Could it possibly be true that we didn't try to arm rebels in Syria because publicly we were afraid of "militarizing" the conflict and because we couldn't be sure arms would only go to non-jihadis, yet privately (tip to Instapundit) we ship arms to jihadis in Syria fighting Assad?
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
Are we that freaking stupid?
This should be looked into. If we are trying to arm non-jihadi resistance and some weapons are leaking to the jihadis, that's a price of doing business in this type of operation. I won't complain about that.
It's also a bit more understandable--if not optimal--if Saudi and Qataris arms smuggling operations are arming jihadis and we are trying--but failing--to get them to stop focusing efforts on jihadis.
But if we're directly shipping arms to the jihadis, what on Earth are we thinking?
