Kamal Alam — Why Assad’s army did not defect

The fact remains: The moderate Syrian opposition only exists in fancy suits in Western hotel lobbies. It has little military backing on the ground. If you want to ask why Assad is still the president of Syria, the answer is not simply Russia or Iran, but the fact that his army remains resilient and pluralistic, representing a Syria in which religion alone does not determine who rises to the top. The military also represent as challenge against the spread of terrorism, which is why three of the top British generals of the last five years have openly called for the recognition that the Syrian Arab Army, loyal to President Assad, is the only force capable of defeating ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Levant.

How the West is telling lies about Syria in order to seize its resources and deny them to perceived adversaries. But it's OK. It's strategic lying. Who expects governments to tell the truth? Only fools.

The New Cold War
Why Assad’s army did not defect
Kamal Alam | Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and a Syrian military analyst advising several Damascus-based family offices.

Pat Lang — Deir al-Zor: Was it really an accident?

"This mistake could be very costly. Now it is important to find out whether it was intentionally or accidentally," Deputy Speaker of the Russian Senate Ilyas Umakhanov told RIA Novosti.

According to the lawmaker, if it was a mistake it means that the US military lacks professionalism, control and accuracy. "Or it may have been a deliberate move, in a bid to prevent further advances by the Syrian Army and, what is more, to undermine the Lavrov-Kerry agreement," he underscored. He added that it cannot be ruled out that "some war hawks in Washington are trying to get revenge after the agreement."…

In an interview with RT, political analyst Anton Khashchenko suggested that the attack may be a provocation.

"Some in the US and NATO are not interested in cooperation between Moscow and Washington on Syria. They’re trying to undermine the agreement," he said.

I think this has legs. Col. Lang explains why below the Sputnik article.

Sputnik
US Coalition Strike on Syrian Army: 'Revenge of the War Hawks' Amid Ceasefire

So, we and the Australians admit that we "done it." The body count this morning is up to 83 and presumably will go higher. Could it have been a real targeting error? Yes. People here on SST who have participated in air targeting know how easy it is to make a mistake. But, there are some unusual things about this "error." The SAA has been occupying these positions for six months or so. Presumably US imagery and SIGINT analysts have been looking at them all that time and producing map overlays that show who is where in detail. These documents would be widely available especially to air units and their targeteers. US coalition led air has not struck previously in the Deir al-Zor area. Why now? Were they asked to strike? The US does not talk to the Syrian government. How would they have been asked? Who would have designated the targets? They struck in the presence of SAA troops without any ground liaison? And what of the timing two days before the US-Russian deal was to be expanded into active cooperation?…

SECDEF Carter is a thoroughgoing Russophobe. General Votel, the US commander in Iraq and eastern Syria has expressed doubt about the wisdom of cooperating with the Russians.

IMO it is an open question as to whether these air strikes on the SAA were accidental

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Deir al-Zor: Was it really an accident?
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.), former military intelligence officer at the US Defense Intelligence Agency

If this is the case, the president has lost control to the Deep State.