Syria, a Shiite Muslim state sponsor of global terror, is engaged in a manufactured civil war. Ironically, Syria’s enemy in this civil war is another Muslim sect widely known for sponsoring terrorism, Sunni Islam. Given Obama’s recent decision to involve the United States—in unspecified ways—in this very Muslim problem, I have to wonder: Why does America care?
Lost in the conversation taking place over US military involvement in this Syrian crisis, is the cause of the current conflict: Hunger and the threat of starvation.
Before Obama‘s election in 2008, the seeds of the Syrian conflict had already been sown. After experiencing the worst draught in 100 years, Syrian food independence—a promise fulfilled by the former brutal Shiite ruler and father of Syria’s current President Bashar al-Assad—was in ruins. What once was a thriving state sponsored farming economy was in deep trouble. Farming jobs evaporated and historic food shortages caused the nation to split, leaving the Assad loyal Shiites controlling food and water supplies and the Sunni population left to pound sand.
I do not remember President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or then UN Ambassador Susan Rice calling for the world community and Syria’s wealthy Gulf neighbors to provide food shipments to quell this reasonable uprising when it began. No, they let it fester and the Saudis were granted an opportunity to influence a covert regime change favoring the Saudi financed Sunni al-Nussra Front rebels.
Now it appears that Assad may have taken extraordinarily brutal steps to defeat the Saudi backed overthrow of his government—allegedly using Sarin gas and his stockpiled weapons of mass destruction against rebel forces and a rioting Syrian people. Given Saudi Arabia’s past involvement and desire for a Sunni rebel victory, shouldn’t Saudi Arabia be sending troops or weapons to back the al Nussra Front in its efforts to defeat Assad and remove him from power? Why does it require American military involvement?
Iran and Hezbollah are culpable in this enduring conflict. However, the Saudis are the real catalyst fomenting the Syrian civil war.
Now America, under Obama’s leadership, will be supplying weapons and intelligence to a Saudi funded Sunni Islamist terrorist groups fighting for the installation of a different radical Islamist government in Syria. Although it is not yet official, there is also a real possibility that American troops may take part in the efforts to aid Sunni rebels in their fight.
Does anyone think that changing the Shiite Islamist government to one of Sunni Islamist rule will prevent or tolerate civil unrest the next time Syria’s water supply dries up? Will this lead to a revolutionary respect for human rights and religious freedom for all men and women regardless of their faith? Will the overthrow of the Assad regime, and the installation of an al-Qaeda affiliated government—that worships an ideology demanding all Muslim nations be ruled by strict Islamic law—lead to a crackdown on radical Islamist terror?
The Obama White House has suggested that al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels will be more fair and caring to all Syrians. Remember, these are the rebels who recently forced a 14-year-old boy’s parents to watch his public execution for blaspheming Mohammed. His crime, uttering this phrase:” Even if Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t.” These are the so-called freedom fighters our President wishes to support.
Perhaps our cold war enemy Russia has reasonable justification for buttressing the Assad Presidency enduring a Saudi proxy war. Russia has more to protect than a Mediterranean naval base and a military customer. Russia’s support for Assad appears to reveal a reasonable fear of an enemy it shares with America.
A notorious incursion of Sunni Islam has been taking place in Russia for decades. Sunni Islamists—like the ones that carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks on America—have been the principal source of the spread of radical Islam in Russia. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has a well-known disdain and justified intolerance for Sunni extremism, He has stated publicly that his ally in Syria is fighting against a threat similar to that his nation experienced in Chechnya. I might be inclined to agree.
So once again, why are our President and Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham so supportive of a brutal Sunni Islamist rebel victory over a brutal Shiite Islamist government? Do they really believe that this is a good foreign policy decision for America? Will handing over Assad’s stockpiles of WMD’s to a radical Islamist terror organization make Americans safer?
Sounds to me like the Presidents claims of ending the war on terror are pure bunk. Providing weapons and support to so-called Syrian rebels will only make our Sunni terrorist enemies stronger while growing Shiite Islam’s hatred of the West. The United States is now responsible for every civilian death, Shiite mosque destroyed, and every miscarriage of Sharia justice in this Muslim conflict. Somehow, Israel will also be faulted and one day these Islamists will ban together against America and turn our weapons against our sons and daughters fighting a war started by Saudi Arabia.
Let them kill each other. We should have bombed the radicalism out of Saudi Arabia on September 12, 2001. Russia would not have said a word and our military spared thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of wounded. Instead, our government caters to them, risks more lives, and puts America further in debt while the Gods of Gulf oil laugh at us.
The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose US involvement in this Saudi funded Muslim mess. So why doesn’t Obama?
What do you think of that Barry?