In a previous report titled, “Growing Mayhem – US Operating on Both Sides of Syrian-Iraqi Border,” it was reported that (emphasis added):
Clearly, the answer, left for readers to arrive at on their own, is that these “successful” US airstrikes in Iraq must be carried over into Syria – where mission creep can do the rest, finally dislodging the Syrian government from power after an ongoing proxy war has failed to do so since 2011. After arming and aiding the Kurds in fighting ISIS in Iraq, the US will attempt to make a similar argument regarding the arming of terrorists in Syria and providing them direct US air support to defeat ISIS – and of course – Damascus.
In less than 24 hours, the New York Times would report in its article, “U.S. General Says Raiding Syria Is Key to Halting ISIS,” that:
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.
“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”
The NYT would also report:
Airstrikes in Syria would also draw the White House more deeply into a conflict from which it has sought to maintain some distance. But there is also risk in not acting, because it is very difficult to defeat a militant group that is allowed to maintain a sanctuary.
And finally, the NYT would claim:
Another step that some experts say will be needed to challenge the militant groups is a stepped-up program to train, advise and equip the moderate opposition in Syria as well as Kurdish and government forces in Iraq.
In reality, US special forces and other Western operatives have been inside and operating in Syria for years. The only missing ingredient the US seeks to justify is direct, open military intervention including airstrikes on Syrian territory.
US Created ISIS As Pretext for Military Intervention
It was the United States itself that intentionally created ISIS, beginning as early as 2007 for the expressed purpose of overthrowing the government of Syria and confronting pro-Iranian forces across the Middle East from Lebanon to Iran’s very doorstep. Veteran journalists and Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh noted in his prophetic 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” that (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
It would be difficult for anyone today not to call ISIS one of several “extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” The clandestine nature of this support from 2007, to 2011 when widespread violence erupted across Syria and soon began spreading beyond its borders, was less obvious.
The support to these sectarian extremist mercenaries became much more apparent after 2011, with monthly admissions published in the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other prominent newspapers across the West of the US CIA arming and funding terrorists along the Syrian-Turkish border for years – in the very areas now clearly serving as safe havens and conduits for ISIS.
The United States has intentionally created regional genocide and now proposes direct military intervention across multiple national borders as the solution – an arsonist left to fight fires of their own creation.
Madness Enabled by Profound Public Ignorance
The utter madness of US policy in the Middle East, and indeed around the world, is enabled by both public ignorance and apathy. It enables US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to stand in front of the world and shamelessly claim:
ISIL [ISIS] is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,” Hagel said. “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. Oh, this is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.
That the public never asks just how ISIS could achieve such regional prominence despite hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, weapons, and military backing allegedly being funneled to “moderate opposition” in Syria indicates a vast chasm between reality and where public opinion stands. Indeed, the hundreds of millions the West has been giving to “moderates” was in fact placed intentionally and directly into the hands of extremists to first attempt to directly overthrow the government in Damascus, and failing that, to provide a pretext for direct US military intervention.
No rational, plausible explanation has accounted for how ISIS has been able to receive yet more funding, weapons, and support than “moderates” supposedly backed by the collective resources of the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. It is clear that there were never any “moderates” to begin with, and that the goal was to create and utilize terrorist hordes like ISIS as a pretext for violently reordering the Middle East.
And even at face value, it should be evident to even the most uninformed, that US meddling in the Middle East has led directly to the regional chaos now unfolding and that the last possible option should be for the US to continue meddling. Unfortunately, with a “Democrat” in office, many Americans, and indeed liberals around the world, have regressed from anti-war sentiments to cognitive dissonance to explain why their elected representatives are meddling militarily in a part of the world they had protested for years to end America’s involvement in.