{"id":59435,"date":"2015-06-15T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T11:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=59435"},"modified":"2015-06-09T18:58:05","modified_gmt":"2015-06-09T17:58:05","slug":"the-us-governments-not-so-secret-support-for-al-qaeda-and-isis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/06\/the-us-governments-not-so-secret-support-for-al-qaeda-and-isis\/","title":{"rendered":"The US Government\u2019s Not-So-Secret Support for Al Qaeda and ISIS"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Biggest State Sponsor of Terrorism of Them All<\/em><\/p>\n

\"usa<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c9\/11: Never forget,\u201d the tee-shirts insisted. \u201cHave you forgotten how it felt that day?\u201d the country crooner warbled. \u201cSeptember 11th\u2026 global terrorism!\u201d the candidate for\u00a0President of 9\/11<\/a>, Rudolph Giuliani,\u00a0endlessly repeated<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To this day we are bombarded with such reminders\u00a0whenever reductions of the swollen national security state are proposed and need to be fended off with a fresh round of fear-mongering<\/a>. And proponents of such reductions are smeared as friends of the terrorists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And because President Obama is deemed not aggressive enough in pursuing the war on the Islamist movement responsible for 9\/11, even he is accused by his loonier critics of being a \u201csecret Muslim\u201d and a \u201cterr-symp<\/a>\u201d (terrorist sympathizer).<\/p>\n

Given all this, you would think right-wing nationalists would be alert to and aghast at abundant reports that their own government has knowingly supported Islamic extremists in Syria (and elsewhere), including al-Qaeda, the very group responsible for 9\/11; especially since that support led to the rise of ISIS (formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI) and that such a treasonous policy has long occurred under \u201ccrypto-Muslim\u201d Barack Hussein Obama. But, oddly enough, they\u2019ve given Obama a pass on this.<\/p>\n

Why hasn\u2019t Fox News been blasting alerts like \u201cObama Backs Muslim Terrorists, Helping to Create the Islamic State\u201d for years? Wouldn\u2019t their xenophobic viewers gobble up such red meat with relish? Couldn\u2019t the Republicans make stacks of political hay with such a talking point?<\/p>\n

But, no, apparently bigotry and scaremongering are only to be harnessed to support war, and never to oppose it. The right\u2019s criticism of Obama\u2019s Syria policy has been that he hasn\u2019t supported the al-Qaeda\/ISIS-led Syrian opposition enough<\/em>. Apparently, the lesson of 9\/11 is that we must embrace perpetual war, even if it means fighting with<\/em> the perpetrators of 9\/11 in that war.<\/p>\n

Washington hawks have deflected such criticism by denying that al-Qaeda and ISIS are all that dominant in the insurgency, or that foreign support of the opposition helped lead to the 2014 rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Such deflections have been made increasingly untenable by mounting evidence, and especially by the recent disclosure of an incredibly damning Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from August 2012.<\/p>\n

That document contained a frank admission<\/a> that:<\/p>\n

\u201cTHE SALAFIST[S], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed excellently summarized<\/a> what the DIA considered to be the goals and likely consequences\u00a0of supporting such a Salafist-dominated insurgency:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of \u2018an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.\u2019<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, \u2018Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts\u2019<\/strong> by Syrian\u00a0\u2018opposition forces\u2019<\/strong> fighting to \u2018control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)\u2019<\/strong>:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018\u2026 there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).\u2019 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist \u2018Salafist Principality\u2019<\/strong> in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this \u2018Shia expansion.\u2019<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The establishment of such a \u2018Salafist Principality\u2019<\/strong> in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is \u2018exactly\u2019\u00a0<\/strong>what the \u2018supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.\u2019 <\/strong>Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those \u2018supporting powers\u2019 <\/strong>as \u2018the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.\u2019<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.<\/em><\/p>\n

The establishment of such a \u2018Salafist Principality\u2019<\/strong> in eastern Syria, it says, would create \u2018the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.\u2019<\/strong> Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.<\/em><\/p>\n

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018\u2026 a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.\u2019\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The DIA document was too big an anti-Obama scoop for Fox News not to cover at all. Yet they still managed to give the story a pro-interventionist spin<\/a>. They did so by focusing on Obama\u2019s alleged low estimation of the threat of ISIS and the Libyan jihadists\u00a0(especially his reference to ISIS as a \u201cJayvee team\u201d), and how the predictions in the report belie that low estimation. Yet, they completely glossed over the report\u2019s claim that the predicted rise of ISIS was a result<\/em> of support for the Syrian opposition by the west and its allies.<\/p>\n

As incredible as the DIA disclosure is, its basic import has been an open secret for years.<\/p>\n

The general US policy of allying with the Gulf states (especially the Saudis) and Turkey in supporting radical Sunni insurgents to counter the \u201cShia expansion\u201d was reported by Seymour Hersh back in 2007, shortly after that policy (\u201cthe Redirection<\/a>\u201d) was initiated by the Bush administration.<\/p>\n

The Obama administration\u2019s support of the Sunni insurgency in Syria against the Shiite-led regime of Bashar al-Assad following the 2011 \u201cArab Spring\u201d was simply a continuation and intensification of that general policy. The administration claimed to be aiming their support at \u201cmoderates\u201d and \u201csecular, liberal reformers\u201d in the opposition. But officials of the highest level in the administration have repeatedly betrayed how little they believe their own lie; especially when defending themselves against criticism for not intervening more.<\/p>\n

Last year, Hillary Clinton trashed <\/a>her former boss Obama for not supporting the Syrian opposition enough. But in February 2012, while she was still on the team as Secretary ofState and being pressured by corporate media to ramp up intervention, she sang a different tune<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? (\u2026) If you\u2019re a military planner or if you\u2019re a secretary of state and you\u2019re trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, that we don\u2019t see.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

A month later, Obama himself told Jeffrey Goldberg<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict\u200a\u2014\u200athe notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn\u2019t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

And in June 2012, Obama repeated<\/a> the same sentiment:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen you get farmers, dentists, and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position to suddenly overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy. And I think it\u2019s very important for the American people\u200a\u2014\u200abut maybe more importantly, Washington and the press corps\u200a\u2014\u200ato understand that.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

If, as Obama and Clinton both admitted, the \u201cmoderate\u201d opposition is not viable and is no match for the jihadists, then their policy of toppling Assad in Syria has been, as they implicitly admit, a policy of empowering the jihadists, even if their support for the opposition was not as extensive as many would have liked.<\/p>\n

Then in September 2012, Ben Swann, unlike virtually all of his journalistic colleagues, asked Obama a very tough question<\/a>\u00a0about his Syria policy when given the chance:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026you mentioned al-Qaeda in your speech, going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, certainly going after them in Yemen as well. And yet there\u2019s some concern about the U.S. funding the Syrian opposition when there are a lot of reports that al-Qaeda is sort of heading up that opposition, how do you justify the two?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Obama answered:<\/p>\n

\u201cWell I share that concern, and so what we\u2019ve done is to say we will provide non-lethal assistance to Syrian opposition leadership that are committed to political transition, committed to an observance of human rights. We\u2019re not going to just dive in and get involved with a civil war that in fact involves some elements of people who are genuinely trying to get a better life but also involve some folks who would over the long term do the United States harm.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Hrerl8EwqH0<\/p>\n

This was doublespeak of Clintonesque proportions. \u201cAssistance,\u201d whether lethal or not, is<\/em> \u201cgetting involved\u201d in the civil war. Helping the allies of al-Qaeda and ISIS predictably helped al-Qaeda and ISIS themselves. Moreover, the assistance had already been lethal at that point, if covert and indirect.<\/p>\n

And aiding their allies not only aided al-Qaeda and ISIS strategically, but also in terms of military power. As Justin Raimondo recently wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe policy of the Obama administration, and particularly<\/a> Hillary Clinton\u2019s State Department, was\u200a\u2014\u200aand still is\u200a\u2014\u200aregime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We\u00a0armed<\/a>, trained<\/a>, and \u201cvetted<\/a>\u201d the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups<\/a> like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn\u2019t pass muster. And our \u201cmoderates\u201d quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons <\/a>we\u2019d provided<\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In spite of all its admissions concerning the risks and limitations of intervention, the Obama administration, along with the US Congress, still pushed for increasing support for the Syrian opposition in 2013.<\/p>\n

In May 2013, the Senate tried to pass a law authorizing the direct arming of the Syrian opposition, leading Rand Paul to point out<\/a>: \u201cThis is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda. It\u2019s an irony you cannot overcome.\u201d<\/p>\n

And in the summer and fall of 2013, the administration sought to launch air strikes on the Syrian government, leading Dennis Kucinich to ask: \u201cSo what, we\u2019re about to become al-Qaeda\u2019s air force now?\u201d Airstrikes would have overthrown Assad in fairly short order, just as it did with Gaddafi in Libya. Then what? By then, had\u00a0the \u201cfarmers and dentists\u201d Obama had derided become\u00a0much stronger that they could have taken over? Or would the field have been cleared for al-Qaeda and ISIS to march to the Mediterranean? What else could they have realistically expected but the latter? al-Qaeda\u2019s air force indeed.<\/p>\n

It was only after a public backlash against the prospect of another war in the Middle East (and after Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin offered a face-saving exit) that the administration relented.\u00a0Even though they did not get to launch airstrikes, around that time the CIA began openly and directly sending lethal aid<\/a> to the insurgency.<\/p>\n

In October 2014, after support for the Syrian opposition led to ISIS\u2019s conquest of Sunni Iraq,\u00a0even Vice President Joe Biden<\/a> admitted that the \u201cmoderates\u201d were still<\/em> not viable, and that opposition members who do the actual fighting and end up with foreign-supplied weapons are the jihadists. He also admitted that foreign support of the opposition is what led to the rise of ISIS.<\/p>\n

Question:<\/em><\/strong> In retrospect do you believe the United States should have acted earlier in Syria, and if not why is now the right moment?<\/em><\/p>\n

Biden:<\/em><\/strong> The answer is \u2018no\u2019 for 2 reasons. One, the idea of identifying a moderate middle has been a chase America has been engaged in for a long time. We Americans think in every country in transition there is a Thomas Jefferson hiding beside some rock\u200a\u2014\u200aor a James Madison beyond one sand dune. The fact of the matter is the ability to identify a moderate middle in Syria was\u200a\u2014\u200athere was no moderate middle because the moderate middle are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers\u200a\u2014\u200athey are made up of people who in fact have ordinary elements of the middle class of that country.(\u2026) And what my constant cry was that our biggest problem is our allies\u200a\u2014\u200aour allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends\u200a\u2014\u200aand I have the greatest relationship with Erdogan, which I just spent a lot of time with\u200a\u2014\u200athe Saudis, the Emiratis, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world. Now you think I\u2019m exaggerating\u200a\u2014\u200atake a look. Where did all of this go? So now what\u2019s happening? All of a sudden everybody\u2019s awakened because this outfit called ISIL which was al-Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, work with Al Nusra who we declared a terrorist group early on and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

As for the anti-Shia motivation for this policy cited in the DIA report, President Obama basically admitted to it himself in another interview <\/a>with Goldberg back in March 2012.<\/p>\n

GOLDBERG: <\/em><\/strong>Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? Talk about it as a humanitarian issue, as well. But it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran\u2019s only Arab ally.
\nPRESIDENT OBAMA: <\/strong>Absolutely.<\/em>
\nGOLDBERG: <\/em><\/strong>And so the question is: What else can this administration be doing?<\/em><\/p>\n

PRESIDENT OBAMA:<\/em><\/strong> Well, look, there\u2019s no doubt that Iran is much weaker now than it was a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. The Arab Spring, as bumpy as it has been, represents a strategic defeat for Iran, because what people in the region have seen is that all the impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by Iran. [The Iranian leadership is] no friend of that movement toward human rights and political freedom. But more directly, it is now engulfing Syria, and Syria is basically their only true ally in the region.<\/em>
\nAnd it is our estimation that [President Bashar al-Assad\u2019s] days are numbered. It\u2019s a matter not of if, but when. Now, can we accelerate that? We\u2019re working with the world community to try to do that. (\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

GOLDBERG:<\/em><\/strong> Is there anything you could do to move it faster?<\/em>
\nPRESIDENT OBAMA:<\/em><\/strong> Well, nothing that I can tell you, because your classified clearance isn\u2019t good enough. (Laughter.)<\/em><\/p>\n

And in June 2014, Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US, provided us with an indication<\/a> of what may be a main driving force behind this policy.<\/p>\n

\u2026what I\u2019m going to say is harsh, perhaps a little edgy, but if we have to choose the lesser of evils here, the lesser evil is the Sunnis over the Shiites. \u2026 It\u2019s an evil, a terrible evil. Again, they\u2019ve just taken out 1700 former Iraqi soldiers and shot them in a field. But who are they fighting against? They\u2019re fighting against a proxy with Iran that\u2019s complicit in the murder of 160,000 people in Syria [NOTE: Here, he ridiculously blames one side of the conflict for all of its deaths]. You know, do the math. And again, one side is armed with suicide bombers in Iraq and the other side has access to nuclear military capabilities. So from Israel\u2019s perspective, you know, if there has got to be an evil that is going to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail\u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n

The reference to the mass execution makes it clear that Oren is explicitly referring to extremists like ISIS and al-Qaeda as the \u201cSunni lesser evil.\u201d<\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=EgBsTT0h_SA<\/p>\n

Recently, it has been revealed that Israel has also been providing direct aid<\/a>\u00a0to al-Qaeda in Syria.<\/p>\n

Again, the DIA report is useful confirmation, but the truth about Washington\u2019s Syria policy has long been out there for anyone outside the DC bubble to see.<\/p>\n

Now, thanks to ongoing US-led support for the\u00a0insurgency, the Syrian government is widely thought to be on its last legs<\/a>; members of the regime\u00a0are already making arrangements to flee. As it turns out, the march of al-Qaeda and ISIS to the Mediterranean may have merely been postponed a couple years. Pity the \u201capostates\u201d and \u201cinfidels\u201d that will be in their path. And won\u2019t you feel so much safer once these Islamist terrorists have Assad\u2019s seaports and military hardware?<\/p>\n

The Syrian regime has never attacked America; neither is any other part of the dreaded \u201cShia Crescent\u201d a threat to Americans. Syrian al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra) on the other hand, is (as radio host Scott Horton frequently reminds his listeners<\/a>)\u00a0sworn loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri: the butcher of New York, responsible for 9\/11. And yet our government\u2019s bi-partisan alleged strategy for \u201ckeeping us safe\u201d has been to topple the former and ally with the latter; even when it knew that doing so would lead to a \u201cSalafist Principality\u201d ruled by bin Ladenites.<\/p>\n

If that doesn\u2019t explode the myth that the government serves as our \u201csecurity force,\u201d I don\u2019t know what can.<\/p>\n

______________________________<\/p>\n

Also published at Medium.com<\/a>\u00a0and David Stockman\u2019s Contra Corner<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thank you for reading. I work at the Mises Institute where I run the\u00a0<\/em>Mises Academy<\/em><\/a>, an e-learning program for Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy. I am a\u00a0<\/em>columnist<\/em><\/a>\u00a0for Antiwar.com and my essays have appeared at\u00a0<\/em>Mises.org<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>LewRockwell.com<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>The Ron Paul Institute<\/em><\/a>, and\u00a0<\/em>David Stockman\u2019s Contra Corner<\/em><\/a>. I have given lectures and conducted interviews for the Mises Institute and appeared on The Scott Horton Show and The Tom Woods Show. You can find all of my essays, lectures, and interviews at\u00a0<\/em>DanSanchez.me<\/em><\/a>, you can follow me via\u00a0<\/em>Twitter<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>Facebook<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>TinyLetter<\/em><\/a>, and\u00a0<\/em>Medium<\/em><\/a>, and you can email me at dan-at-mises.org.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 antiwar.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Biggest State Sponsor of Terrorism of Them All – The general US policy of allying with the Gulf states (especially the Saudis) and Turkey in supporting radical Sunni insurgents to counter the \u201cShia expansion\u201d was reported by Seymour Hersh back in 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-middle-east-north-africa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}