Why does Hillary's chief adviser want ISIS to succeed?

All of the war drumming and fear porn on your TV screens right now can't hide the truth. America will not defeat ISIS unless and until it does two things:

1. Work with Putin.

2. Give up the sick dream of toppling Bashar Assad.

That very point is made by Democratic congressperson Tulsi Gabbar (of Hawaii) who is interviewed by Wolf Blitzer in the interview embedded above. It's a pretty good interview: Wolf doesn't lay on the stupidity too thickly until the end, when he tries to give the impression that Assad is a bloodthirsty demon who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians simply to prove how evil he is. No, Wolf: The only people Assad's forces have been killing are fighters for ISIS and Al Qaeda -- and he damned well ought to kill those people.

On the right (VERY right) side of the aisle, we have state senator Richard Black of Virginia. Normally, I would have nothing good to say about such an extreme reactionary, but his letter to Bashar Assad is extraordinary.

I was pleased by the Russians’ intervention against the armies invading Syria. With their support, the Syrian Army has made dramatic strides against the terrorists...

It was an unlawful war of aggression by foreign powers determined to force a puppet regime on Syria. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, revealed that by 2001, Western powers had developed plans to overthrow Syria. Yet after fifteen years, of military subversion, NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar still cannot identify a single leader who enjoys popular support among the Syrian people.

Foreign powers have no right to overturn legitimate elections and impose their will on the Syrian people. Syrians alone must determine their destiny, free of foreign intervention. I am disappointed that the UN has turned a blind eye to the unlawful interference in Syria’s internal affairs.

On the right and on the left, people are waking up.

Unfortunately, Robert Kagan -- a key neocon supporter of (and adviser to) Hillary Clinton -- wants you to go back to your worst nightmare. (Kagan, you will recall, is married to vile Victoria Nuland.)

Try not to vomit as you read:

The only alternative is to address the crisis in Syria and Iraq, and with it the terrorist threat posed by Islamic State. But just as in the 1990s, when Europeans could address the crisis in the Balkans only with the U.S. playing the dominant military role, so again America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort.

What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American.

In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.

At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force—made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops—would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.

In other words, Kagan wants ISIS and Al Qaeda (the two are pretty much indistinguishable) to take power in Syria. When you cut past the double-talk, that's what the guy is really saying. Why else would Kagan want us to stop Russia and Syria from bombing the hell out of the jihadis?

"With the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power..." Do you understand what the man is really saying here? Let's make one point very, very clear:

ISIS and Al Qaeda ARE the freakin' Syrian oppositon! 

(I think that's the first time I've ever used underlining in this blog. Go ahead and accuse me shouting at the reader. Some things need to be shouted.)

Kagan here admits that he wants the US to fight for ISIS, not against ISIS. There are no actual moderate forces to speak of in the Syrian rebellion. Even Barack Obama, in one of those rare bursts of candor which have pockmarked his presidency, has admitted that this idea is a "fantasy."

Neocons like Kagan often pretend that they support "moderate" rebels, but this is pure fiction. The "moderate" Free Syrian Army is a joke -- in fact, Al Qaeda (a.k.a. the Nusra Front) and the FSA have joined forces. Although our press refuses to discuss such things, the FSA's record on human rights was always pretty horrific, and we should be glad that the group is now little more than a phantom. The FSA was never much more than a mask worn by Islamist warriors when they went begging for weapons and money; arms and ammo given to the "moderate" FSA tends to end up with the Islamic State.

By the way: Al Qaeda recently made a video thanking the United States for providing the jihadis with anti-tank weapons.

For people like Kagan, the war on ISIS is a pretext: It's all about regime change. He pretty much admits that toppling Bashar Assad is the only thing he really cares about. ISIS is simply a means to that end.

All of this talk about democracy-at-bayonet-point is pure deception: Kagan is bright enough to know that American intervention will not transform Damascus into the Athenian ideal. Removing Assad will simply create the same chaos we manufactured when we removed Saddam Hussein from power. Assad has already won a fair and free election, and he would win again tomorrow if another election were held -- presuming his name appeared on the ballot, which our president would never allow.

Remember: Both ISIS and the Nusra front sprang from Al Qaeda in Iraq -- a group which did not exist until we foolishly sent troops into that country.

If, during this campaign season, you ever get the chance to ask Hillary Clinton a question, ask her if she will ever rid herself of the consummately evil Kagan clan. Those warmongering schemers are monsters. Monsters.