The Corner

Michael Rubin: “Arming the Syrian Rebels Is Strategic Suicide”

Hopefully, the Beltway foreign policy clerisy will heed the monitory advice of one of our best informed analysts. Michael Rubin’s post at Commentary reminds me of the phenomenon I began to witness and wonder about in 1993: How it was that Washington political officials, who knew precious little about Islam, presumed to know more about the “true” Muslim creed than scholars like the Blind Sheikh, who were renowned and in a position to command acts of terrorism because of their lifetimes spent mastering Islamic scripture and sharia jurisprudence. Michael, who has been traveling in Iraq and speaking to the locals who are intimately familiar with their Syrian neighbors, writes:

With all due respect to congressmen and some advocates for arming the Syrian rebels, those in the region are better able to vet Syrian rebels than U.S. officials 6,000 miles away.

And upon vetting the “rebels,” what is their conclusion? 

[W]hen I visited Iraq last October, many Iraqi Shi’ites warned against any support for the Syrian opposition, claiming they were more radical than the Americans realized…. This trip, however, has been a wake-up call: Not only Iraqi Shi’ites, but also Iraqi Christians, Iraqi Kurds, and even many Iraqi Sunnis oppose American provision of arms to the Syrian rebels on the grounds that the Syrian rebels are either more radical than the Americans realize, or that nothing will prevent the so-called moderates whom the United States arms from selling or losing the weaponry to the radicals. There is a real sense of urgency, here, as Iraqis believe they will be the first victims of Sunni radicalism in neighboring Syria.

It is worth emphasizing that, like many of us opposed to intervention on the side of the Sunni Islamic supremacists who dominate the Syrian “rebel” factions, Michael is no fan of the heinous Assad regime, as no agenda to perpetuate it, has no illusions about the insidiousness of Assad’s backers in Tehran and Moscow, and has no hesitation about the use of American force to protect America’s vital interests in the world. The point is that our interests are not furthered by arming America’s enemies – or by rationalizing the arming of “moderates” who either are not moderate or will eventually be brushed aside by the far stronger sharia supremacist forces.

Most Popular

Culture

Cold Brew’s Insidious Hegemony

Soon, many parts of the United States will be unbearably hot. Texans and Arizonans will be able to bake cookies on their car dashboards; the garbage on the streets of New York will be especially pungent; Washington will not only figuratively be a swamp. And all across America, coffee consumers will turn their ... Read More
National Security & Defense

The Warmonger Canard

Whatever the opposite of a rush to war is — a crawl to peace, maybe — America is in the middle of one. Since May 5, when John Bolton announced the accelerated deployment of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the Persian Gulf in response to intelligence of a possible Iranian attack, the press has been aflame ... Read More
Elections

The Democrats Made Two Joe Biden Miscalculations

I think it's safe to say that there are many, many progressive Democrats who are more than a little surprised -- and a lot chagrined -- at Joe Biden's polling dominance. Look at FiveThirtyEight's polling roundup. Aside from a few high and low outliers, he leads the race by a solid 20 points (at least). Even ... Read More