Never let it be said that I only present one side. Actually, I do usually post one-sidely because the the US media is so biased that the other side is never presented and the reporting is basically propaganda.
Here is Richard Haass, President of CFR, presenting the "company line" on Syria. See if you can pick out the spin. Oh wait. it's all spin. That's what he gets paid for.
Project Syndicate
Testing Putin in Syria
Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan
For a counter (we are "fair and balanced"), see
Salon
Putin might be right on Syria: The actual strategy behind his Middle East push — and why the New York Times keeps obscuring it
Patrick Smith
And why no progressive should ever dream of voting for HRC. The lady is a hawk.
Bloomberg View
Clinton Wants Obama to Confront Putin in Syria
Josh Rogin
China Says Isn't Getting Involved in Syria
And why no progressive should ever dream of voting for HRC. The lady is a hawk.
Bloomberg View
Clinton Wants Obama to Confront Putin in Syria
Josh Rogin
China said Wednesday it had no plans to send its military to Syria to fight with Russian forces after reports in overseas media that it was planning to do so.
Chinese media has picked up Russian and Middle Eastern news reports that China would fight alongside Russia in Syria, and that China’s sole aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, could participate too.Russia Insider
Chinese media has also described these reports as speculative nonsense.
China Says Isn't Getting Involved in Syria
Reuters
8 comments:
The part about genocide is not spin.
I don't see any daylight between HRC and the neocons when it comes to foreign policy?
That should really give a lot of people serious heartburn.
Richard Haass sometimes tells the truth, and when he does it is revealing. While serving as a senior Clinton administration official in the White House (a director of the National Security Staff), he revealed what the liberal policy was for Iraq: "You don't understand. Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."
So the sanctions which devastated the country and killed at least half a million children, left millions more malnourished and whose health will never recover, were a facade for removing Saddam but leaving the liberals beloved Baathists in power. Keep bleeding the country and slowly send it into the stone age until the Baathists remove Saddam and replace him with a near replica.
The liberal policy was to keep the Baathist power structure in place but have a more compliant dictator, whom the "international community" would call Mr President. The Bushies and neoconservatives wanted a whole new power structure to be put in place because Baathists are nationalists and can't be trusted to take orders unlike the Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis and other Gulf monarchies who are nothing short of gangsters running violent rackets.
No doubt if Hilary makes it to the Oval Office, Haass will be given a top national security or diplomatic brief, possibly even Secretary of State.
The part about genocide is not spin.
Right. Then he goes on to spout the latest iteration of the US line:
Many fear that Russia’s latest activism will not only prolong Syria’s brutal civil war, but also strengthen the Islamic State. This could well turn out to be the case, as hatred of the Assad regime is a major recruiting tool. And, thus far at least, the Islamic State seems to be a low priority for the Russian military, which appears to be attacking mainly other anti-Assad groups. Indeed, there have been reports of the Islamic State moving into areas that others have abandoned following Russian attacks. Russia seems to be playing the same cynical game as Assad: framing the war as a binary choice between the Islamic State and a regime that, however flawed, still deserves the world’s support.
"Many fear"? Really, and who would that "many" be?
What he fails to mention is the there are no moderate rebels. They are all terrorists or allied with terrorists.
This from the Daily Beast:
Rebels Plan Suicide Attacks on Russians
Syria The Homs Liberation Movement, a Free Syrian Army faction close to al Qaeda, plans to infiltrate the Syrian military to find where the Russians are—and blow them up.
The US is shipping these folks 50M in weapons to "resist" the Russians, as Ash Carter assets that the US position is confrontational rather than cooperative. Putin responded that US leaders must have "mush for brains." "Mush" was translated in the West as "oatmeal."
Secondly, the US fails to include the dominant view of military analysts that Russia is first securing its Latakia base by striking rebels of whatever stripe in proximity and moving the strike out from there. ISIS is not located near the Russian base, so the initial focus was not on them. But ISIS is also being hit hard, too, and there is plenty of video to show it. The Iraqis are successfully going after ISIS in Iraq, too, now that Russia is providing them with real intelligence.
The US is in bed with AQ, in Syria at least. You know, the folks that supposedly attacked the US on 9/11.
From Moon of Alabama
U.S. Official Bemoans Russian Destruction Of "Our" Terrorists
Some U.S. official is whining because his flock of bastards gets hurt:
"Putin is deliberately targeting our forces," a U.S. official, who is disappointed in the U.S. response to Russia, told Fox News.
"Our guys are fighting for their lives," said the official, estimating up to 150 CIA-trained moderate rebels have been killed by the Russians.
"Our forces", "our guys" - hmm. The official is referring to the CIA-mercenaries who are fighting under al-Qaeda's command:
Advancing alongside the Islamist groups, and sometimes aiding them, have been several of the relatively secular groups, like the Free Syrian Army, which have gained new prominence and status because of their access to the TOWs.
Even in smaller quantities, the missiles played a major role in the insurgent advances that eventually endangered Mr. Assad’s rule. While that would seem like a welcome development for United States policy makers, in practice it presented another quandary, given that the Nusra Front was among the groups benefiting from the enhanced firepower.
It is a tactical alliance that Free Syrian Army commanders describe as an uncomfortable marriage of necessity, because they cannot operate without the consent of the larger and stronger Nusra Front.
The "official" should go to jail for, at least, indirectly arming and supporting the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra aka al-Qaeda in Syria
Under U.S. domestic law Obama justifies his attacks on the Islamic State in Syria (which is illegal under international law) with reference to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001. According to that AUMF:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist ...
If that is the relevant legal code to fight the Islamic State then this even more so applies to Jabhat al-Nusra as it is loyal to the original al-Qaeda organization.…
Saudi Arabia is not a terrorist state? Where do you think the money comes from, including for 9/ll. And the royal family of Saudi Arabia are less dictatorial than Assad, or more legitimate rulers than a democratically elected president?
Been drinking the Kool-Aid?
It's well known that Turkey is not fighting ISIS but the Kurds, who are supported by both the US (sort of) and now Russia.
There is no alternative but to stabilize Syria under its democratically elected president who is secular. The opposition to Assad is fighting not for a democratic secular Syria, but an Islamic state and that includes many of the fighter in the Free Syrian Army ("our guys").
But aside the Kool-Aid and spend time reading more widely instead of CIA paid for propaganda, which is all messaging and no nuance. It's reminiscent of Pravda and Izvestia in the USSR days.
The future of Syria was written in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Good luck stabilizing the situation with the lack of moderates (or of moderates able to defend themselves). The Assad regime's sole purpose is to preserve the necks of Assad supporters. They made their bed, they can live or die in it.
Extremism and artificial borders have to go, or the future of the ME will be more of the same. I'm glad I don't live there.
Post a Comment