Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): My Colleagues Just Voted to Arm the Allies of Al-Qaeda

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

- Douglas Adams, British comic and author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1952-2001)

(Above: Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, arguing against the passing of a bill arming the Syrian opposition during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2013.  Courtesy of Foreign Policy.)

Oh the irony of repeating mistakes of the past. The word "irony" is truly significant to that statement because it was the term Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) used to describe the foolish decision by his colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, in passing a bill that would arm the Syrian opposition al-Nasra Front that has been aligned with al-Qaeda. The article discussing this is in Foreign Policy from May 21, 2013, as reported on by John Hudson:

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blasted members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, which voted overwhelmingly to arm elements of the Syrian opposition in a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). 'This is an important moment,' Paul said, addressing his Senate colleagues. 'You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda. It's an irony you cannot overcome.'

The legislation, which would authorize the shipment of arms and military training to rebels 'that have gone through a thorough vetting process,' passed in a bipartisan 15-3 vote. Paul offered an amendment that would strike the bill's weapons provision, but it was rejected along with another Paul amendment ruling out the authorization of the use of military force in Syria. (Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy was the only senator to join Paul in support of the weapons amendment.)

Paul's two amendments constituted his first legislative act to soften the Menendez-Corker bill, which earned the support of powerful lawmakers from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Marco Rubio (R-FL) -- all of whom rejected Paul's allegations. "I don't think any member of this committee would vote for anything we thought was going to arm al Qaeda," said Rubio. 'Al Qaeda, unfortunately, is well-armed,' added Menendez. 'That is the present reality in Syria.' 

The dispute centers on the issue of whether the United States could properly vet Syrian rebels so that weapons and body armor would not fall into the hands of extremist groups, such as the al Qaeda-aligned al-Nusra Front. The Pentagon's top brass has vacillated about whether it's logistically possible to keep track of weapons as they enter a conflict involving a complex mix of opposition groups, as the new bill would require.

Corker added that not arming rebel groups such as the more moderate Free Syrian Army would ensure the dominance of the better-equipped al-Nusra Front. Paul responded, saying, 'It's impossible to know who our friends are ... I know everyone here wants to do the right thing, but I think it's a rush to war.'

To get a sense of how adamant the committee is to authorize more aggressive intervention in Syria, an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) to limit the types of weapons delivered to rebels was forcefully rejected as well. 'The senator from New Mexico wants to use shotguns against SCUD missiles,' McCain said dismissively.

The bill now includes an amendment by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), that would 'require the administration to impose sanctions on entities that provide surface-to-surface or surface-to-air missiles, like the SA20s or S300s, to the Assad regime,' according to a press release -- a clear reference to Russia, which has vowed in recent weeks to proceed with sales of advanced missiles that would extend the range and sophistication of the Syrian regime's anti-aircraft systems.

The Menendez-Corker bill next moves to the Senate floor, but an aide to Menendez said it was uncertain when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, will take up the legislation.

Observers say the bill's chances of passing in its current form are slim, but it does increase the pressure on the administration to intervene more aggressively. As Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted earlier this month, 'If you want to pressure the president into acting, it's a pretty good bill ...The last time the Hill moved on Syria was sanctions on Syrian oil in the summer of 2011. That pressured the president to move, and this could too.'"

I do believe a more appropriate quote comes from the great former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Take for instance the U.S. providing ammunition and munition to the mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet War that was led by Osama bin Laden, who would become al Qaeda's leader and plan the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. George Washington University built a website dedicated to providing inquiring minds information about the Afghan-Soviet War and the involvement of the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations in funding the mujahideen during the conflict.  The website is part of a collection of data titled "The National Security Archive," and it lists declassified information from the CIA on what transpired between the United States and the mujahideen:

"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have led to major decisions by the Bush administration to conduct operations against terrorists wherever they may reside.  Osama bin Laden, the apparent mastermind behind the September 11th incidents, is based in Afghanistan where U.S. military strikes are now underway.  In the recent past, during the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a significant role in inserting U.S. influence in Afghanistan by funding military operations designed to frustrate the Soviet invasion of that country. 

CIA covert action worked through Pakistani intelligence services to reach Afghani rebel groups.  That operation began after December 1979, when Russian forces mounted a surprise intervention in Afghanistan.  Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians with their Khalq allies continued through 1988.  At that time Moscow, having suffered substantial losses and incurred excessive costs in the country, decided to withdraw.  The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan in early 1989, but warfare continued as the rebel forces contested with the Khalq regime for control of Kabul.

The CIA ended its aid in 1992, the Russians sometime later, and the pro-Russian government in Kabul fell.  In the final stages of that struggle the Taliban began to emerge as a major force in Afghan politics and it subsequently drove the Northern Alliance from Kabul, confining the remnants of the original rebel alliance to a small enclave in the north-eastern part of the country. The fundamentalist leader Osama bin Laden, though getting his start in the CIA-funded war of the 1970s and 80s, did not become a prominent fugitive in Afghanistan until he returned to the country as the Taliban's guest in 1996.

Records on the Afghan war furnish many insights applicable to the new war against terrorism, in which Afghanistan has become the first major battlefield.  On the U.S. side the primary sources for the material are the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the United States Army.  The source documents were produced by those agencies between 1979 and 1989, primarily to track events in the war for decisionmakers of the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations."

The files will be posted right here.  They will be in PDF format, so you will need to make sure you have Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer in order to view them.:

• Document 1: Central Intelligence Agency, National Foreign Assessment Center, "Afghanistan: Ethnic Diversity and Dissidence," 1 March 1980 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 2: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, Office of Political Analysis, "The Soviets and the Tribes of Southwest Asia," 23 September 1980 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 3: Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Research, "The Economic Impact of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," May 1983 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 4: Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Research, "The Economic Impact of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," May 1983 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 5: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Five Years After," May 1985 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 6: Defense Intelligence Agency, "Iranian Support to the Afghan Resistance," excerpt from unidentified study, n.d.
• Document 7: Defense Intelligence Agency, "Iranian Support to the Afghan Resistance," 11 July 1985
• Document 8: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, "The Costs of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," February 1987 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 9: Central Intelligence Agency, Special National Intelligence Estimate 11/37/88, "USSR: Withdrawal from Afghanistan," March 1988, Key Judgments only (originally published in CIA, At Cold War's End: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989-1991, Benjamin B. Fischer, ed. [Washington, D.C: Central Intelligence Agency, 1999])
• Document 10: Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Appraisal, "Afghanistan: Soviet Withdrawal Scenario," 9 May 1988 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 11: U.S. Army, "Lessons from the War in Aghanistan," May 1989 (Army Department Declassification Release)
• Document 12: Central Intelligence Agency, Special National Intelligence Estimate 37-89, "Afghanistan: The War in Perspective," November 1989, Key Judgments only (originally published in CIA, At Cold War's End: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989-1991, Benjamin B. Fischer, ed. [Washington, D.C: Central Intelligence Agency, 1999])

While the Left has gone out of its way in successfully smearing President Ronald Reagan's name in the act of funding the mujahideen, let it be known that while the Reagan administration was the most aggressive of the three administrations in raising funds, weapons, ammunition, and various other types of munitions for the organization, the initiative was originally undertaken by the Carter administration in 1979 upon the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. According to Conservapedia, this is indeed what transpired:

"In July, 1979, before the Soviet invasion, President Jimmy Carter for the first time authorized the CIA to start assisting the mujahideen rebels with money and non-military supplies sent via Pakistan. As soon as the Soviets invaded in December, 1979, Carter, disgusted at the collapse of détente and alarmed at the rapid Soviet gains, terminated progress on arms limitations, slapped a grain embargo on Russia, withdrew from the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and (with near-unanimous support in Congress) sent the CIA in to arm, train and finance the mujahideen rebels. The US had strong support from Britain, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, all of whom feared the Soviet invasion was the first step in a grand move south toward the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Carter enlarged his position into the 'Carter Doctrine,' by which the US announced its intention to defend the Gulf. Historians now believe that analysis was faulty and that the Soviets were not planning a grand move, but were concerned with loss of prestige and the possibility of a hostile Muslim regime that might destabilize its largely Muslim southern republics. The boycott of the Olympics humiliated the Soviets, who had hoped the games would validate their claim to moral equality in the world of nations; instead they were pariahs again....

...The CIA effort code-named "Operation Cyclone" began with funding of $25 million in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987, including matching funds from Saudi Arabia. Anti-Soviet mujahideen received American aid through Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence Agency, which cooperated with the CIA. About 90,000 men were in the rebel units; about 20,000 were active at any one time, compared with 100,000 Soviet and 40,000 regime soldiers. Meanwhile millions of civilians fled to neighboring countries, especially Pakistan and Iran, where a worldwide relief effort fed them....

...Taking office in early 1981, President Ronald Reagan began a rollback strategy of supporting insurgencies in Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola, and, above all, in Afghanistan. The goal, especially after 1984, was to bleed Moscow white--to create a Vietnam for them which would suck their military dry. "We control Kabul and the provincial centers, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority," the Defense Minister explained to the Politburo in 1986. "We have lost the battle for the Afghan people." Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and immediately realized the severe drain caused by trying to hold his empire together, especially as the U.S. was escalating military spending, threatening to build Star Wars, and the Soviet economy was faltering badly as revenues plunged from oil exports. It took him several years to get enough Politburo support, all the time the poor performance and prolonged presence of the Soviet military in Afghanistan created domestic financial and political problems. In 1986 he replaced Karmal with Mohammad Najibullah (1947-96) the head of the dreaded secret police (KHAD) and leader of the Parcham faction. Finally in 1988 to save the heart of the Communist system in Russia he admitted defeat and cut his losses in Afghanistan....

...The last Soviet troops left in February 1989, but Soviet military aid continued until the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union in 1991. The Najibullah regime lasted another three years, until a military offensive by the mujahideen captured Kabul with little fighting in April 1992. In the end, Afghanistan contributed significantly, perhaps decisively, to the collective loss of confidence that brought the Soviet Union to self-destruction. The lost war discredited the Soviet army, which had been the single most important institution holding the union together, eroded the legitimacy of the Soviet system in the eyes of non-Russian nationalities, and accelerated glasnost (English translation: "openness").

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 commonly known as the term blowback.  However, scholars such as Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrew, and Vasily Mitrokhin have argued that Osama bin Laden was 'outside of CIA eyesight'the and that there is 'no support' in any 'reliable source' for 'the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen.'

After 1989 the United States provided relief and economic aid aid but stayed neutral in the ongoing tribal conflicts. After 1990 a new organization arose, the Taliban, a militantly anti-modern group that was strongly opposed to the mujahideen, and both anti-American and anti-Soviet. Primarily a youth group, the Taliban never received any aide from the US.The Taliban militia took control of the Kabul in 1996, and installed a very harsh Islamist regime. Later it invited in Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda group, which established its base in Afghanistan." 

While Conservapedia indicates that there is no proof that the CIA provided funding and supplies for the bin Laden-led mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet War, we should be quick to note that there are lessons to be found in all of this, for the factions it did assist eventually turned into the ruling Taliban in 1996. Even though the George Washington University-supported website containing declassified National Security files from the war in its opening essay that was not included within the files I presented on here did not indicate that the Reagan administration directly funded bin Laden, this is, indeed, a case where hindsight is 20/20 and our leaders in Washington need to be more cognizant of the people our government is funding and with whom they are aligned or are allies, plus learn from the mistakes of the past.  I tend to favor the foreign policy initiatives Sen. Paul and his father, the former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), assumed by extricating ourselves out of the Middle East political upheaval that will never cease but will instead continue to proliferate. There is absolutely nothing our government has managed to accomplish over the past 65 years since the modern state of Israel was founded by the United Nations.  While the U.S. allies itself closely with the Israeli government due to religious ties, we have been the focus of various terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as well as on military and U.S. Consulate installations since the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center.  Thus, I postulate that the only solution for maintain a state of peace and harmony in America is by dissolving the bonds it has with the Middle East and adopting a platform of isolation with regards to that region of the world.  This will ultimately require the federal government to open up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to drilling and proceeding with plans to utilize the Keystone XL Pipeline to transport tar sands oil from Canada and the northern U.S. down to the Gulf Coast of Texas, thus forcing the Democrats' hands.  It will save American civilian lives in the long run and have the added benefit of creating thousands upon thousands of jobs.

Of course, the Democrats do not care about the growth of wealth for every level of income domestically.  They would rather the poor be poorer so long as they were able to decrease the gaps between the wealthiest and poorest Americans.  Their economic policy is one predicated on low job growth in the private and a maximum increase in government infrastructure jobs whereby the American people are forced to depend on the federal government more and more because it controls every aspect  of one's life.  Couple that with the fact the Democrats expend approximately 99.9% of their energy on domestic policy rather than spending time on foreign policy and national defense, and the American people have the recipe for a political train wreck every time the nation decides to vote en masse to elect Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates into Washington.  As I have said before time-after-time, they are willing to take care of we, the people, but it will cost you more in income taxes, not to mention the great possibility of being required to relinquish some of your rights in order for them to make their programs work.  That is the Democrats' modus operandi, and what a series of policies!