This
is a good question and one that no one in the media seems willing to ask. Even
Fox news seems ambivalent, rather skirting the issue in favor of more…"compassionate"
questions.
We
have known for a long time that Al Qaida has been an integral influence within
the Syrian Rebel forces in much the same way they were, in Libya. If you will
recall, the very same DC voices played down the likely effect of Al Qaida's
particular virulent influence on the people of Libya and look how well that
worked out.
Allegations
of atrocities against non-combatants in Syria have been leveled against rebel
forces and the sitting government alike and none any more horrifying than those
committed against the Christian community in Homs and yet John McCain, Lindsey
Graham, this President and a legion of followers remained silent about that.
Only when it seemed plausible that Assad's regime might be complicit in bloody
acts against the mainstream Muslim community there, have any of these fine
upstanding "servants" bothered to show concern.
When
they drew the "red line" at the use of chemical weapons, it seems they
began to work overtime to insure some evidence could be found. Even before
trusted agents of the UN determined that some small amount of chemical
(possibly Sarin), was used against the "innocents" in Syria, the
administration was busy elevating the rhetoric and the effort to
"educate" the American population about the horrors of the Assad
regime and heartbreaking "fight for freedom" of the brave rebel
forces.
What
is really irksome, is that we have been hearing this same mantra for years now
and in every single case, the Administration has been proven wrong in all of
their estimates of who have been populating these rebellions and what their
core desires were.
In
Egypt, we were virtually guaranteed that the people simply wanted to rid
themselves of a barbaric Mubarak regime which had oppressed its people for
decades; that they simply wanted Democracy. We were also all but guaranteed
that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a political entity and did not have
political aspirations. When the MB fielded its candidate, we were then told the
people would never get behind a fundamentalist candidate, much less an MB agent
and that the society in Egypt was really much more secular.
All
these months later and what has grown out of that particular misjudgment or
Administration deception, is a Morsi Presidency, with the real face of the MB
exposed and clearly a population which leans far more to the fundamentals of
its insidious state religion, than we were told. The Copt community has
suffered at least as much since, as before with almost no discernible concern
from either the Administration or the likes of McCain, Graham and their
like-minded counterparts in Congress.
We
were also guaranteed that Al Qaida's influence on the rebel factions in Libya
was minimal and that those fine folks simply wanted Democracy. To date; that
new "government" has proven to be impotent. Let's recall that US
Embassy security was supplied by the little known, Blue
Mountain Group, a British firm who, essentially, subcontracted to a Libyan
Security firm, manned largely by former Libyan Rebels who were, infiltrated by
Al Qaida and who were carrying weapons without ammunition per US mandate!
Are
you feeling better or worse about our prospects in Syria?
From
Tunisia, to Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt, the one common
denominator has been this Administration's astounding ability to get it wrong,
every single time. Why is anyone under the impression that they have it right
this time?
Why
is there anyone left, given the endless bloodletting by all sides in every one
of these internal disasters, with any hope that the Obama administration or
McCain, Graham, Congress or any element in any one of these poor excuses for
elections can possibly get it right?
Why
isn't Congress asking the right questions about Benghazi? Why are they so
easily distracted, almost hopefully so, from the single investigation that
could bring it all crashing down?
The
reason is because if they clarify the why, it will ultimately lead to questions
about this Administration's understanding of the enemy and his religion. This
will then logically lead to questions about the true motivations for defending
the indefensible, and so willingly casting the lives of America's Forces so
callously into harm's way.
Benghazi
is the lynch pin in this Administration's perverted wagon train of deception
and following ill-conceived battle strategy; take out Benghazi and every single
related foreign policy venture becomes questionable.
Could
it actually be that Smedley D. Butler was correct in his summation of the motivation
for war? Could it really be that simplistic - and evil that it is far more profitable
to stay at war, than to end it, with ferocity and determination?
Could
it be that this President is so emotionally compromised, having been abandoned by
both Fathers that he has been left to seek solace in the only vestige of
paternal memory he has left; Islam? Could this be why he is so determined to
convince us that our eyes and ears cannot be trusted; that the atrocities and
endless ravages against Western society by Islamic forces are mere aberrations in
the midst of an otherwise stable, loving, peaceful ideology?
Could
it be the convergence of the very worst of two polluted motivations; the
mentally ill and the morally corrupt?
What
is certain is while there is very little evidence that Congress is going to get
this right. I firmly believe they are as morally compromised as this President
is mentally and emotionally challenged by his experiences growing up in a
broken home.
There
is zero justification for having abandoned Americans under siege in the
wasteland known as Libya. There is not one single bright spot in this debacle
that isn't centered on the selfless and heroic acts of two Navy SEALs.
Literally everyone else in this story is tainted in one fashion or another and
because those who have so willingly compromised their names, their souls, and
American security, they have left the door open for yet one more grave mistake,
in Syria.
We
know the Rebels in Syria are littered with Al Qaida agents. We have known this
for months. We know Al Qaida and their affiliates, hate the United States and
our Western Allies. Abandoning them to their fate - wherever that might be
seems the most logical choice; supporting them with arms is both
counterintuitive and even treasonous.
For
those who have not grappled with this next question, let me help you; the
United States of America is a unique culture. We are not the world's fighting
force we are not obligated to secure life and liberty for the blood-lusting
cultures of the world. Whether Syria's present government stands or falls, is
of little security concern for the United States right now. What is certain is
that Al Qaida and it's agents are a clear and present danger to the United
States and our holdings.
Supporting
them has not proven to be a sound decision; supporting them in Syria makes even
less sense.
Semper
Fidelis;
John
Bernard
