Confusion reigns!

There are currently two militias, supposed to be fighting Assad in Syria in the death zone between Aleppo, Marea and the Turkish border. They are alleged to be “moderates” and the US government is funding them both simultaneously. Their names are “The Knights of Righteousness” (truly!) and the “Syrian Democratic Forces”. But instead of fighting the government they have taken to fighting each other. The Syrian Democratic Forces have apprently been winning.

This might seem to us rational folk unbelievable, but The Knights of Righteousness have been armed and funded by the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Syrian Democratic Forces have been armed and funded by the Pentagon. So it seems,based upon the most recent battle in Marea, that the Defense Department have been fighting a proxy war with the CIA half a world away.

“Once upon a time, during the ‘good old days’ of the Cold War, we fought such wars against the Soviet Union and their allies. Now, we fight proxy wars between various departments of our own federal government, using your tax dollars to buy the bullets and the bombs”. (Adapted from a piece by William Rivers Pitt in Truthout, originally reported by James of Moon of Alabama).

Apparently, this is appears to be true but has been either “overlooked” or suppressed because large armament sales are obviously involved and need nurturing. Besides which, if it were more generally known it would make the United States look totally ridiculous, and would point up the more-than-strong suspicion that the military and the CIA are out of control, and doing their own thing, regardless of the policy devised by the Commander-in-Chief, poor fellow.

Those of us who have increasing doubts about whether it’s possible to “make America great again”, given the level of military competence, common sense and cultural knowledge of those who “lead” us, can recall the foreign policy of 19th Century Britain: “Never get involved in other people’s civil wars”. Or, just as apposite, the strong opposition of Epicurus to all foreign adventures. The election is unlikely to improve matters.

2 Comments

  1. It’s very sad that these two groups are fighting for each other, but the alternative is either Assad or ISIS, neither of which would be good for the country.
    More generally, I actually think Obama has done a good job on foreign policy. As Freedland says, he offers a nice liberal realism: a good compromise between neoxonservatism and isolationism. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/trump-domination-us-election-miss-president-obama-strengths . Going forward, I’m pessimistic in the short to medium term. Clinton and the Republicans would be too disposed to military force. Meanwhile, Sanders has some nice ideas, but I think he may a bit too utopian. Obama, for all his convictions, has treated the world as it is, not as it should be. Sanders may do the same, but it’s unclear what he’ll be like at this stage- particularly as he’s focused more of his campaign on domestic policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.