Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.

 Let’s begin with Syria. As U.S. officials became increasingly worried about the visible Islamist domination of the Syrian opposition—which their own policies had helped promote—they have realized the horrible situation of creating still another radical Islamist regime. (Note: This column has been warning of this very point for years.)

So the response is to try to do two things. The first is to train, with Jordanian cooperation, a more moderate force of Free Syrian Army (FSA) units.  The idea is to help the non-Islamists compete more effectively with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and especially al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra group) affiliated units.

The second is supposedly to create a buffer zone along Syria’s borders with Jordan and perhaps later Israel and even Iraq in order to avoid the conflict spilling over—i.e., cross-border jihad terror attacks—to those countries.

According to the Washington Post:

“The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”

Someone has also figured out that it isn’t a great idea to have a border with Iraq controlled by Syrian Sunni Muslim terrorist Islamists allied with the Sunni terrorists in Iraq who killed so many Americans.

Well, might someone not have thought about that a year or two ago? Because, while nothing could have been more obvious there was no step taken to avoid this situation happening.

 I should point out an important distinction. The problem is not merely al-Qaeda gaining a foothold but also other Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood doing so. That, however, is not how the Obama administration thinks. For it, al-Qaeda is evil; the other Salafists somewhat bad; and the Muslim Brotherhood good.

What are the other problems here? As so often happens with Western-formulated clever ideas to deal with the Middle East, there are lots of them.

 –The United States has stood aside or even helped arm the Islamists through Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So now the Islamist forces are far stronger than the non-Islamists. That cannot be reversed at this point.

 –Might this be laying the basis for a second Syrian civil war in which the Islamists band together against the FSA? In other words, here is this buffer zone that is backed by the West (imperialism!) to “protect” Israel (the Zionists!), Jordan (traitorous Muslims!), and Iraq (Shia heretics!)

 –The training is limited and the FSA is badly divided among different commanders, defected Syrian army officers, and local warlords. The Brotherhood militia is united and disciplined. The result: worse than Afghanistan because the Islamists would have both the government and the stronger military forces.

 -A situation is being set up in which a future Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria can blackmail the United States. Either it will force Washington to accept whatever it does (including potential massacres) by threatening to unleash Salafist forces on its borders or it will actually create confrontations.

–Why isn’t the United States working full-time to stop the arms flows to the Islamists by pressuring the Saudis and Qataris (perhaps the point of Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip but hardly effective) and to rein in Turkey’s enthusiasm for a Syrian Islamist regime?

 Speaking of Turkey, now we see the reason for the attempted Israel-Turkey rapprochement, because on top of everything else there will be a Kurdish-ruled zone not run by moderates but by the Syrian affiliate of the radical PKK, which is at war with Turkey.

 –These proposed buffer zones would not receive Western air support or international forces. –Israel has the experience of maintaining a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for years by supporting a militia group. It succeeded for a long time by sending in Israeli troops covertly and taking casualties. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the effort was given up. Now Hizballah—the equivalent though not the friend of the Syrian Salafists—is sitting on the border and already one war has been fought. It should be noted that Israel has by far the most defensible border with Syria.

 Another question, however, is whether the buffer zone idea is real because it might camouflage something else. Suppose the United States wants to do something else entirely. This could mean to create a moderate, secularist force that might win a second Syrian civil war in which the rebels fought each other for power. Alternatively, since northern Syria is now dominated by radical Islamists perhaps the U.S. policymakers hope that the southern part of the country could be a non-Islamist enclave. Control over that region might strengthen the hand of the non-Islamists in negotiating the new order in Syria or as a base for waging a second civil war.

So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.

What does this have to do with Benghazi? Find out on the next page.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
There are two choices in Syria- either Al Qaida or Assad.
I prefer Assad and think the turmoil could present a historic opportunity.
Israel and the U.S. should approach Assad with the following offer-
We will support your continuation in power based upon the following- total relinquishment of all rights to The Golan Heights, dismantling and destruction of Hizbollah in Syria, all chemical and biological arms destroyed under international supervision.
Before the screaming starts about the " butcher of Bagdad " keep in ming that the replacement regime will prove to be no less a butcher and that the deal proposed would not only stabilize Syria it will undermine Iranian and Soviet influence in the region. Sometimes the unthinkable makes the most sense.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
According to reliable sources, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi so that he could be kidnapped and exchanged for the Blind Sheik. Security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty foiled the plan. Ooops. No wonder the Obama gang is lying. They have no choice. The truth will get them locked up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (26)
All Comments   (26)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
America should be out of all muslim countries immediately,

All muslims hate Christians and Americans

Helping muslims is worst then a waste of money,
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dr. Rubin is right that Israel has an incredible easy to defend border against Syria. Only small settlements and great visibility over all the approaches from Damascus to the border area. I don't think that al-Qaeda would be able to do a whole lot of direct harm via attacks on Israel from those regions. My fear is that, if Assad falls, then these groups will stage something on the border to draw the IDF into Syria, and many Israelis in the media seem to be supporting this idea. This would create an Iraq like situation for the Israelis that would do incredible damage to the Israeli military and their morale. These terrorists gained years of experience going to toe to toe on a daily basis with the US Army and Marines in Iraq and are very battle hardened. They would be a much fiercer opponent for them than Hamas or Hezbollah could ever dream of. Israel must guard against being put in this position at all costs and put aside any fantastical dreams of establishing any ludicrous 'buffer zones' inside Syria.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Barry, with all due respect sir it seems like you and a lot of others have been trying to close the barn door after the horse already fled with respect to Benghazi. What I mean by that is that Sen. Rand Paul asked whether there was deliberate gun running from Benghazi to Syrian rebels going on, and he still hasn't received an honest answer. We know it was going on. Even if Amb. Stevens, who armed the Libya rebels, was sincerely trying to 'recapture' the MANPADs he was too late and he was hung out to dry, along with three other Americans.

http://reginaldquillbigsis.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/not-so-streetwise-professor-benghazi-fast-and-furious-style-gunrunning-to-jihadis-not-plausible/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thats is because you, yes Eqius, are missing the first and main point.

And that is simply the entire operation and Libyan Attack Was A Botched Kidnapping Attempt Ordered By OBAMA But the media will not report this----



and make buckwheat appear to be what he actually is,


a south side of Chicago, slime crook
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Forget trained troops in Jordan. It will turn out like the Kurds. We will be leading them in to the slaughter. At this point let's have as many of them kill each other as possible - who REALLY cares?
Point out to who ever ends up dominant that any US or Isreali plane (military or civilian) will be responded to with a 30 day bombing campaign - and then do it!!!
We have been playing footsie over there too long. Slam these barbarians hard - rebuild NOTHING! - and start drilling here ASAP! What are our politicians thinking? Stop apologizing for western civilization and defend it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Any plane shot down - sorry!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The circumstances in Benghazi, both pior to Ambassador Syevens assassination, and during the attack, most logically support the theory that Obama intentionally hung Stevens out to dry. Yes, they whittled down his security, refused requests for more, refused his request for a quick escape plane, and refused to send help once the attack began. They told the former SEALS in the annex to "stand down" when they requested permisiion to rescue Stevens. Short of shooting Stevens himself, what more could Obama have done to ensure Stevens would get killed?

And then there is the mystery surrounding Admiral Gaoutte. It doesn't necessarily prove that the Whitehouse intentionally allowed an ambassador to be assassinated, but it raises more questions about the length Obama went to to NOT respond to the Benghazi attack.

"SOS at CPAC: “Where’s Admiral Gauoette?” and the “Benghazi CBA”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166278


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Re: Benghazi, as Artie Johnson would say, "veerry intersting". Who sold/gave Libya those MANPADS in the first place? And how does this new information - assuming it is true - effect how we should view Benghazi?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They have no real idea about the people that they are training or what they intend to do with their training. Their ultimate goal is this destruction of Israel. No doubt we will be providing them with guns and ammunition, but no control once they go back to Syria. Stupid, dangerous, and wasteful.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A Conservative just North of Attila the Hun!
I remain a 'happy infidel' - one that gives little view to the political correctness of turning the other cheek to any Muslim.
Please read a book by Dr. Peter Hammond called - Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Read it and think - we can talk about it any time !
The Muslim in the White House is the least of our troubles!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
PJ Media ran a column in November 2012 by Bryen & Bryen about Syria, MANPADS, Amb. Stevens and who would want to kill him and for what: http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-did-al-qaeda-target-ambassador-stevens/?singlepage=true. Its not surprising that it took WAPO this long to draw the same conclusion from available information; Barry is a different matter.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It should be apparent by now that the West is on an unavoidable collision course with Islam, unavoidable because we stand directly in their path of world domination. I don't see any difference between Islam and how the old USSR was attempting the same thing- except Islam hides their war machine behind the Koran. Plus Islam does not have a fixed nation geographically so simple minds get confused about where to start the counterattack. I have no problem going to war with Islam, even outlawing the religion in the US because it is a cancer. You don't negotiate with cancer, you either get it or, eventually, it get you. Kill with extreme prejudice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All