Silver Rocket Bitches!
10th September 2013, 07:07 PM
http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-al-qaeda-terror-606/
In a twist of irony that has escaped mainstream commentators, during the week of 9/11, the US is considering a course of action that will empower Al-Qaeda, i.e. bombing Syria.
As terror expert Evan Kohlmann put it (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/al-qaeda-links-cloud-syrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html), “two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria are Al-Qaeda factions.” Kohlmann (https://flashpoint-intel.com/about_evan_kohlmann.php) is an authority on the subject, having worked as a consultant in terrorism matters for the DoD, DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies.
Regarding the prospective strike on Syria, Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at The Council on Foreign Relations, warns that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-trying-to-help-syria-an-intervention-would-destroy-it/2013/08/30/ee0b2ab4-1014-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story_1.html) “American and allied cruise missiles would be to the benefit of the Al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad—the same militants whom US drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen.”
According to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-31/un-team-quits-syria-after-kerry-sets-stage-for-u-s-action.html), speaking off the record with military and intelligence officials within Obama’s own administration, “among the primary concerns expressed were that the main beneficiaries could be groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda.”
Assad is a secular leader, which is one of the reasons he is hated by Al-Qaeda. Bombing the secular regime he represents makes it easier for fundamentalist challengers like Al-Qaeda to seize power. Such transfer of power, from secular regimes to religious extremists, is not without recent precedent. In Iraq, the US overthrow of secular leader, Saddam Hussein, enabled an Al-Qaeda organization (AQI) to emerge in Iraq in 2003. As the head of UN weapons inspections in Iraq points out (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix), AQI “didn’t exist in the country until after the invasion.” Now the US wants to participate in the Syrian conflict—the very same conflict that’s provided a sanctuary (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/world/middleeast/syrian-war-fueling-attacks-by-al-qaeda-in-iraq-officials-say.html?_r=2&) for AQI leaders.
On the topic of Iraq, the US intelligence community expected the invasion of Iraq to increase the likelihood of terror attacks against the US. As a letter (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/09TTEX.html) from CIA Director George Tenet to the Senate Intelligence Committee chair revealed, it was anticipated that Bush’s invasion of Iraq would lead to“much less constrain[t] in adopting terrorist actions”. The intelligence community was correct; according to a study (http://iraqslogger.powweb.com/downloads/bergen_cruickshank_MoJo.pdf) by research fellows at the NYU School of Law, terror has increased by over 600% following the invasion of Iraq.
In a twist of irony that has escaped mainstream commentators, during the week of 9/11, the US is considering a course of action that will empower Al-Qaeda, i.e. bombing Syria.
As terror expert Evan Kohlmann put it (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/al-qaeda-links-cloud-syrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html), “two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria are Al-Qaeda factions.” Kohlmann (https://flashpoint-intel.com/about_evan_kohlmann.php) is an authority on the subject, having worked as a consultant in terrorism matters for the DoD, DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies.
Regarding the prospective strike on Syria, Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at The Council on Foreign Relations, warns that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-trying-to-help-syria-an-intervention-would-destroy-it/2013/08/30/ee0b2ab4-1014-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story_1.html) “American and allied cruise missiles would be to the benefit of the Al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad—the same militants whom US drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen.”
According to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-31/un-team-quits-syria-after-kerry-sets-stage-for-u-s-action.html), speaking off the record with military and intelligence officials within Obama’s own administration, “among the primary concerns expressed were that the main beneficiaries could be groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda.”
Assad is a secular leader, which is one of the reasons he is hated by Al-Qaeda. Bombing the secular regime he represents makes it easier for fundamentalist challengers like Al-Qaeda to seize power. Such transfer of power, from secular regimes to religious extremists, is not without recent precedent. In Iraq, the US overthrow of secular leader, Saddam Hussein, enabled an Al-Qaeda organization (AQI) to emerge in Iraq in 2003. As the head of UN weapons inspections in Iraq points out (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix), AQI “didn’t exist in the country until after the invasion.” Now the US wants to participate in the Syrian conflict—the very same conflict that’s provided a sanctuary (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/world/middleeast/syrian-war-fueling-attacks-by-al-qaeda-in-iraq-officials-say.html?_r=2&) for AQI leaders.
On the topic of Iraq, the US intelligence community expected the invasion of Iraq to increase the likelihood of terror attacks against the US. As a letter (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/09TTEX.html) from CIA Director George Tenet to the Senate Intelligence Committee chair revealed, it was anticipated that Bush’s invasion of Iraq would lead to“much less constrain[t] in adopting terrorist actions”. The intelligence community was correct; according to a study (http://iraqslogger.powweb.com/downloads/bergen_cruickshank_MoJo.pdf) by research fellows at the NYU School of Law, terror has increased by over 600% following the invasion of Iraq.