
the declaration of war against al-Qaida allows them to indefinitely go to
war with Isis as well?
Petraeus is likely not the only one who thinks this plan to work with and
arm members of the al-Nusra front is a good idea. There are probably many
faceless officials and spooks who are pushing the same agenda in Washington,
but Petraeus is the only one with enough clout to go ahead and say it out
loud (since we already know he is above the law). Now you can expect a bunch
of fresh hot takes explaining how Petraeus is right and we should be arming
al-Qaida.
If history and common sense tell us anything, its that this plan won't
succeed. But let's, for a moment, assume the entire 67-year history of the
CIA is wrong and that it this actually does work. The US arms members of
al-Nusra, they become a powerful fighting force, push back Isis and
eventually lead a rebellion that overthrows Assad. Where are we then? Well,
we know US war planners don't usually think that far ahead.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Our new friends? Fighters from al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front
drive in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo flying Islamist flags as they
head to a front line. (photo: Fadi Al-Halabi/AFP/Getty)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/david-petraeus-bright-i
dea-give-terrorists-weapons-to-beat-isishttp://www.theguardian.com/commentis
free/2015/sep/02/david-petraeus-bright-idea-give-terrorists-weapons-to-beat-
isis
David Petraeus' Bright Idea: Give Terrorists Weapons to Beat Terrorists
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
02 September 15
Former CIA director David Petraeus is advocating giving arms to members of
al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida off-shoot, to beat Isis. That is madness
he latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East? Give more
weapons to current members of al-Qaida. The Daily Beast reported that former
CIA director David Petraeus, still somehow entrenched in the DC Beltway
power circles despite leaking highly classified secrets, is now advocating
arming members of the al-Nusra Front in Syria, an offshoot of al-Qaida and a
designated terrorist organization. Could there be a more dangerous and crazy
idea?
Petraeus was forced to respond on Tuesday, the day after his article
provoked a firestorm, telling CNN's Jake Tapper that he doesn't want to arm
al-Nusra itself, just "some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements,
within Nusra". He thinks the US could somehow "peel off" these fighters and
convince to join the much weaker rebel army that al-Nusra recently
decimated. Oh okay, then. He's in favor of arming only the "moderate"
members of al-Qaida: that sounds so much better.
Let's put aside for a second that there's not much difference between arming
al-Nusra and arming "some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements,
within Nusra." How the US can possibly "peel off" fighters from a terrorist
group is a complete mystery. In Iraq - Petraeus is apparently using part of
the largely failed Iraq "surge" as his blueprint here - he convinced some
Sunni tribes to switch sides temporarily, but that was with over 100,000 US
troops on the ground to do the convincing. Does Petraeus think we should
invade Syria to accomplish the same feat?
The idea that we should add more weapons to the equation, let alone give
them to militants who the US considers terrorists, is preposterous at this
point. Depressingly, escalating our involvement is the dominant talking
point in Washington's foreign policy circles these days.
History could not matter less to war planners, as the dangerous cycle of
arming dangerous factions in the Middle East and escalating US involvement
is about to start anew. The CIA armed the Mujahideen in the 1980s in their
guerilla fight against the Soviets, many members of the Mujahideen would end
up forming the core of al-Qaida in the 1990s.
Isis, which was originated inside squalid US prison camps from George W
Bush's invasion of Iraq, and which also has billions of dollars in US
weapons and armored vehicles thanks to a series of embarrassing mistakes and
battlefield routes of all the foreign militaries we arm, eventually turned
on al-Qaida. So now an ex-CIA director is suggesting that we also arm a part
of al-Qaida directly, since they are now the enemy of our (larger) enemy.
Remember that one of the reasons the US claimed it could go ahead and bomb
Syria without any congressional authorization in the first place was because
of the allegedly ultra-dangerous "Khorasan Group" which was a group of
supposed terrorist masterminds within al-Nusra, and that the US was in
"imminent" danger from this previously non-existent group. The US has
continued to target with al-Nusra with missiles in recent months.
Continually ignored in the debate over arming Syrian rebels, is that the CIA
itself produced a study that concluded that arming any rebel force, whether
they are a notorious terrorist group or not, is generally a bad idea. The
study found that most of the time such attempts either fail spectacularly or
backfire in the face of the US, even if they initially succeed. This study,
which is still classified, was apparently disregarded by the Obama
administration and there's no proof Congress even saw it when voted to arm
the "moderate" rebels in the first place.
There's also the much larger question over the Obama administration's
continued refusal to require a war authorization from Congress. As the
Guardian's Sabrina Siddiqui first pointed out, how could this half-baked
plan possibly square with the administration's already-absurd theory that
the declaration of war against al-Qaida allows them to indefinitely go to
war with Isis as well?
Petraeus is likely not the only one who thinks this plan to work with and
arm members of the al-Nusra front is a good idea. There are probably many
faceless officials and spooks who are pushing the same agenda in Washington,
but Petraeus is the only one with enough clout to go ahead and say it out
loud (since we already know he is above the law). Now you can expect a bunch
of fresh hot takes explaining how Petraeus is right and we should be arming
al-Qaida.
If history and common sense tell us anything, its that this plan won't
succeed. But let's, for a moment, assume the entire 67-year history of the
CIA is wrong and that it this actually does work. The US arms members of
al-Nusra, they become a powerful fighting force, push back Isis and
eventually lead a rebellion that overthrows Assad. Where are we then? Well,
we know US war planners don't usually think that far ahead.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
