To the everyday individual, the title above is nothing short of unbelievable; an oxymoron. Yet, it is true and a bitter pill to swallow at that.
Iraq, Libya, Syria and now possibly Iran are all examples of wars in which the US and her allies have sought to intervene to only achieve regime change, and have done so by financing and massively supporting rebel groups. The insane rationale is that by empowering ‘moderate rebels’ democracy will ensue. There is no such thing as ‘moderate Islamist rebels’; they don’t exist.
The reality is a far cry. The greatest ground force will always fill a power vacuum and historically, once so-called moderate US allies have been consumed by more powerful extremist groups. Subsequently, al-Qaeda and Isis have acquired US military training and weapons courtesy of the American tax payer.
Through interventionist policies, issues that should be subject to internal solutions and sovereignty, become international wars that rage for years. Said by mainstream media to be for humanitarian reasons. What nonsense. Instead of democracy, what follows is death, destruction and the crippling of religious and societal norms by fanatical and oppressive regimes and critical religious, tribal and sectarian conflict.
This madcap foreign policy can be traced back to the Iran Contra affair and Ronald Reagan’s presidency to the first Bush administration to Obama’s.
It may be news to us, but it is no secret in the corridors of Washington that previous administrations have financed terrorist organisations. Indeed, Hillary Clinton publicly quoted in reference to Afghanistan: “Let’s remember the people we are fighting here today we funded 20 years ago.”
Tulsi Gabbard’s legislation will prohibit the use of US funds to arm terrorists
And though it is assured that Clinton will not be the first female US president, this is not cause for feminist fatalism. Waiting in the wings is a potential formidable candidate whose appeal will undoubtedly be expansive, something that Clinton failed to achieve, and who is proactively doing all she can to combat the issue of terrorist financing.
Her name is congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and she ticks all the boxes for future candidacy. Gabbard is likely to appeal to much of the population being a veteran of the Iraq war and a woman. Eloquent, refreshingly honest and unoffending, she speaks from first-hand experience in the field.
Recently returning from a fact-finding mission in Aleppo, Syria, she met with the populace and discussed peace with Assad himself, recognising the need for political discourse with all relevant players. Her background is diverse; being of American Samoan descent and the first Hindu elected to Congress.
A democrat, she has already met with President Trump to discuss her progressive attempts to hinder terrorist financing. Trump was said to be very receptive. In a country where partisanship runs deep through political veins, these characteristics are promising and distinguish Gabbard from her predecessors and contemporaries within the rusty mechanisms of Washington.
The Congresswoman has introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, which is supported by Veterans for Peace, whose ambit is to prevent the US from pursuing covert and direct interventionist wars. Barry Ladendorf, President of Veterans For Peace, notes that it is counterproductive foreign policy to “directly or indirectly support known terrorist organisations, proxy groups and their allies to violently overthrow established governments”.
If passed, Gabbard’s legislation will do as the title suggests and prohibit the use of US funds to arm terrorists. It seems incredible, something you wouldn’t believe if you saw it in a movie.
The passing of the Act would stop the CIA and other Federal government agencies from taking part in activities where money is being used to directly or indirectly support terrorist groups and other alliances. Federal governments would also be made to cut funding to any countries purported to support these terrorist groups.
Old bureaucratic hands may be hesitant towards this app-roach, seeing it as potentially decreasing the US sphere of political influence.
However, Gabbard quite rightly argues that the US “must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and Isis”.
This common sense approach rings true and Congress will surely see the light. If passed, this would be a real game changer.
Gabbard will in future be one to watch in politics within her shattered former Democratic Party. Her actions to date have been very brave and very encouraging and one can say even she is presidential material for 2020.
Richard Galustian is a security analyst.