The Contradictions of US Sponsored Terrorism: Pentagon’s “New” Syrian Rebels to Direct U.S. Airstrikes against ISIS and Assad’s Government Forces
Global Research, August 07, 2015
Url of this article:And so it begins. The first official airstrike was carried out by a U.S. drone that targeted ISIS strongholds inside Syrian territory. “A US drone today carried out one air strike in Syria near Raqa,” according to the Agence France-Presse (AFP). The Obama administration declared an air assault on the Islamic State through an “ISIL Free Zone” with Turkey along its border with Syria. It can be considered the start of another U.S. led war in an effort to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.
What is slightly different about this latest attempt by the Pentagon is that the “new” Syrian rebels are trained to pinpoint certain ISIS targets within Syrian borders, but can also direct targets against Syrian government forces. At least 30 U.S. fighter jets are expected to arrive in the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey to assist the Syrian rebels according to various reports. Washington’s plan was reported by The Wall Street Journal last February:
The U.S. has decided to provide pickup trucks equipped with mounted machine guns and radios for calling in U.S. airstrikes to some moderate Syrian rebels, seeking to replicate the success Kurdish forces, aided by American B-1B bombers, had over Islamic State last month.
The plan comes as the U.S. prepares to start training moderate rebels, who are waging a two-front fight against the extremists and Syrian regime forces. Defense officials said American trainers will be in place March 1 in Jordan, with a second site due to open soon after in Turkey
Now the Syrian rebels are ready to assist U.S. forces according to the Pentagon’s online news source ‘Stars and Stripes’, the Syrian rebels will be able to conduct communications with U.S. fighter jets from the ground to locate ISIS or Syrian government forces for airstrikes:
While offensive U.S. and coalition airstrikes in Syria will be limited to Islamic State targets, the New Syrian Forces “could potentially face a broader range of threats,” said Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis. “For defensive purposes, we will help defend them from other sources of threats”
“Other sources of threats” simply means Syrian government forces. The article reflects that the pentagon’s recruits were intent on removing President Bashar al-Assad from the start since “Many of the potential fighters are committed to defeating the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which the U.S. has been careful to say it is not trying to do.”
In a geopolitical sense, it’s an open invitation to war against Syria. The Syrian rebels fight against ISIS is just a smokescreen. Washington and Tel Aviv want Assad removed from power by any means (Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by U.S. backed forces). Even prominent Israeli officials prefer “al-Qaeda” instead of Assad as reported by The Algemeiner, a Jewish news source based in the U.S. “According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.” The reasoning behind such statements is that Assad is a close ally to Iran. Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren was also quoted as saying in a 2013 Jerusalem Post interview that
Yes, the bad guys who are not backed by Iran is ISIS, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and other newly created terrorist networks funded and trained by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies with support from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
American and Israeli politicians including President Barack Obama have repeatedly called for Assad’s removal which is Washington’s main objective. ISIS is a useful tool against all U.S. and Israeli enemies including Iran and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been confronted by ISIS militants this past June in the Northeast border town of Ras Baalbek according to the Lebanese-based newspaper ‘The Daily Star’:
“ISIS militants attacked four Hezbollah posts on the outskirts of the northeastern border town of Ras Baalbek Tuesday in a failed bid to capture two hills, sparking intense clashes that killed a number of jihadis, Al-Manar reported.”
So let me get this straight. ISIS is a threat to the entire Middle East and U.S. interests, yet ISIS attacks the sworn enemies of the U.S. and Israel including Hezbollah. The “new” Syrian rebels will be focusing on ISIS targets in Syria but the U.S. will defend its newly trained Syrian rebels from Assad’s forces which are fighting the same enemy. A confrontation between all parties involved including the U.S., Assad’s forces, the Syrian rebels and ISIS is obviously inevitable. The Washington Examiner reported in 2014 that Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are senior members on the Senate Armed Services Committee prefer that the Syrian rebels attack both ISIS and the Assad government:
If the administration hopes to succeed in its mission, it must implement a comprehensive strategy that targets both [the Islamic State] and the Assad regime,” the pair said. “The Syrian people should not be forced to choose between terrorists or dictators”
The new military objectives are to hit Syrian government troops and institutions. In the middle of this chaos, the Obama administration made a deal with Iran concerning its nuclear program last month in Vienna. The irony is that Iran is Syria’s close ally.
The U.S. wants Assad removed to weaken Iran’s influence in the region. ISIS, al-Qaeda and every other terror groups created serve a useful purpose and that purpose is to fight, disrupt and divide the Arab world for its vast natural resources and for U.S. arms manufacturers to profit from the lucrative war industry. It is a careless foreign policy right out of Washington that can lead to a greater war in the Middle East.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.