Osama bin Laden with current Al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri, back in 2001: Foreign Policy suggests it’s time to forgive and forget.
The New York Times had a story (3/14/15) about CIA money ending up in the hands of Al-Qaeda, an incident the paper described as
just another in a long list of examples of how the United States, largely because of poor oversight and loose financial controls, has sometimes inadvertently financed the very militants it is fighting.
But is it really so inadvertent? There are indications (as noted by the blog Moon of Alabama—3/11/15) of a shift in the Western foreign policy establishment toward seeing groups like Al-Qaeda–that is, far-right terrorist groups who espouse a violent strain of Sunni Islam–not as the main targets of US military operations but as potential allies against the governments Washington has identified as more important enemies, namely Shi’ite-led Iran and Syria.
Moon of Alabama (10/2/13) has previously noted a media campaign to distinguish between different Al-Qaeda-affiliated militant groups in Syria–between the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), for example, and Jabhat al-Nusra, described as “more clearly accepted by mainline rebels” (New York Times, 10/1/13) and “more moderate” (Washington Post, 10/1/13) than ISIS.
More recently, Reuters (3/15/15) and the BBC (3/6/15) have advanced the notion that Al-Nusra might split off from Al-Qaeda, paving the way for US allies like Qatar to (in the words of BBC guest analyst David Roberts) “officially commence, with Western blessing, the supply of one of the most effective fighting forces in Syria.”
But maybe a split between Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda isn’t necessary. Under the headline “Accepting Al Qaeda,” Foreign Policy (3/9/15) published a piece by Barak Mendelsohn that argued that
the instability in the Middle East following the Arab revolutions and the meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) require that Washington rethink its policy toward Al-Qaeda…. Destabilizing Al-Qaeda at this time may in fact work against US efforts to defeat ISIS.
Not only can Al-Qaeda be “an important player in curtailing ISIS’ growth,” but it can help “contain Iran’s hegemonic aspirations, which threaten US allies,” notes Mendelsohn, a political science professor at Haverford College and a veteran of Israeli intelligence.
Al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the single worst massacre on US soil, an attack that has served to justify 13 years of continuous warfare, was not addressed. Why bring up water under the bridge, when ISIS is clearly so much worse?
The New York Times‘ Thomas Friedman suggests “arming Isis” as “the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq.”
Then again, maybe ISIS isn’t so bad, either. Here’s Thomas Friedman’s latest column in the New York Times (3/18/15):
Shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?
The US’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Friedman says, “created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world,” allowing “Tehran’s proxies” to “indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad”:
ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism…. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?
Well, ISIS is openly committed to a policy of genocide–not only against non-Muslim minorities like the Yazidi (New York Times, 10/21/14), but against entire Shia denomination of Islam (“Shia have no medicine but the sword” is an ISIS slogan) who make up two-thirds of the population of Iraq. Thinking that that makes ISIS a bad choice to rule Iraq requires you to think of Shi’ite Muslims as human beings, I suppose.
Not to mention that Osama bin Laden was an asset to the CIA even at the time of 9/11/01.
“Humanitarian intervention” is so 2014 …
As FAIR has noted in past columns, Herr Friedman is a vocal supporter of bombing civilians (Israeli jets and Lebanese unfortunates), tacitly approving Israeli sanctioned massacres (Sabra and Shatila), and was a cheerleader for the bombings in Kosovo. He remains an unrepentant supporter of the invasion of Iraq, and an outspoken hater of everything Muslim.
He need look no further than his old stomping grounds of Saudi Arabia, if he’s truly concerned about head-chopping menaces. But he won’t. He’s picked his friends [the enemy of my enemy] with great care.
I’m certain that there have been worse choices for Pulitzer Prizes than Friedman. His three awards, though, may have tarnished, ever so slightly, the prestige of that Prize in much the same manner as the damage done, in recent years, to the esteem in which the Nobel Peace Prize is held.
Next I fear that I’ll hear that the Golden Globes and Presidential Medal of Freedom are not necessarily based on merit. I’ll be shocked then, as well.
I would add one word to this paragraph above:
“There are indications … of a shift in the Western foreign policy establishment toward *AGAIN* seeing groups like Al-Qaeda–that is, far-right terrorist groups who espouse a violent strain of Sunni Islam–not as the main targets of US military operations but as potential allies against the governments Washington has identified as more important enemies …”
It’s really these characters’ comfort zone, and I’m surprised it’s taken this long for them to again openly embrace it.
As FAIR has noted in past columns, Herr Friedman is a vocal supporter of bombing civilians (Israeli jets and Lebanese unfortunates), tacitly approving Israeli sanctioned massacres (Sabra and Shatila), and was a cheerleader for the bombings in Kosovo. He remains an unrepentant supporte http://obatflekparuparu1.blogspot.com/
> There are indications (as noted by the blog Moon of Alabama–3/11/15) of a shift in the Western foreign policy establishment toward seeing groups like Al-Qaeda .. not as the main targets of US military operations but as potential allies against the governments Washington has identified as more important enemies,”
hmm .. the shift is really about the US Rulers being open and up front about nurturing terrorism and errorist goups to further US Rulers’ interests. US nurturing of terrorism is not new.
Everyone has a common enemy, ISIS. Think of it this way, you have an old disagreement with an organization, but are willing to overlook it , because you are both in need to defeating a cancer so horrendous, that it’s time to bury the hatchet and make do with what you both have, your abilities to control and kill ISIS. But, the Shia have been magnificent at battling ISIS, so let’s get as many together as we can.
Monstrous! Syria has never attacked the West, neither has Iran, and al-Qaeda has been officially responsible of the major attack on American soil! But it is sheer relapsing, after all the US started the saga with the Islamists in Afghanistan. The US lack of morals or principles, they will sell off the so much praised “Western values” for their ambition to have Qatar-originated pipeline through Syria and weaken Russia in exchange of empowering fanatic killers. They speak of al-Qaida, but what about ISIS? Who funded and armed them? Did they come out of the blue suddenly? Our civilization is doomed, and the US and its moral blidness is responsible.
Friedman is a moron writing for morons.
Freidman on top of being a preposterous fat dunderhead is, also, a confirmed liar. Iraqi military intelligence officers (who apparently aren’t confused about who is committing genocide in the region and who is “moderate” ) have intercept radio communications between ISIS terrorists and US military(terrorists) planning and confirming drops of materiel – weapons food and medicines. Iranian officers have noted the same pattern of behavior. The US ( our pal Jen Psaki) has claimed that such accusations are “ridiculous” and when we drop a load of ammunition, food and antibiotics onto a battalion of ISIS terrorists, it was a only an accident, because “we didn’t know they were there”…now ask yourself, honestly, you don’t need to confess to me, WHICH statement is more “ridiculous”….
Those who would be fully informed of current events unfortunately still must sit through Thomas Friedman’s blather, now decades old, because he has a column in what remains the most prestigious newspaper in the United States, even if the reputation thereof has taken numerous hits since Chomsky first exposed its radical establishmentarianism in the 1980s. It is most depressing when the amplification of an author’s work stands out of all proportion to its value.
did fried-man say we’re fighting a war for the third time for iran’s sake?!
is that funny ? does it sound strange?
IF ANY of this horrid, totally sick, hugely murderous, and culture-destroying, PATHOLOGICALLY destructive and very sad MESS in the middle east has been on behalf of iran, it’s because tom’s friends want it that way! there could be a long term plan.. and of course there is, eh, but
I’ve never heard or read anyone say that any of this disgusting DISASTER was on behalf of iran.
has anyone here ever heard that before?
IN ANY CASE, AND ANYWAY, TOM
we all know that it’s tom’s friends who are responsible for all of it. ALL OF IT. so THEY must gain if iran gains at all.
but everyone knows it’s not iran RUNNING this show-
EVERYONE knows the bigger facts better by now, even the ruined and ruinous NYT knows- maybe especially knows :
that mujahideen, al Qaeda, al newsra– etc etc etcetera
are all cia, usa, uk, nato soldiers, eh,
so maybe they and isis are also … tom’s and the NYT’s friends and soldiers, ( probably) .. which would explain tom’s worried feelings.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/isis-the-useful-enemy/
ISIS: The Useful Enemy by Ismael hossein-zadeh
Has anyone mentioned that weapons don’t stay in one place? ISIS got a huge infusion of materiel when they over-ran Iraqi army positions. Adding more weapons is adding fuel to a fire. The civilian leadership of our military has often ignored advice from military leaders, and followed an ideological path that has resulted in the current chaos. We need a negotiated truce including many parties — including friends & enemies — that should include a moratorium on selling arms to the combatants. IS can take territory, but it cannot govern. We need to be planning for a Middle East that is governable. Instead, it seems our “interests” only extend to the next quarterly report, profits from oil and weapons sales.
Wow, the attempt to shift public attention to an anti-Iranian narrative (at the behest of Israel, no less) is so evident in these mainstream outlets. How timely, too. Iranian hegemony? Really? Good grief. How about US hegemony? Oh right. US-run media must do everything in its power to distract the people so they don’t even think of pulling back the curtain to reveal the Wizard pulling the levers behind it.
@ j golden – Thank you for that link. It’s quite an eye-opener (and a confirmation of my suspicions) about the US’s involvement with ISIS.
“There are indications … of a shift in the Western foreign policy establishment toward seeing groups like Al-Qaeda–that is, far-right terrorist groups who espouse a violent strain of Sunni Islam–not as the main targets of US military operations but as potential allies against the governments Washington has identified as more important enemies, namely Shi’ite-led Iran and Syria.”
A “shift” in the Western foreign policy establishment? Hardly a shift. They’ve been using Sunni jihadists against their enemies since at least 1979, when they started funding and arming fundamentalist jihadists in Afghanistan. Socialists and allies of the USSR / Russia are SO much more dangerous than fanatical Islamic terrorists.