September 24, 2014
Obama attracts intense interest as he outlines the latest “anti-terror” mission for Iraq-Syria, but we would gain more by paying attention to the words of the President of Syria, Bashar Al Assad, who is after all a major figure in the region and his army has been fighting terrorists and mercenaries supported by Obama’s government. A year ago, as Syria proved capable of handling its armed adversaries, Assad observed that Syria was the victim of a foreign sponsored campaign for regime change. He characterized it this way: The West first tried to create an insurrection coup and failed; next they sent mercenaries across the borders of neighboring states in a campaign of sectarian terror, and failed; and now, he said, they only have one more option, to attack Syria themselves. Quite true, isn’t it?
A year ago the U.S. prepared to wreck havoc in Syria until they found that Putin wasn’t Yeltsin and had to regroup and come up with a new plan, a new pretext. This has been a Democrat-Republican project. Obama’s apologists cannot
blame the blunder and bluster on “neo-cons”. It is a bi-partisan imperial mania to eliminate a resistance state and, also no doubt to get revenge on Putin.
Strange as it might sound, the issue of ISIS terror could be solved simply by an American promise to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Syria. With that undertaking, were it sincere, ISIS would be quickly out of business. Qatr, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia would go along. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Syria has offered real cooperation provided its sovereignty is respected. But for America which wails against ISIS will not agree. In other words Syrian regime change matters more to them than fighting terrorism(which has always been a hypocritical exercise since countries and organizations are put on or taken off Washington’s terror list strictly on political whim).
Having scared the public into the “do something” mode Washington declares American warplanes must fly into Syrian airspace which will present a dangerous choice for the Syrian military, if we remember the Libyan precedent.
Notice to that America has decided to provide 500 million dollars in war funds to the mercenaries of the Free Syrian Army (whose new training base will be Saudi Arabia, home of Wahabi ideology). The US intends to seize airspace over Syria and provide an air force to establish a proxy-government and air cover to Damascus.
Remember this started with claims of wishing to shore up Iraq. So, as part of the anti-ISIS plan, did Iraq ask the U.S. to fly over Syria? No, it did not. In fact, Iraq’s government has been saying they must make the decision on the targets for air strikes within Iraq. They insist on Iraqi sovereignty, fond hope. On the topic of respect for Iraq’s rights perhaps Baghdad should publicly point out before the world that after a decade of “mentoring” the Americans somehow managed not to deliver planes for a modern air force. Air power would mean a degree of real sovereignty, something the U.S. does not intend for Iraq.
A further question: Did Iraq ask for or approve the arming of the so-called Free Syrian Army? No, they did not. All the heavy talk about the need to enter Syria and support anti-Assad forces is coming from Washington and all the talk about protecting Iraq is merely to create the conditions for the mission against Syria and Iran.