|
Ignatius: Let’s Create Another AlQaeda
David Ignatius acknowledges that the situation in Syria today is looking quite similar to the one in Afghanistan in the 1980s:
The parallels are spooky. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders (in this case, mostly in Jordan and Turkey), helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties (in Afghanistan, they came mostly from China and Egypt; in Syria, they’re mainly bought on the black market). And finally, a major financier for both insurgencies has been Saudi Arabia.
There’s even a colorful figure who links the two campaigns: Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.
In Afghanistan, Ignatius says, the Russian left but there were also bad results of the U.S. policy:
On the negative, this CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan, its neighbors and even the United States.
The same is rightly now feared for Syria.
The only plausible way to avoid that danger is to stop all support for the insurgency and instead support the Syrian government in its fight. But instead of that Ignatius only wants the U.S. to be "careful" in supporting those religious extremists. It should look for "sensible elements" within those fighters.
People from Ansar al Sharia in Yemen, which is affiliated with AlQeada, are now moving to Syria:
“The sudden withdrawal of al-Qaeda militants from the two cities of Zinjubar and Ja’ar in Abyan province is connected to a conclusive deal recently made to have groups of armed men relocated to Syria to partake in the war against the Syrian regime, al-Fadhli told the Adenalghd local news site."
We can be sure that Prince Bandar has helped with the plane ticket to Turkey and other expenses.
How will U.S. "carefulness" in supporting those fighters make a difference? Will they slaughter the Syrian people in a more careful way? Will they be "sensible" when they export their trade from a new Syrian emirate? Nonsense.
What Ignatius really says is lets create a new AlQaeda, but lets be "careful" and "sensible" in doing it. Those Ansar al Sharia terrorists, hunted by U.S. drones when in Yemen, will now be the new caressing U.S. heroes in its war on the axis of resistance.
The papers can than again headline about the Anti-Shia warrior who [puts] his army on the road to peace.
Who but war profiteers or Zionist stooges can come up with such an idiotic policy.
WWM is neither a “silly troll” or an “agent provocateur”. He has placed his finger on the sore spot of left politics, which is why his focus has been disparaged by three commenters already. What he is saying, in effect, is that even the so-called ‘radical’ left is nothing but Christopher Hitchens Lite. The AlJazirah to the BBC. Hitch believed in the motto, ‘You are either with us or against us”, and he decided he was “with us”. He realized that the Enlightenment Project, which severed God’s head from the godhead and replaced it with a human one was dead, and changed his religion from Secular Humanist Universalist, to the Religion of Empire – you know, the Olde Tyme religion of Rudyard Kipling et al, of the White Man’s Burden, and of Manifest Destiny, which competed with the Enlightenment Universalist Religion in the previous centuries. These co-religionists of Hitch’s, headed by that clown Juan Cole, who can be considered an early adopter of the second wave, thanks to his early stance on Libya, realize that if you hack away at the ball of cheese which is Western Civilization, there comes a point where you reach a fork in that road whereat one tine of the fork stops short of the destruction of the whole ball of cheese and remains “constructive”, while the other continues the hacking based on Principle, which leaves nothing but a vacuum in its “destructive” wake.
The “Constructivist” Left, if you will, sacrifice their principles in order to save the ground and framework which gave birth to their principles in the first place, and they become whores like everyone else. The reason for this is that those principles, like all synthetic and/ or deviant religions, are ouroboric: they eat themselves, like the ouroboric snakes that they are.
The “Destructivist” Left will remain in a vacuum (the cheese having been destroyed) until they eventually “snap”. They snap because they cannot remain in vacuuo indefinitely: they need to stick their head into *some* bubble or another before too long. And so, most of them will “return to the fold” and prostitute their conscience (as pointed out by WWM), or, they will adopt some other religion such as Islam, if they are lucky, or Existentialism, Positivism, revivalist Christianity, or even the many sordid and flaky New Age religions you see in the Left Coast (“California’s got the most of them… Boy they got a host of them”).
Observing the phenomenology of how the Constructivists rationalize their critical and remaining “constructive” despite the fact that they have fully abandoned their original Constitution or founding principles can be interesting. The Positivist, for example, who remain on the margins of the religion of post-Enlightenment Universalism maintain that all of this business about ideals and principles is nonsense, and clutch at the straw principle that there *are* no moral principles. Their Existential co-religionists, in no less sophisticated a maneuver, construct a ‘construct’ wherein all (other) constructs are just that: ‘constructs’, which must be deconstructed. I mean that is just one example of their many multifaceted creeds.
I say ‘lucky’ if they adopt Islam, because it allows them to maintain the purity of principle which their fitra or primordial disposition and nature insists on clinging on to, and prevents them from having to endure the cognitive dissonance of those who have returned to the fold of whoredom, prostitution, Weaselistan. But of course, Islam is a whole civilization with its own whole host of (new) issues to deal with. It has major, I mean but *major* problems of its own… but its kernel of truth is much larger and much more luminous and accessible than what is left in post-Christian Christendom – because in its core, it is – are you ready for this?? – the truth.
No? I didn’t think so.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 7 2012 5:49 utc | 24
|
