John McCain Tweets Article Pointing Out How Scary Some of Assad's Opponents Are

This morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sent the following tweet:

 

The Daily Beast article by Bruce Riedel discusses Jabhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda-linked terror group that is fighting against the Assad regime in Syria. The article mentions al Nusra's growing influence and that Al Qaeda's strength in the region will increase as the conflict in Syria continues. One of the most interesting sections of the article is the following:

For now the jihadists are focused on Syria and winning the war against Assad. But their ambitions are much larger. With a base in Syria they can threaten American interests in the entire Levant region, Europe, and our allies in Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. The worst danger is that the al Nusra front will get control of some of Syria's large chemical weapons arsenal. Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad, built major chemical-weapon capability in the 1980s, including the deadly nerve agent sarin, which was first developed by the Nazis. Al Qaeda has been trying to get a weapon of mass destruction for years. Now in Syria it may be closer than ever.

It is interesting that Sen. McCain would cite this article as a "must-read" considering that he is a proponent of arming the Syrian opposition by working with "'third-world countries' and the Arab League." If the U.S. were to send arms to the Syrian opposition, even while trying to make sure the weapons do not end up in the hands of jihadists, it is hard to imagine that some of these weapons would not find their way to al Nusra and similar groups. By sending arms to rebels in Syria the U.S. could very well end up aiding organizations that wish to harm the U.S. and its allies after Assad is removed from power.

Unfortunately for interventionists like Sen. McCain both the Assad regime and its opposition include groups that are not fans of the U.S. Assad is being supported by Iran and Hezbollah while his opposition includes groups like al Nusra. If the rebels overthrow Assad it will be in large part thanks to the efforts of jihadist fighters. If the rebels overthrow Assad with arms supplied with the help of the U.S. what is the interventionist strategy then, are we then supposed to engage in another set of operations to address the jihadist influence in a post-war Syria? Given the growing jihadist influence in Syria it is hard to see why a Syria after Assad will necessarily be better for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.  

Comments

[John]

Given the growing jihadist influence in Syria it is hard to see why a Syria after Assad will necessarily be better for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.

Well no shit. Basically jihadists are armed and willing to kill. That generally puts you in charge unless someone else kills you first.

But it is the Arab Spring. They are all groovy brown people. I am sure it will all turn out well. If we just let them take over, they will love us for it.

[Eduard van Haalen]

And if not, that was totally unexpected and not something for which you can blame the interventionists!

[Ken Shultz]

Was the Muslim Brotherhood ever so friendly to the United States as they are now that they're in power?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Was the Muslim Brotherhood ever so friendly to the United States as they are now that they're in power?

FTFY

And I don't give a shit about the good opinion of someone who thinks my wife should look like Darth Vader when we're at the beach or risk stoning.

[Ken Shultz]

You hate the fundamentalists? Good for you.

"If we just let them take over, they will love us for it."

Point is that a group like the MB, who were incredibly hostile to us, are effectively our partners in Egypt right now. There's no great reason to think a freedom loving white knight will take over in Syria once Assad falls, but there's a good chance that whomever replaces Assad will be less friendly to Iran than Assad used to be.

And there's a chance they could be more friendly to American interests, too.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I fail to see how supporting MB is morally any better than supporting the secular dictatorships and authoritarian states that they are replacing.

[Ken Shultz]

Morally, there are huge questions hanging out there.

Strategically speaking Having the MB with a legitimate means to power and a seat at the table...if that means the MB goes from being an anchorless force for Islamist jihad in the world, and a never ending source of recruits, to a group trying to stay in power by appeasing various constituents within Egypt?

Then there are strategic benefits to not having Mubarak in power any more.

That formula may work in more than one place--although nothing is guaranteed. Nothing except that the dictatorship in Syria will continue to have the effect of swelling the ranks of those who can only find legitimacy in radical Islam.

[Eduard van Haalen]

The depressing thing is that there *are* liberals (in the original sense of the term) in the Middle East, but they don't have as many weapons as the non-liberals.

[John Thacker]

Perhaps that was Sen. McCain's point, that we should have been arming the liberals because if we don't, then the alternative is the jihads taking over the opposition because other people will fund them.

It's similar to an argument that by supporting the Bosnian Muslims, they like us, but if we hadn't, they would have turned to jihadists and Wahhabists. Or an argument that our problem was not in supporting the Afghanis against the Soviets, but in ignoring Afghanistan (and not supporting liberals and allies) and standing by as Iranian and Pakistani allied groups fought over the country after the Soviets left.

Perhaps giving the senator too much credit, but it's not an insane argument (though it may be wrong) to say that if Assad is going to fall, you'd rather have strengthened the hand of the better groups in the opposition and made friends.

[Eduard van Haalen]

How many armed liberal groups are poised to take over in Syria?

[Ray]

None. The closest thing to "liberals" (besides the usual expat Chalabi types) in Syria is the Assad regime, unfortunately. Likewise, Najbullah in Afghanistan.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Not just about weapons; it's also about the level of organization, coordination, and sheer numbers.

Yes, there are liberals in Syria. Unsurprisingly, a rather sizeable number of those who are sympathetic to such political tendencies are sitting it out: they tend to be businessmen, and it's not generally good business sense to agitate against the sentiment of their customers. This is especially true in a place like Syria, where the general will tends to take a rather unforgiving attitude towards those outside the fold. Additionally, liberals will also make the mistake of making a system that is too democratic -- thus providing the tools for Islamists to dismantle anything positive that they build. Marginalization of political liberals happened in Iraq post-2003, and it will happen in Syria as well -- just as it has happened in Egypt and Libya.

[Bardas Phocas]

So some woggish gunbunny gets free ASSAULT WEAPONS from Uncle Sam, but little old tax serf (me) has to be happy with a single shot black powder pistol.

[LTC(ret) John]

Just join a Mexican cartel, you'll get plenty of guns from Uncle Sam!

/Eric Holder

[Scarecrow Repair]

Exactly. Arms against tyranny works fine for allies such as these on distant foreign shores, but are too scary close to home.

[Hugh Akston]

Look the US only gives weapons to the good insurgent rebels okay? You don't think Uncle Sam knows a good rebel from a bad one? What about that guy we supported against Iran in the 70s? Saddam something or other? He was a stand-up guy. Or that guerrilla fighter against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Obama bin Lapin, wasn't it? I'm sure that all turned out fine.

[SugarFree]

Since we have perfect judgement and no such thing as blowback exists, we can give guns to whoever we like, dammit.

[Episiarch]

Just let the really smart people in the administration and the Pentagon handle this, Hugh. Their track record proves they know what they're doing. Besides, Michelle Obama won an Oscar so you're not allowed to question her husband now.

[LTC(ret) John]

"the really smart people in the administration and the Pentagon"

Sure, next thing you will tell me is that you have proof of Sasquatch.

[Episiarch]

Of course I do. Michelle Obama.

I REST MY CASE (drops microphone)

[LTC(ret) John]

And here I was expecting to see STEVE SMITH!

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Might have more impact if the people we supported in Afghanistan didn't turn into the Northern Alliance (the people who allied with us 24 years later), or if our "support" for Iraq and Iran was more than letting them bleed each other out enough that neither could become the regional power to deal with.

[RyanXXX]

wrong on both counts.

MANY of the factions we supported became the Northern Alliance. Others, such as Hekmatyar, are fighting us tooth and nail.

And we actually gave Saddam coordinates and satellite pictures of both military and civilian targets in Iran. A bit more than just "letting them bleed each other," which would be the non-interventionist approach

[LTC(ret) John]

Man, I hate Hekmatyar Gulbuddin. Evil SOB just likes killin' - Foreigners, Hazara, people who look at him funny...

[RyanXXX]

Exactly.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

He's a real bastard.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

The overwhelming majority of the factions we supported either became the Northern Alliance or disappeared/were wiped out by groups like the Taliban. Hekmatyar is an exception to that general rule.

As far as Iraq/Iran go, the policy was not non-interventionist, I'll agree with that -- but saying that it was "support" for either side does not capture the intent of a policy which was overall successful in its stated aims of marginalizing Iraq and Iran during the Cold War.

[Ken Shultz]

A couple of points:

1) Iran is bigger long term threat to American security than Al Qaeda, and Iran losing a key ally in Syria (should Assad fall) shouldn't be completely ignored on the benefit side of the ledger.

That's hardly the end of the cost/benefit analysis, though. I'm just sayin'.

2) It is unseemly to see libertarians argue in favor of dictatorship on the basis that the opportunity for freedom after the dictator falls might prove dangerous. I'm not sayin' that's exactly what's happening here. I'm just sayin'.

[Some call me Tim?]

Libertarians are in favor of any dictatorship.

I don't know why people have a hard time understanding the position that we shouldn't get involved in other countries civil wars, because there are often no good guys.

[Ken Shultz]

I think you meant "Libertarians [aren't] in favor of any dictatorship."

And, yeah, I'm fine with that as a foundation principle if you want to make it one.

Point remains that arguing against overthrowing a dictator on that basis that liberation might bring people we don't like to power--is a hypocritical argument for a libertarian to make.

And I'm not saying anybody here is making that argument exactly--but some of my fellow libertarians seem to be skirting that argument really closely.

Fact is that the argument that freedom is too dangerous--is probably the most basic anti-libertarian argument. And we should avoid making that argument in every context. There are better ways to argue against intervention--and I think we should use them instead.

[RyanXXX]

If "overthrowing a dictator" involves slaughtering Christians and members of minority Islamic sects, than yea, I am against "overthrowing dictators."

The rebels in Syria are scum.

[Ken Shultz]

That's a big fat brush you're painting with, there.

One of the reasons some of the "scum" in Syria has become so dreadful has to do with Assad's oppression.

Oppression like that is cause of all sorts of problems--in Syria, the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you think the Drug War has caused a scale of problems in the U.S. we wouldn't have suffered otherwise (from violent street gangs, etc.), then how much worse must the oppression of a dictator like Assad cause?

Oppression is the cause of so many problems--and freedom is the solution to all of that.

The reason so many violent Jihadis came from places like Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. is in no small part due to the oppressive governments in those countries.

If it were easier for an honest man to make a living, get a wife, finance a family, etc. in those countries--minus the vicious dictators--there'd be a whole lot less violent fundamentalists running with nothing better to do than being a Jihadi, that's for sure.

[LTC(ret) John]

Maybe airdrop shiteloads of guns, ammo and Arabic copies of the Federalist Papers and let 'em sort it out?

[SugarFree]

Goat porn. They all love goat porn.

[Loki]

"If you think Silence of the Lambs is what happens when Abdullah goes out to the barn, you might be a Jihadist."

[Ken Shultz]

I think McCain probably remembers winning the Cold War, in part, by supporting various groups in various countries.

It was a messy business.

But we did win the Cold War.

[RyanXXX]

Yea, sure, we "won" it by funding scum like the Contras and Pinochet, not because of the inherent instability and contradictions of the Soviet system.

Someone sounds like a neocon

[LTC(ret) John]

"Come see the instability inherent to the system!"

[Ken Shultz]

If the system is inherently unstable, then what date on my calendar should I circle for North Korea to finally collapse?

They could go on the way they're going forever. Just let a few million people starve to death every once in a while...

Do you think of North Korea as unstable? Especially now that they have the bomb?

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'd expect the regime in North Korea will be around for a long, long time.

[Calidissident]

I don't think North Korea is stable in the long term, at least compared to relatively free and capitalist countries like South Korea. North Korea is a much smaller, more homogenous country than the Soviet Union was, so it's easier to maintain power. Who knows if the Chicoms would still be in power if they didn't let (a limited version of) capitalism into the country

[34lbs]

North Korea is being sustained by foreign aid... if we (most of the developed world i mean) removed all foreign aid, and engaged with them in unrestricted trade (you know.. went to china on they asses), i assure you, they will go the way of estonia, ukraine and west germany and become much more prosperous because of it.

[Redmanfms]

engaged with them in unrestricted trade

I'm curious what effect you think that will have.

China's shift came about almost entirely from the inside. Our (American) engagement was irrelevant, the man who probably had the greatest impact was actually Lee Kuan Yew, who advised Deng Xiaoping to dump Communism. Had there been no Xiaoping, there would be no liberalising China.

So far, such a figure doesn't appear to exist in North Korea, and if they did, they'd be killed by the generals who want to keep things just the way they are.

And if you don't believe me, you need look no farther than Cuba. It has been trading freely with everyone but the U.S. for decades and it's still a Communist hellhole.

[Ken Shultz]

"Yea, sure, we "won" it by funding scum like the Contras and Pinochet, not because of the inherent instability and contradictions of the Soviet system."

There were two ways communism could have perpetuated itself.

1) Constant expansion.

We made all kinds of mistakes, but what we did to thwart expansion, despite the mistakes, did contribute substantially to communism's fall.

2) Murder by numbers.

This is the North Korean strategy, today. When the communist economy inevitably collapses, rattle your sabers for assistance from the west--but you can starve people off by the hundreds of thousands at a time, too. Keeping to that strategy, North could perpetuate itself forever.

"Someone sounds like a neocon"

What I'm advocating is actually pragmatism or realism--and I've been making fun of neocons here at Hit & Run for almost ten years now.

Making common cause with the Contras or Pinochet wouldn't be a good example of a "neocon" (as most people understand the term). In fact, the necons led the charge in criticizing things like what we did with the Contras and Pinochet.

[34lbs]

Yeah..ok...

[MWG]

"It is unseemly to see libertarians argue in favor of dictatorship on the basis that the opportunity for freedom after the dictator falls might prove dangerous. I'm not sayin' that's exactly what's happening here. I'm just sayin'."

This^

It happens a lot on these threads related to the Arab Spring.

[Gladstone]

Well Raimondo and co. like to argue that Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi were/are bulwarks against Islamic fundamentalism. Rather hypocritical for a libertarian to defend a strongman for brining "stability" when that undercuts one of the main libertarian arguments. Not to mention rather hypocritical to defend those three and dismiss that argument with regards to Mubarak and the Shah.

[MWG]

Exactly.

[RyanXXX]

How is it hypocritical to point out facts?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Special pleading is a more accurate term for what Raimondo et al do, I'll agree.

[RyanXXX]

Fair enough. I have my own problems with Raimondo. But his opposition the military removal of tinpot dictators in order to spread "freedom" isn't one of them

[Ken Shultz]

Opposing something as coercive as war to bring about freedom isn't self-contradictory from a libertarian standpoint.

Opposing people overthrowing a vicious dictator because you mistrust freedom is self-contradictory from a libertarian standpoint.

If you really think people would be better off if only they were oppressed by a vicious dictator, then you should really think hard about being a libertarian really means. I'm a big-tent kinda guy, myself, but I can't see how opposing freedom on the basis that it's too dangerous could be libertarians.

But I'm willing to listen! I'm all ears.

[Gladstone]

Well my problem is more that he says that tinpot dictators that the US overthrew were bulwarks of stability against Islamic fundamentalism whereas tinpot dictators the US supported were not.

Of course if you were to read what Rothbard and co. wrote about Saddam in the 1980s and compare it to what they think about 1980s Iraq today they would be quite different.

[Gladstone]

How is it hypocritical to point out facts?

Tony is that you?

So do you admit that dictators can if fact bring "stability"?

[RyanXXX]

Seeing as point # 1 is completely false and point # 2 is a strawman, I judge you to be full of shit.

Neither Al Qaeda or Iran are serious threats to our security, but if I had to pick one it'd be Al Qaeda.

[Ken Shultz]

"point # 2 is a strawman"

2) It is unseemly to see libertarians argue in favor of dictatorship on the basis that the opportunity for freedom after the dictator falls might prove dangerous. I'm not sayin' that's exactly what's happening here. I'm just sayin'.

----Ken Shultz| @ 1:29PM

I don't see how you can argue that's a straw man after what you wrote:

"How is it hypocritical to point out facts?"

----RyanXXX| @ 3:27PM

This in response to Gladstone when he wrote:

"Well Raimondo and co. like to argue that Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi were/are bulwarks against Islamic fundamentalism. Rather hypocritical for a libertarian to defend a strongman for brining "stability" when that undercuts one of the main libertarian arguments. Not to mention rather hypocritical to defend those three and dismiss that argument with regards to Mubarak and the Shah."

Either my argument's a straw man--if you're a real live, living, breathing straw man.

"Neither Al Qaeda or Iran are serious threats to our security, but if I had to pick one it'd be Al Qaeda."

Does Al Qaeda have a nuclear program or a long range missile program?

Because Iran has both. They don't have them yet--but they're on the way.

[rts]

The CBC have been with this group for a while now:

Are Syria's al Nusra Fighters Terrorists?

Near the end he makes the point that this designation has made al Nusra more popular in Syria.

Parts of this documentary including riding along with al Nusra.

[Loki]

It is interesting that Sen. McCain would cite this article as a "must-read" considering that he is a proponent of arming the Syrian opposition by working with "'third-world countries' and the Arab League."

Surely you weren't expecting logical consistency from John "Maverick" McCain, were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call:

Syrian members of the group [al-Nusra] claim they are only fighting what they call the "near enemy", the Assad regime, and would not follow in al-Qaeda's footsteps by attacking western countries.

However, a video that helped publicise the group inside Syria is laced with anti-western sentiment, warning against foreign intervention in the country. "Is it reasonable to ask help from the criminals?" asks a voice-over commentary. "Have we forgotten that the West and the USA are the regime's partners in his crimes?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....uggle.html

[Lyle]

If the Syrian rebels (our violent Islamist nemesis included) can't overthrow our geo-political nemesis Assad, well, I guess we're going to have to intervene.

Not to mention that intervention might actually save some lives if it can end the civil war.

Regardless, we'll have the deal with the jihadists no matter who wins, but if Assad wins we'll have to deal Assad and the jihadists steal.

[phandaal]

It isn't a civil war. It's the Syrian government fighting a force driven by foreign fighters that left Iraq after the war in Iraq slowed down. There are Syrians fighting alongside the foreigners, but it isn't a straight up Syrian-vs-Syrian battle.

As sour as it may be to admit, Assad isn't 100% lying when he says that his government is fighting terrorists.

[MWG]

The war started when Syrians took to the streets the same way people took to the streets in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East and N. Africa. The fact that foreigners are participating is quite inconsequential.

Are you saying the civil war in the US wouldn't have been a civil war had the Brits offered support to the south?

[RyanXXX]

It would have complicated matters

[ChrisO]

This is a perfect opportunity for the USA to not get involved in something.

[phandaal]

What's interesting about this whole deal is that the DoD has known this for a LONG time.

[Kaptious Kristen]

Assad is a Ba'athist, and therefore a secular nationalist. It should come as a surprise to no one in the political game that Al Qaeda would be interested in toppling him. Christ, these people are disingenuous fucks.

[phandaal]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....als_gambit

One of many articles on the subject. People in the defense establishment have seen this coming for years.

[EternalOptimist]

As McCain ages, it seems he's lost all sense or reason. At this point, any fight, anywhere in the world, cannot be had without our involvement, preferably with one side, while arming both.

I've been listening to him talk on various issues lately, and he isn't even consistent except for moaning and complaining about almost everything.

Can we force our elected officials to take a mental competency test?

[RyanXXX]

When trying to get a rise out of fellow politicos, I say that it's a shame the Viet Cong didn't rid us of him when they had the chance. When they realize I wasn't just making an insensitive joke, but am completely serious, it gets real quiet.

[34lbs]

Can i make the point that you can personally oppose the Assad regime and express solidarity with Arab Spring, especially the liberal (not american liberal.. and definitely not australian liberal) factions within the Arab Spring... but be opposed to a foreign intervention? Personally i think Arab Spring is a movement for good, even if there are conservative/islamist factions in them. I'd take an democratically elected Arab Conservative government over a single party Ba'athist state any day....

[Redmanfms]

Personally i think Arab Spring is a movement for good, even if there are conservative/islamist factions in them.

How?

It's done shit in Syria but gets lots of people killed in a continuing civil war (and the anti-Assad forces are heavily staffed by foreigners), Libya is anarchy with the various tribal groups avenging long festering wrongs (and creating new ones in the process) and squabbling over the spoils, and an Islamist anti-liberty party has filled the power vacuum in Egypt.

The "conservative" (still trying to figure what that word actually means in this context) and Islamist factions make up the majority of the movement, especially in Egypt.

something, something.... but be opposed to a foreign intervention?

I don't think you'll find to many libertarians who will claim you can't root from the sidelines, so I'm kind of puzzled why you included that statement.