War

In another example of double-speak, now our rulers want us to believe that directly arming the Syrian rebels will reduce al Qaeda influence. No it won't. It will make al Qaeda stronger.

""And if there is (not more help) from the international community, then there is going to be a lot more casualties," he added. "

If the US stopped arming the rebels through proxies, there would be a lot fewer casualties.

More on this:

"Recently, these war hawks have been pounding the drums for U.S. greater intervention in Syria.
Their argument isn’t that the Syrian rebellion will fall apart if the United States doesn’t provide arms, it’s that when the insurgents finally take over Syria, the U.S. will won’t have much “influence.” They argue that militant Islamists among the rebels, who are the most well armed and ruthless fighters, will become dominant if the United States does not arm the more secular and democratic forces. Yet the war hawks don’t ever ask themselves how the Islamists became the most well armed groups in Syria—answer: by being the most ruthless. So far, the United States has reportedly helped Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Sunni Arab arms providers to vet the groups to which they are arranging weapons shipments. Yet despite those efforts, media reports indicate that the Islamists seem to be getting the lion share of the weapons anyway. In chaotic war situations, such unintended consequences are usually the rule rather than the exception."

It's amazing how the people who are wrong all the time continue to be treated experts and worth listening to.

"And the situation in Syria may be about to get worse. Media reports indicate that the Saudis have ramped up their arms financing—purchasing and sending to Syria a large shipment of Croatian infantry weapons, a transaction that seems to have been facilitated by the United States. In addition, the Syrian rebels have extorted pledges of more humanitarian aid from the United States and United Kingdom in exchange for attending a Friends of Syria meeting in Rome. Previously, the U.S. has shipped “non-lethal” communications and medical supplies to the rebels.
So the public pronouncement that the United States is not arming the rebels is only technically true; the reality is that the U.S. is vetting and facilitating the delivery by other countries of weapons to the insurgents. Even the communications equipment the U.S. sends directly could be used to increase the coordination, and thus effectiveness, of rebel missions."

Of course it could. That's why they sent it.

"Is there any crisis the United States can stay out of? With huge federal budget deficits and a monstrous national debt of $16.5 trillion, one would think “conservative” Kristol, McCain, and Graham would want to at least save some government money. And if they actually looked at the track record of recent U.S. interventions, which wasted taxpayer money on failing enterprise after failing enterprise, they might see that the case for cost avoidance in Syria is even greater."

Failure is subjective. All those guys and their cronies got richer off those wars, so they were a success from that point of view.

"Thus, after analyzing and admitting such a record of failed interventions, how can anyone in the United States, with a straight face, advocate wading deeper into the Syrian swamp?"

I don't think they would agree with that analysis.

Bradley Manning prosecutor to call 141 witnesses.