This is a good question and one that no one in the media seems willing to ask. Even Fox news seems ambivalent, rather skirting the issue in favor of more..."compassionate" questions.
We have known for a long time thatAl Qaida has been an integral influence within the Syrian Rebel forces in much the same way they were, in Libya. If you will recall, the very same DC voices played down the likely effect of Al Qaida's particular virulent influence on the people of Libya and look how well that worked out.
Allegations of atrocities against non-combatants in Syria have been leveled against rebel forces and the sitting government alike and none any more horrifying than those committed against the Christian community in Homs and yet John McCain, Lindsey Graham, this President and a legion of followers remained silent about that. Only when it seemed plausible that Assad's regime might be complicit in bloody acts against the mainstream Muslim community there, have any of these fine upstanding "servants" bothered to show concern.
When they drew the "red line" at the use of chemical weapons, it seems they began to work overtime to insure some evidence could be found. Even before trusted agents of the UN determined that some small amount of chemical (possibly Sarin), was used against the "innocents" in Syria, the administration was busy elevating the rhetoric and the effort to "educate" the American population about the horrors of the Assad regime and heartbreaking "fight for freedom" of the brave rebel forces.
What is really irksome, is that we have been hearing this same mantra for years now and in every single case, the Administration has been proven wrong in all of their estimates of who have been populating these rebellions and what their core desires were.
In Egypt, we were virtually guaranteed that the people simply wanted to rid themselves of a barbaric Mubarak regime which had oppressed its people for decades; that they simply wanted Democracy. We were also all but guaranteed that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a political entity and did not have political aspirations. When the MB fielded its candidate, we were then told the people would never get behind a fundamentalist candidate, much less an MB agent and that the society in Egypt was really much more secular.
All these months later and what has grown out of that particular misjudgment or Administration deception, is a Morsi Presidency, with the real face of the MB exposed and clearly a population which leans far more to the fundamentals of its insidious state religion, than we were told. The Copt community has suffered at least as much since, as before with almost no discernible concern from either the Administration or the likes of McCain, Graham and their like-minded counterparts in Congress.
We were also guaranteed that Al Qaida's influence on the rebel factions in Libya was minimal and that those fine folks simply wanted Democracy. To date; that new "government" has proven to be impotent. Let's recall that US Embassy security was supplied by the little known, Blue Mountain Group, a British firm who, essentially, subcontracted to a Libyan Security firm, manned largely by former Libyan Rebels who were, infiltrated by Al Qaida and who were carrying weapons without ammunition per US mandate!
Are you feeling better or worse about our prospects in Syria?
From Tunisia, to Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt, the one common denominator has been this Administration's astounding ability to get it wrong, every single time. Why is anyone under the impression that they have it right this time?
Why is there anyone left, given the endless bloodletting by all sides in every one of these internal disasters, with any hope that the Obama administration or McCain, Graham, Congress or any element in any one of these poor excuses for elections can possibly get it right?
Why isn't Congress asking the right questions about Benghazi? Why are they so easily distracted, almost hopefully so, from the single investigation that could bring it all crashing down?
The reason is because if they clarify the why, it will ultimately lead to questions about this Administration's understanding of the enemy and his religion. This will then logically lead to questions about the true motivations for defending the indefensible, and so willingly casting the lives of America's Forces so callously into harm's way.
Benghazi is the lynch pin in this Administration's perverted wagon train of deception and following ill-conceived battle strategy; take out Benghazi and every single related foreign policy venture becomes questionable.
Could it actually be that Smedley D. Butler was correct in his summation of the motivation for war? Could it really be that simplistic - and evil that it is far more profitable to stay at war, than to end it, with ferocity and determination?
Could it be that this President is so emotionally compromised, having been abandoned by both Fathers that he has been left to seek solace in the only vestige of paternal memory he has left; Islam? Could this be why he is so determined to convince us that our eyes and ears cannot be trusted; that the atrocities and endless ravages against Western society by Islamic forces are mere aberrations in the midst of an otherwise stable, loving, peaceful ideology?
Could it be the convergence of the very worst of two polluted motivations; the mentally ill and the morally corrupt?
What is certain is while there is very little evidence that Congress is going to get this right. I firmly believe they are as morally compromised as this President is mentally and emotionally challenged by his experiences growing up in a broken home.
There is zero justification for having abandoned Americans under siege in the wasteland known as Libya. There is not one single bright spot in this debacle that isn't centered on the selfless and heroic acts of two Navy SEALs. Literally everyone else in this story is tainted in one fashion or another and because those who have so willingly compromised their names, their souls, and American security, they have left the door open for yet one more grave mistake, in Syria.
We know the Rebels in Syria are littered with Al Qaida agents. We have known this for months. We know Al Qaida and their affiliates, hate the United States and our Western Allies. Abandoning them to their fate - wherever that might be seems the most logical choice; supporting them with arms is both counterintuitive and even treasonous.For those who have not grappled with this next question, let me help you; the United States of America is a unique culture. We are not the world's fighting force we are not obligated to secure life and liberty for the blood-lusting cultures of the world.
Whether Syria's present government stands or falls, is of little security concern for the United States right now. What is certain is that Al Qaida and its agents are a clear and present danger to the United States and our holdings.Supporting them has not proven to be a sound decision; supporting them in Syria makes even less sense.
John Bernard is a retired Marine First Sergeant who writes on Counter Insurgency Doctrine, Islam, Rules of Engagement and Middle Eastern culture, in his blog: Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.