Swanson writes: "The U.S. State Department does not want the government of
Syria to defeat or weaken the Islamic State group, at least not if doing so
means any sort of gain for the Syrian government."
Islamic State Group fighters. (photo: Reuters)
The US Wants the Islamic State Group to Win in Syria
By David Swanson, teleSUR
29 March 16
So many enemies, so little logic.
The U.S. State Department does not want the government of Syria to defeat or
weaken the Islamic State group, at least not if doing so means any sort of
gain for the Syrian government.
Watching a recent video of a State Department spokesperson speaking on that
subject might confuse some U.S. war supporters. I doubt many residents of
Palmyra, Virginia, or Palmyra, Pennsylvania, or Palmyra, New York could give
a coherent account of the U.S. government's position on which enemy should
control the ancient Palmyra in Syria.
The U.S. government has been arming al-Qaida in Syria. I doubt many people
in the United States, of whatever political persuasion, could explain why.
In my experience, having just begun a tour of speaking events, very few in
the United States can even name the seven nations that President Barack
Obama has bragged about bombing, much less explain which parties he is or is
not bombing in those countries. No nation in the history of the world has
had so many enemies to keep track of as the United States has now, and
bothered so little about doing so.
The particular problem with Syria is that the U.S. government has
prioritized one enemy, whom it has utterly failed to scare the U.S. public
with, while the U.S. government has made a distant second priority of
attacking another enemy that most people in the United States are so
terrified of they can hardly think straight.
Consider what changed between 2013 and 2014. In 2013, President Obama was
prepared to heavily bomb the Syrian government. But he did not claim that
the Syrian government wanted to attack the United States, or even to attack
a handful of white people from the United States. Instead he argued,
unconvincingly, that he knew who was responsible for killing Syrians with
chemical weapons. This was in the midst of a war in which thousands were
dying on all sides from all kinds of weapons. The outrage over a particular
type of weapon, the dubious claims, and the eagerness to overthrow a
government, were all too close to U.S. memories of the 2003 attack on Iraq.
Congress members in 2013 found themselves at public events confronted with
the question of why the U.S. would overthrow a government in a war on the
same side as al-Qaida. Were they going to start another Iraq War? U.S. and
British public pressure reversed Obama's decision. But U.S. opinion was even
more against arming proxies, and a new CIA report said that doing so had
never worked, yet that was the approach Obama went with. The overthrow,
which Hillary Clinton still says should have happened, would have quickly
created the chaos and terror that Obama set about developing slowly.
In 2014, Obama was able to step up direct U.S. military action in Syria and
Iraq with virtually no resistance from the public. What had changed? People
had heard about videos of the Islamic State group killing white people with
knives. It didn't seem to matter that jumping into the war against the
Islamic State group was the opposite side from what Obama had said in 2013
the U.S. needed to join. It didn't even seem to matter that the U.S. clearly
intended to join in both sides. Nothing related to logic or sense mattered
in the least. The Islamic State group had done a little bit of what U.S.
allies in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and elsewhere did routinely, and had done it
to Americans. And a fictional group, even scarier, the Khorasan Group, was
coming to get us, the Islamic State group was slipping across the border
from Mexico and Canada, if we didn't do something really big and brutal we
were all going to die.
That being why the U.S. public finally said yes to open-ended war again -
after really not falling for the lies about a humanitarian rescue in Libya,
or not caring - the U.S. public naturally assumes that the U.S. government
has prioritized destroying the evil dark force of so-called Islamic Terror.
It hasn't. The U.S. government says to itself, in its little-noticed
reports, that the Islamic State group is no threat to the United States. It
knows perfectly well, and its top commanders blurt it out upon retirement,
that attacking terrorists only strengthens their forces. The U.S. priority
remains overthrowing the Syrian government, ruining that country, and
creating chaos. Here's part of that project: U.S.-backed troops in Syria
fighting other U.S. backed troops in Syria. That's not incompetence if the
goal is to destroy a nation, as it seems to be in Hillary Clinton's emails:
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is
to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad ... Iran's
nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are.
For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the
prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear
attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What
Israeli military leaders really worry about - but cannot talk about - is
losing their nuclear monopoly ... It is the strategic relationship between
Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran
to undermine Israel's security."
The Islamic State group, al-Qaida, and terrorism are far better tools for
marketing wars than communism ever was, because they can be imagined using
knives rather than nukes, and because terrorism can never collapse and
vanish. If (counterproductively) attacking groups like al-Qaida were what
motivated the wars, the United States would not be aiding Saudi Arabia in
slaughtering the people of Yemen and increasing the power of al-Qaida there.
If peace were the goal, the U.S. would not be sending troops back into Iraq
to use the same actions that destroyed that country to supposedly fix it. If
winning particular sides of wars were the main objective, the United States
would not have served as the primary funding for both sides in Afghanistan
for all these years, with decades more planned.
Why did Senator Harry Truman say the United States should help either the
Germans or the Russians, whichever side was losing? Why did President Ronald
Reagan back Iraq against Iran and also Iran against Iraq? Why could fighters
on both sides in Libya exchange parts for their weapons? Because two goals
that outweigh all others for the U.S. government often align in the cause of
sheer destruction and death. One is U.S. domination of the globe, and all
other peoples be damned. The second is arms sales. No matter who's winning
and who's dying, the weapons makers and arms dealers profit, and the
majority of weapons in the Middle East have been shipped there from the
United States. Peace would cut into those profits horribly.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Islamic State Group fighters. (photo: Reuters)
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-US-Wants-the-Islamic-State-Grou
p-to-Win-in-Syria--20160328-0027.htmlhttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinio
n/The-US-Wants-the-Islamic-State-Group-to-Win-in-Syria--20160328-0027.html
The US Wants the Islamic State Group to Win in Syria
By David Swanson, teleSUR
29 March 16
So many enemies, so little logic.
he U.S. State Department does not want the government of Syria to defeat or
weaken the Islamic State group, at least not if doing so means any sort of
gain for the Syrian government.
Watching a recent video of a State Department spokesperson speaking on that
subject might confuse some U.S. war supporters. I doubt many residents of
Palmyra, Virginia, or Palmyra, Pennsylvania, or Palmyra, New York could give
a coherent account of the U.S. government's position on which enemy should
control the ancient Palmyra in Syria.
The U.S. government has been arming al-Qaida in Syria. I doubt many people
in the United States, of whatever political persuasion, could explain why.
In my experience, having just begun a tour of speaking events, very few in
the United States can even name the seven nations that President Barack
Obama has bragged about bombing, much less explain which parties he is or is
not bombing in those countries. No nation in the history of the world has
had so many enemies to keep track of as the United States has now, and
bothered so little about doing so.
The particular problem with Syria is that the U.S. government has
prioritized one enemy, whom it has utterly failed to scare the U.S. public
with, while the U.S. government has made a distant second priority of
attacking another enemy that most people in the United States are so
terrified of they can hardly think straight.
Consider what changed between 2013 and 2014. In 2013, President Obama was
prepared to heavily bomb the Syrian government. But he did not claim that
the Syrian government wanted to attack the United States, or even to attack
a handful of white people from the United States. Instead he argued,
unconvincingly, that he knew who was responsible for killing Syrians with
chemical weapons. This was in the midst of a war in which thousands were
dying on all sides from all kinds of weapons. The outrage over a particular
type of weapon, the dubious claims, and the eagerness to overthrow a
government, were all too close to U.S. memories of the 2003 attack on Iraq.
Congress members in 2013 found themselves at public events confronted with
the question of why the U.S. would overthrow a government in a war on the
same side as al-Qaida. Were they going to start another Iraq War? U.S. and
British public pressure reversed Obama's decision. But U.S. opinion was even
more against arming proxies, and a new CIA report said that doing so had
never worked, yet that was the approach Obama went with. The overthrow,
which Hillary Clinton still says should have happened, would have quickly
created the chaos and terror that Obama set about developing slowly.
In 2014, Obama was able to step up direct U.S. military action in Syria and
Iraq with virtually no resistance from the public. What had changed? People
had heard about videos of the Islamic State group killing white people with
knives. It didn't seem to matter that jumping into the war against the
Islamic State group was the opposite side from what Obama had said in 2013
the U.S. needed to join. It didn't even seem to matter that the U.S. clearly
intended to join in both sides. Nothing related to logic or sense mattered
in the least. The Islamic State group had done a little bit of what U.S.
allies in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and elsewhere did routinely, and had done it
to Americans. And a fictional group, even scarier, the Khorasan Group, was
coming to get us, the Islamic State group was slipping across the border
from Mexico and Canada, if we didn't do something really big and brutal we
were all going to die.
That being why the U.S. public finally said yes to open-ended war again -
after really not falling for the lies about a humanitarian rescue in Libya,
or not caring - the U.S. public naturally assumes that the U.S. government
has prioritized destroying the evil dark force of so-called Islamic Terror.
It hasn't. The U.S. government says to itself, in its little-noticed
reports, that the Islamic State group is no threat to the United States. It
knows perfectly well, and its top commanders blurt it out upon retirement,
that attacking terrorists only strengthens their forces. The U.S. priority
remains overthrowing the Syrian government, ruining that country, and
creating chaos. Here's part of that project: U.S.-backed troops in Syria
fighting other U.S. backed troops in Syria. That's not incompetence if the
goal is to destroy a nation, as it seems to be in Hillary Clinton's emails:
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is
to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad ... Iran's
nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are.
For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the
prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear
attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What
Israeli military leaders really worry about - but cannot talk about - is
losing their nuclear monopoly ... It is the strategic relationship between
Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran
to undermine Israel's security."
The Islamic State group, al-Qaida, and terrorism are far better tools for
marketing wars than communism ever was, because they can be imagined using
knives rather than nukes, and because terrorism can never collapse and
vanish. If (counterproductively) attacking groups like al-Qaida were what
motivated the wars, the United States would not be aiding Saudi Arabia in
slaughtering the people of Yemen and increasing the power of al-Qaida there.
If peace were the goal, the U.S. would not be sending troops back into Iraq
to use the same actions that destroyed that country to supposedly fix it. If
winning particular sides of wars were the main objective, the United States
would not have served as the primary funding for both sides in Afghanistan
for all these years, with decades more planned.
Why did Senator Harry Truman say the United States should help either the
Germans or the Russians, whichever side was losing? Why did President Ronald
Reagan back Iraq against Iran and also Iran against Iraq? Why could fighters
on both sides in Libya exchange parts for their weapons? Because two goals
that outweigh all others for the U.S. government often align in the cause of
sheer destruction and death. One is U.S. domination of the globe, and all
other peoples be damned. The second is arms sales. No matter who's winning
and who's dying, the weapons makers and arms dealers profit, and the
majority of weapons in the Middle East have been shipped there from the
United States. Peace would cut into those profits horribly.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
