US Arming Rebels

Russian M-35There was a somewhat humorous diplomatic incident last month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Russian Federation was supplying Syria with new attack helicopters. Not exactly what one would expect an America official to say that was trying to "reset" the United States relationship with Russia—especially as a State Department spokesman admitted that it was inaccurate. 

What Russia was doing, as the United States also does for its client states, was to have a program of repair and refurbishment for arms they had previously sold. There were no new arms being sold.

Of course Hillary Clinton is making a good argument that supplying Syria should not have been done as Syria, as any nation state will do, will use its military against its own citizens if those citizens are in armed rebellion. 

What is it I find humorous about this situation? After all, death from the sky is not funny. 

It seems that the United States is buying these same helicopters from Russia for use by the Afghan government against its own citizens who are also in revolt against their government. 

In addition, the NY Times reports that the United States government is supplying arms to the Syrian Opposition. So it is wrong for Russia to supply their allies, but right for the United States to do the same? While the article points out that the CIA is trying to keep arms from Al Qaida, they are arming the Moslem brotherhood. 

So we fight Moslem extremists in Afghanistan, but give them weapons in Syria. 

Only in America.