The Wrongologist

What’s Wrong Today:

American Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham, in Afghanistan, proposed arming the Syrian rebels, while
saying they do not think that direct intervention by the United States is
necessary. McCain said at a press
conference in Kabul:

“I
believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United
States involvement,…People that are being massacred
deserve to have the ability to defend themselves,”

McCain insists that Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s army is relying on firepower being provided by Iran.  Sen. Graham suggested that an end to the
bloodshed would happen if the US and other nations could separate Syria from
Iran:

 “Breaking Syria apart from Iran could be as
important to containing a nuclear Iran as sanctions…If the Syrian regime is
replaced with another form of government that doesn’t tie its future to the
Iranians, the world is a better place.”

 The
Hill reported that McCain sent a letter last week to Armed Services
Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) calling for a hearing on military options in Syria: 

“All
options must now be on the table to stop the bloodletting in Syria…It is
incumbent on the committee to lead a frank and open debate about the merits of
the various options at our disposal.”

Separately, fellow traveler
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) also encouraged the US to arm Syrian rebels, insisting
on CNN that “I
think
it’s time to try to help the brave Syrian freedom fighters to carry out a fair
fight.”

So, What’s Wrong?

McCain and friends are beating the drum for
yet another hot, steaming pile of wrong:  First, the New
York Times reports that Russia is the primary arms provider to Syria, not Iran.
From 2007 to 2010, the value of Russian arms deals with Syria more than doubled
— to $4.7 billion from $2.1 billion. Second, McCain & Co have already picked
a winner in the fractured opposition in Syria. The Syrian National Council (SNC).

Ok, here are some facts to
go along with McCain’s posturing: According to Stratfor,
there are two Syrian groups that the West might side with, the SNC and the National Coordination Committee (NCC),
which have incompatible views on how to oust the regime.

And
neither has the clear support of Syria’s protesters. Way to go McClown!

First, the SNC: It is based in Paris, and while
it is predominantly Sunni, its
membership also consists of Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood members, grassroots
activists and traditional Syrian opposition figures who have been exiled. In December
2011, the SNC’s leadership called for
the establishment of safe zones and humanitarian corridors in Syria and
echoed calls by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) for a no-fly zone.

It
is the SNC that Sen. McCain said in a CBS interview, that
the US should back.

Next, the NCC: It is based in Damascus. It is largely comprised of leftist Syrian parties as well as other
traditional members of the Syrian opposition. The NCC does not have Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members in its
ranks. Unlike the SNC, the NCC
strongly opposes any foreign military intervention, and favors negotiating with the Assad regime.

These divergent views on how regime change should
be carried out make it highly unlikely that the two organizations will reach a
consensus to work together.

What about the Free Syrian Army (FSA)? The FSA claims to have roughly
15,000 fighters, but it is a loosely connected group, united mainly by their
anti-regime sentiments. Many have no relationship or communication with the FSA
leadership. The SNC and FSA however, have established a formal relationship and
the SNC also provides financing and guidance to the FSA.

Since it rejects militarization, the NCC does not have a relationship with the
FSA.

It
is the FSA that McCain wants to arm.

So, another middle-eastern country with a fractious
opposition that McCain wants to drive us into.  It is very unlikely that the SNC, NCC and FSA will
unite and stay united long enough to proclaim themselves a viable alternative
to the al Assad regime.

Yet,
we hear another dog whistle chorus: “Let’s support an underdog who wants to
be free from tyranny. Let’s use intermediaries to provide humanitarian support
and arms. Let’s bloody the nose of Iran along the way.”

Here’s the really important question: Who/what
are the Syrians fighting for? Is it democracy? Are they just religious sects fighting
to be in charge?

Tribalism runs throughout the social fabric
in the Middle East and usually trumps everything else.

The Wrongologist understands the human cost
in Syria today. We should not be against supporting a legitimate movement towards
democracy, if that’s what the Syrians are striving for. We should not retreat
into Fortress America.

On the other hand, should we be taking sides
in yet another ethnic conflict where one side may have legitimate grievances,
or they may simply be tired of the other side being in power? And they feel
like it’s their turn to be king for a generation or two? Should we act to prolong
another civil war in the Middle East?

Given what we know, the Wrongologist says: No!

This is typical behavior by Sens. McCain,
Graham and Lieberman:  They stood up and
led the chorus for invading Afghanistan and then didn’t want to leave. They piled
on about WMD’s to justify the war in Iraq, and then didn’t want to leave.

McCain is treating us to Bush-lite all over
again. Bush said, “Come up with a reason to invade Iraq because I want to”. In
2008, McCain said: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.

Now, he wants to triangle the US into a war
with Iran via arming the Syrians with no
concept of what the consequences will be.

He remains a shameless war monger and once
again, he is WRONG!