As international efforts to forge a diplomatic solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria continue, worry among foreign policy experts is intensifying as a troubling (and bipartisan) call for U.S. military action grows.
It needs to be acknowledged that a great deal of the motivation behind the intensity of the attempt to retake Aleppo for Syria is the fact that the likely US president-elect has practically promised an invasion to topple Assad. Clinton's campaign has done as much to spur this on as anything. Assad and Putin both know the clock is ticking, and they also know that Clinton won't think twice about starting a real, regional war between major powers.
Assad has basically 6 more months to regain control of his country before the trainwreck they're in now explodes with the introduction of US/NATO troops a la Libya.
So if you want Aleppans to survive this, then demand the US government cease to supply the invading jihadis with the means to continue to occupy foreign soil.
This is a very well written article. It's nice to see the balanced inclusion of a voice of reason in Phyllis Bennis.
Because this article includes talk of the U.S. imposing a no-fly zone over Syria, I'm going to repeat a post here that I made today on another thread. It gives another perspective regarding whether this is actually a reasonable U.S. option.
(Links to relevant articles are highlighted in blue, below.)
The U.S. is now having second thoughts about an air war over Syria, ever since Russia moved in their S-300 Air Defense Systems, the first time these systems have been deployed outside of Russia. In addition, the Russian missile corvette, Mirazh, left Sevastopol on Thursday to join Russian warships in the Mediterranean. Two sister ships, carrying Kalibr long-range cruise missiles, were expected to arrive in the Mediterranean this past Wednesday. Following these moves, Russia warned the U.S. that, if the U.S. were to attack Syria, Russia would shoot down its aircraft; and, further warned that Russia is was fully aware of the location of all opposition "operation rooms" and associated personnel within Syria.
One reason the U.S. appears to be backing off is that, although the U.S. is superior in terms of number of aircraft, cruise missiles, etc., this equipment is in many ways no longer a match for Russian air defense systems. An excellent analysis of why this is so is provided in the following article:
Why American Military Doctrine Is Doomed for Fail - Oct. 2, 2016 - Federico Pieraccini - Strategic Culture
There is also now some thought as to whether, once Russia has all its air defense systems in place, Syria will decide to place its own no-fly zone over Syria; and, ban all U.S. and U.S. allied aircraft from entering Syrian air space.
It's very important that we try to be as objective as possible on the situation in Syria. It true that on the humanitarian level it is catastrophic. But should we put all the blame on one side? This is exactly what the West has been doing. It cannot be denied that the Syrian army has been indiscriminate in its bombing. On the other side the Rebels are hiding behind the civilians. What to to do when you are confronted to a ferocious enemy that does not care about human lives and sufferings? Any other army would react in the same way as Assad's.
I find it it disgusting that states like the US, France, Britain (in fact the EU) be party and judge at the same time in this war.. When the US bombed a hospital in Afghanistan killing doctors, nurses and patients they set up an investigation and the result was: no war crime. You kill and judge yourself and declare your innocence. WOW! They have committed war crimes in Syria, too. In September last year France killed some 25 civilians in an airstrike. Don't their continuing bombing kill civilians? Let's be fair. They do.In my view the West is as guilty as Assad and his coalition. Blame the other side won't help the civilians.
The only voice addressing the Rebels has been De Mistura. Otherwise no one has tried to reason them despite being their sponsors.
Thank you for publishing this. ^
Clinton has made it loud and clear regarding her foreign policy, which is typical neocon who supports "Regime Change," which may be in violation of International laws. Her hubris, her appalling record of judgement may lead to war between the U.S. and Russia.
I won't say "Nuclear" war (yet), since both sides know it be mutually assured destruction (MAD). It depends who wins the election. Both Trump and Hillary are dangerous (extremely careless). Trump is unpredictable, a loose cannon, not good for diplomacy. And Yes, Hillary is a Neocon and these are troubling times, she may ignite war with Russia.
Jill Stein, is the only candidate who is knowledgeable and far more intelligent, with sensible, doable policies to meet humanitarian goals and on path towards peace.
Do not be dupe by corporate media smears against Jill Stein and propaganda such as "Voting for the lesser of two evils" because evil is evil. There are neocons in both camps (Repubs and Dems), responsible for decades of injudicious neocon led wars that have resulted in horrendous destruction and destabilization of countries including the deaths of many innocent lives. Such wars also impacts the environment because massive amounts of oil is required to power the MIC.
I support Jill Stein. Respect for integrity, life and the environment.
Unfortunately Gary Johnson is getting the level of support that we hoped would go to Ms. Stein.
Thank god we have more important things to think about, like the crude sexual remarks Trump made 10 years ago, than the seemingly inevitable direct conflict with Russia in Syria, otherwise we'd all be so frightened we'd be wetting the bed at night.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told Congress last month that a no-fly zone in Syria would mean war with Syria and Russia. But now both Clinton and Pence are calling for one?
Quick, tell me, what did Trump tweet again?
Jill Stein -- the only sane choice in 2016.
It must be kept in mind that all this carnage is the sole responsibility of the United States' military industrial complex. Considering the American political line-up rivers of innocent blood will continue.
Syria has been invaded and has a duty to defend itself by all means necessary as would any nation. The CIA has been training the various rapist, head chopper criminals with help from Israeli MOSSAD and financed by the golf Arabs and Saudi Arabia, this is a barbaric aggression against a once prosperous and advanced ME Arab state. As was the case in Iraq the AIPAC Zionists urged the US politicians, intelligence and armed forces to invade Iraq then they went after Libya another successful Arab nationalist state which Israel didn't like. And now Israel plus plus want to demolish Syria. Demolish Syria so it could be partitioned between Turkey, ISIS and Israel to lay gas and oil pipelines for export to Europe. The US and Israel along with there surrogate Arab states are the guilty criminals to be tried by the world court. Russia and Iran have been invited to help save Syria not the US, not Turkey not Germany or France they are all invaders.
The Russian's were quite content to let the US keep shooting itself in the head by invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
They weren't even that concerned when Hillary and the CIA started the Civil War in Syria.
But, when Hillary gave the green light to go to war in Libya and remove Qaddafi , the Russian's had had enough of her nonsense.
War itself is terror.
Hillary is going to be the next president or haven't you noticed?
It's obvious that the neocons are running the Congress and our foreign policy. That includes the Republicans and the Democrats.
But without the support of President Hillary the Congress will not go to war. Ever or anywhere.
So yeah, it 'is' all Hillary's fault now and in the future.
By the way, it would be a great idea if everyone voted 'against' every incumbent in November.
Precisely, if there ever was a "window of opportunity" to invade Russia was during Boris Yeltsin''s chaotic term in office. Even then Russian nukes were still capable of immense harm to mainland US. But as some of our rational and mentally balanced generals have recognized Russian military has not only caught up but has surpassed that of US's as demonstrated during the course of the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts. Russian military might combined with China, North Korea and Iran more than matches any US military threat.
Lovely, thanks a million for providing the links, it's extremely informative.
I agree the only way to deal with those barbarians is through combat to totally annihilate their gene pool, they don;t behave like civilized human beings. The court in the Hague hanged all those Nazi criminals why not ISIS and even the prime minister of Israel for similar crimes against humanity.
Bombing civilians in order to save them? Great job Assad.
Doctors without Borders. Amnesty International.
Your attempt to paint this as a Western media conspiracy (as if the media was myopic) is stupid.
I guess the Putin controlled media is a better source.
The conflict in Syria was going on for years. To think that it was made up by Hillary is laughable. It is a mess but the continued efforts by the contrarians here to paint the conflict as a CIA plot against the forces of good (Assad and Russia) is beyond credible.
Trump wants to use nukes on Iran. Yes, he is worse than Shillary.
"Forces of good" Assad and Russia, whoever said that they were the forces of good?
The civil war had it's roots with three clans that lived south of Damascus. The CIA had been working with those clans for years against Assad.