Up-chuck alert — Paul Ryan embarks on a blame those nasty conservatives first campaign
Pulling out all US troops from Iraq without sufficient time for political stability to be achieved was a horrendous Obama enactment. There were a number of commentaries we reviewed today that help explain how complicated the mess is in that part of the world now with the problem of ISIS, other militant Islamist groups, continued threats against the U.S., untrustworthy state actors and the pogrom against Christians in the area.
Streiff, writing at RedState, in an article titled Training the Syrian opposition is a bad idea highlights that even liberal establishment journals are aware that Obama’s policies are problematic to say the least. Accordingly Strief refers to an article in the New York Times U.S. Pins Hope on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map. Strief in his worthy article explains:
Obama’s speech on Wednesday night laying out an alleged strategy for dealing with ISIS included a proposal for arming fighters from Syrian opposition groups. This is a longstanding dream of the administration. Many ideas bring with them negatives. Rarely do you confront an idea that is not only bad in concept but one with no good points to offset it. Fortunately, training a surrogate army requires Congressional approval. Congress should decline. . . .
All evidence tends to indicate that the “moderate” and “vetted” groups work hand in glove with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups . . .
Why are we training fighters in Syria when the major front is Iraq? The only good answer to this is that the administration is still pursuing its objective of overthrowing Assad and using the attack on ISIS as the backdoor to achieve that . . .
We are on the verge of training people who are politically indistinguishable from al-Qaeda to carry out a proxy war against the Syrian regime. We have no way of directing them to fight ISIS, should they even be inclined to do so. We have no control over them in the field even though we know they have and they will commit atrocities and participate in ethnic cleansing. We have no way to demobilize these people when we no longer need them.
That there are no Islamic moderates to rely on is maintained by these commenters posting in response to a Kathryn Jean Lopez (KJL) article in National Review. Note that KJL’s purpose in her article is to castigate Ted Cruz for somehow inappropriately suggesting in a speech he gave at a conference, in part about religious tolerance in the Middle East, that support for Israel is important because it offers religious tolerance. The bulk of the comments in response supported Cruz, not Lopez. We feel Cruz deserved praise and certainly not KLJ’s approbation. What we found additionally relevant were comments to her article further suggest that the cross currents and divided loyalties make the situation a mess even by Middle east standards. Excerpts from those comments follow. Many more are available at the site.
docweasel writes:
The backlash against CRUZ, of all people, for being heckled off-stage by people who invited him to be there, and who presumably knew his stands, is ridiculous. The narrative now is that they were booing him for pandering.(to Israel) Bullhockey. They were booing Israel and the Jews, because, although they claim to be Christians, they are also Arabs. They hate and blame the Israelis more than their fellow Arabs who are killing them.
The-Materialist writes: The truth is, that Christians in Syria are being killed and ethnically cleansed by the “moderate” Syrian opposition. The opposition, though Obama and all his acolytes know this, is ISIS (and its equivalents). Obama is 100% behind Qatar, Turkey, and their puppets ISIS, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. ISIS got a little out of hand (you know, that “youthful enthusiasm” and “religious fervor”, with their “media savvy” and “skill at social media”), and killed two of its most eager American cheerleaders in the media. They (beheaded journalists) chose to lie down with dogs, and got a terminal case of fleas. Once the bad PR blows over, it will be business as usual. Obama, Kerry,and Hillary will send a few American soldiers to get killed, and then they’ll switch sides again in time for the election, . . . Nevertheless, while crying about the Christians, Obama and McCain and NRO still want to give these same people more arms.
The comments above are un-vetted by the editors of National Review but from other reading we believe they are at least arguable points. We quote them for their passion and succinctness. We don’t know what the “solution” is other than at least aggressive focused defense and a refuge for the religious minorities.
Still more reading on the topic — an excerpt from Erick Erickson at RedState:
Now comes word that the very groups we wish to train, fund, and arm have entered into a ceasefire agreement with ISIS. The President cannot answer one basic question: if we train, fund, and arm these rebels, how do we know they will fight ISIS and not just keep fighting the Syrian government? He cannot answer that. With this latest news, it appears less likely the rebels will fight ISIS.
Congress should reject the President’s plan. It really is no strategy. We could more effectively train the various Christian militias in the Middle East that have sprung up just trying to preserve their culture. They would be vastly less likely to turn on us and we would be helping stop a genocide instead of potentially just exacerbating the Syrian civil war.
Also of interest are these rather pithy articles from PJ Media:
Looking for Mr. ‘Moderate Syrian Rebel’ (Rick Moran) and Barack Obama’s Biggest Lie by Roger Simon
Where does the establishment find these guys…or do they create them?
Paul Ryan, complains about Conservative Media, Praises Obama
Congressman Ryan — Your team could not defeat Barack Obama after a disastrous first term. We have seen your policy suggestions and political skills in action and found them wanting, weak and part of the problem.
R Mall and DLH
