Russian Airstrikes Against ISIS in Syria Vexes The U.S. Who Wants the Battle to be Against the Regime Instead
U.S. Secretary of Stare, John Kerry spoke at the UN Security Council meeting yesterday, arguing again, as he’s done before, that the “civil war” in Syria won’t get resolved unless the Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad, is removed from office. He can say that because that’s precisely the U.S. position and intent; in other words, they will make sure the war doesn’t end until the government falls. That’s been the U.S. position since years before the war even began. WikiLeaks documents published in 2010 show that the U.S. was looking for ways to do regime change there as early as 2006.
And, let’s also be clear that they don’t just want Assad’s removal. What they want is for the secular Baathist government to be overthrown, so they can install their own puppet regime. That’s why they repeatedly rejected Russian proposals for a peaceful resolution in 2012, that included Assad’s stepping down. That was before two hundred thousand deaths and several million refugees. After the wide spread of the news that the CIA was involved in helping “opposition” forces get heavy weapons and ammunition at the Turkish-Syrian border, in their war against the Syrian government, New York Times was finally compelled to report on it on June 21, 2012, in an article titled: “CIA Said to Steer Arms to Syrian opposition”.
Kerry said the Assad government must go because he’s the reason for the existence of the “opposition”. And, all day yesterday, we heard from US officials, as well as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and John I-want-more-wars McCain that the Russian air strikes against ISIS positions in Syria were not against ISIS, but against the “moderate opposition”, despite the fact that for over two years, US officials and intelligence sources have admitted that “there are no moderates among the opposition”. Even as early as 2011, it became clear that the main force fighting the government of Syria was ISIS. Fighting ISIS was the reason given to us when US began bombing positions in Syria, a year ago, without a declaration of war against a sovereign nation and without congressional approval, as required by the Constitution, or a UN mandate, and at the indignation of the Syrian government, which knew what the U.S. was really after. But, now that the Russians finally realized that the real US target is the government, who is actually doing the fighting against ISIS on the ground, and began bombing ISIS positions, US officials and war mongers are all screaming that the Russians have no right and how dare they intervene. McCain said “they’d better stay the hell out”. Stay out? Why? Is Intervention the exclusive right of the U.S.? Could imperial hubris be any greater than this? Suddenly they’re all concerned that Russians are bombing the “moderate opposition”, after they told us for years that “there are no moderates among the opposition”. According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the opposition is mainly “Salafists and Al Qaeda in Iraq”, which then became ISIS or ISIL.
This has been a war initiated by the US and its Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, as well as Jordan and Turkey, against the secular government in Damascus, from the outset, using Islamist jihadists and mercenaries from neighboring Arab countries, especially from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iraq and using weapons given to them by the Saudis, Americans, Turks and others. Leaked documents published by WikiLeaks show CIA involvement in instigating unrest right from the beginning.
Kerry added in his remarks that to defeat ISIL, it’s necessary to get rid of the Syrian government. There is already talk of establishing a “no-fly zone”, as they did in Iraq and Libya, in the run up to their attacks. But, by what logic do you propose to defeat the terrorist organization by defeating the only major force that’s actually battling it on the ground – for its own survival, no less, which is a pretty strong motivation? overthrowing the secular regime in Damascus will result in another failed state and ungovernable country, becoming another magnet for terrorists. How would that be good for the Syrian people or the region? At best – from the U.S. point of view – it’ll result in a state like Iraq, where the killings will continue. What the U.S. hopes to see there is a regime allied with U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would only be good for US plans for complete hegemony in the region, not for the Syrian people. Regime change from outside and by foreign forces with their selfish agenda never is in the best interests of the people or for peace.
The Syrian government may not be ideal or what the Syrian people want, but that’s for them to decide, not Islamist terrorists and mercenaries aided by Saudi Arabia and others or for a superpower. Russia has repeatedly asked the U.S. to agree to peace talks that could result in Assad stepping down and creating a more representative government, but the U.S. has rejected all those offers. That’s because the U.S. only wants a government it and it alone installs and controls, a government that will be allied with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, so they can better and more completely control the region. But, at what cost? Don’t hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees count for anything in their cold and heartless calculations and geopolitical chess game? Apparently not. This is the same thinking that was revealed when President Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked if the Iraq sanctions, that according to the UN caused the death of half a million Iraqi children, was worth it, to which she replied “yes”.
Kerry says both the terrorists and the regime must be defeated. Well, thank you for rejecting the terrorists’ dream of creating their Wahhabi Caliphate – after aiding them for years. We know you don’t want their Caliphate, either. You just want them to do the dirty work for you and overthrow the government, so you can go in and install your puppets there. Isn’t that what the US was doing in Afghanistan in 1980’s when it armed, funded and supported the Mujaheddin, sent there by Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets, who then became the Al Qaeda? Donald Trump asked yesterday: “Why don’t we let them [ISIS and the Syrian government] fight each other”? That’s what the U.S. has been doing, except for helping arm the terrorists to avoid a victory by the government. That was precisely the U.S. position during the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, which began in 1980 when Saddam invaded Iran. “Let them kill each other”, they said. Never mind that a million people from both sides perished.
Dear Security Council members, honorable heads of states, the problem isn’t the Syrian regime. The problem isn’t even the ISIS. The problem is the U.S. Government and its insistence on yet another regime change in the Muslim world, after they did the same in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. We don’t need regime change in Syria. And it’s not up to us or anyone else to decide that for the Syrian people. The Syrian government may not be the best, but it’s certainly not the worst. It’s not the one occupying Palestinians’ land and demolishing their homes to make room for settlers, in violation of international laws, as does Israel; it’s not exporting Islamist terrorists to neighboring countries to spread the most extreme version of Islamic fundamentalism, like the Saudi Kingdom, and it’s not destabilizing, bombing, invading and occupying other countries like the U.S. is. If there is one country where the world can use a regime change, it’s the United States of America.
Dear Council members, it’s been clear for a long time which government is the source of the majority of wars, instability, terror and violence in the world. If there is one use for this body today in the world, it is to come together and push for the defeat of this source of terror and violence. Short of that, everything else is useless and a waste of time.