In Syria, US actions and words are strategic opposites

By Sam Rolley / Personal Liberty Digest

Chatter coming out of the State Department suggests the Trump administration is willing to allow Russia to take the lead in determining the fate of Syrian leader Bashar Assad. But the Russians are taking a far different message from U.S. actions in the region, and they’re forcefully criticizing largely unverified claims that Assad has and plans to use chemical weapons in his mission to retain power.

Duality, it seems, is the current U.S. foreign policy prescription for dealing with Syria. We aren’t at war with the Syrian regime, according to top diplomatic officials, but we have no qualms about striking Syrian military targets in the name of humanitarianism.

A report out in Foreign Policy Monday describes the State Department’s position on the military strikes as follows:

U.S. military action against Assad’s forces in recent months is intended to achieve only limited tactical goals–deterring future chemical weapons attacks and protecting U.S. backed-forces fighting the Islamic State in Syria–not weakening the Assad government or strengthening the opposition’s negotiating leverage.

[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson’s position reflects a recognition that Syria’s government, backed by Russia and Iran, is emerging as the likely political victor in the country’s six year long civil war. It also marks a further retreat from the 2012 U.N.-brokered Geneva Communique — signed by Russia, the United States, and other key powers — which called for the establishment of a transitional government with members of the regime and the opposition. The Geneva pact, according to the Obama administration and other Western allies, was to result in Assad’s departure from power. (Though the Obama administration softened its own demand that Assad step down during its final year in power).

The U.S. remains “committed to the Geneva process,” the article continues.

What does this mean exactly? Well, that the U.S. military-industrial complex is intent on having its cake and eating it too.

Formally admitting that the U.S. is intent on forcing Assad’s ouster via military intervention is too likely to stir up massive public and congressional discontent, causing problems for the Pentagon and State Department. At a time when Congress is making real efforts to restore legislative input into the U.S.’s war process– like the recent House provision to undo the nearly two-decade-old military force authorization that has justified every military misadventure since 9/11– creating cause for public debate is problematic for the nation’s war machine.

So here’s a better plan.

U.S. hawks put the word out that they’re willing to allow Assad and his Russian allies to take the lead in Syria. Then, they reveal that Assad the evil dictator gassed innocents while his Russian helpers turned a blind eye.

Attacks on Syria and the troops of whatever other nations happen to be there then conveniently change from strategic to humanitarian. The situation changes from Assad is a belligerent who, with the help of Russia and Iran, has great potential to severely disrupt OPEC oil dominance, which U.S. financiers and the Saudis making big deals with American defense companies simply can’t allow to happen.

Still, neither Congress nor the American voting public is going to support a war based solely on financial interests.

But a war “for the children” is a different story. And suddenly the Pentagon, State Department and mainstream media will all begin smelling gas in the air.

It’s a tactic the U.S. military-industrial complex has used to justify intervention so many times that the Russians are preemptively calling the U.S. out.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova is currently predicting the future with regard to U.S. involvement in Syria. Either that, or she’s using history as an indicator of what the world ought to expect from the U.S. establishment in the weeks ahead.

‘The Western public will show some ‘evidence’ It may be shell holes. It may be some obscure, skipping footage allegedly taken during the incident,” she said during a recent press event. “In social networks there will be a lot of footage of corpses.

“The goal is obvious, to revive the topic of the so-called regime crimes to undermine the political process which started in Astana to put the situation is Syria back to the same deadlock created by Western rhetoric that Assad should leave.”

She’s probably right. But we’ll need to wait on the official line from the same intelligence services which told us President Donald Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate to know for sure.


After covering news and politics for traditional media outlets, Sam Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where he focuses on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers recognize lies perpetuated by the mainstream media and develop a better understanding of issues ignored by more conventional outlets. Follow him on Twitter @SamRolley

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Southern Arizona News-Examiner