Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq?

Chris Ernesto, June 15, 2014

Barack Obama has a chance to be a hero.

With Republicans and hawks pushing him to do something in Iraq, he could go in front of the nation today and assertively say:

"It was you, Republicans, who got us into this war in Iraq to begin with, based on false assertions and flat out lies. So I will not listen to you now as you tell the American people that the US must again take military action in Iraq. Remember I was opposed to the Iraq war the first time and given the disaster that we see in Iraq today, I was right. So Senator McCain, William Kristol, and all you other "think tank" talking heads who are trying to create more carnage in Iraq, it’s time for you to crawl into your cubbyhole and keep your mouth shut. You got it wrong the first time and you’re getting it wrong again. As the leader of this country, I will not allow the US to make another mistake in Iraq."

If Obama said these things, 80% of America would give him a standing ovation.

The New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN would all applaud his leadership and American’s reputation around the world would greatly improve. His approval rating would shoot through the roof and it would mean that Obama’s constituency would feel emboldened and proud to be a member of the Democratic Party.

But it’s almost a certainty that Obama will not say this, or anything even remotely close to this, primarily for three reasons.

Firstly, Obama made himself an easy target of Republican critics who claim Iraq is a mess today because the US withdrew too soon. But the troop withdrawal from Iraq was signed into law by George W. Bush – Obama was simply carrying out the law that was in place before his inauguration. By wrongly taking credit for ending the Iraq war, Obama has put himself in a position where he cannot counter Republican criticism of a premature troop withdrawal.

Secondly, Democratic Party leadership would not allow Obama to make this brazen statement because their presumptive candidate for the 2016 presidential elections is Hillary Clinton who, as senator of New York, voted in favor of the Iraq war.

And lastly, because Obama and the Democrats (and Republicans) are imperialists who believe in US world domination, they can’t run the risk of losing control of their puppet government in Iraq by doing nothing.

Arming ISIS in Syria, bombing them in Iraq

So, it looks like the US will ultimately use aerial strikes (and undoubtedly, Special Forces and mercenaries) in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) at the same time it is supplying them with lethal weapons in Syria.

This bears repeating. The US is arming ISIS in Syria and is now considering military action against them in neighboring Iraq.

“President Obama has crossed a moral red line. Recently, he did the unthinkable: He announced that the US government would directly arm terrorist groups in Syria,” wrote Jeffrey K. Tuhner in the Washington Times last September.  “Mr. Obama said that he would waive a federal law designed to prevent weapons from being sent to designated-terrorist organizations.  Mr. Obama’s actions may be legal, but they are reckless, dangerous and will haunt America for years to come,” warned Mr. Tuhner.

How prophetic his warning turned out to be.  Obama’s decision to arm al-Qaeda related groups in Syria has come back to haunt him in Iraq.

isis-map-ernesto

And Washington added more fuel to the fire in Syria by announcing on June 6 that it would be sending “lethal aid” to the opposition there. National Security Advisor Susan Rice insisted that US weapons will only go to "vetted" opposition groups. No one really believes this, particularly with the porous Syria/Iraq border and Obama’s previous waiver of the law preventing the US from arming terrorist groups.

The only question is, how many of the lethal weapons Washington sent to Syria are now inside Iraq?  Talk about blowback – weapons the US provided are being used to take down US puppet-partners in Iraq.

The US needs to accept responsibility instead of compounding its mistakes

Lindsay German of the Stop the War Coalition wrote, "Obama’s statement that he doesn’t rule out anything in dealing with the crises shows how little he recognizes the US and western responsibility for the chaos now spreading across the region." She continued with the statement, "the invasion and occupation destroyed the Iraq State totally – something not even done to Nazi German or Mussolini’s Italy at the end of the Second World War."

This ties in with Robert Fisk’s profound statement that the US "destroyed Saddam’s regime to make the world safe and declared that Iraq was part of a titanic battle against ‘Islamofacism.’ Well they lost."

It defies logic that the US is arming ISIS in Syria while at the same time could be bombing them in Iraq. But that is what it would be doing.

Didn’t George W. Bush say, or at least try to say, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”?

It’s time for America to remember his words. Though Washington will surely try to paint possible US airstrikes in Iraq as something less than another war, sending missiles into another country is war, and would be another unthinkable, tragic mistake by the US.

Chris Ernesto is cofounder of St. Pete for Peace, an antiwar organization in St. Petersburg, FL that has been active since 2003. Mr. Ernesto also created and manages OccupyArrests.com and USinAfrica.com.




34 Responses to “Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq?”

  1. Death to OPEX and it's alliez

  2. Pope Francis nailed it: “We discard a whole generation to maintain an economic system that no longer endures, a system that to survive has to make war, as the big empires have always done,” he said.

    "But since we cannot wage the Third World War, we make regional wars," he added. "And what does that mean? That we make and sell arms. And with that the balance sheets of the idolatrous economies — the big world economies that sacrifice man at the feet of the idol of money — are obviously cleaned up." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/pope-fra

  3. Maybe this is the cynic in me, but, by arming the terrorists in Syria then killing them in Iraq, it appears that US policy is to kill or have killed as many Muslims as possible. This certainly, at least, seems to be the policy of the brain dead neocon like McCain, Krystal, etc,etc,etc. Now the USG is asking for Iran to help stop ISIS. We'll probably be arming them next at the same time that the US and Israel are making plans to bomb them once the peace talks break down. You can't make this stuff up.

  4. […] Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq? […]

  5. Iran is already fighting against ISIS. Even Al Qaeda is afraid of ISIS. Even though Iran acts tough, they are Shia and Shia are outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Sunnis. They are all our enemies, but remember that it was the Taliban and Al Qaeda that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We should not be giving any aid to any terrorist groups – anywhere.

    But Obama is in bed with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Sunni Saudis. Valerie Jarrett is in bed with Iran (which means she should also be on Assad's side).

    This is a repeat of the Iran-Iraq conflicts of the 1980's with respect to internecine fighting – BUT, these are barbarians without a state attempting to expand their influences over territories. Let them fight it out on their own. We don't gain anything by helping terrorists of any Muslim sect.

    We have to watch to see if ISIS runs out of real estate or succeeds in gaining a lot of new followers by giving them the "Join or Die" choice. Christians won't be given a choice. They are earmarked for extermination just like the Jews.

    If Christians are exterminated in the Middle East, then they will be coming for the Christians and Jews in Europe and America seeing as how we did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, Egypt, and Iraq.

    If Iran is in danger of being overrun by ISIS and they come begging for our help, we'll tell them that Khomeini and the Mullahs must give up control of the country first and let the government be run by the guy who actually won the election. The young people of Iran support Americans but not Obama's government who let them be slaughtered during their peace protests.

  6. ISIS wil kick your pussy asses, you apostate turds.

  7. […] The irony in all of this is that if U.S. troops do engage in combat on the ground, they will be doing so against the same gang of fun-lovin’ terrorists as it has been funding in Syria. Chris Ernesto of AntiWar.com puts it bluntly: […]

  8. Any kind of Religion is injection of Heroine. The Goddess is crazy ! I taught German to a girl from Afghanistan, she wants to become a dentist. So, I asked her who wrote the Koran. She answered that Mohammed wrote it. Really, all by himself? She didn't answer. Religion is the most dangerous drug, like injection of Heroine. The Bible tells that Melchizedek is equal to Jesus but he didn't have a mother. But we don't talk much of the other guy in the book edited by the emperor and the bishops in Constantinople 333. The Goddess is crazy !!!

  9. […] Ministers ducked for political cover yesterday after activists blamed Britain’s own arms sales for fuelling Iraq’s descent into chaos. […]

  10. […] Chris Ernesto writes for Antiwar: […]

  11. even when shown with fact that you are an idiot you still blame someone else. This is not the neocons this is Obama, grow up and deal with it

  12. […] Democrat. The president that Democrats voted for is already supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, has armed ISIS in Syria, and has started a war on Libya without congressional […]

  13. […] Democrat. The president that Democrats voted for is already supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, has armed ISIS in Syria, and has started a war on Libya without congressional […]

  14. […] Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq? – Antiwar […]

  15. A very good and informative article indeed . It helps me a lot to enhance my knowledge, I really like the way the writer presented his views. I hope to see more informative and useful articles in future.

  16. Thank you so much! Really rich content and very useful information. I found my problem’s solution starting over here. I exceedingly advocate his/her machinery by means of the valuable enlightening information.

  17. Thank you for for sharing so great thing to us. I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post nice post, thanks for sharing.

  18. tanks in information
    you are really" good http://obatsakitpinggangtradisionalblog.wordpress

  19. […] Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq? […]

  20. "But the troop withdrawal from Iraq was signed into law by George W. Bush "

    What, what? I followed your links, but still couldnt find it. I'm not sure what to believe. Maybe that's the point.

  21. Maybe you should try harder: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/18/sof

  22. These articles are so stupid. They are the equivalent of their arguements that Bush lied and got the US in an unjust war. The facts are that nobody knew what Sadam had as he had thwarted attempts for years to figure it out. Sadam didn't even know. For every report that said Iraq didn't have WMD there is one that said they had a program. UN sanctions were projected to be lifted as they were unpopular and the EU didn't support anyway. France was actively looking at an arms for oil deal with Iraq and Iraq was poised to become the bully in the region once again and control the access and distribution of strategic resources.

    Due to this his actions were legal according to US law. Using the Clinton doctrine Bush acted legally to protect a strategic resource and ended the Gulf War.

  23. the only way to treat these rabid radicals is fight by their rules. suspend all rules of war and the Geneva convention. coat all of your ordinance in the blood of swine and send these curs straight to hell where they belong and deny them the entry into heaven as good little fighters. make sure allah does not want them. then see how long they are willing to keep on fighting.

  24. Even when shown how we got screwed by GWB going to Iraq, you blame someone else. What a hypocrite. This is the aftermath of the neocons. You grow up & deal with it.

  25. Yep a bullet to their heads then kill their pet goats!

  26. wow who will produce your movie and who will star in it? dude some wild imagination you have got lol

  27. these apostate turds are the one financing and arming ISIS dumb ass lol

  28. Time to kick ass and take names , show the terrorist that the American people are united. And that we won't take shit from no one And if a country harbors these terrorists , put them on the list of enemy's of the US. We need to get busy living or get busy dyeing. I wouldn't doubt it that Putin is funding , and sending arms to Isis . He seems to have no fear of the US hum he's playing that chess game again. That deal with China, his buddies in Korea, Iran, which he has been supplying nuke capability for years . He knows that the US can't spread itself to thin militarily And that waving hand over in Iraq, Syria is just what he needs to taunt us. I seems that we are being teamed up on. There more to the picture then meets the eye. Time to get tough Obama , or are you on vacation again

  29. There's a reason I don't associate with liberals and a reason why I keep hard core right wingers at a distance. They both use the wrong size brush to paint their biased opinion. Like all good dog lapping liberals thirsty for kool aid, the talking points never change – even when historical events have demonstrated and proven the final results to be legitimized by and like those who attacked our nation on 9/11. How many times do we get kicked in the teeth by this crowd?

    Before 9/11: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americana

    And of course, like most liberal rags like Snopes.com – good luck trying to track down legitimate historical events. This is what you'll get when history actually played a part in the development of our sovereignty.

    Sorry, no matches were found containing A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.

    For those of you non-allegiant, non-pro America liberals, here the definition for sovereignty: autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, freedom

    Now, attacks after 9/11: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/

    A line of history: http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terror

    It's only about the oil, right? This is a timeline of man's desire to conquer in the name of whatever sick, twisted reason feels good at the time. Some religious, some for the sake of power, but mostly because of racial and prejudice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_clean

    Both the right and left will spin whatever is necessary to defend their brand of Uncle Sam. The LEFT desire peace and freedom without violence while the RIGHT demand respect and power. The LEFT needs to be babied from cradle to grave by comprehensive programs provided by tax payers and redistributed via a big socialist goverment and the RIGHT want to be left alone, work hard, and create wealth without regulation. The LEFT aren't proud and the RIGHT live for dignity. The LEFt are Godless party animals and the RIGHT carry the burden of responsibility. The LEFT are about peace (a piece of ass) love and dope and the RIGHT worry about the future of the American franchise. It's a very simple comparison. Liberals are the children; the disobedient teenagers and Conservatives are the parents nobody likes.

    So, who pays for this division. All those living within the confines of these divided states. We are no longer a union of citizens demanding that our representatives monitor and cherrish the policies of the Constitution. Our poorly elected lawyers are only winners in the eyes of the beholders. They've spun their way into office by our ignorance only to achieve their personal interests; showering their constituents with tidbits of promises to stay in office. They have no intensions of fixing problems, just making them while they sit back and watch this nations citizenship fight and divide.

    Now for Obama's voting record regarding the Iraq war:
    Only 1 time is Obama noted for a nay vote for war appropiations: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l

    And now, follow Obama's yea votes for appropiations: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/the-truth-on-tro

  30. What I have learned about liberals is they expect RIGHT winged conservatives to protect this nation while they trash it. This way if times get hard, they can scream I told you so. Liberals fold like a house of cards when hard issues of war and conflict need to be dealt with long term. Most liberals just expect everyone in the world to get along with each other. How's that working out? It took a couple of years for Bush to ask Congress to allow him to wage war on Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Ir

    Liberals today wouldn't be able to recognize a post WWII democrat like Truman and Kennedy. Truman shoved a couple of nukes down the Japanese's asses and Kennedy almost declared war on Cuba. Am I the only one who remembers Kennedy starting the Vietnam engagement – that Kennedy started it and Johnson funded it – and Nixon stopped it? Why did they have to do that? Were they convinced that we can all just get along, dispite collateral damage? Politics baby – politics. Lady bird Johnson owned 51% in the Huey helicopter franchise. Whaa??? What about oil?

    America has to survive under the Constitution, Bill of rights, Articles of the Republic, and Declaration of Independence. Sometimes that means we gotta' do things we don't necessarily want to do but in order to balance out world chaos, we need to engage in order to establish strength. This is what liberals can't understand. It's quite simple. What super power do liberals want to be ruled by? The United States, or the rest of the world? I would suggest if liberals want their ideologies to blossom, find an isolated piece of real estate somewhere on earth and create their brand of culture. But in the meantime, politicians love and enjoy our division and prosper on our ignorance and prejudice. Smoke and mirrors and Obama's no different. Personally, I think he's an idiot.

    Now what liberals on this string has a solution to dissolve terrorism? Socialism? Really? Idiots. Draw a line in the sand like Obama.

  31. Your post always bring new ideas to us and i love to read out the posts by you. thanks and keep sharing.

  32. Are you people serious? Obama is no hero. This is not the republicans but the moron in the white house. I mean he ignores congress anyway so how can we blame them? In order to have peace, we must eliminate the threat to it. If you don't realize that you are an idiot. History has proven when America doesn't get involved in world politics world wars happen and evil rises. He have to take down these evil, sick, animals that are known as radical islamists. Wake up and realize Obama is F****** us over. He is stupid and will help cause this world to go up in flames. Open your eyes already! I'm sick of stubborn Americans not realizing the mess we are in.

  33. "Kennedy almost declared war on Cuba". Not exactly correct. Kennedy stopped the planned invasion of Cuba. It was ready to go. Kennedy had the guts to go against the Hawks who in most ways controlled the USA then and now. [You know: those low esteem morons that can never be wrong. McCain types.] If you ask an ex USSR citizen it is simple and it conforms to the true history of the Cuban crisis. Not US propaganda and the myth fed to most in the USA. The US placed intermediate range nukes on the USSR border. The USSR complained. The USA said "get stuffed what are you going to do about it"? Khrushchev gave them there answer. Nukes in Cuba. All the Hawks in the USA as usual did not want to back down. In the end Kennedy being a man of intelligence and true courage contacted Khrushchev and asked what he wanted to remove the Nukes from Cuba. The answer of course was simple. Remove your Nukes off our border and don't try to invade Cuba again and stop the CIA trying to kill Castro for the 40th time. Already 39 failed attempts. Kennedy deserves a lot of respect because he had the Guts to go against Hawks and called off the invasion of Cuba less than 24 hours before it was to happen. That is why Kennedy must be admired. A man who could see another point of view. Very rare in US Politics. Lucky he did. Documents released after the breakup of the USSR revealed Castro demanded the USSR give him control of the nukes if they wanted to base them there. It also revealed about 90 missiles were ready at the time. US intelligence was wrong as usual. When asked Castro claims he would have used them if the USA did invade. The last US President with enough guts to back down and stand up to the Hawks that really control the USA. A land born out of the Gun and a Nation that still thinks a bigger Gun is the solution to everything. Thank God for Kennedy.

  34. "we must eliminate the threat" Only one problem. The USA has continually supported the bad guys that always prove to be a far greater problem than the previous lot.