If you regularly follow my work, you know that I have written and talked about Al Qaeda in Syria for about 2 years now. I was the first reporter to confront President Obama to his face about the fact that al Qaeda fighters in Syria were the real force behind the so called Syrian “civil war”.
As recently as one month ago, I created a Full Disclosure episode to explain how strong the presence of al Qaeda truly is in Syria. Explaining that the best funded, best equipped and best positioned force to take over the country from the Assad regime is not the Free Syria Army but Al Nusra Front, the Syrian wing of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Today, on Glenn Beck’s national radio show, Beck and Blaze TV commentator Buck Sexton talked about this growing problem of Al Qaeda in Syria and the growth of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The position that Beck and Sexton took… that Al Qaeda must be stopped. Sexton advocated sending U.S troops to Syria to stop Al Qaeda (as if the Assad regime would want U.S troops on Syrian soil) and that we must do the same to put down Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beck, agreed that we must stop al Qaeda but first we have to get our troops recuperated and refreshed.
Reality Check: Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. Saddam Hussein hated al Qaeda and was the U.S.’s number one source of information on al Qaeda. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we created the opening for al Qaeda to gain a foothold… and they did.
Flash forward to 2012 when the U.S. began supporting rebels in Syria. The U.S. has been providing financial support, body armor, satellite radios and other “non-lethal” assistance to the FSA (Free Syria Army). As recently as Memorial Day 2013, Senator John McCain visited with fighters from the FSA to talk about how the U.S. can provide assistance in a “more serious manner”.
In short, what Beck and Sexton somehow missed is that the growth of al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq has not happened because of a lack of U.S. involvement but as a result of it. The argument that Beck and Sexton are making is a NeoCon argument. Simply put, it is the cycle of terror created by a government that claims to fight terror on one hand but supports it with the other.
For example, The U.S. creates destabilization in a country like Iraq. Over the course of years local and regional al Qaeda forces step in to develop and train fighters. As the U.S. suffers financial and operational fatigue, al Qaeda grows and eventually the U.S. pulls out.
Meanwhile, the U.S. because it wants to see the overthrow of Assad deploys the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy and funds al Qaeda fighters in Syria. Over the course of years we create destabilization and attempt to force a regime change. In doing so, we hand Syria over to al Qaeda. Finally, once al Qaeda is fully in control of Iraq and Syria, we re-engage in our perpetual war on terror. All the time, sacrificing trillions in U.S. tax dollars and more importantly sacrificing the lives of thousands of America’s sons and daughters.
That has been American foreign policy since we first created the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the late 70’s and early 80’s to destabilize the Soviets. It didn’t work then, so why would it work now?
If you want the full picture of American support of al Nusra Front in Syria, watch this Full Disclosure.
Latest posts by Ben Swann (see all)
- Reality Check: Why Aren’t Shootings Sparking Debate Over Anti-Depressants? - Aug 27, 2015
- Reality Check: ‘Anchor Babies’ And Trump’s U.S. Citizenship Claims - Aug 26, 2015
- Reality Check: Is Supporting Corporate Welfare A Conservative Position? - Aug 18, 2015
- Reality Check: Can The Republican Party Kick Donald Trump Out Of The Debates? - Aug 14, 2015
- Why The Secret Of The Trump Effect and Sanders’ Rise Isn’t Really A Secret - Aug 7, 2015