How Obama's Policy is Turning Syria into an Anti-Western, Islamist State

By Barry Rubin

In his article, “The Revolt of Islam in Syria,” Jerusalem Post, December 12, 2012, Jonathan Spyer, senior fellow at the GLORIA Center, points out compelling information about the new Western-backed leadership in Syria.

The bottom line: If this is Syria’s new government then Syria now has an Islamist regime. This is happening with the knowledge and collaboration of the Obama Administration and a number of European governments. It is a catastrophe and one that's taking place due to the deliberate decisions of President Barack Obama and other Western leaders. Even if one rationalizes the Islamist takeover in Egypt as due to internal events, this one is U.S.-made.

As Spyer points out, U.S. and European policy can be summarized as follows:

“To align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.”

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries, as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments--much of which comes from raw wire service reports, praise is due to Reuters in this case--is undeniable. And if we know about these things there's no doubt that the highest level of the U.S. government does so as well.

Why is this happening? Because Obama and others believe that they can moderate the Muslim Brotherhood and it will tame the Salafists, despite massive evidence to the contrary. This is the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last century and the cost for it will be high. It should be stressed that such a strategy is totally unnecessary and the alternatives have been ignored, the real moderates are being betrayed.

Here is some of the proof for these assertions:

“To align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.”

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries, as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments--much of which comes from raw wire service reports, praise is due to Reuters in this case--is undeniable:

• “The founder of the Free Syrian Army, former Syrian Air Force Colonel Riad Asaad, is notably absent [from the leadership]. General Mustafa al-Sheikh, the first of his rank to defect to the rebels, is also not there. Sheikh is known for his fierce opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hussein Haj Ali, the highest ranking officer to defect so far, was similarly absent.” These men are all anti-Islamists.

• “A Reuters report on the new joint military council calculated that the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies account for about two-thirds of the 263 men who met in Antalya and formed the new body. Salafi commanders are also there.” In other words, the Islamists will get the overwhelming share of weapons provided under U.S. sponsorship, Turkish oversight, and Qatari and Saudi financing. And the United States has not objected to the arming of Salafist super-extremists as long as they aren't affiliated to al-Qaida.

• “The new council is headed by Brigadier Selim Idriss, who is described as a non-ideological military man. But his deputies, Abdel-basset Tawil of Idleb and Abdel-Qader Saleh of Aleppo governate are associated with the Salafi trend.” In other words, there’s a non-Islamist front man for what will be an Islamist-controlled army.

• “The domination by the Muslim Brotherhood of the new military council mirrors the movement’s leading position in the new civilian leadership body – the Syrian National Coalition. The leader of this coalition is Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former Imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.

• “Khatib is closely associated with the Damascus Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the new coalition has a long history of antisemitic, anti-Western and anti-Shia remarks. (He praised Saddam Hussein, for example, for “terrifying the Jews” and wrote an article asking if Facebook was an “American-Israeli intelligence website.”) He is also an admirer of the Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood preacher Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

• “Within the body headed by Khatib, the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian National Council controls around 27 of the 65 seats on the executive body of the new coalition. There are also Islamists and fellow travelers among the non-SNC delegates. The Brotherhood is by far the best organized single body within the coalition. One secular delegate at the first full meeting of the coalition accused the MB of `pushing more of its hawks into the coalition, although it already has half of the seats.’"

Let me add two other points:'

• The U.S. government backed the previous opposition "leadership," the Syrian National Council, which was formed as a result of American initiative operating through Islamist Turkey. The fact that this council had a Muslim Brotherhood majority in the leadership did not deter the Obama Administration from proclaiming it to be the address for support. Only when the council had clearly failed--and despite the fact that months earlier several moderates had resigned complaining about Brotherhood domination--did the U.S. government change strategy to organizing a new, also Muslim Brotherhood dominated group.

• American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaida affiliated Salafists. One day those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and kill or intimidate its opponents.

How has the United States handled this threat? Well, it declared one Salafi group off-limits because it is linked to al-Qaida. That’s it.

As Spyer points out, there has been and still is an alternative: for the West to back non-Islamist leaders including liberals, Arab nationalists, and Kurdish nationalist forces. Such a strategy was not pursued either in Egypt or in Tunisia.

So when Syria gets an anti-Western, antisemitic, and anti-democratic (aside from holding elections) regime don’t be surprised. You can read it in the surprised and grudging admissions of the Western mass media a year or two after this regime takes power or you can know about it right now.

This outcome might have been inevitable any way but I don’t think that’s true. A vigorous policy of supplying non- and anti-Islamist forces while doing nothing to help the Brotherhood and Salafist militias plus the formation of a non-Islamist dominated political grouping that would receive Western aid could have produced a very different result.

But Western, and especially Obama Administration, policy is now putting into power yet another anti-Western regime that will oppress its own people and put a high priority on trying to wipe out Israel.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The Progressives Push For New "Assault" Weapons Ban Is Bad Policy

by Matt Vespa






I stand firm with my fellow members at the National Rifle Association. I couldn't be more proud to be part of an organization that defends the Second Amendment, which is one of the most important rights within our Constitution. Over the past forty-eight hours, the NRA has been slammed for being somehow complicit in the various incidents connected gun violence – with the most recent being that awful tragedy in Newtown, CT. As some in the media continue to inject hyper-emotionalism into this debate, liberals simply cannot control themselves. When it comes to gun violence, the left-wing's end goal is the eradication of the Second Amendment from civil society. However, as we obsess over carnage – and who to blame for it. Let's look at some facts. Conservative Daily News colleague Kyle Becker posted on December 19 highlighting these interesting statistics:

• Mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, and dropped in the 2000s. Mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929. (According to Grant Duwe, criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections.)


• “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes, “More Guns, Less Crime.”


• “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”– John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime.”


• “Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.” [John Fund, NRO. “The Facts About Mass Shootings.”]


• Total violent crime from 1973 to 2009 decreased 65%, or is about one-third as high. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)


• The U.S. murder rate decreased 8.1% between 2008 and 2009, and has fallen every year since 2006. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on FBI data).


• The United States ranks 24th in the world in terms of its murder rate. It also has the most highly armed civilian population.


• “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)


• The political causation is that nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic sociocultural and economic factors.” [Then why does Luxemburg have nine times the murder rate of Germany?] (Kates & Mauser,Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)


• “The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate. But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)


• The odds of being in a victim of a mass shooting are far less than that of being struck by lightning.


On December 19, President Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, announced a new anti-gun task force to discuss the amount of gun violence perpetrated by the mentally unstable in this country. Joe Biden is heading this commission, but made a fast and furious move towards the exit when question time from the press arrived.

It is our imperative – as conservatives – to block any suggestions this anti-gun committee produces over the next few weeks. This isn't about gun control. It's about power. It's about government centralizing more control over the dynamics of our society. This is progressivism after 100 years of maturation. A point aptly made by columnist George Will last winter.

As we've seen on the news, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws on the books – and they worked. Adam Lanza was unable to buy a rifle due to his age, but even if that weren't the case. He was unwilling to subject himself to a background check. He had to commit a homicide and steal the guns from his mother to unleash the depraved fury on Sandy Hook Elementary last week.

As progressives and the Democratic Party readies itself to reinstate an 'assault weapons' ban, which infringes on our Second Amendment rights, we should have some clarification on the language that will be used when the new Congress is convened in 2013. It shows how little Democrats, or any anti-gun activist, knows about guns.

Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a great piece on December 19 about the futility of a new ban on so-called 'assault weapons.'

"Semi-automatic guns, including 'assault weapons,' are not machine guns. They do not fire more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun. The sale of machine guns and fully automatic weapons has long been banned. By contrast, much of America’s guns are “semi-automatic." Indeed, so many guns in this country are semi-automatic — the way most cars run on gasoline — that The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney says that 'semiauto is the norm' according to Bader.

He's right. Furthermore, he wrote that:

Congress and the president may pass an “assault weapons” ban to make themselves feel good, but I won’t expect much in the way of results for public safety if they do. As Professor Volokh notes:

So-called “assault weapons” are no deadlier than other weapons. To begin with, note that assault weapons are not fully automatic weapons (which is to say machine guns). Fully automatic weapons have long been heavily regulated, and lawfully owned fully automatics are very rare, very expensive, and almost never used in crimes. Rather, assault weapons are a subset of semiautomatic weapons, generally semiautomatic handguns and rifles. Semiautomatic handguns and rifles — of which there are probably at least about 100 million in the country, and likely more — are undoubtedly extremely deadly; but the subset that is labeled “assault weapons” is not materially deadlier than the others. One way of recognizing that is looking at the definition in the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban; the ban lists several types of guns by name, and then provides these generic definitions:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a bayonet mount . . . .[see additional examples at Volokh's web site]

Guns that fit these categories may look more dangerous; but they aren’t more dangerous. . . .

Banning assault weapons thus has basically no effect on the lethality of gun crime, or of mass shootings more specifically.

Although Volokh says that assault weapons bans would be useless, he also says that they would likely be constitutional, since “such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.

However, as conservatives, we should be uneasy with government banning anything. We banned alcohol with disastrous results. We have continued to support a ban on illicit drugs that has also produced disastrous results. We should re-think our drug policy, but that's for another time.

The prevalence of so-called 'assault weapons' was "a modest fraction of all gun crimes.'

Furthermore, the study from the Urban Institute said they:

...were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests."

A ban on assault weapons is constitutional, but data shows that it isn't worth the political capital that could be spent addressing the faults in detecting and treating mental illness in America. Frankly, I'm against any measure by the government that limits the options for Americans in which they can defend themselves. As such, Republicans should just say no to the new push to ban 'assault weapons.' It's time to put this issue away, so our snobby New England brethren can never bring it back again.

Gun control laws, or at least Connecticut's regulations, worked in preventing Lanza from buying a firearm to create havoc. Yet, the left is still guns, bodies, and carnage obsessed. People seem to forget he had to commit a crime to get those guns. That's an unstoppable situation, unless we're living in a universe more to the liking of Philip K. Dick's Minority Report.

The first assault weapons ban had a negligible impact on reducing crime when it was enacted in 1994 – and had a negligible impact when it expired in 2004. As such, we must ask ourselves why Democrats wish to pursue this matter – with a renewed optimism – if it weren't to infringe on our liberty? Do they just habitually sponsor and advocate bad policy? It would also show how government spends an exorbitant amount of time debating bad policy that would yield infinitesimal results in reducing violent crime. Well, that part is mostly tradition. Just say no to new gun regulations. Just say no to the assault weapons ban.

John Boehner's Strikingly Familiar 58 Second Press Conference

I can't put my finger on it, but there was something strikingly familiar about Speaker of the House John Boehner's press conference today.

He got up on a platform, struggled and worked hard for only 58 seconds--said uh a lot then it was over.  And when Boehner was all done he was kind of sweaty and he left the room to have a cigarette. When it was over the conservatives who elected the GOP majority that gave him the speaker's job felt screwed.  Please watch the video of the speakers presser below and let me know why it seems familiar.



And for those conservatives who are worried that Boehner's class-warfare-advancing Plan B will actually happen...don't sweat it..this plan will never see the light of day.  Sadly any deal that Boehner and Obama make will probably be significantly worse.

 Republicans should “peel off the war paint” and take the deal he’s offering, Obama said sharply at the White House. He buttressed his case by noting he had won re-election with a call for higher taxes on the wealthy, then he said pointedly that the nation aches for conciliation, not a contest of ideologies, after last week’s mass murder at a Connecticut elementary school.

But he drew a quick retort from Boehner when the White House threatened to veto a fallback bill drafted by House Republicans that would prevent tax increases for all but million-dollar earners. The president will bear responsibility for “the largest tax increase in history” if he makes good on that threat, the Ohio Republican declared.

 Of course the going off the fiscal cliff option isn't great either.  I believe his concession first/negotiate later strategy has painted the speaker into a corner--and in the end all Americans will be screwed

Dana Milbank, NeoCons and "The L-Word"

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE Per Webster's Dictionary
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means 

Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank wishes to add a third definition to the Webster's listing above--Jews. His latest column is titled "Neocons push against Chuck Hagel," but talks about "Other right-wing publications and conservative Zionist groups" Funny...I didn't see those elements in the definition above.

Milbank's position is that the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic quotes attributed to Hagel aren't so bad.

But, as an American Jew who has written about anti-Semitism in political dialogue, I don’t see this as anti-Semitic or anti­-Israel. The sentence preceding the quote said that “Hagel is a strong supporter of Israel and a believer in shared values.”

Sorry Dana, referring to the "Jewish Lobby" is extending an anti-Semitic meme that has been around for ages, that there is a Jewish Conspiracy that runs the government (the banks, the media and Hollywood also).

It doesn't matter if it is said by a war hero earning two Purple Hearts in jungle combat like Hagel, a Journalist Like Helen Thomas, a Columnist like MJ Rosenberg a racist like David Duke, a former National Security Adviser such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, or a Republican Presidential candidate such as Ron Paul.

It also doesn't matter whether the term used is Jewish Lobby, Israel Lobby, Zionist Lobby or in some contexts Neocon.

And by the way we entered the War where Hagel earned his purple hearts because of JFK and LBJ, neither of which could be called Neocons or publishers of other right-wing publications, or members of conservative Zionist groups.

Sometimes it astounds me how the progressives have changed our language to be politically correct--heck we just had the "M-Word" added to the language by a Congressman who claims too many Marines on Guam would tip the Island over--but when it suits the liberal's purpose, anti-Semitic memes are excused, just like Milbank does with Hagel.

There are many reasons to oppose Chuck Hagel in my opinion. I believe his positions on Hamas and Hezbollah show him to be weak on terrorism.  I believe he is not favorably disposed to our number one ally in the Middle East, Israel.  Reasonable people can disagree on those points and none of those positions make him anti-Semitic.

However, his belief that there is some sort of conspiracy, a Jewish Lobby trying to control US Government policy, is anti-Semitic.  Maybe the progressives should start using the "L-Word. And if Milbank is truly someone who cares about Antisemitism in the political dialogue instead of just a hack for the Obama administration he would understand that!

One More Neocon Definition...this one from David Brooks of the NY Times

“the people labeled neocons (con is short for ''conservative'' and neo is short for ''Jewish'') travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another… (If you ever read a sentence that starts with ''Neocons believe,'' there is a 99.44 percent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.) Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything.”

I think this one best explains Dana Milbank's use of the word.

Possible Chuck Hagel Defense Sec. Pick Criticized on BOTH Sides of the Aisle

Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is President Obama's likely pick for Secretary of Defense.  As we discussed last week Hagel is weak on terrorism and Iran and has a long track record of being both anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

Over the past few days an anti-Hagel wave has been building from both GOP and Progressive sources.

The Washington Post, one of the Bibles of progressive news  published an editorial called Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary, saying in part:

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

Even Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League who usually puts progressive politics before his organization's mandate said;

“Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel.  His record relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling.   The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”

Democratic Party senators have distanced themselves fro Hagel's Anti-Semitic remarks 

I know there are some questions about his past comments and I’ll want to talk to him and see what his explanation is,” said Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal. “Yes, it would give rise to question, but there are so many very significant issues and factors to be considered, and he has many profoundly significant qualifications for the job.”

“Any comment that undermines our relationship [with Israel] concerns me,” said Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Asked if the reference to the “Jewish lobby” is such a statement, Casey said, “Sure, yes.”

Michigan’s Carl Levin said he does not agree with Hagel’s view.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate statement,” Levin said.

And on the GOP Side:

Asked about Hagel's 2006 statement that the "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people here," Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he would "have to answer for that comment" if he is nominated.
"And he'll have to answer about why he thought it was a good idea to directly negotiate with Hamas and why he objected to the European Union declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "He's been a friend, he has a stellar military record, but these comments disturb a lot of people."

 A Hagel nomination might end up to be a war this President does not want to fight right now.