Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
The concept of war is an ongoing thing and has never really ceased in 20+ years. Something that strikes me as odd while simultaneously ringing true occurred to me while listening to Obama's pep rally last night.
Since the 1980 - most likely before - the federal government has been creating enemies for the sole purpose of the USA being at war with them. ISIS is Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda came into power when the federal government armed the moderate rebels in Afghanistan weapons to fight the Russians last century. Russia didn't prevail and the rebels soon became Al Quaeda. Are they really the terrorist group the federal government says they are or are they creating enemies so we can sustain constant war?
Last night Obama said he wants to arm moderate Syrian rebels. 
Aren't we paying attention? Don't you think we would learn something? We are arming those who will be our future enemies and will need to be dealt with by future war. He wants to bomb who for what reason? The terrorists we created years ago and armed as little as 5 years ago? While arming those who oppose the present enemy?
It is all straight out of the book "1984".  |
This was the OP's first message. It poses lots of good questions, but has a few inaccuracies. And one huge spot-on accuracy. Since I'm writing a book about this very topic, allow me to contribute what I've learned. In Reader's Digest form, it goes like this:
The US hasn't been creating enemies so they could go to war with them. From 1980 through 1989, we were fighting the cold war with the USSR and dealing primarily with European terrorist groups in a 'counterterrorism' mode - primarily with plainclothes US military personnel. (I was one of them.)
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on their own - we helped the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets by arming and training the Mujahadeen. We used the Mujahadeen as a surrogate to fight the USSR as a part of our cold war strategy. (The cold war started in March 1946 in Iran, BTW.) The Mujahadeen were NOT al-Qaeda, nor did they become al-Qaeda. Many Westerners think the terms are interchangeable, but they aren't. Two different groups; the AQ actually attacked the Mujahadeen the US supported.
Once the Soviets pulled out (1989), Afghanistan became a largely ungoverned space - and Mullah Omar moved in to rein in the 300 or so various tribal warlords. He was strongest, so his group, the Taliban, won. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan (with CIA money) because Pakistan wanted to have strong influence over Afghanistan because of its geographic location vis a vis India.
Once Mullah Omar's Taliban took over Afghanistan, bin Laden made friends with Omar (read: bought his way in) and brought his band of radicals with him. Africa was getting too hot for him and Saudi Arabia wouldn't let him come home.
Fast forward to 2003. We invade Iraq and force regime change within about six weeks. But we create an ungoverned space the size of California. By October, Jihadists from all over Europe and the Middle East are flooding in to fight the US. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually gets formed by al-Zarqawi and al-Baghdadi, one of his lieutenants, gets captured by the US. Zarqawi dies in a US bombing run and al-Baghdadi gets turned over to the Iraqis. They free him in 2010 and he goes on to lead the ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State (pick a name - they are all the same). MEANWHILE, the real al-Qaeda disowns Zarqawi's successors, ISIS/ISIL/IS, and its ilk because they are too violent.
So where the OP is exactly correct is the concept of stronger countries using surrogates and non-governmental organizations as proxies to advance their own foreign policy agendas is fraught with danger. Examples abound: the Soviets did it, the US did it, Russia is doing it (in the Ukraine) and Pakistan excels at it. In virtually every case I mention above, those same groups have turned on their benefactors.
Now fast forward (again) to President Obama's declaration that we are going to enter into a sustained counterterrorist operation against ISIS/ISIL/IS, which everyone except the military thinks is actually a war. He has to do something because the bad guys beheaded two US citizens on video and the US cannot be seen to allow its citizens to be treated that way. But he also cannot start a war (remember that Nobel Peace Prize?) - his political base would not stand for it. So he starts a muddled, 'lead from behind' effort featuring lots of F-18 bombings but no 'boots on the ground.' And he openly declares he is going to arm and train the Free Syrian Army - the exact same mistake so many countries have made before - including the US - as a proxy for US boots on the ground.
(BTW - the reason the military does not think it is a war is because it is not a stated hostility or a named operation. Without either one of those two things happening, all kinds of war rules do not kick in. Soldiers get no VA treatment for wounds received, no combat pay, no war death benefit for next of kin, none of that. So the 1,400+ US soldiers (all wearing boots) in Iraq tonight are there without any war protections. And for those of you younger than President Obama, this is exactly how Vietnam started. We called those first troops 'advisors' then, too.)
Confused? So is everyone else - including the administration.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
