US starting to side with Assad

[Tim Cornelis]

The US is now in combat with the largest armed opposition group of Assad, the Islamic State -- and I'm guessing most already saw the irony in that. But, it is also considering using airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State and the US has reportedly shared intelligence with the Syrian regime about the location of rebel leaders.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/22/obama-considering-airstrikes-syria-islamic-state/

[Slavic]

Realpolitik at its best. Usually the US switches support after a military operation, but the fact that they are simultaneously against and for Assad is just plain awesome in its ridiculousness..

[khad]

Unfortunately, you didn't report the full statement. The words from the SecDef make it sound like backdoor regime change.

http://www.thetower.org/0492-hagel-isis-beyond-anything-weve-seen-assad-regime-central-part-of-the-problem/


At a press briefing today alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) an “imminent threat.” However, when questioned if the United States might be on the “same page” as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in viewing ISIS as a danger to global stability, Hagel responded forcefully that Assad was a “central core of the problem” plaguing Syria and the Middle East generally.

[Sharia Lawn]

The US govt's policy is functionally siding with assad by waging war with his domestic enemies, even if it makes press releases trying to distance itself from the assad regime. There's a big difference between a policy and a public relations statement.

[Red Terror Dr.]

Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with Eastasia!!!

Eurasia is our ally!!!

[Deep Sea]

Stephen Gowans sees "fighting ISIS" as an excuse for the US imperialists to actually attack Assad.



One of the roles of leading politicians and top officials of the state is to enlist public support for policies which serve the goals of the upper stratum of the population from whose ranks they sometimes come and whose interests they almost invariably promote. When these policies are at odds with the interests of the majority, as they often are, the mobilization of public consent is possible only through deception. The deception is carried out through prevarication, equivocation, and fear-mongering, crystallized into misleading narratives which the mass media can be reliably counted on to amplify. So it is that Western officials have ramped up a campaign of deception to provide a pretext for military intervention in Syria to combat ISIS but which may very well serve as a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Syrian government...

In light of the above, we ought to ask whether, once launched, a US air-war in Syria will expand its target list from ISIS to Syrian government forces? Is the campaign to mobilize public support for an air war against ISIS in Syria a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Assad government, and on a broader level, against the interlocked Hezbollah-Syria-Iran resistance against US domination of Western Asia?

Western Leaders Fear-Monger to Mobilize Support for Air-Strikes on Syria (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/western-leaders-fear-monger-to-mobilize-support-for-air-strikes-on-syria/)

[Sharia Lawn]

The policy goal of the Obama admin in Syria is to ensure stability in the region. It sees ISIS as the biggest threat to that stability because it is the best equipped and organized force on the ground after Assad's government. Taking out Assad would not be in US interests because it would create a power vacuum which ISIS would be happy to step into. That would further inflame the situation in Iraq. The US government is talking about stepping up arms shipments to FSA as a fig leaf to distance itself from the Assad regime even as it functionally helps it maintain its grip on power.

[Deep Sea]

The policy goal of the Obama admin in Syria is to ensure stability in the region.

The Zionist plan (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.p df) for the region isn't stability.

[Tim Cornelis]

Did that Third Worldist just imply that the United States is ruled a Zionist government...?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government )

[Deep Sea]

Did that Third Worldist just imply that the United States is ruled a Zionist government...?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government )

Just one racist Euro-Settler state supporting their White Brothers in another. Israel belongs to the White Man (http://electronicintifada.net/content/sudanese-face-expulsion-minister-declares-israel-belongs-white-man/11394), don't cha know?

[Tim Cornelis]

Just one racist Euro-Settler state supporting their White Brothers in another. Israel belongs to the White Man (http://electronicintifada.net/content/sudanese-face-expulsion-minister-declares-israel-belongs-white-man/11394), don't cha know?

k why is that relevant to what you said. You implied that the US is a Zionist government, which kinda brings the suspicion of anti-semitism on you.

Also, why is this Third Worldist not restricted yet?

[Deep Sea]

k why is that relevant to what you said.Because "ZOG" has nothing to do with why racist European settler states support each other.


You implied that the US is a Zionist governmentI implied the US is a European settler state, and so is Israel. Israel is a satellite of America and Europe, not vice versa.


which kinda brings the suspicion of anti-semitism on you.Luckily Israel has Tim Cornelis, cheerleader of Takfiri fascists in Syria, on the internet looking out for anti-semitism.


Also, why is this Third Worldist not restricted yetWhat's a Third-Worldist, exactly?

[The Feral Underclass]

Deep Sea, you need to stop this petty vendetta you have with Tim Cornelis. It's stupid and borin.

[Tim Cornelis]

Because "ZOG" has nothing to do with why racist European settler states support each other.

Someone mentioned Obama and the USA wanting such a policy, you respond with an article about Israel saying Zionism does not want such a policy. You implied that the Zionist state of Israel rules the USA. This is quite similar to ZOG.

This is especially worrying given how you have repeatedly stated that you wanted Nazi Germany to beat the Allies in World War 2.


I implied the US is a European settler state, and so is Israel. Israel is a satellite of America and Europe, not vice versa.

You implied vice versa by stating that what Israel wants invalidates what (the other post said) the US wants.

[Deep Sea]

Someone mentioned Obama and the USA wanting such a policy, you respond with an article about Israel saying Zionism does not want such a policy.

Yeah. The policy is the same. Sort of like American policy in "Rhodesia" was the same as British policy, even though Britain doesn't rule America.


You implied that the Zionist state of Israel rules the USA.

Only in your mind.


This is especially worrying given how you have repeatedly stated that you wanted Nazi Germany to beat the Allies in World War 2.

lol, come back to consensus reality, Timmy.


You implied vice versa by stating that what Israel wants invalidates what (the other post said) the US wants

The only thing "invalidated" was the lie that what America wants differs from what their White Brothers in Israel want.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah. The policy is the same. Sort of like American policy in "Rhodesia" was the same as British policy, even though Britain doesn't rule America.


The only thing "invalidated" was the lie that what America wants differs from what their White Brothers in Israel want.

No. You prove what the USA wants by pointing out what the USA wants, not what Israel wants. Because you're just making an assumption that their positions align without actual evidence. So when someone mentioned that the USA wants Y and you pointed out that Israel wants X, you didn't actually prove anything.

Again, someone said "Obama and the USA want X" and you reply "No, the Zionists want Y" you imply as if they are synonymous.



lol, come back to consensus reality, Timmy.

The 'reader' can ascertain it themselves by using the search function. You wished Nazi Germany had conquered Europe.

[ckaihatsu]

The US govt's policy is functionally siding with assad by waging war with his domestic enemies, even if it makes press releases trying to distance itself from the assad regime. There's a big difference between a policy and a public relations statement.





On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.


[EmergencyResponseforUSAttackonIranorSyria] NYTimes: Obama Authorizes Air Surveillance of ISIS in Syria


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


WASHINGTON — President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.

The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war.

Administration officials said the United States did not intend to notify the Assad government of the planned flights. Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly called for the ouster of Mr. Assad, is loath to be seen as aiding the Syrian government, even inadvertently.

Continue reading the main story

As a result the Pentagon is drafting military options that would strike the militant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, near the largely erased border between those two nations, as opposed to more deeply inside Syria. The administration is also moving to bolster American support for the moderate Syrian rebels who view Mr. Assad as their main foe.

On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.

The reconnaissance flights would not be the first time the United States has entered Syrian airspace without seeking permission. In July, American Special Operations forces carried out an unsuccessful rescue attempt for hostages held by ISIS, including the journalist James Foley, whose death was revealed last week in an ISIS video.

Mr. Obama met Monday with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other advisers to discuss options, but the White House said Mr. Obama had not yet decided whether to order military action in Syria. The White House made clear that if the president did act, he had no plans to collaborate with Mr. Assad or even inform him in advance of any operation.

“It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “Joining forces with Assad would essentially permanently alienate the Sunni population in both Syria and Iraq, who are necessary to dislodging ISIL,” he said, using the group’s alternative name, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Still, administration officials acknowledge that the sudden threat from ISIS to Americans — several of whom are still held by the militants in Syria — had complicated the calculus for the United States in a conflict Mr. Obama has largely avoided.

“There are a lot of cross pressures here in this situation,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, told reporters. “There’s no doubt about that. But our policy as it relates to pursuing American interests in this region of the world are actually really clear, that we want to make sure that we are safeguarding American personnel.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

Under plans being developed by the administration, a senior official said, the United States could target leaders of the militant group in and around their stronghold, the northern city of Raqqa, as well as in isolated outposts to the east, near the Iraqi border.

While the Syrian government has the capability to partly defend its airspace from American warplanes, American fighter jets can fly close to the border and fire on targets in Syria using long-range precision weapons.

The American military could also jam Syria’s air-defense systems by sending signals that would make it difficult or impossible for radar to pick up American fighter planes entering Syrian airspace. Such a move would give fighters a limited amount of time to hit ISIS targets or camps before leaving Syria. The military could also use B-2 stealth bombers, which are almost invisible to radar, or could fire at stationary targets in Syria using Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched from ships at sea.

On Monday, even as he warned the Obama administration against unilateral strikes in Syria, Walid Muallem, the foreign minister, said, “Syria is ready for cooperation and coordination at the regional and international level to fight terrorism.” Mr. Assad has long tried to rally support by portraying the insurgency against him as a terrorist threat. He has made little headway with the West or his Arab neighbors.

Continue reading the main story
SEE ALL COMMENTS

WRITE A COMMENT

Syria’s strategy, some former administration officials say, carries a risk for the United States, particularly if the moderate opposition is squeezed out by ISIS.

“We’re going to find ourselves maneuvered into a very uncomfortable position,” said Frederic C. Hof, a former State Department official who worked on Syria policy. “We’re unconsciously walking into an ambush.”

The White House is betting that airstrikes against ISIS in Syria might help moderate Syrian opposition groups, which are opposed to the Assad government — and which are also fighting ISIS themselves, in Aleppo. The Free Syrian Army, which the United States has provided with training and equipment, is at risk of losing access to aid and other supplies from Turkey to ISIS militants.

A spokesman for the rebel coalition, Oubai Shahbandar, said, “The Free Syrian Army commanders on the ground fighting ISIS in northern Syria have declared their readiness to coordinate with the U.S. in striking ISIS.”

The Free Syrian Army has nowhere near the firepower or ground strength as either the Kurdish pesh merga fighters who have worked with the American military against ISIS in Iraq, or even the Iraqi Army. And the weapons and ammunition that the administration have been supplying to the rebels have so far failed to tilt the battle in their favor.

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY

In an interview on Monday, however, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said that Secretary Hagel was “looking at a train-and-equip program for the Free Syrian Army.”

Some experts noted that the administration had another strong incentive not to do anything to help Mr. Assad. A central element of its strategy is to assemble a coalition in the region against ISIS, enlisting partners like Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

“Any hint that our actions might further reinforce Assad’s grip on power would make it hard to build that coalition,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the White House. “They all want to see him go.”

[Deep Sea]

No. You prove what the USA wants by pointing out what the USA wants, not what Israel wants. Because you're just making an assumption that their positions align without actual evidence.

Timmy needs this proved to him, lmao.


The 'reader' can ascertain it themselves by using the search function

They certainly can. All 70 of my posts won't take but a minute to look over.

[Sharia Lawn]

Yes, I have read that story. Do you wish to make a point about it?

[Tim Cornelis]

Timmy needs this proved to him, lmao.

Of course, you have trouble understanding logic. Hence, why you are a Maoist Third Worldist.


They certainly can. All 70 of my posts won't take but a minute to look over.

Exactly. You're a support of Nazism.

[Deep Sea]

Of course, you have trouble understanding logic. Hence, why you are a Maoist Third Worldist.


Exactly. You're a support of Nazism

Are you suggesting "Maoism Third-Worldism" and "Nazism" are the same thing?

[Tim Cornelis]

Are you suggesting "Maoism Third-Worldism" and "Nazism" are the same thing?

No. You're a Islamic State-supporting and Nazi-supporting Maoist Third Worldist.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, I have read that story. Do you wish to make a point about it?


No, just juxtaposing.

[Sharia Lawn]

No, just juxtaposing.

Yes, you were juxtaposing source material with an analysis derived in part from that source material, not in contradiction to it. I don't see how it was helpful.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, you were juxtaposing source material with an analysis derived in part from that source material, not in contradiction to it. I don't see how it was helpful.


Think of it as an *emphasis*, or reinforcement, then.

[ckaihatsu]

Does the U.S. government have a strategy in Iraq and Syria?

By Mazda Majidi Sep 01, 2014


http://www.liberationnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Turkeys-open-border-300x194.jpg
ISIS forces march in Syria near Turkish border, in January of this year.


On Aug. 29, referring to the U.S. approach toward the Islamic State, President Obama said: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” Obama went on: “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”


http://www.liberationnews.org/does-the-u-s-have-a-strategy-in-iraq-and-syria/

[Revolver]

It is clear that Assad is not interested in taking out ISIS, at least not until it finishes routing its anti-regime competitors (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-assad-aleppo-rebels-isis.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&referrer=). Consider that scores of journalists were executed by the Assad regime, including American journalists (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46477679/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/journalists-marie-colvin-remi-ochlik-killed-syria-activists-french-official-say/#.VAeEvWPEmHc), and the remaining unanswered questions (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-isis-kidnap-james-foley-2014-8) about how Foley was captured by ISIS. As late as May of last year his family believed that he was in the hands of the Syrian government, yet he ended up in the hands of ISIS. There is substantial evidence (https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/551852-blame-assad-first-for-isis-rise) that the regime nurtured ISIS, ranging from the release of the Sednaya prisoners to the refusal to engage in anti-ISIS bombing campaigns until very recently. Consider that the vast majority of the prisoners released in 2011 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrias-assad-moves-to-allay-fury-after-security-forces-fire-on-protesters/2011/03/26/AFFoZDdB_story.html) were Islamists (14 Kurds alongside them), and that this was a "concession" while the regime was busy slaughtering protest participants. Within less than a month, the regime was blaming Sunni sectarianism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370421/Syria-protests-President-Bashir-Assad-blames-armed-gangs-12-die-violence.html) for the unrest and violence. Regime defectors have confirmed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9400537/Exclusive-interview-why-I-defected-from-Bashar-al-Assads-regime-by-former-diplomat-Nawaf-Fares.html) as early as 2012 that the "Syrian government would like to use Al-Qaeda as a bargaining chip with the West," and another Alawite defector (https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/assads-no-enemy-of-al-qaeda), Afaq Ahmad, a former member of the special operations directorate of the air force intelligence branch, confirmed that "the jihadist groups and brigades were very useful for the regime because they provided a justification for the regime’s insistence on a military solution, and provided some legitimacy under the cover of the War on Terror." Even more important, according to Ahmad, they "did not cross the red lines that were agreed on by the regime and their sponsors." This has changed recently, and now Assad is attacking ISIS (http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/08/5965/advantage-assad-moves-isis/) and presenting himself as the alternative to brutal rule of Sunni extremists.

For now, the Obama administration is extremely sensitive to the perception that a strike against ISIS is a strike for Assad, and is going out of the way to distance potential strikes from support of Assad (http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/08/6004/obamas-delicate-balance-isis-keeping-assad-bay/). Will Americans share intelligence with Assad? Maybe, but right now any visible support for Assad will undermine their links with what remains of the opposition and the positions taken by important regional allies like, say, Turkey. Also, it isn't like Assad is secure; Syria is a failed state and showing more and more signs of chaos and carnage. Assad is not going to be able to lead anything other than a rump state, and eventually even the Alawites will be forced to get rid of him.

[John Nada]

US propaganda.Look, the Baathist are reactionary as fuck. Assad's a murderous bastard. But to claim that ISIS isn't a major part of the rebellion is nonsense. It reminds me of when "human rights activist" were claiming that every attack even against the government was from Assad. Even in many of those links, riddled with US psy-ops, contradict that narrative. Such as:
“ISIS fighters didn’t come from Mars,” he said. “Fifty percent of them are from here, Syrians, I know them personally. They left the F.S.A. after what they saw from corrupt commanders. Some of them said, ‘Either we leave or we die!’ ”

“Either we stop fighting ISIS or we continue and we become the regime’s ally,” he said, adding, “Goodbye, revolution!”I'm too drunk to list the rest, but there's more.

[ckaihatsu]

---





If his opponents had the support of the people in the main cities of Syria, Assad would be in a very fragile position. Instead, he has been able to turn the situation around and regain significant areas that had previously been held by the rebel fighters. How has this been possible, when just three years ago a wave of revolution swept across the country, putting at risk the very survival of the regime?




A key element was when the forces opposed to Assad turned to the armed struggle. Moving the weight of the struggle towards a purely armed confrontation - a field where the movement would naturally be weaker than the regime and its standing army - the ground was prepared for reactionary forces to gain a foothold within the movement itself. Some sections of the movement sought help from imperialism, and others came under the influence of extremist Jihadist elements which appeared on the scene with plenty of money and arms from their backers in the Gulf states.

Once they have been accepted, and even at times invited into the movement by the activists, the reactionaries quickly used this advantage of having funds and weapons, to gradually push aside, isolate or even kill the revolutionary elements. In essence, they emptied the movement from the inside. It ceased to be a revolution and turned into its opposite.




This was the decisive turning point in the whole situation, not the entry of Hezbollah as some claim.




http://www.marxist.com/syria-why-is-assad-advancing.htm