The Idiot's Foreign Policy
Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

Rarely has there been a policy as universally supported in Washington and as universally rejected by Americans of all ages, races, genders, incomes and religions as the proposal to send weapons to the Syrian terrorists.
Bild entfernt (keine Rechte)
The average American who has never heard of the Al-Nusra Front, is utterly in the dark about the differences between the various brigades of the Free Syrian Army and hasn't the faintest idea that the entire thing has been a Muslim Brotherhood operation of varying degrees of subtlety from Day 1, still thinks that sending weapons to them is a terrible idea.

Even a public that is weary of war and not at all enthusiastic about jumping into another one would rather invade Syria than arm the Syrian rebels.

At least those are the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll which found that sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats, men, women, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics (and possibly even the mysteriously reclusive White Hispanics) all opposed the proposal to send arms to the rebels; even without being told that rebel is a polite term for Islamic Jihadist and Islamic Jihadist is a polite term for the guy wearing explosive underwear next to them on their vacation flight.

The college educated and those who made it through the basic twelve, Protestants and Catholics, those making under 50K and those making over 100K, callow 18-year-olds and superannuated seniors, all came together to oppose an insane policy of giving weapons to terrorists who are certain to use them against us.

They came to this novel conclusion without a thorough grounding in foreign policy, without having ever read one of those massive tomes that outgoing secretaries of state throw together to explain their failures, and without even being told anything true and meaningful about the Free Syrian Army. The only analytical tool at their disposal was their common sense.

In a time when the country is sharply divided along class, race, gender and hoodie, this was a refreshing show of unity. The United States of America, in town and city, mariachi band, hip hop concert and hoedown, came together to oppose giving weapons to terrorists.

And no one in Washington D.C. paid attention. Why should they? They already have it all figured out.

The intelligence committees in the Senate and House of Representatives, which had briefly kicked up a fuss over Obama's plan to send guns to terrorists, withdrew their objections after being promised regular updates. If those updates are nearly as interesting as the ones for Fast and Furious, a program which merely put lighter weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, they should make for some entertaining reading.

The weapons smuggled into Libya, with the complicity of Uncle Barack, and the ones looted from Gaddafi's ample storehouses, have already shown up in Gaza, led to the Islamist conquest of Mali (requiring French military intervention), and have, naturally, shown up in Syria. a.

Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The real question is where won't they end up. The Middle East is a giant arms market and the United States is abandoning the policy of plausible deniability that existed during the Libyan War to directly run guns to terrorists.

Considering the havoc that a mere 2,000 Fast and Furious guns caused in Mexico, what exactly will come of shipping anti-tank weapons to the same sort of Islamist militias who launched a full blown assault on the American mission in Benghazi?

In the great polling game of Ask the Audience played on the set of Who Wants to be President, the answer from the gallery has come in loud and clear. But no one on the stage seems to actually care. And it is that lack of concern that is more interesting than the exercise of common sense by the collective polled mind of America.

It is widely accepted wisdom in Washington D.C. that we have to send weapons to the Syrian rebels. How did a notion that is rejected out of hand by the man on the street for reasons of common sense become accepted in Washington D.C. also for reasons of common sense? Is there a different common sense in Washington D.C. than in Peoria, Miami or Fargo? Or is there a lack of common sense?

--snip--

@/Greenfield Ping @FP123@Sanguine@algernonpj@Palinista@W-Girl

This is the same thing as running guns to Hitler or Hirohito in WW II.

Should be re-titled to "The Traitor's Foreign Policy".

Zitat

---

The most destructive influence on domestic and foreign policy is that sense of inevitability. "Something must be done," are the four words that have undone the reason of even credible conservative politicians. The next six words, "It will happen even without us" are nearly as toxic. These are the words that have convinced countless politicians to sell out on domestic policy in exchange for having some control over the final outcome.

---

Zitat

---

Officially we are supporting the Syrian rebels because we support democracy, even though the vast majority of the rebels are Islamists and the only democracy they want will disenfranchise Christians, Shiites, women and anyone else left standing after the black flags sweep into Damascus. Morsi also deserves our support because he was democratically elected, even though during his time in office, he tried to amass total power and tortured and beat up his political opponents.

What democracy really means is that Washington D.C. has decided that the Muslim Brotherhood is inevitable and so we might as well get on their good side by helping them take over a few countries, before it's too late. Never mind that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have a good side. Peel back the layers of front organizations and you find yourself looking into the hooded eyes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi who enjoys suicide bombings and long walks on the beach. But no doubt that too is inevitable.

---

Zitat

---

Bobby Knight once said, "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it." That advice seems to be defining our foreign policy in Egypt (where rape is an instrument of domestic policy). The inevitability of the Muslim Brotherhood's victory has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since they're bound to win down the road, we should help them win now. And if they start losing, then we have to ship weapons to their militias and maybe declare a No Fly Zone, because while their victory is inevitable, its inevitability must be assured with American weapons against the will of the American people.

Washington D.C. is full of Ivy League grads that have spent a lifetime reading about the Middle East, but lack the most basic sort of common sense. It's not that they can't comprehend the risks, it's that they have been taught to think that either they jump off the Morsi building and land in a Syrian rebel camp or the whole thing will happen without them and they will be left out of the loop.

And what could be worse than that?

---

What national interest supports our involvement in the Syrian civil war?

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #4

---

What national interest supports our involvement in the Syrian civil war?

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #2

---

This is the same thing as running guns to Hitler or Hirohito in WW II.

Should be re-titled to "The Traitor's Foreign Policy".

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #4

---

What national interest supports our involvement in the Syrian civil war?

---

Zitat

---

2011 Interview

Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?
Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
. . .
Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.
. . .
should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.

---

As a result of 'nation building', promoting 'democracy' in the middle east, and PC immigration policy:
Iraq's Christians Near Extinction

The same pols who support arming Syria's 'good rebels' support importing jihadis not Christians under our refugee program.
Per Pamela Geller
US policy regarding the refugee resettlement program would shock most Americans if they only knew. The UN picks who becomes US refugees. Christians are being refused refugee status and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under the sharia, while whole Muslim communities are entering the US by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution"

@FP123 @conservgramma @palinista

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #4

---

What national interest supports our involvement in the Syrian civil war?

---

None.

I've adapted my post from FR on Ron Paul and his foreign policy as regards Israel, which is the boiler plate reason given for intervention in the Middle East. (I suspect this is why I was unceremoniously banned)

GW kept reminding us that 'Islam is a religion of 'peace'. Never mentioned that Islam is a total political system and peace is achieved when there is a world wide caliphate under Sharia. Nor did he mention that the Nazis, followed by the Soviets sent agents and money into the ME in the early 1900's to resurrect violent Jihad as a tool to be used in conjunction with political correctness to bring down the US.

While Paul seems somewhat naive on the background and goals of modern Jihadi terrorism, ultimately his foreign policy would be better for both Israel and Christianity. While Israel would get no foreign aid, neither would its enemies:

Zitat

---

2011 Interview

Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?
Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
. . .
Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.
. . .
should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.

---

As a result of 'nation building', promoting 'democracy' in the middle east, and PC immigration policy:
Iraq's Christians Near Extinction

The same pols who support arming Syria's 'good rebels' support importing jihadis not Christians under our refugee program.
Per Pamela Geller
US policy regarding the refugee resettlement program would shock most Americans if they only knew. The UN picks who becomes US refugees. Christians are being refused refugee status and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under the sharia, while whole Muslim communities are entering the US by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution"

.FP123 .conservgramma @Palinista

---

Many excellent points ATG!