Now three years after turning down a 2012 Russian offer, the Obama administration is "reaching out to the Russians" (New York Times) for a possible diplomatic solution. This comes about after needless hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed and millions made homeless. Obama has destroyed another once-prosperous and non-sectarian regime in the Middle East, just as in Iraq and Libya.
The main stream media should not escape blame either. Just one week ago the New York Times editorial board published an editorial telling the Russians to butt out of Syria. Reading between the lines the editorial made it clear that the goal of the Obama administration was the removal of "Syria's ruthless dictator, Bashar al-Assad", and that defeating ISIL has been a fig-leaf all along. If the editorial was not clear enough, then General Austin's testimony that the Obama administration has only "four or five" Syrian fighters made it very clear.
If it is still not clear enough that ISIL has never been the main target, then the fact that the Obama administration allowed its NATO partner Turkey to bomb the Kurds (New York Times) in Iraq and Syria should make it crystal clear. The Kurds have been one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. The Kurds have also been a thorn in the side of Turkey; as a minority group they have been struggling for an independent statehood of their own.
Obama gave the green light for Turkey to bomb the Kurds in exchange for Turkey allowing its Incirlik and Diyarbakir Airbases to be used by the U.S. to attack Syria (New York Times). Turkey also covets carving out a piece of Syria for itself if Syria should disintegrate. The green light to attack the Kurds and a 2,000 square mile piece of northern Syria, called an "ISIS-free zone"---that others call a "Kurd-free zone"---was the deal that Obama made with Turkey in exchange for airbases and helping to overthrow Assad.
It is no coincidence that the flood of refugees has increased since the Obama administration started bombing Syria from nearby Turkey airbases in August. With the fig-leaf of fighting ISIL, the Obama administration has been able to greatly increase its air war against Assad. The U.S. led coalition has the ability to carry out thousands of bombing sorties as it did in Libya.
The air war against Syria is an attempt to repeat of what the U.S. coalition "no fly zone" did to Libya under the cover of the right-to-protect civilians (R2P). Instead of protecting civilians, R2P was used to carry out 5,857 bombing sorties and 246 cruise missile attacks to destroy the Libya and assassinate Muammar Gaddafi (here). It was obviously an exhilarating experience for Hillary (watch), so it is no wonder that she wanted the rush of a repeat performance with Assad.
The main stream media has also been irresponsible. For over three years they (e.g. The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post) have been covering-up the Obama administration's real purpose in Syria---that is assuming Obama even has a plan other than chaos. Until 2014 the media maintained the fiction that the U.S. was providing military aid to "well-vetted moderates" to oppose the Assad regime in a civil war. The appearance of ISIL came as a complete surprise to the main stream media. If the main stream media did not know how or when ISIL evolved they should have.
With the surprise appearance of ISIL in 2014, the media fiction of "well-vetted moderates" disappeared into the memory holes. The media then started concentrating its coverage on the evil of ISIL and the Assad regime. The evil of U.S. drone strikes and bombs that kill mostly innocent civilians is just considered collateral damage and too often overlooked.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
5
5
