al-Qaeda

[rainforests1]

Many countries are on the side of the rebels in the Syrian war. The rebels would include the Nusra Front(a group linked to al-Qaeda). After years of being told al-Qaeda is the enemy, apparently we're on their side. Is al-Qaeda still the enemy? If not, shouldn't we see a huge reduction in our military spending(the way countries normally do when they don't have an enemy)?

 

[beancounter]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Not in this case.

 

[rainforests1]

Counterpunch.org paints a much different picture of the war in Syria than the media does. A good article(claims we've been helping the rebels with military aid for over a year):
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/19/syria-is-becoming-obamas-iraq/

 

[Second Summer]

The war in Syria is a mess, and I believe there is evidence both sides have used chemical weapons now, although in a small scale. The only thing the opposition seems to agree on is that Assad must go.

I believe the best things "we" (i.e. western countries) can do at this point is to push for a political solution, help the refugees, put pressure on other countries in the region to stay out of it, and block weapons transports from entering the country.

 

[Spang]

Is al-Qaeda still the enemy? If not, shouldn't we see a huge reduction in our military spending(the way countries normally do when they don't have an enemy)?

Yes, al-Qaeda is still the proverbial enemy. But if it wasn't, the United States rarely does what other developed countries normally do. The U.S. could cut its military spending by, something like, 85% and still spend more on defense than any other country, but the military-industrial complex will not allow that.

 

[rainforests1]

Yes, al-Qaeda is still the proverbial enemy.

If we're aiding an al-Qaeda linked group, I don't see how we can consider them the enemy. They're hardly mentioned at all in the newspaper I read these days. We're using drones against some militants, but how many of them are linked with al-Qaeda?

 

[rainforests1]

The war in Syria is a mess, and I believe there is evidence both sides have used chemical weapons now, although in a small scale. The only thing the opposition seems to agree on is that Assad must go.

I believe the best things "we" (i.e. western countries) can do at this point is to push for a political solution, help the refugees, put pressure on other countries in the region to stay out of it, and block weapons transports from entering the country.

I believe the Russian government has said they don't see any evidence regarding Assad using chemical weapons. What advantage could it give them over the other weapons they've been using successfully?

 

[Spang]

If we're aiding an al-Qaeda linked group, I don't see how we can consider them the enemy.

Well, we're talking about the United States here, a country whose government created and armed al-Qaeda in the 80s to defend against the scary, communist bogeyman, the Soviet Union. If the U.S. wants to aid al-Qaeda whilst considering it the enemy, it's going to.

 

[das_nut]

If we're aiding an al-Qaeda linked group, I don't see how we can consider them the enemy. They're hardly mentioned at all in the newspaper I read these days. We're using drones against some militants, but how many of them are linked with al-Qaeda?

We aided the Soviets during WWII, yet the writing was on the wall that we'd be enemies.

Realpolitik is ugly.

 

[rainforests1]

We aided the Soviets during WWII, yet the writing was on the wall that we'd be enemies.

Realpolitik is ugly.

So, Assad is our enemy then? You don't give $11 billion in Lend Lease Aid to your enemy, so we just used Communism to get the wars we wanted. They never were the real enemy. I guess al-Qaeda and the Soviets would be a good comparison.