Al Qaeda: Our “Moderate” Ally In Fight Against ISIS!?

first published on September 10, 2015 by

I’m going to start this out by shamelessly sucking-off my own ego here and say that I predicted this months ago. I told you so.

source: wikipedia

Retired Army general and former CIA Director David Petraeus has now called for cooperation with “moderate” members of the al Qaeda branch in Syria in order to defeat the Islamic State. In case you don’t recall, al Qaeda is the terror group that supposedly planned and executed the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil that began the endless Global War on Terror and all the Constitution-dismantling policies that came with it.

Al Nusra (KARAM AL-MASRI/AFP/Getty Images)

Petraeus is an experienced and invaluable asset to U.S. defense and foreign policy. What he is proposing, although highly immoral and disrespectful to those lost in Qaeda terror attacks and to those service members that died fighting against them, is actually a pretty solid approach from a tactical standpoint, considering the rest of our options. To me, it’s the implications of this recommendation and what it says about who or what these terror groups really are and what we are trying to accomplish in GWOT.


ISIS mass execution (source: CNN)

So instantly there’s going to be this superficial red-herring or misleading argument hammered on by the main stream media (whose job is to keep you stupid and thinking that one side or the other of the same coin somehow represents you) concerning negotiating with and arming terrorists. Right wingers will call President Obama a Muslim terrorist, and the leftists will bring up how President Reagan sold arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra Scandal to somehow legitimize their party’s actions. At no point will anybody rationally suggest that we should hold all corrupt politicians accountable for their deeds, but that’s a whole other rabbit hole we won’t venture down now. The point here is that the argument concerning dealing with “terrorists” is a stupid one.

Dealing with terrorists is absolutely necessary to develop actionable intelligence.

Yes, you do deal with terrorists, especially in the Global War on Terror. This entire conflict is a based on gathering intelligence. What better way to get intel than by interacting with your enemy? That’s how you find out who they’re in bed with, which one of their friends they are backstabbing, and who can be bought. You then exploit that information for gains equal to or greater than the unnecessary bloodshed of patriots on the battlefield. People, Americans especially, are so caught up in this polarized all-or-nothing, good versus evil, us against them mindset that they fail to realize the whole world is one vast gray area. One of our top military advisors just recommended that we align ourselves with a branch of al Qaeda… let that sink in, now tell me how that computes with your black or white mentality, and where you think your nation fits in. I guess we’ll have to wait to see what your preferred brand of “news” tells you to feel about it. It would be a dick move on my part if I told you to use that highly evolved brain to dig deeper than a superficial, spun headline and formulate your own thoughts.


Main stream media digging deep into the issues that matter. (source: Huffington Post)

Again, from a tactical standpoint, it makes sense. Al Nusra wants both Assad and ISIS conquered in Syria. That aligns with our government’s goals in the region. Nusra also has one of the most capable, well-equipped fighting forces in Syria as well. Additionally, the al Qaeda branch has allied with “vetted” branches of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) on various operations against both ISIS and Assad’s regime. Finally, is al Nusra really all that terroristy? I have watched most of their propaganda and combat videos over the past few years and have yet to see them execute and rape civilians for the purpose of scaring the local populace. Besides a lot of religious psycho-babble, their videos show them bravely facing armed opposition. So technically they’d be considered rebels or militants depending on who they are fighting that day. In that light, they almost seem like some real stand-up dudes. You could totally invite them over for dinner with the family and to sleep on the pull-out couch, right? They almost remind me of the honorable al Qaeda linked “freedom fighters” that we got to overthrow Libya and stick a hot gun barrel up Gaddafi’s ass before executing him.


Gaddafi being tortured before his execution by Western-backed “freedom fighters”

On the other hand… they are Al-####ing-Qaeda. Am I taking crazy pills? Clearly not, as I said, I saw this one coming.

Besides, arming our enemies to fight ISIS is soooo eight months ago, anyway. Abrams tanks are now cruising around Iraq, being operated by Shia militants carrying American rifles. These are the exact Shia militants that were killing American soldiers in Baghdad just a few years ago.

What we are being told and what is actually happening are two very different things. To say our foreign policy has been failing in the Middle East for the last decade would be a mistake, because this is exactly what was intended. My following opinions and assumptions may or may not be accurate, but they make a hell of a lot more sense than the current narrative.

ISIS, like al Qaeda, are useful idiots. The game plan, yes there actually is one, isn’t to destroy them. It’s to contain them in certain areas and let them flare up in others. If we really wanted them gone, we could go in there with our unrivaled military and stomp them out in a matter of months, no question… but then what would our reason be to continue projecting force in the Middle East? We’d have to go home, right? Why are we not conducting any airstrikes on confirmed ISIS training camps?


Known ISIS training camps not being targeted by coalition airstrikes

The thing is, al Qaeda stopped being scary enough to garner the amount of public fear needed to continue the decade-old, all out war against them and get us into Syria. We needed something scarier, and when the American public called Obama’s bluff on Assad’s supposed chemical attack against civilians that was thrust into the world spotlight in September 2013, we needed to go big. So in exactly one year from that chemical attack that failed to get us into Syria, ISIS arrived on the scene with their made for TV, idiot-consumable execution videos, sent 30,000 Iraqi troops into retreat or into the ground, and executed such a highly publicized blitzkrieg of terror domination across the region that even the pacifists among us called for immediate military action. In September 2014, exactly one year after failing to get into Syria with Assad’s bogus chemical attack, we were back on track, and President Obama authorized airstrikes in Syria.

I’m not going to say that the CIA, or whoever, created ISIS and Al Qaeda, because I don’t have any kind of proof that leads me to that conclusion, and even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that tens of thousands of religious zealot savages are jumping at the chance to join the ranks and get martyred for the cause. What I will say is that it’s pretty obvious, in my opinion, that these guys are doing us a constant favor by spreading their hate and the toppling the countries that were on our to-do list.


I guess we’re behind schedule (source: azquotes)

Is it possible that we are already funding, arming, and facilitating these groups, and have been for some time, and Petraeus’ recommendation is to go public with it in order to streamline the process and increase the effectiveness? It would make sense as to why we have not yet put conventional boots on the ground. It would be one thing to facilitate a murderous proxy army to carry out your means, but it would be a whole other echelon of responsibility to then get your own nation’s patriots killed over it, because eventually some truths will be revealed, and there will be those that will have to own up to it.

I think those were the lessons we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we can destabilize a region and carry on a sustained projection of military force, but soldiers and Marines dying in a war with no obvious or tangible objectives cannot retain public support.
So we adjusted fire. Yemen and Somalia showed us the limits of armed drone-only operations. Then, with Libya we struck gold. We figured out we can exploit weaknesses, cultural and religious, already inherent in these societies and use their people to turn their own state into a post apocalyptic wasteland. All of this could be done with little or no threat to Western troops, while still swelling the defense industry’s wallets.


Dammit, Assad! Why won’t you just die. (source: SANA)

This seemingly flawless game plan hit a snag in Syria. As it turns out, Assad is much more resilient than Gaddafi for a number of reasons ranging from simple logistics to substantial support from the Russians and Iranians. On top of that, those damn Kurdish forces are far more effective in combatting the useful ISIS idiots than we ever thought, and that’s not helping our intentions of overthrowing Assad. We can ride this one out though, because we don’t have troops dying, and we can throw a few changeups… abandon the Kurds, support Turkey in their facilitation of ISIS, and why not turn al Qaeda into the good guys?

ISIS is already filling the super evil bad guy role with extreme effectiveness, which makes al Nusra an overlapping waste of resources and manpower. Why not make them useful again?
Yet, how will we sell this to the American public and our Western allies? Our support for Al Nusra will never change al Qaeda’s fundamental ideology: Sharia Law and “Death to the non-believers.” Will we have to exonerate Osama bin Laden now? Certainly al Nusra knows that they would become our new top enemy if and when ISIS is defeated.

That is unless a newer and even scarier enemy steps forth from the ashes, this time with online user interactive execution content. They will be known as “Mostest ISISest.” Scary stuff, and the turmoil will perpetuate because we are already well into World War III, and this show going on in the Middle East actually has little to do with terrorism or third world religious nut jobs. This is about the Western Alliance competing with China and Russia for resources and the posturing of military might.
So in that light, you better get on board. ~Will