THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, March 05, 2013


Neoconservatives were – and still are – so full of loathing and hatred of Syria’s President Bashir al-Assad that they were willing to pretend that al-Assad’s enemies were the neocons friends. As a result, neoconservatives from the very beginning of the uprising in Syria backed the rebels in the hope that the US and their allies would be able to control the outcome of the civil war that has raged in Syria for nigh on two years and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and millions of lives disrupted.

Now, somewhat belatedly, neoconservatives have finally woken up to themselves and realise that the side they have been backing all this time consist mainly of jihadi Islamists who the neocons have always regarded as their bitterest enemies and that, no matter who ‘wins’, any future Syrian government will likely be no more friendly toward Israel and the West – in fact, probably less so – than al-Assad was.

A recent article by neoconservative Michael Rubin in Commentary magazine demanding the rebels not be armed exposes the extent of their misplaced support for the rebels fighting al-Assad.

The article was written only a few days ago on 3 March 2013 yet the first signs of the rebels being something other than revolutionaries wanting to be rid of a dictator came to the world’s attention back in December 2011 when two suicide bombs were detonated in an al-Assad loyalist held area of Damascus. Secular fighters – from either side – do not use suicide bombers.

The use of suicide bombers should have rung alarm bells with the neoconservatives then. For well over a year neoconservatives have been aware that jihadi Islamists have been involved heavily in the revolt against al-Assad yet, until now, have insisted the rebels be armed.

Having woken up to the mistake, Rubin is now calling for the US to be prepared to “neutralise any group which threatens US national interests”; in other words, to be prepared to intervene directly in order to prevent Syria becoming a theocratic Islamist state, one with access to chemical weapons and missiles capable of reaching Israel or being transferred to other Islamist groups.

Control of the outcome of the Syrian war has now become paramount, not just for the neoconservatives but also for the West. But the reality is that, no matter who wins, the Syrian people, whether they be pro al-Assad or anti, they will always resent the fact that Israel still occupies the Golan Heights.

If only the neocons and their Western allies would realise that support for Israel and its quest to create a Greater Israel together with invading Islamic lands for whatever pretext is what radicalises young Muslims, then perhaps we could start putting the world to rights. But then, neocons aren’t in the slightest bit interested in ‘democracy’ in Islamic lands – and nor it seems are many of the Islamic peoples of those lands. Neocons want a Greater Israel and US hegemony over other people’s resources while Islamic people simply want the right to self determination, which includes the right to reject ‘democracy’ being shoved down their throats – especially Western-style ‘democracy’.

No comments: