USA to arm Syrian Rebels

This will end well then.

I wonder if this will spark a wider war as the Russians have firmly planted their flag on the side of the current government.

Is Obama any different to his previous?

Is Obama any different to his previous?

You should really ask someone who's in the military, Brett. They'll probably tell you the difference between full-scale invasion and funnelling weapons and supplies to rebels.

Which side is in the right here?

Didn't they learn anything form arming the Afghans against the Soviets, absolute lunacy.

Going by the US' previous attempts at arming rebels, those weapons will no doubt be used against them in 20 years time.

Echoes of the proxy war fought in Afghanistan, in which US intervention ultimately led to the creation of Al Qaeda.

All roads lead to Tehran, imo.

This is an interesting read.

http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/

Echoes of the proxy war fought in Afghanistan, in which US intervention ultimately led to the creation of Al Qaeda.

 

All roads lead to Tehran, imo.

This is confusing a whole number of separate problems. The proxy war in Afghanistan financed the Mujahadeen in the skirmishes with the Soviets. These were led by such figures as Ahmad Shad Massoud, the 'Lion of Panjshir'. Massoud was arguably the very first victim of 9/11, having been murdered the previous day in Afghanistan by two Al Qaeda operatives masquerading as TV journalists.

Massoud received copious amounts of money from the CIA. Bin Laden and his rabble did not. They were financed by the Saudis - and in fact Bin Laden himself was an agent of Saudi intelligence. The Saudis poured money into Bin Laden's jihadists, but in the war with the Soviet occupation forces they were worse than useless.

Only when the warlords who took over from the Soviet occupiers turned the country into blood-soaked dust did the Taliban - a creation of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service - sweep in and grab power.

By the time (1996) the Taliban had captured Kabul, they were serving Pakistan's regional interests in the same way that the ISI-sponsored jihadists were in Kashmir. Al Qaeda was formed later that year, with an alliance of Bin Laden's and Zawahiri's quite separate gangs. They settled in Afghanistan, if not with ISI assistance, then at least with their connivance. By this time, Bin Laden's paymasters in Riyadh had got cold feet, and tried to neutralise him. Too late. an uneasy pact had been drawn up with the Taliban.

Where Iran fits into this heaven only knows. Pakistan, the Taliban and the former Mujahadeen were all Sunni Muslims and therefore implacably opposed to the Shia-ism of the Ayatollahs.

Anyway, the bottom line is you have three powers - the Americans, the Saudis and Pakistan - all pursuing their interests and shovelling their money at quite different groups who at different times have rule Afghanistan. The Iranians are the one regional power to have been singularly unsuccessful in installing their guys in power in Kabul.

You've left out Bin Laden's leadership of Maktab al-Khidamat, which was supported by the ISI, who were the CIA's go-to guys in conducting the proxy war in Afghanistan. A direct link is hard to establish, but we're talking a maximum of one degree of separation.

The Israelis have been banging on about "red lines" with Iran for years. In fact, there was an Israeli chap on the Today show this morning arguing this very point in a discussion about Syria.