So the House of Whoever-It-Is-They-Represent is voting today on money to train and arm Syrian "rebels." I hope they read this first. And this.
What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, I guess; especially if we follow this advice. Which, no doubt, is based on clear-headed assessment, like this, from our most level-headed, clear-eyed US Senator.
And here's the not even slightly funny part: John McCain and Lindsey Graham, constant mongerers of war and praisers of exactly the wrong people, might well be facilitators of the very boogeymen that frighten them so:
“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference...
... Like elements of the mujahideen, which benefited from U.S. financial and military support during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and then later turned on the West in the form of al-Qaeda, ISIS achieved scale and consequence through Saudi support, only to now pose a grave threat to the kingdom and the region. It’s this concern about blowback that has motivated Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to encourage restraint in arming Syrian rebels. President Obama has so far heeded these warnings.
John McCain’s desire to help rebel forces toss off a brutal dictator and fight for a more just and inclusive Syria is admirable. But as has been proven repeatedly in the Middle East, ousting strongmen doesn’t necessarily produce more favorable successor governments. Embracing figures like Bandar, who may have tried to achieve his objectives in Syria by building a monster, isn't worth it...
And let's not even get into the suggestions that McGraham were pawns in the Saudi goal of annexing Damascus. Because that would be too painful to contemplate.
Oh. God. We will never learn.