Middle Eastern

Home » Middle Eastern

Bill Would Stop U.S. Aid to Middle-Eastern Terrorist Cells

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Bill Would Stop U.S. Aid to Middle-Eastern Terrorist Cells

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As the United States government announces it’s sending more troops to war-torn Syria in order to support rebel militias — the same tactics used in Afghanistan in the early 1980s — U.S. lawmakers are now pushing a bill that would stop the aid to rebels acting in the Middle East completely.

TerroristIf a private U.S. citizen decides to send money, weapons, or any kind of support to al Qaeda or members of ISIS, the congresswoman behind the bill told the House on Thursday, he will be “thrown in jail.” In spite of the laws, the U.S. government continues to use taxpayer money to do just that, helping “allies and partners of [al Qaeda], ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support.”

If the bill becomes law, the U.S. practice of assisting extremist groups directly or indirectly would be made illegal.

Other nations found to be involved in aiding al Qaeda, ISIS, or the highly lethal Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as Al-Nusra Front) would also suffer the consequences if the bill passes.

The piece of legislation would also require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to offer Congress a list of individuals, nations, or terrorist organizations implicated in this matter.

By aiding groups such as Fursan al Haqq, legislators argued, the U.S. government is aiding al Qaeda, whose members are participating in the offensive against a foreign government alongside the Syrian rebels.

With this bill, congressmen hope to simply force the government to abide by the same rules being applied to citizens. A notion often lost on the hundreds of lawmakers lurking the Capitol building.

Regardless of where you stand on the foreign policy subject, it’s important to note that the current U.S. policy in the Middle East is extremely similar to the policy applied in Afghanistan. In the early 1980s, the federal government boosted its aid to rebels in the region fighting the Soviet Union. As many may still not know, this aid may have played an important role in supporting and helping to train terrorists in the region who went on to help create al Qaeda.

The very notion that the U.S. government is wisely using taxpayer money to veto the rebels being now supported by America is hard to back up, especially when you take into consideration how inefficient bureaucracies are.

While it’s still early to know whether this bill will see the light of day, it’s important that these tough issues are being brought up and discussed broadly. After all, the same way domestic interventionist policies create unintended consequences, interventionist policies applied abroad will have the same effect.

Whoa: Donald Rumsfeld Criticizes George W. Bush’s Iraq Policy

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, War by Jackson Jones Comments are off

Whoa: Donald Rumsfeld Criticizes George W. Bush’s Iraq Policy

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Hell may have just frozen over. Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 and again from 2001 to 2006, says that President George W. Bush’s attempt to bomb Iraq into accepting “democracy” was “unrealistic.” Rumsfeld made the comments during an interview with The Times of London.

“The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words,” Rumsfeld told the paper. “I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”

The comments are surprising. Rumsfeld was one of the major figures promoting the Iraq War. In fact, he was one of prominent administration figures who tried to connect the Middle Eastern country’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. In September 2004, Rumsfeld, who has since denied making the connection, said the ties were “not debatable.”

President Bush announced Rumsfeld’s resignation November 8, 2006, a day after Republicans were shellacked at the ballot box in that year’s mid-term election and lost control of both chambers of Congress.

In August 2006, only 36 percent of Americans supported the Iraq War while 60 percent, the highest number at the time, opposed it due to almost daily reports of violence in Iraq. By the end of that year, more than 3,000 American soldiers were killed in the line of duty, according to iCasualties.org.

With the rise of the Islamic State and Levant, which has taken control of swaths of Iraq, Rumsfeld may have had a change of heart. The question is, will Republicans currently pushing for war with other countries heed his words?

It’s not likely. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has firmly supplanted himself as one of the top Republican war hawks in the upper chamber, which isn’t an easy task considering that he serves alongside Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Although Cotton is frequently touted as a fiscal conservative, his doesn’t seem to understand that perpetual war is inconsistent with limited government.

Last week, Fred Boenig, an antiwar activist whose son, Austin, committed suicide in May 2010 while serving in the Air Force, confronted Cotton during an event at the Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, DC.

“When do we get to hang up the ‘mission accomplished’ banner,” Boenig said, referring to the May 2003 photo op and speech by President Bush, “and when do I get my kids to come home safe again?”

“There’s no definite answer because our enemies get a vote in this process,” said Cotton. “In the end, I think the best way to honor our veterans…”

“Is to have more killed?” asked Boenig, who interrupted Cotton. “[I]s to win the wars for which they fought,” the freshman Arkansas senator said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is also trying to position himself as Bush-style foreign policy hawk. During a recent appearance on Fox News, obviously, Rubio gave an unusual answer to a question about Iraq.

“I think we have a responsibility to support democracy. And if a nation expresses a desire to become a democratic nation, particularly one that we invaded, I do believe that we have a responsibility to help them move in that direction,” said Rubio. “But the most immediate responsibility we have is to help them build a functional government that can actually meet the needs of the people in the short- and long-term, and that ultimately from that you would hope that would spring democracy.”

When a host said that Rubio sounds like he backs nation-building, the freshman Florida Republican said: “Well, it’s not nation-building. We are assisting them in building their nation.”

That’s a distinction without a difference, senator.

Maybe Rumsfeld’s comments, which are only now getting traction in American media, will put Republican hawks on the defensive, forcing them to answer tough questions about the failed the failed foreign policy Republicans all too frequently promote. But don’t hold your breath.