The untold US war in Syria
Posted by Louie Drake on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 Under: History
Four years ago, the United States spent state resources towards the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, under the pretext of saving the Libyan people from a tyrannical leadership. These days, it is doing exactly that again, this time to remove the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from office.
But in addition, there is the campaign against Islamic State, which now controls a third of the country. So Washington can claim that its entry in Syria hits two birds with one stone, so to speak: the despot Assad, and the growth of ISIS.
Except that this kind of policy contradicts the American policy against terrorism in countries in the Middle East, such as Iraq. There, the US operates on the philosophy, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In Syria, while Assad and the state army are keen on fighting off the ISIS advance, they are a target of US troops as well.
Patrick Cockburn, writing for The Nation, made a compelling argument against this move: “If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition... Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.”
Indeed, it is suspicious, in that US seems to observe double standards when it comes to exacting justice from agents of terrorism, especially being soft-handed on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which have been linked to the growth of Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 and after the death of bin Laden.
Even more alarming is the fact that there is no Congressional support for this entry, as it appears to have been Obama’s unilateral decision, as noted by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. So, at the moment, more American soldiers are risking their lives for a war that is not sufficiently argued for. And this engagement can only be expected to increase in the future, and before we know it, we have another failed war that only tore families apart, but not necessarily introduce democracy in these lands, as we thought we were doing.
Surely there is a better way to deal with Assad that does not involve giving ISIS more fighting chance. Or perhaps this is what Washington really wanted, in the first place? I may not want to hear the answer.
Note: Blog post submitted by guest blogger Rick Kimball. Rick is a history and war writer. And he believes in Freedom.
But in addition, there is the campaign against Islamic State, which now controls a third of the country. So Washington can claim that its entry in Syria hits two birds with one stone, so to speak: the despot Assad, and the growth of ISIS.
Except that this kind of policy contradicts the American policy against terrorism in countries in the Middle East, such as Iraq. There, the US operates on the philosophy, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In Syria, while Assad and the state army are keen on fighting off the ISIS advance, they are a target of US troops as well.
Patrick Cockburn, writing for The Nation, made a compelling argument against this move: “If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition... Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.”
Indeed, it is suspicious, in that US seems to observe double standards when it comes to exacting justice from agents of terrorism, especially being soft-handed on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which have been linked to the growth of Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 and after the death of bin Laden.
Even more alarming is the fact that there is no Congressional support for this entry, as it appears to have been Obama’s unilateral decision, as noted by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. So, at the moment, more American soldiers are risking their lives for a war that is not sufficiently argued for. And this engagement can only be expected to increase in the future, and before we know it, we have another failed war that only tore families apart, but not necessarily introduce democracy in these lands, as we thought we were doing.
Surely there is a better way to deal with Assad that does not involve giving ISIS more fighting chance. Or perhaps this is what Washington really wanted, in the first place? I may not want to hear the answer.
Note: Blog post submitted by guest blogger Rick Kimball. Rick is a history and war writer. And he believes in Freedom.
In : History
