During the 1980’s, the US was involved in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet’s began to invade Afghanistan, the US jumped at the chance to ally with the Afghans through a common enemy. We supplied weapons, training, and money to the Afghan forces fighting back, called the Mujahideen. Mujahideen is a term used for those who struggle for the sake of Islam, a term similar in meaning to jihad. Jihad became a household term after al Qaeda used it to justify their actions, but the US did not know this yet. Through US aid, the Afghans drove out the Soviets. However, also through US aid, Osama Bin Laden formed al Qaeda, a terror cell that utilized the training, cash, and supplies sent by the US. Later, this group would carry out the biggest attack on US soil in history, an attack made possible by US aid.
In 2012, when civil conflicts arose in Syria, the US once again stepped in to aid the side with which we sympathized. We sent aid to the Syrian rebels in the form of economic, logistical, even communications support. The US has been criticized for its “vetting” process to decide to whom supplies should be sent, and the aid to the rebels exemplified this poor choice. The Pentagon later admitted that up to 50% of the troops which we aided were Islamic extremists. These Islamic extremists? They used the aid to branch off and form ISIS, the terror group that currently poses the most threat to society worldwide.
The trend here is quite obvious; the US sends aid to middle eastern countries, extremists get a hold of some of these supplies and use them against us. It seems that any common sense decision would avoid sending aid to forces which harbor Islamic extremists, however that must not be the case. Just last week, in his address on how the US plans to combat ISIS, Obama stressed that we are not going to put US boots into combat; instead, we are sending our resources and training to the forces already in place fighting ISIS. This seems to ring a bell, a bell that reminds us of accidental US sponsored terrorism.
To backtrack, ISIS, which stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, garnered attention from the US after they posted the brutal beheading video of US journalist James Foley. In this video, they showed a second journalist, Steven Sotloff, with the threat that if America didn’t end their airstrikes and anti- ISIS support, he would be the next to suffer. Sure enough, a month after the initial video, ISIS posted a similar clip online, showing the gruesome beheading of Sotloff by what appears to be the same executioner. One of the first questions that arose in my mind was how ISIS had these citizens. While details surrounding Foley’s abduction remain cloudy, one of the men with Sotloff when he was kidnapped escaped. His story is chilling; just after crossing the border into Syria, ISIS tricked them with a fake checkpoint, and then abducted the journalist and his team. How did ISIS know where Sotloff was? One of the border guards, a member of the Syrian military, had informed ISIS of the entrance of Sotloff. This guard is part of the same Syrian force we now plan to send aid to, a force that has already been responsible for aiding ISIS in the abduction and later execution of an American citizen.
No, I cannot offer a better plan. Defense analysts say that airstrikes alone will not be effective, but if our counter terrorism only creates new terrorism, it seems like a circular battle. While putting US troops in combat is a horrid thought, there is no “half-war.” Aiding Syrian rebels is the only action possible outside of direct combat, and while it sure is desirable, it is not progressive. Without ideas for better action, the plan will proceed as laid out. We can only hope that history breaks its pattern this time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment