Recently, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) conducted an interview with The Nation, one in which heavily-loaded questions were softly tossed to Gabbard, who would then lead readers on a journey through a variety of conspiracy theories, none of which were backed up with any factual evidence. We have deconstructed her interview below.
Who would suffer the most? The Syrian people, who are pleading to be left alone so they can try to rebuild their country. When I visited Syria, people shared their desperation with me, asking me to share their message with the American people: “We’re not begging for your money or your help. We are simply begging you to stop supporting the terrorists who are destroying our country. Please let us live in peace!”
What Gabbard fails to mention in this quote is where she visited in Syria. Syria, as you may know, is in the midst of a brutal war. The war began as an uprising against the president, Bashar al-Assad, but there were also some Syrians who stayed loyal to Assad. That means people in different parts of the country might have different opinions about the war, the leadership of their country, and America’s involvement. “Rebuilding” Syria has thus-far involved mass disappearances of “disloyal” individuals, arbitrary detentions, executions, and torture. Finally, Gabbard also fails to mention that she visited Syria on the dime of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), a Nazi-aligned political party and militia operating alongside the Assad regime.
I believe it would strike most Americans as absolutely insane that the president of the United States, his vice president, UN ambassador, secretary of state, and the mainstream media describe the very terrorist entities that were responsible for the attack on 9/11 as “rebels.”
Since we know that they know Al Qaeda is the primary force in control of Idlib, we can only conclude that they no longer consider Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization or the enemy.
General Joseph Dunford, as well as the UN, have confirmed that Idlib is controlled by 20,000 to 30,000 Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Brett McGurk, the administration’s special envoy to counter ISIS, said that, “Idlib is Al Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11.”
So there is no ambiguity about the situation: The United States is acting as the big brother and protector of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria.
The SSNP, Tulsi Gabbard’s friends in Syria
In classic Tulsi Gabbard style, she makes sweeping, rash statements, and backs them up with absolutely no evidence or substance. Furthermore, by stating that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the current iteration of Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch, is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Gabbard is actually making a case for American involvement in Syria. After all, retaliation for those attacks was legal under the United Nations Charter, and the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) specifically states that military force is authorized for hunting down and punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Finally, it is silly (to say the least) to insinuate that the leadership of Al Qaeda would accept protection and assistance from the United States; if you remember, they dislike the US considerably.
We’ve been waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011. Central to that war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, along with our allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, has been providing direct and indirect support to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who are effectively serving as our ground force in that regime-change war, enabling them to grow in numbers and strength in Syria.
American involvement in the war in Syria did not actually begin until 2012, unless you, like Gabbard, believe that the organic, popular protests against the Assad regime were CIA orchestrated, in which case you may need to re-examine how much agency you give the Syrian people. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are at odds, to say the least, and the idea that the two entities (which backed separate opposition groups in the Syrian war) would see eye-to-eye all of a sudden is juvenile, to be polite. Finally, by once again asserting that US forces are directly supporting Al Qaeda, Gabbard is not only spreading disinformation, she is putting American soldiers in harms way. Putting a “terrorist supporter” label on American forces globally is a good way to get them killed. One would hope a military veteran like Gabbard would understand that.
There is no doubt that if the United States and its allies are successful in their war to topple Assad, the most powerful forces on the ground (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups) would take over, and religious minorities or anyone who disagreed with Al Qaeda’s theology/ideology would be targeted.
There is actually plenty of doubt about what would happen if Assad were to fall. One can look back to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) offensive against Daesh in 2014 as an example of how little most Syrians would tolerate that form of extremism; for a more recent example, on the very day of this writing, mass protests broke out across Idlib, protests which strictly prohibited the use of jihadist flags. Furthermore, the situation in Syria, with HTS holding most of the power on the opposition side, did not occur in a vacuum; it is policies like those fronted by Gabbard that led to the strengthening of jihadist elements, when no other reasonable parties would supply weapons and money to the FSA elements. Those forces which were equipped with BGM-71 TOW missiles by the US were explicitly ordered not to use them against the Assad regime.
Yet they continue to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in Syria, and have threatened “dire consequences” and an illegal war against Russia, Syria, and Iran if they dare attack these terrorists—potentially putting our country on a path towards World War III. The Trump administration’s continued protection of Al Qaeda is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of 9/11, first-responders, my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action, and their families. It’s a betrayal of the American people who have had trillions of dollars taken from their wallets, ostensibly to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, only to find Al Qaeda is stronger today than ever before.
Once again, Gabbard makes the accusation that the US government supports Al Qaeda, yet does not back up that claim with anything other than more bold statements. The United States has never threatened Russia, Syria, or Iran over attacking Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. The US has urged restraint with regards to an offensive in Idlib, because mathematically, 10,000 jihadists are not more than the 3.7 million other people living in Idlib, and thus the latter grouping should not be put in jeopardy in order to kill the former. This rhetoric, and this way of thinking, is the reason Al Qaeda has proliferated, not America’s stance on future Assad regime offensives in Syria. Overzealous bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, and later Syria by the US and Russia, have fueled recruitment for jihadist organizations.
Based on our country’s continued counterproductive regime-change war policies, it is clear that leaders on both sides of the aisle have not learned the painful lessons of decades of interventionist regime-change wars, most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.
We have discussed the inadequacies and failures of the Iraq 2003/Syria 2018 comparison before, and while Libya’s situation is not ideal, the number and proportion of violent civilian deaths in Libya is minuscule when compared with Syria. Furthermore, Gabbard condemning America’s regime change policies is hypocritical at best; she co-sponsored H.Res.600 in 2016, which reaffirmed the US government’s right to use military force against Iran.
While many members of Congress and the Trump administration rail against Iran and are calling for US troops to remain in Syria indefinitely to counter Iran’s influence and presence there, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States regime-change war in Syria has greatly strengthened Iran’s presence and influence in that country. In other words, the Syrian government of Assad has become much more dependent upon and beholden to Iran and Russia, due to our efforts to overthrow their government.
Iran was involved in the war in Syria far before the US was. In fact, American inaction is a factor behind Iran’s strengthened position in Syria, but in reality Iran’s influence has existed in Syria for decades, and once Hezbollah got involved in the war, the chances that Iran would sit on the sidelines declined greatly.
Others may be concerned about how speaking out against regime-change wars may impact their political “career” or campaign. They don’t want to be slandered as being “pro-dictator” by the media and on social media. If you were against the regime-change war in Iraq, you’re a Saddam lover. If you were against the regime change war in Libya, you’re a Gaddafi lover. If you ask for evidence before launching a US military attack against a sovereign nation without congressional approval, you will have leaders like Howard Dean saying, “This is a disgrace. This person should not be in Congress!” Our politicians see leading Republicans and Democrats joining hands to smear anyone who stands up against regime-change wars.
This is what’s called a strawman argument, and they’re generally regarded as poor form.
These well-meaning people make decisions based on emotions, without considering the consequences of their actions. If they see children suffering, and are told by the media that Mr. X is responsible for that suffering, they feel a moral responsibility to get rid of Mr. X.
This statement is rather atrocious considering Gabbard’s pledge to condemn and call for the execution of Bashar al-Assad should he be found guilty of chemical weapons use by the UN (which she failed to follow through on when the UN did just that).
Just look at the situation in Libya. In order to “save” the Libyan people, we completely destroyed their country. It’s a failed state. They are under the domination of terrorists and slave merchants where women and children are publicly sold in marketplaces. It’s hell on earth.
Yes. Just look at the situation in Libya. In February 2018, 13 civilians were killed due to the conflict in Libya. That same month, at least 1,400 civilians were killed in Syria due to conflict, including some killed with chemical weapons. Also, it is important to point out that slave trade has existed in Libya for decades, including while Muammar Gaddafi was in charge.
The proclamations being made by President Trump, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Secretary Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton about trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and civilian casualties in Idlib, Syria, ring especially hollow. They seem to have completely forgotten our attacks on Mosul and Raqqa—which resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties.
This is a classic example of whataboutism. While the American campaigns in both Mosul and Raqqa undoubtedly killed a number of civilians, their mere existence does not negate the existence of a similar campaign of violence in Idlib. They can all be bad at the exact same time.
If the Trump administration and leaders in Congress really cared about preventing civilian casualties, they would end all US support for Saudi Arabia and condemn their genocidal war in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians with bombs, caused millions to suffer due to forced starvation and cholera, creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
This isn’t how empathy works. While it should go without saying that the US needs to halt support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, using civilian casualties in that country to excuse civilian casualties in Syria displays a degree of moral atrophy that should alarm all Americans.
Overall, Gabbard’s statements are at best disingenuous, at worst treasonous. Her repeated claims that the US supports Al Qaeda, without any form of evidence or anything to back up said comments, stinks of political grandstanding of the worst kind. Gabbard fronts as a leader for the new Left in America, when in reality she’s simply another fascist dressed up with decent domestic policies.
