Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:

;”>


By 1776

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has a suggestion for the US Congress: Stop arming terrorists. It seems like a pretty reasonable suggestion, but the US Congress is having none of it.

Instead, they’ve decided to launch of a series of increasingly shrill and hysterical attacks on her for meeting with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, during her fact-finding trip to Damascus and Aleppo.

Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) characterized her meeting as a “shame and a disgrace”. According to Kinzinger, a “member of Congress” should never “meet with a guy that has killed 500,000 people and 50,000 children”.

Putting aside the dubious nature of Kinzinger’s assertion (apparently the rebels share no blame for what’s happening in Syria), the sincerity of his outrage is seriously suspect considering his own willingness to pal around with the dictator in Saudi Arabia.

Apparently, it’s perfectly okay to legitimate a brutally repressive regime that is currently slaughtering and starving thousands upon thousands of Yemeni civilians, including children. And, lest we forget, Saudi Arabia is the country that gave America fifteen of the nineteen hijackers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

This dissonance is important to note because US politicians like Kinzinger have never had a real problem with dictators and autocrats. What matters most to people like Kinzinger is not a government’s willingness to promote democracy and human rights, but its willingness to commit whatever acts the US government may require of it, even if that means crushing democracy and brutally repressing human rights like the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia does.

But the most reprehensible thing about Kinzinger’s shrill antics is not his blazing hypocrisy and opportunism, but his utter unwillingness to address the charges being leveled by Tulsi Gabbard. Kinzinger has adroitly sidestepped those charges precisely because he cannot refute them.

Of course, the conventional wisdom surrounding the US government’s ongoing support for the rebels in Syria characterizes them as “moderates”. This characterization is so chimerical as to be utterly meaningless. “Moderate” in regards to what, exactly? Eating people’s organs? Chopping children’s heads off?

However, the reality is that the “moderate” rebels, if they ever existed, have all but disappeared from the field, most of them defecting to or integrating with AQ and ISIS or simply deserting, but not before selling their US-supplied weaponry to a Jihadist. Maybe that’s why the US government is having such a difficult time finding moderate rebels to train?

In 2014, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made one of the most forceful and comprehensive arguments detailing why the US government should stop providing support to these amorphous Syrian rebel groups.

Among the reasons he gave were the Syrian Christian community’s strong support for Assad’s secular government.

But it’s not just the Syrian Christians who would be remiss to see Assad go. Even the Syrian Kurds, who have had a troublesome relationship with the Assad government over the years, aren’t eager to see him removed from power by the rebels, describing it as a potential “disaster”.

Most important of all, however, is the Syrian people themselves, most of whom tend to sympathize with the Assad government.

In spite of all this, the US political class insists on clinging to their “Assad must go” mantra and their “moderate” rebel fictions. It’s Iraq and Libya all over again. The US government has decided, yet again, to remove a secular autocrat and his nationalist regime based on nebulous rationales and the flimsiest of pretexts. Even worse, they have escalated tensions with a nuclear-armed power, Russia, in order to push this dubious agenda.

Tulsi Gabbard, in standing up to these inveterate war mongers, is doing the country and the world a great service. As realists and non-interventionists, we must stand with her and with the Syrian people who are being victimized by the imperialist ambitions of a rapacious American political class.


WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

About The Author

US Marine Veteran, College Student, Classical Liberal

  • That_Susan

    Thanks for being one of the rare journalists who writes the truth!

    • Tom Jefferson

      It’s my pleasure. I appreciate your support.

  • Fire Marshal Bill

    Interesting that the words “Obama” and “Clinton” appear nowhere in this article when it was specifically their policies that pursued this agenda to topple Bashar al Assad’s government as well as creating the conditions for the Arab Spring that while peaceful mostly in some countries, plunged others into civil war. The same tactics they thought to pursue in Ukraine which have plunged that region into war as well. Otherwise, great article.

    • Tom Jefferson

      I just assumed it was understood that the Obama administration was fully complicit in these policies which have been ongoing for years. Didn’t think it was necessary to state the obvious. Moreover, the Obama administration’s ability to provide these rebels with arms and money depended entirely on the acquiescence of the Congress, which is why Gabbard is urging them to stop.

    • richardwicks

      You are forgetting Bush.

      Neocons have been running, ruining, this country for well over 16 years. Why do you think it’s limited to just the Democrats?

      The United States has had absolutely nothing but war criminals running the nation for over 2 decades

      • Fire Marshal Bill

        I’m not going to argue with you.

  • Josh

    No mention of the mass bombardment or starvation induced by siege from the assad regime. The alleged mass incarceration and torture facilities (for which there is tons of evidence unless you live in the no spin zone) No mention of the fact the alawite clan assad hails from has been a sectarian force against the countries mass sunni majority. No mention of the fact the alawites represent a 10 to 15 percent minority over a 70 to 85 percent majority. No mention of the shiite jihadists who come from as far as pakistan to fight in a sectarian war on behalf of iran. If you insist on being an accomplice in assad and irans war on the syrian majority than expect more war and violence. Russia, who you all seem to adore, recently accepted many groups as moderate enough to negotiate with. You can verify this for yourself if you arent aware of Syrian Talks being held in Astana, Kazakhstan.

    So to sum it all up; insist we take a side against syrias majority, give extremist group tons of propaganda material “america is with shiite iran and orthodox russia vs the Sunni majority” etc, but please dont continue to wonder why the USA has so many problems from the sunni people. Deny a majority its rights to its country and expect the global repercussions of an iranian dominated sunni middle east. Meaning a sunni majority feeling it has to fight to free its lands of iranian shiite domination.

    If you were in iraq its clear you didnt learn shit about the sectarian divides or persian arab hostilies. I doubt the marine corp gave a shit based off the fact you murdered tons of innocent unarmed iraqis at your check points. One day your heads will come out your ass I just dont know when perhaps on your deathbed years from now.

    • Tom Jefferson

      Wow. Where to start…

      “No mention of the mass bombardment or starvation induced by siege from the assad regime. The alleged mass incarceration and torture facilities (for which there is tons of evidence unless you live in the no spin zone)”

      Contrary to what you may think, not everyone is obligated to regurgitate the mainstream propaganda narratives you hear in the corporate media every single second of every single day. The point of alternative media is provide *gasp* ALTERNATIVE viewpoints. That was the purpose of this article.

      “No mention of the fact the alawite clan assad hails from has been a sectarian force against the countries mass sunni majority. No mention of the fact the alawites represent a 10 to 15 percent minority over a 70 to 85 percent majority.”

      I couldn’t mention those “facts” because they are not actually facts. The implication that Assad’s government only represents a tiny fraction of Syria’s population is flatly contradicted by the polling data I provided in my article. So either you did not read the article or you did not comprehend its content. Either way, you do not know what you’re talking about.

      “No mention of the shiite jihadists who come from as far as pakistan to fight in a sectarian war on behalf of iran. If you insist on being an accomplice in assad and irans war on the syrian majority than expect more war and violence.”

      Another falsehood. As the polling data clearly indicates, the Syrian “majority” does not side with the rebels. Out of all the various factions fighting in Syria, Assad tends to get the most support. Again, this is based on polling data gathered by a firm that specializes in conducting polls in conflict zones.

      “Russia, who you all seem to adore, recently accepted many groups as moderate enough to negotiate with. You can verify this for yourself if you arent aware of Syrian Talks being held in Astana, Kazakhstan.”

      Russia’s willingness to negotiate with certain rebel groups does not imply that those rebel groups are “moderate” in any meaningful sense of the word. As for you ridiculous assertion that “you all seem to adore” Russia, please understand that someone can exercise rational skepticism of the US government’s assertions and narratives without loving Russia.

      “So to sum it all up; insist we take a side against syrias majority, give extremist group tons of propaganda material “america is with shiite iran and orthodox russia vs the Sunni majority” etc, but please dont continue to wonder why the USA has so many problems from the sunni people. Deny a majority its rights to its country and expect the global repercussions of an iranian dominated sunni middle east. Meaning a sunni majority feeling it has to fight to free its lands of iranian shiite domination.”

      Your false conclusions seem to depend entirely on the false premise that the “majority” in Syria supports the rebels and wants Assad gone. That simply isn’t true. In any case, I never once said or implied that we “take a side” in Syria. The article is about withdrawing support from the rebels, not providing aid to Assad. This distinction should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it for more than two seconds.

      “If you were in iraq its clear you didnt learn shit about the sectarian divides or persian arab hostilies. I doubt the marine corp gave a shit based off the fact you murdered tons of innocent unarmed iraqis at your check points. One day your heads will come out your ass I just dont know when perhaps on your deathbed years from now.”

      I learned plenty about it and I didn’t murder anyone. I’m sorry if my alternative perspective rubs you the wrong way, but I supported my case with logic and evidence, which is much more than I can say for you.

  • Old Fogey

    Tulsi Gabbard is a wonderful asset for the U.S. government. Hope the President recognizes this fact.

3K Shares
Share3K
+11
Tweet
Pin
Share
Stumble