Make no mistake - "fighting ISIS" is not the real purpose of the move. The U.S. wants NATO support to invade Syria from the north in Idleb as well as from the south near Deraa and from the south-east starting at the al-Tanf border station to Iraq. Syria and its allies will now be fought under the disguise of "fighting ISIS" which factually can no longer be the purpose. Thus NATO, together with Wahhabi Gulf forces, will now be engaged in an expanded war not only against the Syria government but especially against its Russian and Iranian allies. Trump's endorsement of anti-Iranian rhetoric on his visit in Saudi Arabia served a similar purpose.
Syria and its allies will try to prevent a further invasion by cutting off al-Tanf and holding on to Deraa city - thereby blocking any wider military moves. But those measures will probably be in vain. Unless some sane voices intervene we are now at the beginning of a far wider and more dangerous war that can easily slip out of anyone's control.Trump just got his marching orders from Riyadh and Tel Aviv. WWIII appears to be on.
Moon of Alabama
Syria - Truth Slips Through In The New York Times - NATO Preps to Fight Iran And Russia
Link broken.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Fixed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/syria-truth-slips-through-in-the-new-york-times-nato-preps-to-fight-iran-and-russia.html
I'm not seeing mention of ground troops, so its a hypothetical air campaign?
ReplyDeleteThe US now has about 1000 "advisers" in Syria with equipment.
ReplyDeleteYikes, the US is mental. And it's all silent in the Western media. I sent this to George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, not that they will say anything.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me, is that there must be a lot more sane politicians in Washington than insane ones. So why isn't anyone speaking up? Only a small group of nutters, the neocons and the military-industrial complex wasn't this, no one else does. I've sent it to Peter Hitchens and David Swanson now, plus some Tory MP's.
ReplyDeleteThe US now has about 1000 "advisers" in Syria with equipment.
ReplyDeleteAnd so does Russia and Iran. They're continuing to hide behind their proxies, who do most of the fighting and dying. What has changed?
The US seems willing to lose the war in Syria, Russia appears willing to have Syria partitioned. Neither side willing to commit the blood and treasure necessary for "victory", let alone WW-3. When this is no longer a proxy war, email me!
Some more "good guys":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/torturers-of-the-new-iraq-1.4133747?cmp=rss
And so does Russia and Iran. They're continuing to hide behind their proxies, who do most of the fighting and dying. What has changed?
ReplyDeleteHiding. Not according to Colonel Lang: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/05/httpssouthfrontorgsyrian-war-report-may-26-2017-syrian-army-liberated-5000km2-isis.html
Dropping bombs on forces without air defenses is not hiding? Then I could say the same of US air attacks on the SAA and elsewhere in Syria.
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between air support of ground troops and air attacks alone.
ReplyDeleteWho are the Russian proxies? We know the Us proxies are the so-called rebels. The Russians have skin in the game.
ReplyDeleteThe SAA are Russia and Iran's proxy force. Hezbollah are Iran's proxy force. Russia will have skin in the game when they commit infantry to battle. Same goes for the US.
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between air support of ground troops and air attacks alone.
US air campaigns over Syria have done both.
Drop the double standards, please.
Drop the double standards, please.
ReplyDeleteNo double standard.
Russia is there at the invitation of the sovereign government.
The US military aggression into Syria by air or land is a violation international law In the absence of a UN mandate.
And not just the US. That goes for the coalition, including Turkey.
Invitation or not, Russia is involved in a proxy war. The US, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar fall into the same category. Noble participants they are not.
ReplyDeleteFalse equivalence.
ReplyDelete