Sen. Corker Thinks the US Will Be Arming Syrian Rebels Soon

Credit: VOA News; Scott Bobb reporting from Aleppo, SyriaCredit: VOA News; Scott Bobb reporting from Aleppo, SyriaSen. Bob Corker (R- Tenn.), a ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said that he thinks the U.S. will be arming Syrian rebels soon. What is perhaps more disturbing is that Corker also said that, "We're doing a lot more on the ground than really is known...”

Middle Eastern and Western troops already reportedly took part in an operation to arm Syrian rebels back in March, and last month the Pentagon said that the additional American forces being sent to Jordan was a sign that the U.S. will be increasingly involved in the Syrian civil war.

Increased involvement could mean imposing a no-fly zone or conducting air strikes, but Corker’s comments that “We're doing a lot more on the ground than really is known” suggests that American forces are already assisting Syrian rebels.

Obama has come under pressure recently to ramp up involvement in Syria after reports emerged that the Assad regime may have used chemical weapons and thereby crossing the self-imposed “red line” after which the U.S. would supposedly intervene further in Syria. Matt Welch wrote about the crossing of this “red line” back in March.

If the Obama administration is going to authorize the arming of Assad’s opposition it needs to explain what steps will be put in place to stop whatever weapons the U.S sends from ending up in the hands of jihadist groups that are fighting against Assad. If the U.S. unknowingly arms rebels that are aiming to establish an Islamic state in Syria it is hard to see how American interests will be made safer as a result. Even among those who believe that humanitarian intervention is justified it must be admitted that Syria is not the same as Bosnia (despite what some might think) and that both sides of the Syrian civil war contain elements that we should not be assisting.

Should increased involvement in the Syrian conflict include the authorization of air strikes or the imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria then there must be an explanation that details how long such an operation will last and where the administration believes Assad's allies will go were such an operation authorized. While NATO’s campaign of air strikes and the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya did help overthrow Gaddafi it has had less than desirable consequences in Mali, and it would be naïve to think that a similar operation in Syria would somehow have contained effects. 

Lastly, the Obama administration needs to detail how involved the U.S. will be in a post-Assad Syria. Will the U.S. government be sticking around once the conflict is over? If so, on what authority, with what remit, and for how long?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Will they be getting background checks?

  • Hugh Akston||

    No rebel insurgent needs a magazine with more than seven rounds.

  • DJF||

    Can't we just give them shotguns and when Assads men show up they can shoot through the door?

  • Tim||

    How about a mandatory waiting period?

  • Almanian!||

    "We're doing a lot more on the ground than really is known...”

    The good Senator also needs to learn to SHUT THE FUCK UP, too. Work on it, Bob. Loose lips sink ships and all that.

    Also - fuck fuck fuck fuck don't get involved in a ground war in Asia the Middle East...

  • DJF||

    """'The good Senator also needs to learn to SHUT THE FUCK UP, too. Work on it, Bob. Loose lips sink ships and all that."""

    Yeah, its fine for the Syrians to know but we can't let the US public know what the US is doing.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, that's totally what I meant.

  • Tman||

    Lastly, the Obama administration needs to detail how involved the U.S. will be in a post-Assad Syria. Will the U.S. government be sticking around once the conflict is over? If so, on what authority, with what remit, and for how long?

    Even if Obama gave answers to these questions, would anyone really believe him?

    No one in the press has called him out about the stupid red line comment, never mind the shitstorm of Benghazi. Obama can say whatever he wants and it's only true for the moment he says it and not a second longer.

  • sasob||

    Why would anyone take seriously anything said by the Liar-in-Chief?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    By the way: another Clinton scandal, another military distraction. They know how to play the GOP.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

  • ||

    We'll be greeted as liberators!

  • DJF||

    Especially since we still don't seem to know much about who these rebels are and what their agendas are.

  • Tman||

    Actually, there isn't really that much left to fuck up in Syria. It's basically a big pile of burning rubble right now. There isn't much left standing. The majority of the infrastructure is gone and whatever GDP they had before is no longer breathing.

    Not to say that we couldn't make it worse anyways, just that it's such a giant fucking mess right now aside from nuking the whole place from orbit there isn't much left to do except make some rubble bounce.

  • Lord Humungus||

    we'll have to rebuild their infrastructure - you know, hearts 'n' minds and all that.

  • UnCivilServant||

    If we actually move in to do that, we start picking up blame for when everything isn't perfect afterwards.

  • sasob||

    ...there isn't much left to do except make some rubble bounce.

    That's what they said about Afghanistan, but we're still there. What's it been now - over ten years?

  • Tman||

    Yeah, but Afghanistan said "we have the guy behind 9/11 and fuck you we aren't giving him up".

    Assad isn't that stupid.

    Not to say I think we should still be in Afghanistan, but it's a different ball game now.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    And the whole idea of nation building in a war zone is retarded. Afghanistan, for the most part, is probably close to 1800's U.S. on some level, and trying to turn that into Germany even circa 1970 while avoiding explosives and bullets is impossible. Let them have their shitpile back.

  • Aresen||

    there isn't much left to do except make some rubble bounce.

    Well, there is still the opportunity to turn their abstract "Death to America" into something up-close-and-personal.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Occupy™ Syria!

  • A Serious Man||

    We are the...(whatever % of Syrians are in this country)!

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else armed rebels?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Che?

  • Tim||

    Princess Leia?

  • Almanian!||

    The University of Nevada - Las Vegas Skeet Shooting Team?

  • ||

  • UnCivilServant||

    Hernan Cortez?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes. Captain Kirk in that episode where his primitive buddy's girlfriend tries to make moves on him for his phaser.

  • Aresen||

    France in 1776 to 1783?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, and thanks for the help, by the way.

  • ||

    Why are you thanking a Canadian? They sure as fuck didn't help. The opposite, in fact. Damn puckheads!

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was thanking the French, of course.

  • Paul.||

    The United States?

  • A Serious Man||

    Khan Noonien Singh?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    The Klingons, in that Yangs vs. Komes one?

  • ||

    Lastly, the Obama administration needs to detail how involved the U.S. will be in a post-Assad Syria.

    I don't think the war pigs give a fuck what you think they "need" to do. They're going to get involved because that's what they do. It's been made very clear that no one will squawk if the president decides to fuck with other countries without declaring war or even explaining what the end game is or what purpose it serves. Both TEAMs like it that way, so it ain't changing any time soon.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Odd, I have a Black Sabbath song in my head now.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Iron Man?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, that other one.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    NIB

  • Pro Libertate||

    The other other one.

  • ||

    Fairies Wear Boots.

  • Paul.||

    You wanna know how screwed up getting involved in Syria is? You really wanna know?

    NPR interviews two women on either side of the Syrian conflict.

    They ask the woman who's general loyalty was with the regime, and you get pretty much what you'd expect. There was some humility and lack of overt support for Assad specifically, but there was the expected fear of an Islamist state and a desire to hold elections-- oh and the general disbelief that the regime was bombing or killing anyone who didn't need killin'.

    Then they asked the woman on the Syrian rebel side. She was mad at Israel for attacking Assad's army because even though those weapons were being used against them, those weapons were 'the people's weapons, paid for by the Syrian people'. Also, she felt that Israel's intervention was sinister, and... get this... was probably colluding with the Assad regime, with the Assad regime asking Israel to attack itself to create international sympathy... or something.

    Even Renee Montagne was credulous with her response.

    Yeah, getting involved in this conflict is a Bad Idea. So I'm sure Obama is all for it.

    Krugman will of course claim that we're not involved enough...

  • A Frayed Knot||

    Which is why I'm all for supplying just enough arms to keep the rebels effective enough to wreck Assad's army and Hezbollah. The more they kill each other the better it is for us.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    The proximity to Israel itself is enough to avoid this fucking thing like the plague.

  • sasob||

    Sen. Bob Corker (R- Tenn.), a ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said that he thinks the U.S. will be arming Syrian rebels soon. What is perhaps more disturbing is that Corker also said that, "We're doing a lot more on the ground than really is known...”

    Will be? I'd bet even money the whole Benghazi thing was about arming the rebels - which means the whole story probably won't come out for years.

  • Paul.||

    I disagree. Gaddafi's regime wasn't crazy enough to do it.

    Gaddafi learned from the 80s when bombs started flying through his livingroom windows after sponsoring several international terrorist attacks. Say what you will about Reagan's foreign policy, but Libya became a very quiet neighborhood after that.

    Now, the New Libya? Who knows.

  • Juice||

    Sibel Edmonds seems to think that the Boston bombing and Syria have something to do with each other vis a vis Russia. She also thinks that Russia will "allow" the US to intervene in Syria, but in exchange the US will have to lay off Iran for a while. I have no idea, but it's interesting.

  • db||

    All this bullshit in the Middle East reads like some asshole cult is deliberately driving toward the Biblical End Times. It's like some morons from a weird cult got the keys to the world leadership and decided to stir as much shit up in the most dangerous flashpot in the world to see if they could maximize the body count and disruption to the rest of the world.

  • Aresen||

    It's like some morons from a weird cult...

    Never thought of the US Congress that way, but it does make sense: Deluded followers, fantastical plots, paranoid conspiracies, a leadership that enriches itself at the expense of the followers.

  • ant1sthenes||

    So, in the picture, is that Arabic for "When we play the Game of Thrones"?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement