Opinion: Much of the Middle East is in turmoil and a great deal of the mess has been aggravated by western interference. With that in mind what makes US President Barack Obama believe that funding rebels in Syria will be a good move?
Friday various media sources are reporting that Obama is asking US Congress for $500 million to train and arm vetted members of the Syrian opposition. The CNN headline reads "Obama to seek more aid for moderate rebels in Syria" but we wonder how you define a moderate rebel and decide to berate some and support others?
Putting aside the many complicated issues in the region, and simply looking at the new mission which could be to train and arm rebels you have to ask has Obama learned nothing from recent history?
When western trained Iraqi military turned tail and fled as ISIS, a new and deadly band of insurgents moved in, the army left behind a range of sophisticated US weapons. Perhaps Obama thinks that opposing rebels could do with a helping hand as far as weaponry goes to balance the situation out but it is nothing short of madness.
President Obama looks set to enter history books for all the wrong reasons. Former UK PM Tony Blair could still be prosecuted for his involvement in the Iraq war but across the Pond George W Bush, his US counterpart of the day, is sitting pretty exempt from any legal course of action. President Obama may not be so lucky.
The world is an increasingly troubled place and the supposed quest to quell would be terrorists is not making it any safer. Spying on citizens and friendly governments will not make the world a safer place. Flooding tattered countries of the Middle East with powerful weapons will be disastrous.
As world leaders are often privy to information the rest of us can only guess perhaps Obama is now backed into a corner.
Then again as the civil war in Syria, stirred up and supported by the west, is all about regime change will the west really care about what happens to the ordinary people in that country?
Wars to effect regime change and allow the west to get access to a country's resources have plagued this century. How much longer will that continue?
With the help of the west regime change happened in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. All three countries are struggling to one degree or another to maintain peace.
Wars are good for big business and munitions manufacturers and bad for everyone else. Civil wars should be just that and kept within the boundaries of the country.
In spite of reassurances that the aid to rebels in Syria will be limited and controlled common sense tells you it will not stop there.
The west wants Assad ousted and you have to wonder why that is such a big deal? Tyrants have dominated many countries around the world and still do so but we turn a blind eye.
Could it be because the so called civil war in Syria was actually launched by western agents who have their own agenda?