Two years ago this month Western intelligence and military attempted regime change of the Assad regime via a staged poison gas attack allegedly carried out by Syrian forces against their citizenry that was later proven false. After the CIA-backed ISIS was introduced as a ploy, the Obama administration is now similarly suggesting that the US will uphold “R2P” principles, by openly confronting the Syrian army “to help defend” the Syria people.

As RT reports today.

“For offensive operations, it’s ISIS only. But if attacked, we’ll defend them against anyone who’s attacking them,” a senior military official told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday. “We’re not looking to engage the regime, but we’ve made a commitment to help defend these people.”

Neither the Pentagon nor the White House officially commented on the decision about the new broader rules of engagement, Reuters reports. So far the US has been avoiding direct confrontation with the forces of President Bashar Assad.

“We won’t get into the specifics of our rules of engagement, but have said all along that we would take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey, stressing that so far only US-trained forces have being provided with a wide range of support, including “defensive fires support to protect them.”

The Kremlin said that US airstrikes against Syrian troops would further destabilize the situation.

Moscow has “repeatedly underlined that help to the Syrian opposition, moreover financial and technical assistance, leads to further destabilization of the situation in the country,” Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said, adding that IS terrorists may take advantage of this situation.

What appears obvious at this point is that the Obama administration with the assistance of Israel and Saudi Arabia has sought all along to destabilize Syria with low intensity conflict in order to remove the Assad regime and replace it with a barbaric one along the lines of what has presided in Libya since 2011. Six years after the George W. Bush regime and his pro-Israeli foreign policy maniacs vacated office, the fraudulent and destructive “war on terror” agenda remains firmly in place, even to the extent that Iran has been diplomatically appeased to ensure the plan’s continuation.

Leave a Reply

25 thought on “Obama Approves Airstrikes on Syrian Troops”
  1. Bashar Assad- Man of the Year…..Obongo-Loser of the year. After a fashion, it is not obvious the US looks like a total idiot on these false flag lookalikes? Only stupid Americans perpetuate these lies, people who are enamored of their possessions while their freedoms leak out the back door. Before our eyes, we now see the appeal of a Donald Trump approach to elections. Find an independent person who can afford the temporal and financial rigors of a campaign and feed him even more money from genuine donors who don’t expect Citizens United type quid pro quos from those that expect 10 back for every 1 donated.
    It has been suggested that this sort of man is the only type that can save the US from the jaws of tyranny, the tyranny that has given us Libya, Iraq, and now Syria.

    Some day somebody will pay for these horrendous transgressions against foreign nations. Like, a nation that used to hold Old Glory high in the sky and with pride. Hang on, Syria, hang on. When you hear some American warlord say that “we’ve got to kill ’em to save ’em”, you’ll know you won the battle. Still, it feels odd hoping the US government fails in its mission, doesn’t it? It’s the only time when being a traitor is noble and commendable, though. Strange, mighty strange.

    1. Trump is nothing other than a spoiler. It’s highly likely, as he’s done in the past, that he’ll back out —when he’s told to do so, of course. If Trump were ‘for real’ he’d already have had an ‘accident’.

      1. Trump could be a blocking back for the Republican party ultimately making the way for the party to come up with a schtick that can win. However, he’s 69 now, what other business interests take precedence in his life? It’s fine to think he’s a party trailblazer who is clearing a path, but who can take over for him should he back down? One of the other 15 clowns that has a quid pro quo with the jews? It will be interesting to say the least.

  2. This makes Obama out to be a liar.

    At first, the threat was that Assad was using chemicals on his own people which was a lie a la Kerry.

    Then ISIL was the threat as announced 9/10/14 and that we would need to go after them “wherever they go” (Syria and Iran).

    Now, instead of ISIL being the threat, the Syrian army is the threat getting in the way of the West’s trained rebel’s mission.

    Shifting narrative.

  3. The bombing of Syria is part of Washington’s Divide and Ruin policy. American imperialism no longer has the strength to invade with land armies, so Obama has switched to what is sometimes called quasi-war: bombing, proxy armies, assassinations, death squads, and Color Revolution regime change. The idea of Divide and Ruin is to partition up the Muslim countries into small statelets, and try to get them to fight each other, creating chaos, misery, weakness, and internal fighting, such has the debacle of Libya.

    This would make Israel the dominant power in the Mideast. Since Obama offended Israel in Iran, he is now atoning by helping to destroy Syria, Israel’s northern neighbor. He is supported in the USA by the Zionist oligarchy, a quarter to a half of the oligarchy of multibillionaires who own the USA. Adelson finances the Repubs and Sabin is the major bankster for the Dems. The support Obama’s blatant terrorism. It has been reported that %70 of the Syrian people support the government, if only to end the horrible war, but of course and semblance to truth is sanitized out of the American media.

  4. Just listened to the Real Politik Podcast with Dave of X22 (http://x22report.com) who links the increasingly frantic obsession of the US for regime change in Syria with a last ditch effort to maintain the petrodollar in the Middle East.

    According to Dave the US economic outlook is bleak. Is it a coincidence that Jade Helm is in effect at this time as, he predicts, a MAJOR economic collapse will occur in the next few months?

    To listen:

    1. Dave of X22 is generally very good in his analysis of current events, but he is wrong about the petrodollar, as a motivating factor in American foreign policy. The Petrodollar is fairly secure now, after Iraq was broken up (Saddam wanted to be paid in Euros), Iran was punished for trying to set up an oil exchange using other currencies, the Euro has fallen in status, and the Yen has been over-printed. Right now there is nothing to challenge the Petrodollar except intra-state currency exchanges (such as Russia and China use). The Euro, the Chinese Renminbi, and the third-world currencies such as Brazil’s are not viable alternatives. Even gold cannot be trusted, because of all the manipulation in the market and the uncertainty of physical holders ever producing actual metal if the paper-holders ask for it.

      Also, he is wrong about the color-revolutions in the Arab world. No, they were not successful at all.

      He is right, however, about the dire state of the future economy. Despite the government printing vast amounts of new dollars, the economy is petering out, with demand for goods declining. We only have an asset bubble in stocks, housing prices and commodities, which is a Ponzi scheme. The American government is not afraid of a color-revolution at home, a striving for democracy. No, they are afraid of an economic collapse where there is 30% or more unemployment and large numbers of people can’t pay their rent or mortgages or food bills or medical insurance and will stop paying and confront the police when they are evicted. Hence the Walmart warehousing alternatives.

      The reason that the US-Israel is so urgent to take down Syria now is that we are in a period of prosperity, and can afford to do so. Once the stock market and housing declines by 30-50%, unemployment reaches 30-40%, and the economy collapses and the government is in fiscal crisis, then the people won’t tolerate military adventurism abroad.

      1. Thank you for your long response to my post, SV Bob. You seem to know a lot about economics, more than I do, that seems certain. Can I ask you a couple of questions?

        First, though, can I ask, if it’s not the petrodollar, what is the reason, in your opinion, that we are taking out Syria?

        Second, what do you think will precipitate the economic collapse?

        Third, did you read today that the IMF plans to delay naming the yuan as a reserve currency in the SDR basket till September, 2016?
        What does this mean to us in the US?

        Thanks, SV Bob. Just pretend you’re in reddit’s “explain it to me like I’m 5” forum. 🙂

        1. Here’s a quick ELI5:

          In the year of 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:

          Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

          Then in 2003, the only countries left without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family were:

          Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

          By 2011, the only countries left without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family were:

          Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

          My point is that the US military is used to force nations to submit to a central banking system. WTF?

        2. Comrade, thank you for the a quick ELI5 reminder about the banking situation.

          And i echo you, WTF?

        3. Why Syria, and why now?
          The US-Israel has been following the Zbigniew Brzezinski play-book for several decades, with a few modifications. Brzezinski argued that Russia and China were the big threats to the West and must be surrounded and isolated, by controlling certain critical areas such as Afghanistan. In addition, US-Isreal has a plan for the Mid-East which requires breaking up countries into mini-states, which are easier to control, and limiting and isolating Iran, who offers the only real opposition. The aim is to gain total control of the world, except for China, Russia and maybe Iran, who will be hemmed in and impotent.

          Ukraine and Syria are both part of that plan. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Mideast, it is the means to supply Hezbollah in Lebanon, it is also Russia’s only ally in the area and their sea base there gives Russia access to the Mediterranean, it sits on potentially very valuable pipeline routes both east-west and north-south. If the West takes out Syria, everyone in the Western Alliance gets great advantages. Israel will have more success in taking out Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel will get pipelines from Iraq, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia will get a pipeline to Europe, the Turks will profit from the pipeline, whoever controls the pipeline (probably Israel) controls natural gas to Europe, Russian and Iranian influence in the Mediterranean and and Persian Gulf areas will be eliminated or greatly diminished, and perhaps most importantly, Russian pipelines to Europe will be made almost worthless.

          There is no question that the West could take out the current Syrian regime, by doing a Libya-type air attack. The big question is: will Russia and Iran defend their proxy? 1) Do they want to? 2) Are they able to? Yes to the first question (Iran sent Hezbollah to help out Bashar), but the jury is still out on the second question – but probably yes.
          There was an important event not widely reported in the MSM, in Sept. 2013, “(US) Missiles launched in Mediterranean towards Syrian coast, claims Russian defence ministry.” The Russians claimed that the two missiles crashed harmlessly into the sea, but probably what happened is the Russians shot them down. So the Russians can shoot down foreign missiles and planes in Syria and have done so. The Russians have also sold anti-missile S-300 systems to Syria itself. Also, the Russians have next-generation electronic jamming that can knock out enemy ships.

          So it would seem futile, perhaps slightly crazy, for the West to keep on trying to meddle in Syria. They can’t get the Russians out and probably can’t get regime change or a secure area for a pipeline.
          So what is the strategy here? Apparently the strategy is to keep chipping around the edges, to see what they can get or to see what will happen. Maybe they can break off various regions, or get the sparsely populated east part of the country, or start a popular revolution by destroying its infrastructure, or provoke Bashar to do something rash like shoot down an American plane. The benefits are so great that they have to keep trying.
          Another factor is that the US always keeps advancing with its plans, even if the plans fail, and never admits or accepts defeat. The US has lost in Afghanistan, but will not withdraw. The US partially lost in Iraq, but is trying to re-fight the war through Al-qaeda and ISIS. The US has already failed twice in Syria, one with the mercenary army, once with the chemical weapons ploy. So now they have turned to the fake ISIS, an operation run by Israel and the Turks and funded by the Gulf States and the Arabs.

        4. Thank you for taking the time to lay out the geopolitics of the region so clearly, SV Bob. Your comment makes a good primer on the subject.

        5. SV Bob, can I bother you with one more question?

          What is the meaning of the Iran deal? Does it buy them off in some way? Is there anything and what is it, do you think, that we are not being told?

          Ok, three questions.

        6. I think, Toni, that the escalation of the Syrian war is, at least in part, an attempt at a counterattack after a staggering sequence of defeats of American imperialism. The fifty odd countries joining the AIIB bank after Washington opposed it was, diplomatically, humiliating. The failure of TPP immediately followed. Far worse, it was preceded by the debacle of the Washington engineered coup in Ukraine which sent Russia in economic and military alliance with China. It is policies like this that give stupidity a bad name.

          So Obama is bombing Syria. I know that makes no rational sense at all, but unfortunately it makes political sense. The American people led by the neocons equate violence with strength, and war unites a people behind their power system. All imperialisms in retreat overreach, as the Yale military historian Paul Kennedy persuasively argued, and Obama is overreaching. Bush left the USA at war with Islam, and Obama, campaigning on Hope n’ Change, has expanded his policy to quasi war with Russia, Islam, and China. Syria is part of the Divide and Ruin strategy of this expanded quasi war.

        7. Hey, folktruther
          Sorry about the delay in responding. I wanted to do some research and thinking on the two concepts you mention in your post. Hence, this very long post.

          The first concept is, “All imperialisms in retreat overreach,” in which Kennedy connects the ultimate decline of the U.S. to the growth of the Federal Debt and the change in US status from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. He says deficit spending, especially for military, is the biggest reason for the decline of any Great Power. The “situation is typical of declining hegemons,” to borrow his words.

          The other phrase is, “Divide and Ruin” which I take to refer to Glazebrook’s book. I quote the publisher:
          “In his book “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis,” Dan Glazebrook talks about the new strategy by the US, Britain and other imperialist powers, who employ proxy forces to bring about regime change in any country that resists imperialism.”

          So, regime change in Syria is a part of the imperial over-reach of a superpower in decline.

          My one critique of the first concept is that it is a NEW strategy, as the publisher contends. The U.S. has been “regime-changing” ever since the ouster of Hawaii’s monarchy in 1893. I was going to post a list of the regime changes the U.S. has forced on other countries, but it seemed to have no end. It covered most of the earth.

          Which brings me to a critique of the second concept. The U.S., in its imperial endeavors, seems no more determined now than it was at any other time in the past century. In decline, U.S. actions in the world are not more furious or indifferent to sovereign wishes now than in the past. They are, however, more suicidal.

          As SV Bob says, the specific reason we are upping the offense against Syria now, is to secure Syria’s geopolitical advantages in advance of the pending economic collapse.

          An upside to the economic collapse of the U.S.? The rest of the world probably thinks so.

          If deficit spending, including military buildup, contributes to economic decline, and military action must be taken before the economic collapse, I can only conclude that the imperialists have an interest in crashing the U.S. economy. They must see a profit in it.

          This self-destruction only makes sense if the imperialists are not a part of the common U.S. political body at all. After the U.S. economy is depleted, they will live on, vampire-like, to pursue their bloody vision of hegemony to the ends of the earth.

  5. The Washington Divide and Ruin plan for Syria is described today , 8/5, by Mike Whitney at Counterpunch: The Brookings plan to liquidate Syria. The idea is to support Al Qaida proxis to seizes areas of ground and be able to defend them to chop up Syria into pieces. This would involve US bombing and some Special troops. It would kill additional tens of thousands of Syrians in the fighting. The Divide and Ruin strategy which partitioned up Iraq, and then Libya, is being continued by American imperialism in Syria.

    1. The Brookings Plan is extremely cynical, but probably won’t work either. Syria is already chopped into small enclaves and has lost a large portion of territory to”ISIS”, but the government is still in power and functioning. Most of the southwest is desert but the one large inhabited area is held by rebels.
      You can see on this map that ISIS holds a large triangular portion of the east.
      The problem for the Western Alliance is that the Kurds hold the long slice of land along the border with Turkey, and the Kurds are fairly numerous (2 million) and already autonomous, and they are very hostile to both Turkey and ISIS. So what does that leave Isis with? Well, they hold oilfields in southern Syria, but you can’t export the oil easily because the pipelines run through western Syria and Kurdish regions. All they can do is further disrupt the Syrian economy, which is already wrecked.
      The West’s ISIS proxy amy would have to be very large and directly take on Syrian regime-held territory in the western part of the country. Good luck with that.

      Syria control map, June 2015:

      1. that would be the reason that that Washington is now attacking the Kurds, historically allied with the US and Israel. Any idea, SV Bob, of the number of people now under ISIL rule?

  6. An intelligent and well researched critique, Toni, which I appreciate. You are quite right, in answer to the first question, American imperialism has been subverting other regimes for well over a century. But they have put in place an alternative regime that supported American imperialism. But now Washington tends to lack the power resources to put in a viable regime, it’s power having declined so sharply under Bush-Obama.

    So it has left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, etc in chaos, with the power grouplets there fighting each other. This is fine with Israeli imperialism, and Washington can congratulate itself that at least these countries are not fighting it. But of course it is an absolute horror for the population, where the people die not only from violence, but from the lack of food, water, and livability of the homeland.

    So the basic difference of Washington’s current Divide and Ruin from previous American imperialism, is the increasing lack of power resources, as American power continues it’s slide down the razorblade of history.

    Second, I know it looks as if the oligarchy is ruining American intentionally, but this is unlikely. Basically the powerful are trapped by being incased in previous historical power relations, and current power pressures. The American political system is no good. As power systems age, they become obsolete and dysfunctional, and the American political system is well over two centuries old.

    The American political consciousness is a reflection of the political system. We are miseducated, misinformed, and misentertained from childhood to identify with anti-people American power. This can only be done when American power is in decay by restricting our historical view of political reality. Americans are Educated and Informed to forget the past, deny the present, and ignore the future.

    The powerful are also tainted by the lack of an historical perspective. ‘That was then, this is now.’ So in certain respects they are deluded even more than we are. The scariest thing about our political leaders is not that they lie all the time, but that they actually believe some of what they say. They are trapped by the same historical forces that we are. They do not deliberately want to ruin the USA, they can’t help doing so by the power imperatives under which they suffer.

Leave a Reply