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.

Saturday, April 13, 2013


When the rebels began their revolution the neocons backed them and called for the US to support the rebels just as happened in Libya. But from the very start of the revolution it was destined to turn into a civil war – a war that would attract foreign fighters, including jihadists and other assorted Islamic fighters. They came with their years of fighting experience and weapons scored from earlier ‘Spring Revolutions’ across North Africa as well as from Iraq and elsewhere. They also came with financial support from various Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a result, they soon dominated command of the battlefront leaving the locally grown rebels to follow rather than lead the fight.

This has now thrown the neocons into a quandary with one, Daniel Pipes, even suggesting that the situation on the ground has become so detrimental to US, Israeli and Western interests that support should now be switched to maintain Syrian President Bashir al-Assad in power. Meanwhile, neocons Marco Rubio and Bob Casey, both Senators, want to continue the fight against al-Assad and are calling on the US to support the rebels – but only the rebel groups that are secular and representative of Western interests. It all leaves neocon Commentary propagandist Jonathan Tobin not knowing quite which way to turn.

I said more than a year ago that it’ll all end in tears for the neocons.


opit said...

Wow. " there is no chance that the United States will have any real interest in nation-building in Syria after what is universally thought to be a disaster in Iraq, even if it was a noble and misunderstood endeavor." You'd never guess he was referring to an action described in "Post Saddam Iraq : Desert Crossing" as an activity preceding beheading the heads of government in an arc encompassing oil bearing countries. There are reasons even today that "the Bible for Iraq" is kept secret.

steiner said...

I'm confused as well. And if there is a clear answer, we would all like to know. Assad seems kind of like Saddam Hussein - interested only in his minority Shia population (Saddam was Sunni, but same concept), so it seems like a Sunni v Shia issue rather like the breakup of Yugoslavia but without historical borders to allow for a definitive outcome.
I do find it ironic those same people who slam the US for attempting to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein are criticizing the lack of intervention in Syria.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Damian Lataan said...

The main problem is that, while most want to be free of their dictators, no one really wants the US to do the freeing because the next problem they have is freeing themselves of the Americans!