The American people need to understand what's going on in Syria. Unfortunately, the major media only publish Washington-friendly propaganda which makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. The best way to cut through the lies and misinformation, is by using a simple analogy that will help readers to see that Syria is not in the throes of a confusing, sectarian civil war, but the victim of another regime change operation launched by Washington to topple the government of Bashar al Assad.
With that in mind, try to imagine if striking garment workers in New York City decided to arm themselves and take over parts of lower Manhattan. And, let's say, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided that he could increase his geopolitical influence by recruiting Islamic extremists and sending them to New York to join the striking workers. Let's say, Trudeau's plan succeeds and the rebel militias are able to seize a broad swathe of US territory, including most of the east coast stretching all the way to the mid-west. Then -- over the course of the next five years -- these same jihadist forces proceed to destroy most of the civilian infrastructure across the country, force millions of people from their homes and businesses, and demand that President Obama step down from office so they can replace him with an Islamic regime that would enforce strict Sharia law.
How would you advise Obama in a situation like this? Would you tell him to negotiate with the people who invaded and destroyed his country or would you tell him to do whatever he thought was necessary to defeat the enemy and restore security?
Reasonable people will agree that the president has the right to defend the state and maintain security. In fact, national sovereignty and security are the foundation upon which the international order rests. However, neither the US media nor the US congress nor the White House nor the entire US foreign policy establishment agree with this simple, straightforward principle, that governments have the right to defend themselves against foreign invasion. They all believe that the US has the unalienable right to intervene wherever it chooses using whatever means necessary to execute its regime change operations.
In the case of Syria, Washington is using "moderate" jihadists to topple the elected government of Bashar al Assad. Keep in mind, that no one even disputes WHAT the US is doing in Syria (regime change) or that the US is using a proxy army to accomplish its objectives. The only area of debate, is whether these "moderates" are actually moderates at all, or al Qaida. That's the only point on which their is some limited disagreement. (Note: Nearly everyone who follows events closely on the ground, knows that the moderates are al Qaida)
Doesn't that strike you as a bit bizarre? How have we gotten to the point where it is "okay" for the US to topple foreign governments simply because their agents are "moderate" troublemakers rather than "extremist" troublemakers?
What difference does it make? The fact is, the US is using foreign-born jihadists to topple another sovereign government, the same as it used neo Nazis in Ukraine to topple the government, the same as it used US troops to topple the sovereign government in Iraq, and the same as it used NATO forces to topple the sovereign government in Libya. Get the picture? The methods might change, but the policy is always the same. And the reason the policy is always the same is because Washington likes to pick its own leaders, leaders who invariably serve the interests of its wealthy and powerful constituents, particularly Big Oil and Israel. That's how the system works. Everyone knows this already. Washington has toppled or attempted to topple more than 50 governments since the end of WW2. The US is a regime change franchise, Coups-R-Us.
Hillary Clinton is a charter member of the regime change oligarchy. She is an avid Koolaid drinker and a devoted believer in American "exceptionalism," which is the belief that "If the United States does something, it must be good."
Hillary also believes that the best way to resolve the conflict in Syria is by starting a war with Russia. Here's what she said on Sunday in her debate with Donald Trump:
Clinton: "The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air...I, when I was secretary of state, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones."
Repeat: "I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones."
This is a very important point. Hillary has supported no-fly zones from Day 1 despite the fact that -- by her own admission -- the policy would result in massive civilian casualties. And civilian casualties are not the only danger posed by no-fly zones. Consider the warning by America's top soldier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. In response to a question from Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) on the potential dangers of trying to "control Syrian airspace," Dunford answered ominously, "Right now... for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia."
This is the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell: Confront the Russians in Syria and start WW3. If there's another way to interpret Dunford's answer, then, please, tell me what it is?
Hillary also added that, "we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground."