The demise of Hosni Mubarak which was welcomed by President Obama remains to be a constant theme within the Obama administration towards other secular leaders. This applies to welcoming the demise of more liberal forces which have been replaced by the “radical Sunni Islamic Arab Spring.” Therefore, when Obama met the ruler of Saudi Arabia and bowed down to him, it now fits in well within the jigsaw of his policies in the Middle East.
After all, the leader of America knows full well that the majority of individuals who did September 11 were Saudi nationals. Obama also knows clearly that all apostates face death in Saudi Arabia and that women aren’t even allowed to drive cars because it is deemed un-Islamic – and other brutal realities which apply to this most draconian nation. This, however, didn’t concern Obama just like it never concerned past leaders of America and other powerful international nations. However, in the field of international relations then America and the United Kingdom often do the bidding of this nation and this can be seen by recent events during the “radical Sunni Islamic Arab Spring.”
It is also ironic that Obama and the leader of Afghanistan, yes, another nation supported by America and the United Kingdom which supports killing apostates and enslaving women; is open to dialogue with the Taliban. However, in Syria where Christian churches can be found throughout the country and where women can cover-up or dress how they like; then Obama is insistent on no dialogue and political negotiations. This seems to imply that the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad is guilty for protecting all religious minorities and supporting the role of women in society. Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia can support crushing religious freedom and the rights of women – and Obama is even open to talks with the Taliban which protected Al Qaeda. Surely, this is strange logic from a so-called democratic leader?
Therefore, why is Obama open to political negotiations with the Taliban which have done countless crimes against humanity, including stoning women to death, killing tens of thousands of Shia Muslims, and so forth? Yet, when it comes to Syria which is multi-ethnic and multi-religious and secular – then Obama is insistent on supporting an opposition which isn’t unified and whereby radical Sunni Islamists are waiting in the wings in order to take power.
Obama who supported the people of Homs is the same American leader who remains quiet when 90% of Christians have been forced to leave this city in order to escape Sunni Islamic terrorism. Therefore, Obama by his silence about the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Homs, by the “beloved” opposition he supports, is highlighting the duplicity of America in spreading Sunni Islamic terrorism in Syria. This is despite the fact that thousands of American soldiers were killed by the same Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq – and the same ratlines which lead back to September 11 and Saudi Arabia remain open.
Indeed, it is astonishing that the leader of America isn’t concerned by the fact that the same Sunni Islamic terrorists who fought against American forces in Iraq; are now the same forces which are persecuting all moderates in Syria. How can a political leader of a nation support a movement which was responsible for inflicting so much carnage on American forces? This should be scandalous but instead little is said about this policy because no security analyst can dispute that many Sunni Islamic terrorists who were based in Iraq have now moved to Syria and are part of the terrorist opposition.
In a very interesting article by Barry Rubin, who is anti-Bashar al-Assad, it is intriguing that even he states that America is supporting a pro-Islamist opposition. This clearly highlights the reality of Obama’s pro-Sunni Islamic tendencies against secularism. Of course, while Barry Rubin may be blinkered by his own anti-Assad bias despite the fact that this nation is light-years ahead of pro-Western supported nations like Saudi Arabia – and religiously, Syria shames nations like Turkey where Christians and Alevi Muslims suffer such blatant discrimination – even he can see the direction of America’s foreign policy.
Barry Rubin stated that “Five months ago, I wrote here and here detailing how the U.S. government collaborated in creating an anti-American, Islamist-dominated leadership for the Syrian revolution. This leadership group, assembled by the Islamist Turkish regime as the Obama government’s subcontractor, failed immediately. Now it is collapsing openly.”
“Of the nineteen announced members of the top leadership, I explained, ten of them were Islamists, either Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist. A reliable Syrian opposition source tells me that two more members are secretly Islamist tools. This was far in excess of the proportion of those forces in the revolution. In short, the U.S. government was helping to turn Syria’s revolution over to the Islamists. If this group had succeeded, the West would be facing still another radical Islamist regime that hated the West, wanted to go to war with Israel, and would be imposing a new dictatorship on its country.”
Further down in the same article titled The Obama Administration’s Pro-Islamist Syrian Opposition “Leadership” is Collapsing, Barry Rubin comments that “As the New York Times admits, al-Labwani, “accused Muslim Brotherhood members within the exile opposition of `monopolizing funding and military support.’” Yet there is not a word about how the Obama Administration pushed this Brotherhood-dominated leadership onto the Syrian opposition.”
“Most of the Kurds involved in the original talks angrily walked out of the negotiations because of their objection to Islamist leadership. The Obama Administration’s choice of Turkey to coordinate this operation made it even harder to bring in Syrian Kurds, who play an important role in the revolution, since Turkey has fought a long war against Kurdish nationalism at home.”
He continues by stating that “The Obama Administration collaborated in creating an anti-American leadership group. This is another example of the administration’s terrible policy and promotion of Islamists who oppose U.S. interests and who want to create a new dictatorship.”
“The Turkish regime, Obama’s favorite Middle East government, betrayed U.S. interests (and those of the Syrian people) in assembling a group dominated by its fellow Islamists who hate the United States and would link up with other radical regimes in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and Tunisia. This shows that the Turkish regime cannot be trusted.”
This article by Barry Rubin is not based on supporting Syria under Bashar al-Assad, far from it, the main purpose of his article is about the need for America to support so-called moderate forces and then create safe havens in order to bomb Syria. Clearly this argument based on so-called human rights doesn’t wash – after all, why attack Syria which is multi-ethnic and multi-religious? Surely the nationalist element is much more severe in Israel with regards to the Palestinian community and the same applies to Turkey and the Kurdish issue. It is ironic, that the Christian minority in Syria have much more economic, political, and military influence, than their co-religionists in Israel. Meanwhile, in Turkey this nation discriminates against Christianity and the Alevi Muslim community. Therefore, on what grounds can Barry Rubin, just like Obama, justify their anti-Syrian stance apart from self-interests based on geopolitics and political motives?
Bashar al-Assad and the government of Syria are fighting to maintain the sovereignty of Syria and the military of this nation, which is multi-religious, is fighting to protect the rights of all Syrians irrespective of religious persuasion or if secular. The best interest of Syria is unity, political independence, internal political reforms, and to defeat the forces of Sunni Islamic terrorism and political opportunism which is working for outside forces.
The last secular powerhouse in the Arabic speaking world is facing many attacks against the sovereignty of this nation. This applies to economic sanctions, terrorist militias being supported by outside forces, the global Al Qaeda and pan-Sunni Islamic terrorist network, hostile nations which seek a weak Syria, and other important factors. Therefore, it is essential that nations like the Russian Federation, China, Brazil, and others, don’t give in to political manipulation and media lies. After all, it is the opposition which did the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Homs, forcing women in the shadows, and which is responsible for the brutal reality of Sunni Islamic terrorism against all moderate forces in Syria.
Hung Li, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, commented that “We hope that all the Syrian sides will be able to join the mediation efforts exerted by Annan to ensure the conditions for a political settlement for the situation in Syria.” Likewise, Mikhail Bogdanov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, who had a meeting with the President of Algeria, Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika, commented that “The talks dealt with the situation in Syria… there was agreement in the Russian and Algerian stances.”
However, it must be stated that all terrorist networks which are reaping carnage in Syria must be rebuked by all opposition forces which seek a political solution. At the same time, the political opposition movement must break free from outside military and political meddling and they must renounce all terrorist networks which seek to destroy the multi-religious and secular nature of Syria under Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, they have to distance themselves from the foreign policy objectives of Obama and outside nations which seek to destroy the influence and importance of Syria within the Middle East.
If America is concerned about hostile military forces invading a sovereign nation then Obama should pressurize Turkey to leave northern Cyprus. Similarly, if Obama and the leader of Turkey are concerned about human rights then focus on the Kurdish issue in Turkey whereby approximately 30,000 people have been killed. The same applies to the Palestinian issue and the fact that 60% of all Christians have fled Iraq since the American invasion. Not forgetting the deteriorating reality of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the continuing chaos and mayhem in Libya.
The current crisis in Syria was ignited to a different level once outside meddling and international terrorism entered the equation. After all, where did all the military equipment come from to arm hostile forces which seek to implement a monoculture on Syria?
Turkey should also worry because America supported radical Sunni Islam in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s and the same applies to Pakistan. However, blowback came to haunt both nations. Therefore, Turkey may “reap what it sows” in the long term if the continuing mayhem grows in intensity.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/03/18/the-obama-administrations-pro-islamist-syrian-opposition-leadership-is-collapsing/ This article is anti-Assad but it highlights the duplicity of America in supporting Sunni Islamists against secularism.