Al Qaeda in Syria

Hi everyone!

The woes continue in Syria. Yesterday witnessed the dual car bombings of two security buildings in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, that until now had remained largely untouched by the violence that has wracked the country for the past eleven months. No one claimed responsibility for the blasts, which collectively killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, though there is concern that al Qaeda may be taking advantage of the chaos to set up operations in Syria. Yesterday's bombings were similar to those that rocked Damascus last December, another city--and a stalwart bastion of support for Assad--that has heretofore remained mostly quiet. If indeed al Qaeda is behind these bombings, it adds another troubling layer of complexity to the situation, and one that the U.S. and most Western and Arab countries for that matter would be loath to see.

But again, the West continues to be stymied in its efforts to bring a unified diplomatic force together to oppose Assad and insist upon his overthrow. Additional meetings are scheduled on Sunday with the Arab League ministers in Cairo and on Monday at the United Nations General Assembly.  A draft of a General Assembly resolution not unlike that which was originally vetoed by Russia and China in the Security Council is currently making the rounds at the United Nations. No one has particularly high hopes that any resolution will be passed as long as Russia remains committed to pursuing its own peace plan with the Assad government. After a much ballyhooed meeting of Russian and Syrian delegates in Damascus earlier this week, it appears nothing came to fruition there either.

If indeed al Qaeda is taking root in Syria--as Assad has claimed in the past though no one gave it much credibility--and working on behalf of or in conjunction with the Syrian Free Army and its supporters, a situation that has seemed impossible up until now has just become untenable. The United Nations and its allies within the Arab League will not want to be seen supporting an opposition movement that has any connection whatsoever with the perpetrators of 9/11 and two decades' worth of horrific terrorist activity. At the same time, the United Nations isn't going to react positively to anything that gives credence to Assad's continued claims that he is battling foreign insurgents. But then...the Obama administration is openly holding negotiations with the Taliban, thereby creating a diplomatic framework within which the Taliban can legitimately take back control of Afghanistan despite ten years' of unsuccessfully trying to oust them. By that same logic...why not negotiate with al Qaeda? If you can't beat them, appease them. Right?

As history has shown time and again, appeasement doesn't work. Just look at 1938-39.

Ciao.

Taliban Inc. -- The Legitimization of a Terrorist Organization

Hi everyone!

So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?

In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.

So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case,  and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?

I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.

Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.

Ciao.