What roles do the nations in the Syrian conflict play? Why did Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard meet with President Assad in Syria, only to return and present the “Stop Funding Terrorists Act”? Why is Al-Queda in Syria and Iraq known as ISIS? Why would the president of a country start a civil war to “gain control” over said country? Why did President Trump express in March 2018 that he wanted to pull troops out of Syria? Why was there another attack in Syria that was blamed on Assad only days after Trump expressed his willingness to leave Syria? What role did the Obama administration play in Syria?
Main Players and Their Roles in Syria
The main players in the Syrian conflict are Syria itself, backed by Russia and Iran. Opposite the three are the United States and the United Kingdom. Doing the dirty work is Al-Queda in Syria which we refer to as ISIS. Al-Queda in Syria was formerly known as Al-Queda in Iraq. Most important, never asked, yet taken for granted is, who is ISIS doing the dirty work for? Who finances and arms them?
It is no secret, or at least it should not be a secret in the age of information, that the Obama administration and the CIA were providing arms, finances, and intelligence to Al-Queda in Syria aka ISIS. When you hear or read the words “militants or rebels” in Syria you have to think Al-Queda/ISIS. When I listen to the media narrative I always hear about a rebel or ISIS controlled region that Assad is attempting to regain control of. Shouldn’t ISIS controlled areas be the areas that we are trying to eradicate them from? So why is it a bad thing when Assad and Russia are trying to do exactly that? Even when it became President Trump’s issue to deal with he touted defeating ISIS in Syria. Exactly what he ran on. I’ve never heard of ISIS joining a civil war to protect citizens from a ruthless dictator that was killing his own people. I have heard of ISIS being used as a tool to fight proxy wars to institute regime change.
Regime Change is the Ultimate Goal in Syria
Concerns about the Obama administration being for regime change instead of protecting civilians in middle of a civil war is why Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), traveled to Syria. Upon returning from Syria Gabbard introduced H.R. 608, The Stop Arming Terrorist Act. The act has rare bipartisan support, most notably from Rand Paul who introduced the legislation once himself in March of 2017, when it didn’t pass. Also in support are the Progressive Democrats of America, the U.S. Peace Council, and Republicans Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48) and Thomas Massie (KY-04). Gabbard introduced the legislation in December of 2016 after President Trump won his election and again on January 23, 2017, shortly after he took office. Both times the legislation was shot down.
It wasn’t merely meeting with Assad that caused Gabbard to introduce such legislation. She has combat experience in Iraq, along with knowledge of how things operate in the region, as well as obvious knowledge of American history. If you think it is outside of the realm of possibilities that our government would directly and indirectly provide weapons and financial support to ISIS/Al-Queda, think about who created Al-Queda. In the 1980’s, through the CIA program ‘Operation Cyclone’, Al-Queda was created. The original intent was to defeat the Russian military in Afghanistan by using Pakistani intel services to funnel money and weapons to the Afghan Mujahadeen. So it is HIGHLY plausible that today we still arm and support Al-Queda under its new name of ISIS.
A Presidents Decisions are Only as Good as the Intentions of the Advisors He Listens to
In March of 2018, President Trump expressed his willingness to pull troops out of Syria. One would think an action such as that, especially with the uncertainty Assad must’ve felt after 8 years of Obama policy and the new blunt and direct Trump policy, that he would refrain from dropping chemical weapons on his own people. Yet, days later chemical weapons were used in Syria and blame was instantly placed on Assad, Russia, and Iran. Naturally, President Trump reversed his position and let it be known in an April 8 tweet which partially stated, “President Putin, Russia, and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big Price…”. For any war hawks hell bent on regime change they would only have to reflect to the first chemical attack after President Trump took office. Without a proper investigation missiles were launched into Syria by U.S. Navy forces. Based on such a quick reaction it makes sense that another chemical attack would make Trump refrain from pulling our troops out of Syria, or presenting a reason not to do so.
While this fiasco was taking place President Trump named John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Bolton helped orchestrate the Iraq war, and has never hid his feelings on how to deal with threats such as North Korea and Iran. In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Bolton made the legal case for “striking North Korea first.” Before joining the Trump administration Bolton considered it a waste of time to negotiate with Kim Jung Un of North Korea. He back tracked that sentiment by calling Trump’s decision to meet with the North Korean leader, “diplomatic Shock and Awe.” Per Iran Bolton told Fox News in January that “Trump should dump the nuclear deal, reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran, and work toward an ‘overthrow of the government’ there.”
Although I truly believe that President Trump is America First and against regime change, I also believe that there are those with alliances that still believe regime change is the only option in the Middle East. While this installment of the Syria Series dealt mainly with the U.S. role in Syria, part 2.1 will discuss the long standing loyalty Russia shares with Syria. Mainstream media will have you believe that it’s simply about protecting their own interests in Syria while also standing up to the United States of America. In all actuality, their relationship with Syria is akin to the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia.