Monday, 26 December 2016
How Hillary Clinton's Syria would have led to World War
Hillary Clinton is a neo-con war hawk. And I am so relieved she is not the US President-elect.
Like a tyrant, Hillary Clinton has been supporting hawkish policies since 2002. In 2002 she supported and defended the Iraq War. As senator she wielded mighty influence, because 9-11 happened in New York, and she was the senator from New York.
Once Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton proceeded to make some of the worst decisions in American history - only surpassed by her own decision to support the Iraq War.
She removed Libyan President Gidaffi in 2011 at the height of the Arab Spring, indulging in exactly the same regime-change ideology as in Iraq. Instead of proceeding with caution, Hillary Clinton proceeded with excitement, her actions resulting in the killing of Americans in Benghazi one year later.
She also refused to implement a cease-fire in Syria, unless Bashar Al-Assad were removed. She also made sure that the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI, now the Islamic State) had priority funding in ousting Assad. This is how the Syrian Civil War became a big problem for America in Iraq: because Hillary Clinton funded ISIS in Syria.
Instead of learning from her mistakes like Trump did (compare Trump's views on Libya in 2011 and now as an example), Hillary Clinton continued to support neo-con hawkish policies even in the Presidential election.
In the 2016 election, her views on Syria were by far her most outlandish, daydreamish and dangerous policies for America and the world in her long career. As recently as the Presidential debates Hillary Clinton called for a 'no-fly-zone' in Syria to stop Syrian President Assad 'slaughtering civilians' while also vowing to degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS in Syria.
Such policies defy any logic. Were Hillary Clinton successful in removing Bashar Al-Assad, in his place would be ISIS controlling almost the entirety of Syria. It would result in the genocide of Christians, Alawites and Druze, and cause a refugee crisis far worse than the current one.
Were Hillary Clinton to install a 'no-fly-zone,' however, she would be unsuccessful in ousting the Syrian Government, for one reason only: Russia.
Russia has vowed unwavering support for Assad's Syria, and has also vowed that, should Hillary Clinton implement a 'no-fly-zone' in Syria, he would consider it an act of war and respond accordingly.
So, Hillary Clinton's policy in Syria would have led to a world war, resulting in the deaths of millions and, whoever won such a war, would lead the world backwards.
I am completely grateful this scenario was avoided, and believe Hillary Clinton completely deserved to lost to Donald friggin' Trump on this policy alone.
Tuesday, 20 December 2016
Obama and Syria: what he got right and wrong
Barrack Obama's foreign policy has led to some controversial decisions in the Middle-East - the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the overthrow of the Libyan Government and the Iran Nuclear Deal are chief among them. As well as these has been his policy on Syria. In this article it will be highlighted what he got right and what he got wrong.
1) Obama was wrong to fund ISIS in Syria
Chief among Obama's failures in foreign policy was his funding of the rebels in Syria. Nearly all of these rebels who fought the Syrian Government were supported by the Islamic State in Iraq, formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, now known as the Islamic State or ISIS. This terror group was initially created in the Iraq War by the Bush Administration, though did benefit enormously from Obama's Syrian rebel funding. It was little surprise, therefore, when the majority of the Syrian Opposition's territory fell under ISIS - ISIS were Obama's top henchmen in Syria.
Under normal circumstances, Obama was right to withdraw from Iraq. But funding Iraq's #1 enemy in a neighbouring civil war had a predictable, ugly outcome: ISIS ended up controlling one third of Iraq by August 2014, 3 years after withdrawing troops from Iraq.
This irrational behaviour has led many in Iraq and Syria into the belief that America created ISIS. They are not wrong, as without Bush and Obama's meddling in both conflicts, ISIS would never have existed.
2) Obama was wrong to call the Syrian Government 'illegitimate'
The absolute hypocrisy of the Obama Administration is in the funding of rebels in Syria associated with ISIS while also calling the Syrian Government illegitimate. The illegitimate players in Syria were not the Syrian Government, who strove to protect all major cities and minorities from these rebels heralding from an ISIS-minded insurgency.
The illegitimate powers in Syria were those funded by the Obama Administration to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad. For Obama to have the gall to call for the removal of Assad, even after seeing what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, is unacceptable behaviour from a President of the United States.
3) Obama was right to wage war on ISIS
After most of the Syrian Opposition fell into ISIS' hands and plundered neighbouring Iraq, Obama was right to return to wage his war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He was right to focus on building anti-ISIS forces rather than putting American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In doing so, he showed powers like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey that he would not put up with Islamism running counter to American interest.
4) Obama was right to not overthrow Bashar Al-Assad
Nearly all the neo-con hawks called for the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad. That Obama resisted this pressure is nothing short of remarkable. Syria has a very real chance of being rebuilt after the civil war because Obama refused to install a 'no-fly-zone' in Syria and overthrow Bashar Al-Assad.
One thing Obama did not want for his legacy was a major blunder in foreign policy. Though his funding ISIS in Syria in the first place was a major blunder; though Obama did install a 'no-fly-zone' in Libya and overthrow Gidaffi, these blunders were never to the same extent as those of the Bush Administration in Iraq.
What is interesting to note is that had Obama removed Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, it would have resulted in a conflict worse than the Iraq War, in which America would have gotten bogged down. For not overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad, Obama does have the thanks of the Syrian people.
Monday, 12 December 2016
Why Syria is the Misunderstood Conflict
The Syrian Civil War has been butchered, but not by Bashar Al-Assad, but butchered by the Western Media.
This is because many of America's allies in the Middle-East would benefit economically from regime change in Syria, chief among them Qatar.
But make no mistake: Assad falling in Syria would cause more bloodshed, more instability and more terrorism than any previous decision made by the West in the Middle-East.
The West began their policy of destabilization quite by accident in Afghanistan. After Jimmy Carter blundered so erroneously in Iran, Ronald Reagan decided that in Afghanistan, he would put his trust in the allies of the region to wage jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan continued this policy right until the end of his time in office, which ultimately helped the defeat of the Soviet Union, due in no small amount to the Mujahideen Arab fighters in Afghanistan.
The issue is that Afghanistan ended up ruled by the Taliban, who, in turn, sheltered Al-Qaeda and brought us 9-11.
This mistake was surely understandable and even can be condoned given the circumstance Reagan had been in. They were fighting the Soviet Union by all means necessary: handing Afghanistan over to radical Islamists was for the cause of ending the Cold War.
But the Iraq Wars have no such excuse.
Both wars on Iraq were appalling and guided by a principle of oil. America defending Kuwait against Saddam's Iraq was being involved in a conflict which presented no threat to United States' interest. All this Gulf War did was fuel extremism by putting American troops in the Arabian Peninsula to protect Saudi Arabia and other allies from Saddam Hussein, as well as give America an excuse to whack extensive sanctions onto Iraq, causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis during the Clinton Administration.
But the second Iraq War was much worse. It has given us ISIS; not only so, but it gave America the gall to fund Al-Qaeda in Iraq IN SYRIA.
The guiding principles by which the war in Syria was fought by the West was on the side of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the most extreme and brutal Al-Qaeda branch of them all. This gave us ISIS.
The Syrian Civil War is tragic in that it is America funding the bad guys to defeat the better guys. Assad may be a dictator, but he is a secular dictator. Assad may be brutal at times, but his brutality is directed against terrorism and never for it. Assad's government prioritized the protection of Christians, Druze and Alawites at the expense of its own territory and resources. ISIS control Syrian oil because Assad prioritized not only the big cities, but also the Syrian minorities.
No one in the West believe things are better in Iraq thanks to the Iraq War. Yet even the Iraq War would have paled in comparison to America overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. You think ISIS is big now? If Barrack Obama had thrown Assad out of power in 2012 when there was so much pressure for him to do so, ISIS would have had a capital in Damascus, not in Raqqa. It would have been appalling beyond any comprehension or belief. The genocides would have been extensive, and Russia would have, rightly, waged war on America for producing so erroneous an outcome.
However Obama, to his credit, did not remove Bashar Al-Assad and did wage war against ISIS in Syria. But his linked-to funding of Al-Qaeda in Iraq in Syria prior to that is unacceptable. He should never have chosen Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, as she is equally responsible with George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS.
Am I exaggerating? Not remotely. It is one thing to withdraw troops from Iraq; it is another thing entirely to fund the terror organisation Iraq is struggling against in neighbouring Syria. Outrageous! If America gets out of Iraq, they should not proceed to destabilize the Middle-East further!
ISIS needed two bordering countries to create a Caliphate. A Caliphate can only be created by the destruction of borders, such as the Iraqi-Syrian border. Had George Bush not removed Saddam Hussein; had Obama not withdrawn from Iraq AND funded 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' in Syria, we would not have ended up with ISIS.
Ideally, Bush should never have gone into Iraq. Ideally, Obama should have never endorsed funding terrorists in the Syrian Civil War. Obama was right to withdraw, but only with a corresponding unwillingness to fund terrorism in Syria.
Syria is misunderstood because America has fought on the wrong side. I hope the West never forgets this, and learns from its errors which almost cost the Middle-East its life.
This is because many of America's allies in the Middle-East would benefit economically from regime change in Syria, chief among them Qatar.
But make no mistake: Assad falling in Syria would cause more bloodshed, more instability and more terrorism than any previous decision made by the West in the Middle-East.
The West began their policy of destabilization quite by accident in Afghanistan. After Jimmy Carter blundered so erroneously in Iran, Ronald Reagan decided that in Afghanistan, he would put his trust in the allies of the region to wage jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan continued this policy right until the end of his time in office, which ultimately helped the defeat of the Soviet Union, due in no small amount to the Mujahideen Arab fighters in Afghanistan.
The issue is that Afghanistan ended up ruled by the Taliban, who, in turn, sheltered Al-Qaeda and brought us 9-11.
This mistake was surely understandable and even can be condoned given the circumstance Reagan had been in. They were fighting the Soviet Union by all means necessary: handing Afghanistan over to radical Islamists was for the cause of ending the Cold War.
But the Iraq Wars have no such excuse.
Both wars on Iraq were appalling and guided by a principle of oil. America defending Kuwait against Saddam's Iraq was being involved in a conflict which presented no threat to United States' interest. All this Gulf War did was fuel extremism by putting American troops in the Arabian Peninsula to protect Saudi Arabia and other allies from Saddam Hussein, as well as give America an excuse to whack extensive sanctions onto Iraq, causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis during the Clinton Administration.
But the second Iraq War was much worse. It has given us ISIS; not only so, but it gave America the gall to fund Al-Qaeda in Iraq IN SYRIA.
The guiding principles by which the war in Syria was fought by the West was on the side of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the most extreme and brutal Al-Qaeda branch of them all. This gave us ISIS.
The Syrian Civil War is tragic in that it is America funding the bad guys to defeat the better guys. Assad may be a dictator, but he is a secular dictator. Assad may be brutal at times, but his brutality is directed against terrorism and never for it. Assad's government prioritized the protection of Christians, Druze and Alawites at the expense of its own territory and resources. ISIS control Syrian oil because Assad prioritized not only the big cities, but also the Syrian minorities.
No one in the West believe things are better in Iraq thanks to the Iraq War. Yet even the Iraq War would have paled in comparison to America overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. You think ISIS is big now? If Barrack Obama had thrown Assad out of power in 2012 when there was so much pressure for him to do so, ISIS would have had a capital in Damascus, not in Raqqa. It would have been appalling beyond any comprehension or belief. The genocides would have been extensive, and Russia would have, rightly, waged war on America for producing so erroneous an outcome.
However Obama, to his credit, did not remove Bashar Al-Assad and did wage war against ISIS in Syria. But his linked-to funding of Al-Qaeda in Iraq in Syria prior to that is unacceptable. He should never have chosen Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, as she is equally responsible with George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS.
Am I exaggerating? Not remotely. It is one thing to withdraw troops from Iraq; it is another thing entirely to fund the terror organisation Iraq is struggling against in neighbouring Syria. Outrageous! If America gets out of Iraq, they should not proceed to destabilize the Middle-East further!
ISIS needed two bordering countries to create a Caliphate. A Caliphate can only be created by the destruction of borders, such as the Iraqi-Syrian border. Had George Bush not removed Saddam Hussein; had Obama not withdrawn from Iraq AND funded 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' in Syria, we would not have ended up with ISIS.
Ideally, Bush should never have gone into Iraq. Ideally, Obama should have never endorsed funding terrorists in the Syrian Civil War. Obama was right to withdraw, but only with a corresponding unwillingness to fund terrorism in Syria.
Syria is misunderstood because America has fought on the wrong side. I hope the West never forgets this, and learns from its errors which almost cost the Middle-East its life.
Where would Syrian rebels go after defeated in Idlib?
The Syrian Civil War is reaching its final years. With Trump ending the anti-Assad rhetoric of 'Assad must go' and planning on working together with Russia to defeat ISIS, it is very unlikely Trump will fund rebels in Syria.
Rebels in Aleppo are fleeing - they are either returning home and laying down their weapons, or they are fleeing to Idlib; perhaps some are even fleeing to ISIS territory.
With the Trump Administration wishing to work together with Vladimir Putin in Syria to destroy ISIS, Assad would be unlikely to drive rebels out of Idlib after driving them out of Aleppo. Trump, promising Assad to stay, would need his army to butcher ISIS in Deir Ez-Zor and Raqqa, with the cover of American AND Russian airstrikes, ending ISIS for good in Syria.
But after that - when America leaves the Syrian Government in control of previously ISIS-held areas - Assad's might would hammer away at Idlib, ending the Syrian Civil War.
This could all happen within the first year of the Trump Administration.
So, after this year or so, where would the rebels in Idlib go? Well, Turkey, obviously, but where to after that? Would they all return home? Some would undoubtedly turn home.
However, it seems likely that many would be given the opportunity to evacuate from Turkey to fight jihad in Libya. The current Government of National Salvation in Libya has elements of Islamism in their ranks, meaning it wouldn't be hard to get Al-Qaeda Syrian rebels from Turkey to Libya.
I say this because some of the foreign Syrian rebels were initially rebels in Libya against the Gidaffi regime. They even looted Gidaffi's weaponry and took it to Syria to wage against Bashar Al-Assad.
Having lost in Syria, the rebels would mean to hold onto their last victory with fervour: in Libya. This strategy was also employed before by Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the Bush Administration: distract the Americans by fighting them in Iraq rather than elsewhere.
The test would be to see whether or not Trump would buy the distraction as Bush did. Trump, in all likelihood, would not, given his statements about stability being more important than the 'nation building business,' in which Bush was so heavily invested. Instead, Trump would continue the Russio-American alliance against radical Islam established in Syria and use it to great effect in Libya, installing Haftar Al-Khalifa as President there.
But where would they flee after that? Either back home, or those undaunted might go to the areas of heavy stability, which I predict will end up being Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
The war on terror has long been fought on the wrong side: destroying stability to give terrorists safe havens. I look forward to Trump starting to put America on the right side of the war on terror.
Rebels in Aleppo are fleeing - they are either returning home and laying down their weapons, or they are fleeing to Idlib; perhaps some are even fleeing to ISIS territory.
With the Trump Administration wishing to work together with Vladimir Putin in Syria to destroy ISIS, Assad would be unlikely to drive rebels out of Idlib after driving them out of Aleppo. Trump, promising Assad to stay, would need his army to butcher ISIS in Deir Ez-Zor and Raqqa, with the cover of American AND Russian airstrikes, ending ISIS for good in Syria.
But after that - when America leaves the Syrian Government in control of previously ISIS-held areas - Assad's might would hammer away at Idlib, ending the Syrian Civil War.
This could all happen within the first year of the Trump Administration.
So, after this year or so, where would the rebels in Idlib go? Well, Turkey, obviously, but where to after that? Would they all return home? Some would undoubtedly turn home.
However, it seems likely that many would be given the opportunity to evacuate from Turkey to fight jihad in Libya. The current Government of National Salvation in Libya has elements of Islamism in their ranks, meaning it wouldn't be hard to get Al-Qaeda Syrian rebels from Turkey to Libya.
I say this because some of the foreign Syrian rebels were initially rebels in Libya against the Gidaffi regime. They even looted Gidaffi's weaponry and took it to Syria to wage against Bashar Al-Assad.
Having lost in Syria, the rebels would mean to hold onto their last victory with fervour: in Libya. This strategy was also employed before by Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the Bush Administration: distract the Americans by fighting them in Iraq rather than elsewhere.
The test would be to see whether or not Trump would buy the distraction as Bush did. Trump, in all likelihood, would not, given his statements about stability being more important than the 'nation building business,' in which Bush was so heavily invested. Instead, Trump would continue the Russio-American alliance against radical Islam established in Syria and use it to great effect in Libya, installing Haftar Al-Khalifa as President there.
But where would they flee after that? Either back home, or those undaunted might go to the areas of heavy stability, which I predict will end up being Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
The war on terror has long been fought on the wrong side: destroying stability to give terrorists safe havens. I look forward to Trump starting to put America on the right side of the war on terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)