History repeats itself—first as tragedy, then as farce, as Karl Marx famously said. Perhaps nothing illustrates this maxim better than the nomination of former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard to the position of Director of National Intelligence coinciding with the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, which has thrust the Syrian civil war back into U.S. national consciousness.
Much of the mainstream media celebrated as jihadists and former Al Qaeda affiliates, now rebranded as Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), overran Syrian Army positions and captured much of the country, including Damascus, in mere days. Reflecting a sentiment prevalent in Washington since 2011, pundits heralded Assad's downfall as a victory for freedom and democracy. Many embraced the Western-friendly image of the Syrian opposition—crafted under HTS leader Muhammad al-Joulani’s direction—recycling the "moderate rebels" narrative and even portraying HTS as "diversity-friendly jihadists."
Amidst this media fervor, President-elect Donald Trump’s bold nomination of Tulsi Gabbard—an Iraq war veteran and U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel—to lead the U.S. intelligence community ignited fierce backlash. Critics decried her meeting with Assad and her call for a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian conflict, but the real source of opposition lies in her staunch criticism of U.S. foreign policy’s overreliance on interventionism and military solutions. Her defiance of Washington’s entrenched consensus made her a target of anonymous sabotage and neo-McCarthyist attacks.
hasham
This juxtaposition—the glorification of HTS terrorists as freedom fighters and the vilification of Gabbard’s nomination—exposes a troubling continuity in U.S. foreign policy. The bipartisan establishment’s approach to Syria remains mired in the same failed narratives and policies that prioritize U.S. primacy over genuine strategic reassessment. This is dangerous for two reasons: First, Syria is emblematic of broader systemic flaws in U.S. foreign policy, and second, the national security apparatus’s inability to adapt or learn from past mistakes perpetuates a cycle of failure.
Despite 9/11 and the significant toll exacted by Salafi jihadists on American lives, there has been no serious reckoning with the disastrous policy of empowering Islamist militant groups like HTS to counter adversaries. These shortsighted actions have undermined U.S. credibility and highlight a persistent lack of strategic empathy, leading to costly delusions and tragedies.
When protests erupted against Assad in 2011, Western leaders predicted a democratic rebirth for Syria, overlooking the country’s colonial scars and sectarian divisions. This idealism enabled external actors, including Al Qaeda affiliates, to exploit the situation. In 2012, then-assistant to the secretary of state Jake Sullivan even noted that Al Qaeda was “on our side in Syria.” By 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden revealed that U.S. allies like Turkey and the UAE were arming extremist jihadist groups to fuel a proxy war. Operation Timber Sycamore, the CIA’s most expensive arming and training program, further exacerbated the chaos, often equipping jihadists instead of “moderate rebels.”
Gabbard’s dissent against these policies highlighted the dangers of regime change wars. She emphasized Washington’s minimal interests in Syria and argued that Assad, despite being a brutal autocrat, was a lesser threat compared to stateless Islamist extremist networks. Her warnings about the violence and instability following Assad’s ouster have proven prescient as HTS consolidates power in Syria.
Like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Assad’s legacy is one of brutality and state failure. However, the rise of Islamist opposition underscores the importance of Gabbard’s and Trump’s caution regarding intervention in Syria. Gabbard’s nomination is a symbolic repudiation of endless interventionism. A victim of neo-McCarthyism and false “Russiagate” conspiracies, her selection signals a shift towards empowering voices that challenge the entrenched hawkish consensus.
Gabbard and many veterans of the War on Terror share a profound sense of betrayal and skepticism of military interventionism. Trump’s appointments of figures like Gabbard, J.D. Vance, and Pete Hegseth suggest a pivot toward realism and restraint in defining U.S. interests. At a time of widespread public distrust in national institutions, Gabbard’s leadership could restore credibility by advocating for truth-driven intelligence and prudent foreign policy.
With an Islamist leader, once targeted by a $10 million U.S. bounty, now governing Syria, America needs leaders willing to challenge the failed bipartisan consensus and navigate the complexities of a post-unipolar world. Gabbard’s nomination embodies this necessary shift, providing a glimmer of hope for a more balanced and effective U.S. foreign policy.
Comments
Post a Comment