Saudi Arabia Campaigning for Air Strikes in Syria, Against Air Strikes in Iraq

636-obama-bow

The Saudis are putting on a full court messaging press and their agents are pushing their talking points into the media. The Saudis, who claim they don’t support ISIS (Yes, they do) are mixing together new and old talking points.

1. Bombing Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS would only increase its recruitment and popularity – This is an old Saudi/Gulfie talking point that has been around since 9/11. If you see it, you know the odds are good there’s a Saudi and his PR mercs at the start of it.

But for some reason, while bombing Al Qaeda in Iraq won’t work, bombing Shiite militias in Syria loyal to Assad will. Also bombing militias loyal to Gaddafi worked.

It’s a mystery wrapped in a giant bacon sandwich of hypocrisy.

 

2. ISIS is really part of a Sunni coalition and if we bomb it, we’ll alienate the Sunnis

The same argument played out in Syria against marginalizing the Al-Nusra Front, which was also Al Qaeda. ISIS is part of a coalition with the Baath Party and assorted militias. That doesn’t mean that ISIS won’t end up running things. So far the track record for Islamist coalitions ends with the Islamists running things.

Also “alienating” factions in the Middle East is a myth. Most Muslim factions hate us already. The ones that don’t are just more obsessed with hating someone else. They make alliances with their worst enemies and betray them just as quickly.

We can’t “alienate” them because they’re not enduringly loyal to anything outside their family and religion. All we can do is use them as temporary allies which is how the Sunni Awakening happened. But it’s a longtime error of Western Middle East policy to assume that these are enduring relationships.

 

3. The only solution is a more inclusive Iraqi government

We can’t control Iraq’s government and Al Qaeda is not going to vanish tomorrow if there are more Sunnis in the government. We’ve tried stabilizing Iraq, but we’re in no real position to do it now. Our interest is not in negotiating between Sunnis and Shiites, but in preventing Al Qaeda from becoming a threat.

 

4. We need to arm the moderate Sunni opposition in Syria to weaken Al Qaeda.

There is no moderate Sunni opposition.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    So far the track record for Islamist coalitions ends with the Islamists running things.

    Yep, more radicals and extremists running things.

    Most Muslim factions hate us already.

    All hate us. Now there may be some wanting to manipulate us, but they all nonetheless hate us.

    Our interest is not in negotiating between Sunnis and Shiites, but in preventing Al Qaeda from becoming a threat.

    Why? Because according to you they consist of radical and extremist Muslim terrorists? Yeah right!

    There is no moderate Sunni opposition.

    There are no moderate Muslims period, but since all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, per the dictates of Islam, there are also no radicals and extremists either, unless you consider all mainstream orthodox Muslims to be radicals and extremists, which I’m not sure, you may. You certainly consider AQ to be terrorists as opposed to what they actually are violent jihadists.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “Why? Because according to you they consist of radical and extremist Muslim terrorists?”

      The lying troll is still a lying troll.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        If you are not insinuating that Islamists are radicals and extremists in the context that you use the word, then what exactly are you saying?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The only one doing any insinuating here is you.

          As usual.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            It’s clear what you mean by the word Islamist in the context of the sentence you are using it, how could it mean anything else other than what you perceive to be radicals and extremists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims? Indeed, you are presenting a false and very misleading narrative. Deny it if you like, but there it is right there in black and white.

          • kikorikid

            So, A Jihadi is a guy who, one day, decided he wanted to answer the Imams call to Jihad, Right?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            All mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, since waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent. Otherwise, they are executed for apostasy and blasphemy according to the dictates of Islam.

            Hence, since all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, it is ludicrous to classify some of them as being radicals, extremists, and Islamists and at the same time to insinuate that others are not, as neo-cons are so inclined to do.

  • DVult

    It has been known for quite a while that the arms are going to crazy jihadis who are massacring Christians and other non-muslims and now Shia and anybody else they don’t like. The only reason to claim the arms are going to moderate groups is complete stupidity or complicity or both.