Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WSJ op-ed writer Elizabeth O’Bagy fired for resume lie [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)2. Why would an Op-ed by some unknown hawkish policy wonk get so much attention?
Hmmmm . . .
Her opinion piece basically makes 3 propositions. I wonder which parts got Kerry and McCain's interest up:
1) "Moderate opposition forces" are protecting Syrian minorities
Moderate opposition forcesa collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Armycontinue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime. While traveling with some of these Free Syrian Army battalions, I've watched them defend Alawi and Christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. They've demonstrated a willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils. And they have struggled to ensure that their fight against Assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society. One local council I visited in a part of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army was holding weekly forums in which citizens were able to speak freely, and have their concerns addressed directly by local authorities.
Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces, and they have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France. This is especially true in the south, where weapons provided by the Saudis have made a significant difference on the battlefield, and have helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus.
Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces, and they have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France. This is especially true in the south, where weapons provided by the Saudis have made a significant difference on the battlefield, and have helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus.
2) The rebels are getting inadequate weapons because the US wants it that way:
Thanks to geographic separation from extremist strongholds and reliable support networks in the south, even outdated arms sent by the Saudis, like Croatian rocket-launchers and recoilless rifles, have allowed moderate rebel groups to make significant inroads into areas that had previously been easily defended by the regime, and to withstand the pressure of government forces in the capital. In recent months, the opposition has achieved major victories in Aleppo, Idlib, Deraa and Damascusnearly reaching the heart of the capitaldespite the regime's consolidation in Homs province.
At this stage in the conflict, barring a major bombing campaign by the U.S., sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems, may be the opposition's best chance at sustaining its fight against Assad. This is something only foreign governments, not jihadists, can offer. Right now, Saudi sources that are providing the rebels critical support tell me that they haven't sent more effective weaponry because the U.S. has explicitly asked them not to.
At this stage in the conflict, barring a major bombing campaign by the U.S., sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems, may be the opposition's best chance at sustaining its fight against Assad. This is something only foreign governments, not jihadists, can offer. Right now, Saudi sources that are providing the rebels critical support tell me that they haven't sent more effective weaponry because the U.S. has explicitly asked them not to.
3) The Jihadis are effective at holding territory because they have "won over local population" through charity
There is no denying that groups like Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham have gained a foothold in the north of Syria, and that they have come to dominate local authorities there, including by imposing Shariah law. Such developments are more the result of al Qaeda affiliates having better resources than an indicator of local support. Where they have won over the local population, they have done so through the distribution of humanitarian aid.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Lying about HAVIN a Phd is pretty stupid, that's very falsifiable information. Has to be more to thi
uponit7771
Sep 2013
#1
Perhaps because it was disclosed that she had connections to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.
lumpy
Sep 2013
#27
Here's the start of a discussion at Conservativesforum about that Fox News interview with her
leveymg
Sep 2013
#7
I can't imagine anyone being an expert at 26 years old in this field either.
Mojorabbit
Sep 2013
#25
I'll go along with that. Although we do, in small amounts, have some dedicated, serious,
lumpy
Sep 2013
#29
Hahaha, the 26 yr old Kerry was using to sell War. "Scandal Over “Brainchild” Behind War Policy"
Catherina
Sep 2013
#10
"You must lie only to the readers, but never the human resources department!"
Tom Ripley
Sep 2013
#21
doesn't matter: she got her ideas in the bloodstream and those have been enough
MisterP
Sep 2013
#22
You have to be careful of whom to trust these days. Seems like there is no lack of irons in the
lumpy
Sep 2013
#30
Kerry and McCain have fallen for so many bogus sources and faked intel that one
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#33