Where To Draw the Line on SyriaSubmitted by MarcMadness on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 18:37
by Chris Rossini
Michael Sexton writes about U.S. foreign interventions in The Australian. He recalls the unintended consequences of policy towards Afghanistan in the 1980′s:
But recall Afghanistan in the 80s. The US provided considerable support for the mujahedin who eventually toppled the government and forced the withdrawal of the Russian troops that had supported it. This led ultimately, however, to the rise of the Taliban and the use of Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists. In a final irony the US was then compelled to intervene in a fashion reminiscent of the Russians in the 80s.
Arm the rebels…the rebels turn on you…fight the rebels.
Today, the U.S. is doing the same in Syria, this time arming members of Al Qaeda!
Yes…that Al Qaeda!
Sexton continues and asks a very important question:
There is no evidence the Syrian rebels have any interest in a more democratic and representative administration than that of Assad. Nor is there any evidence they would be more sympathetic to US interests in the Middle East…
All of this does not make it any easier to watch the scenes of carnage that regularly emerge in reports from inside Syria.
But there are a number of regimes around the world that repress their own people in the most brutal fashion. How is it to be determined which of them will be left without physical interference (as opposed to diplomatic condemnation) and which will be the subject of military intervention?
There is an answer that at least takes a step in the right direction: Follow the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be “the law of the land”.