Then again, the UK and US supported Islamists in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood) at the same time as fighting against them in other parts of the world (e.g., in west Africa, etc.).
So how does Barack Obama know that the Free Syrian Army (FSA), for example, is “moderate”? How did he know that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - prior to 2011 - was moderate? Simply because they told him that they are? Either that, or Obama had a prior sympathy and predilection for the Muslim Brotherhood. (Many sources and much evidence says this is in fact the case.)
The Syrian Sunnis have done a lot canvassing and lobbying in America and they've sold themselves as moderates. Yet actually being moderate and and only selling yourself as being moderate are two different things. (Look at the Muslim Council of Britain (also Muslim Brotherhood) as proof of that.)
And even if these Sunni “fighters” in Syria were moderate:
i) Is there enough of them to win-out against the tens of thousands of home-grown and foreign jihadists Syria?
ii) How does Obama know the moderates won't be overrun by the jihadists in the (near) future?
iii) How does he know they won't join sides with jihadists in the future? (In fact this has already happened in many instances.)
Again, even if these Obama-friendly Sunni fighters are indeed moderate: that just means moderate-when-compared-to-the-jihadists. It doesn't mean they believe in Western-style democracy or rights for Syria's Christians, Shia, etc. Many of the so-called moderates believe in sharia law and the Islamisation of Syrian society. In other words, all they've done is put on a nice show – with their suits, ties and trimmed beards (just like CAIR!) - when they've visited Washington and dined with various American leaders.
Notes on American Thinker Comments
1) I used to be highly suspicious of the "destruction from within" (by Leftists/progressives) idea and thought it somewhat conspiratorial. Nonetheless, now Leftists/progressives constitute the "ruling hegemony" and have done since at least the 1960s. (The "ruling hegemony" was how Leftists once critically and negatively described all the regimes and cultures they didn't, as yet, control.) I'm not saying Leftists control everywhere and everything; just enough to qualify for that Gramscian and Frankfurt School label: the "ruling hegemony".
So bearing in mind Obama's strong attachment to former revolutionary Leftist terrorists (such as the former Weatherman); his support of the Muslim Brotherhood; his fostering of mass disruptive immigration and destruction of the economy; then.....
After all, many revolutionary Leftists gave up on the revolution as long ago as the 1920s - some even before that. They still believe in the Sorelian myth of revolution; though since they've already "taken over the institutions", there's no real need for one anymore. The revolution, like many others, has actually been non-violent (though destructive).
Sure, they have come to live with capitalism at the economic level; though at the cultural and institutional level, Leftists largely have what they want. And indeed if they have the culture and the institutions, then they can still work towards destroying capitalism from within: as with global-warming activists (the new "anti-capitalist" kids on the block), the overloading of the economic system through mass immigration; destabilisation and "radicalisation" through Islamisation and immigration, etc.
2) I'm not a hard-core isolationist. However, I'm most certainly not a "neo-con". Or, more correctly, the neo-con dream of an Americanised Middle East, and Muslim world generally, must be one of the greatest feats of self-deception ever known. That's if it is really all about self-deception. Perhaps other things are involved: a lot of rich, powerful and privileged egotists wanting to flex their geopolitical muscles and go down in history as Great Statesmen.
With Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq/America, and 'Frank' Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria (which now seems to be dead) in Syria/America, I think is was more about elites of one country getting on very well - thank you - with the elites of another country. A lot of business-dealing was involved too. (In that sense, the Leftists were right.) Indeed most of these "exiles" were more American (by definition) than Iraqi/Syrian - and that's why they never had a chance and never will have a chance.
With the Free Syrian Army, unlike the Syrian Reform Party, it's more about CAIR-like lobbying (in America) than business-dealing and neo-connery.
3) Even though Obama and the Democrat neo-cons (that's not a typo) like to kid themselves that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate (therefore the Free Syrian Army is moderate), they can hardly carry out the miracle of also believing that these Sunni Islamists aren't, well, Islamic.
The Muslim Brotherhood of Syria has been in a religious war with the Shia/Alawite regime in Syria for decades. And that same Muslim Brotherhood, from Egypt to Jordan, has made anti-Shia statements that even make some of the stuff that ISIS and Saudi Arabia have said (about Shia Muslims) seem like tender-hearted interfaith stuff.
A (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood Syria will be a base for Hamas against Israel and also a base for the continuing operations of the on-going Shia-Sunni war. (I say that knowing about Syria's support for Hezbollah, the conflicts over the Golan Heights, Iran, etc.)
Ironically, the closest Syria has come to being Western and democratic is the Bashar Assad regime. If the Sunnis take over, things will only get worse. That's my bet anyway. Sure, they'll get better for the Sunnis of the Middle East - but that will be bad news for everyone else: including the Christians and Shia of Syria.