U.S. Invades Syria, And Warns Russia
By Eric Zuesse
August 23, 2016
Updates on Syria, Julian Assange
August 25, 2016
Conclusion by Karl Pomeroy
On Monday, August 22nd, the United States government—which demands the overthrow of the internationally-recognized-as-legal government of Syria—officially announced that America’s military forces in Syria will continue to occupy Syrian land, no matter what the Syrian government says, and will shoot down any Syrian planes that fly over U.S. forces there.
As reported on Monday by Al-Masdar News: The Pentagon has announced that the USA is ready to down Syrian and Russian planes that they claim threaten American advisers who by international law are illegally operating in northern Syria. On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis claimed that US jets attempted to intercept Syrian planes to protect the American advisers operating illegally with Kurdish forces in Syria after Syrian government jets bombed areas of Hasakah when Kurdish police began an aggression against the National Defense Force.
On Monday, another Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, said, “We would continue to advise the Syrian regime to steer clear of those areas.”
“We are going to defend our people on the ground, and do what we need to defend them,” Cook told reporters.
This means that the U.S. government will not allow the Syrian government to expel or otherwise eliminate U.S. forces in Syria. The Syrian government never invited U.S. forces into Syria, but the U.S. now officially dares the Syrian government to assert its sovereignty over the areas where America’s troops are located.
Al-Masdar continued: When pushed further about Russia, Cook made it clear that the US would make the same aggression against Russian jets who are operating legally with the Syrian government’s approval and coordination. “If they threaten US forces, we always have the right to defend our forces,” Cook said.
This means that the U.S. not only is at war against the legitimate government of Syria, but that the U.S. government will also be at war against Russia if Russian forces (which the Syrian government did invite into Syria) defends Syrian forces from attacks in Syria by U.S. forces—forces that are illegally there.
These U.S. forces number only 300, of whom 250 were sent to Syria on April 24th to serve as advisors to other illegal military forces in Syria.
The vast majority of the illegal military forces in Syria are jihadists who had been hired by the Saudi government and the Qatari government, and supplied with U.S. weapons, to overthrow the Syrian government. Most of the other illegal forces in Syria are Kurdish forces, supported by the U.S. government to break Syria apart so as to create a separate Kurdish state in the majority-Kurdish far north-eastern tip of Syria.
The primary U.S. goal in Syria is to overthrow the Syrian government, which is led by the Baath Party, Syria’s secular Party.
Many Arabs insist upon Sharia, or Islamic law, but Syria’s Arabs are an exception; the Baath Party is and has always been supported by the majority of the Syrian people, including by most of Syria’s Arabs. Most Syrians are strongly opposed to Sharia law. Syria is the most secular nation in the Middle East.
For example, when Western-sponsored polls were taken in Syria, after the start in 2011 of the importation of jihadists into Syria, those polls showed that 55% of Syrians want Bashar al-Assad (the current leader of the Baath Party) to remain as Syria’s President, and “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’.” Furthermore, only “22% agree ‘IS is a positive influence’,” and that 22% was the lowest level of support shown by Syrians for any of the presented statements, except for, “21% agree ‘Prefer life now than under Assad’”—meaning that Syrians believe that things were better before the U.S.-sponsored jihadists entered Syria to overthrow Assad.
Clearly, when ”82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’,” very few people in Syria support the 300 U.S. forces there. Not only is the U.S. an invader, but it (and especially the forces that the U.S. supports in Syria—most especially the jihadists, who are the vast majority of these forces) made life far worse (and far shorter) for virtually all Syrians.
Furthermore, that same poll found: “70% agree ‘Oppose division of country’.” Consequently, the Kurdish separatists are likewise opposed by the vast majority of Syrians.
The Syrian government, from now on, is in the uncomfortable position of having invaders on its territory, and of being warned that one of them—the U.S.—will be fully at war against Syria if Syria tries to expel them.
Russia too is now under warning from the United States, that, if Russia, an ally of Syria, takes any action to expel or kill any of the U.S. invaders in Syria, then the U.S. will also be at war against Russia.
The U.S. government is now also daring the Russian government. Perhaps the U.S. strategy here is to force Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, either to back down, and abandon its Syrian ally, or else to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. If Putin backs down, that would greatly diminish his support from the Russian people, which is above 80% in all polls, including Western-sponsored ones. Perhaps this is the strategy of U.S. President Barack Obama, to drive Vladimir Putin out of office—something that might occur if the U.S. drives Bashar al-Assad out of office.
As Seymour Hersh reported, on 7 January 2016, “the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then [in the summer of 2013] led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya,” And so Dempsey quit, and Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, was fired over the matter.
“The DIA’s reporting, he [Flynn] said, ‘got enormous pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.’”
Flynn is now a foreign-affairs advisor to the Republican Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who is being criticized by the Democratic Presidential candidate, for being soft on Russia and insufficiently devoted to the U.S. goal of overthrowing Assad.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
The original source of this article is Global Research.
Update: August 25, 2016
Turkey/US Invade Syria – Hillary Gets ‘No-Fly’ Zone
By Daniel McAdams
Ron Paul Institute
August 24, 2016
Just three years after promising the American people that he would not put American boots on the ground in Syria, President Obama has directed the US military to participate in an invasion of northern Syria alongside NATO-ally Turkey. This in addition to establishing de facto US bases in eastern Syria from which US Special Forces are operating. The Syrian territory conquered today and the area around the US bases should be considered “no-fly” zones to Syrian and Russian combat aircraft. From here we can expect areas of US control to expand. Russia’s move? We don’t know. More today in the Liberty Report: Click here for VIDEO.
Quemado Institute Conclusion
By Karl Pomeroy
The US could never win a war with Russia. Many analysts believe the Russian military is stronger than that of the US. In addition, were there a military confrontation between Washington and Moscow, China would likely come to Russia’s defence.
So why would the Pentagon seem to provoke direct conflict?
The Western financial elite, most of whom operate in Europe, control the American government. This club of bankers, rich corporate executives and corrupt diplomatic officials continues to intimidate Moscow because it stands in the way of total world domination. The elite must realize, of course, that nuclear conflagration would mar their lavish lifestyles. They can’t be seeking the endgame of war.
The Western establishment has probably concluded that Russia will not fight back—and for good reason. Vladimir Putin, too gentile for his job, has cowered on every conflict since the adoption of Crimea. He did not defend Donbass militarily, nor even diplomatically. If he fails to defend his own people, his threats of retaliation are empty.
There is an added benefit to Pentagon promotion of the seeming imminence of war. Obama could declare a state of emergency and cancel the elections, should Trump be poised for a landslide victory after chair-bound Hillary loses the debates, and after Julian Assange releases more emails proving the ex-Secretary of State provided arms to ISIS.
“Hillary Clinton has serious health problems.
She needs stools and pillows at hand constantly.
She wants to debate Trump sitting down.” —Ben Garrison
WikiLeaks’ Assange Warns Clinton Campaign:
More “Unexpected”, Game-Changing Emails Loom
August 25, 2016
Last night Fox News aired part 1 of a 2-part interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange noted that they are currently reviewing “thousands of pages of material” related to the Hillary campaign which he described as “significant.” When asked whether the new material will be leaked before the November 8th election, Assange responded “yes, absolutely.”
“We have a lot of material, thousands of pages of material. There’s a variety of different types of documents and different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining.”
We now know that Assange planned the timing of the previous leaks to correspond with the Democratic National Convention which has since resulted in the dismissal of 5 DNC officials, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We assume this leak will also be timed to maximize it’s effectiveness with speculation swirling that it could be released before one of the scheduled debates in October.
When asked whether the next release could be a “game-changer” in the November Presidential election, Assange replied: “I think it’s significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.”
Certainly the traditional media will stand ready to defend it’s chosen candidate and has likely already begun preparations for the expected release.
Pingback: The Aleppo atrocity propaganda. | - December 15, 2016