Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Lies We Tell

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 7/18/12

- Advertisement -
Cross-posted from Antiwar

US aid to Syrian terrorists is flowing

A recent report in the London Telegraph is emblematic of the lies Washington tells, and the means by which they give these lies circulation:

"Despite mounting fury from the Syrian rebels, who are seeking assistance for their efforts to overthrow the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the White House has refused all requests for heavy weapons and intelligence support.

"Syrian lobby groups in Washington, who only a few weeks ago were expressing hope that the Obama administration might give a green light to the supply of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, said they had now been forced to 'take a reality pill' by the US government.

"The Telegraph understands that the Syrian Support Group (SSG), the political wing of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), recently presented American officials with a document requesting 1,000 RPG-29 anti-tank missiles, 500 SAM-7 rockets, 750 23mm machine guns as well as body armor and secure satellite phones. They also asked for $6m to pay rebel fighters as they battle the regime. All their requests were rejected.

"'Basically the message is very clear; nothing is going to happen until after the election, in fact nothing will happen until after inauguration [Jan 2013]. And that is the same message coming from everyone, including the Turks and the Qataris,' said a Washington lobbyist for the group."

Let's unpack this one: To being with, the US is already arming the rebels, the Telegraph to the contrary notwithstanding. As the Washington Post recently reported:

"'We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing,' said a senior State Department official, one of several U.S. and foreign government officials who discussed the evolving effort on the condition of anonymity.

"The U.S. contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable."

- Advertisement -

See here, here, and here for similar reports. The official definition of "nonlethal aid" is something I'm waiting to learn of -- State Department officials refused to answer when I called and asked -- but it's a moot point, since we're "coordinating" with Qatar and the Saudis, who have no qualms about degrees of lethality.

Yes, I know, you're shocked -- shocked! -- the US government is lying through its rather sharp teeth: why, it's absolutely un pre cedented!

Yet that isn't the most telling aspect of the Telegraph piece: after all, the rebels are getting their arms from somewhere, and reports that they control more territory than anyone thought indicate arms shipments -- whatever their origins -- have been substantial and the pace is picking up. While the US may be taking pains to make sure their fingerprints won't be found on the weapons flowing into the hands of Syria's rebel army, with its links to Al Qaeda, the governments of our Gulf allies are less f astidious about such matters.

Everybody knows the US is backing the rebels to the hilt: they might as well rename themselves Hillary's Hellions. No, what's significant here is the floating of the ridiculous idea the Obamaites are afraid of the political consequences of arming the rebels, and openly intervening, because this is a presidential election year.

The assumption is that Obama and the Democrats will have to pay a political price for intervening in Syria's civil war -- but to whom will the price be paid? Republican hawks, led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are harrying the administration for not intervening more strenuously and openly, while Mitt Romney -- while not yet calling for airstrikes, per McCain and Graham -- criticizes the White House's "paralysis" and calls for openly arming the rebels, rather than doing it under the table.

- Advertisement -

As for the prospect of Obama alienating some of his supporters on the left-wing of the Democratic party: this didn't happen when it came to Libya, and I doubt intervening in Syria would deflate the President's enormous credibility in those quarters, where identity politics long ago displaced anti-imperialism as an ideological priority. "Humanitarian" interventionism is today the default foreign policy agenda of the liberal-left, with only old-fashioned Marxists dissenting.

This presidential election season will not differ from any others in recent history when it comes to foreign policy issues. As Garet Garret, a conservative journalist of libertarian leanings, put it in 1952:

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people."

While there are some in both parties who question some aspects of our globalist foreign policy, the interventionists control the leadership. Indeed, that is one of the main benefits of having two state-privileged parties and draconian ballot access laws that exclude all others -- it's far easier to establish and maintain a stranglehold on just two parties than on multiple competitors in the electoral arena.

Next Page  1  |  2

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Assange's Last Stand?

The FBI vs.

The Hollow Empire

The Israel Lobby and the Road to War

Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column

The Sony Hack Fraud


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Justin R.  is a clinical  case of a smar... by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:15:19 AM
Fahrenheit 451 Bookstore and Fahrenheit 451 Usedbo... by Paul Del Gatto on Thursday, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:39:06 AM