Donald Hank
US policy: ISIS is bad but stopping its opponents is top priority
By Donald Hank
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34263955
That's funny. Why would the US have the authority to mandate who can enter Syria, a sovereign country, and to enter Syria itself without permission from the Syrians and fight ISIS (even though it shows no sincere intention of doing so) and if it has this authority, why doesn't it go and defeat ISIS instead of opposing all the countries that are fighting it?
The "political transition" that Kerry speaks of could only be a transition of power away from Bashar al Assad, the duly elected and popular president. How would the US and its puppets have the authority to remove a duly elected president, particularly since it is utterly incapable of rationally articulating its moral basis for this? And why would they not assist this president in overcoming ISIS, a group no one would dare to say has a positive effect on the nation? After all, most are foreigners.
And if Obama maintains that trying to stop ISIS would destabilize Syria, is that not a confession that Obama thinks ISIS is a necessary stabilizing force that ought to be protected?
The most pressing question is why did the US not take out ISIS a long time ago, working in cooperation with a coalition including the Russians, Iran and Syria?
The latter 3 nations are the only ones who sincerely want to fight ISIS – and I repeat the obvious: no one (except the Saudis, 92% of whom said in a poll that ISIS represents the spirit of Islam – no Iranian would ever say that. Iran is Shia, Saudi Arabia is Sunni) would dare to say ISIS is playing a positive role in Syria or Iraq.
We know that the 2003 Iraq war lasted about a month (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). The total deployed allied and US troops in that conflict was under 200,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq . Saddam had 375,000 troops, almost twice that.
So if the US and its allies could take down Saddam's army almost twice its size, there is no reasonable doubt that we could have taken down ISIS a long time ago and avoided untold bloodshed and the loss of important and priceless historic and artistic monuments.
Consider that to reach Palmyra, in the middle of the desert, the ISIS troops had to cross many miles of desert with no cover whatsoever. Nothing stood in the way of US or allied planes bombing them to 72 virgin heaven. Well, sorry, I forgot: The desire of the US policy makers to preserve ISIS as a way of ousting Assad did stand in the way of this, didn't it? In other words, the US was willing to sacrifice innocent lives and priceless monuments to preserve the lives of a band of cut throats who were politically useful.
Here is the US narrative in a nutshell: ISIS is bad but we can't defeat it unless we defeat Assad (who happens to be desperately trying to protect his population from a band of marauding murderers).
Nope. According to US "authorities," ISIS is bad, but Assad, a popular figure in Syria whom Syrian Christians and other minorities depend on for their survival http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/25/syrian-christians-look-to-assad-regime-for-protection-from-jihadis/, is worse. Let me write that more plainly: the leader who protects Christians and other minorities is worse than the terrorists who slit their throats on sight. Of course, we must also oppose the other bad guys who are fighting ISIS, like the Iranian militias and Russia.
And while virtually the entire Western press corps, almost all think tanks and major Western politicians agree with this assessment, no one has ever succeeded in explaining in rational terms just why ISIS must stay and Assad must go.
Take a look at this:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (a UK-based think tank that writes favorably about US foreign and military policies https://www.iiss.org/ ) has published a report concluding that Assad is more dangerous than ISIS. But if you read the relevant article linked below you will find not one clue as to why this would be so:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-bigger-threat-than-isis
I have been reading both US propaganda and Russian geopolitical analyses for years, and one thing stands out:
when you read Russian analyses, you find facts and cogent arguments.
When you read US analyses, you find speculation, dirt slinging and a dearth of facts and logic.
So is US policy insane, stupid, inconsistent...? None of these. It is written and enforced by Saudi Arabia, as shown here:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150314
Can we call ourselves "free" as long as we serve as a mercenary force to the devotees of the most savage, uncivilized, intolerant and dangerous religion in the world?
© Donald Hank
September 17, 2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34263955
-
"The state department statement said Mr Kerry warned that Russia's support for President Assad was "undermining our shared goal of fighting extremism if we do not also remain focused on finding a solution to the conflict in Syria via a genuine political transition" "
That's funny. Why would the US have the authority to mandate who can enter Syria, a sovereign country, and to enter Syria itself without permission from the Syrians and fight ISIS (even though it shows no sincere intention of doing so) and if it has this authority, why doesn't it go and defeat ISIS instead of opposing all the countries that are fighting it?
The "political transition" that Kerry speaks of could only be a transition of power away from Bashar al Assad, the duly elected and popular president. How would the US and its puppets have the authority to remove a duly elected president, particularly since it is utterly incapable of rationally articulating its moral basis for this? And why would they not assist this president in overcoming ISIS, a group no one would dare to say has a positive effect on the nation? After all, most are foreigners.
And if Obama maintains that trying to stop ISIS would destabilize Syria, is that not a confession that Obama thinks ISIS is a necessary stabilizing force that ought to be protected?
The most pressing question is why did the US not take out ISIS a long time ago, working in cooperation with a coalition including the Russians, Iran and Syria?
The latter 3 nations are the only ones who sincerely want to fight ISIS – and I repeat the obvious: no one (except the Saudis, 92% of whom said in a poll that ISIS represents the spirit of Islam – no Iranian would ever say that. Iran is Shia, Saudi Arabia is Sunni) would dare to say ISIS is playing a positive role in Syria or Iraq.
We know that the 2003 Iraq war lasted about a month (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). The total deployed allied and US troops in that conflict was under 200,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq . Saddam had 375,000 troops, almost twice that.
So if the US and its allies could take down Saddam's army almost twice its size, there is no reasonable doubt that we could have taken down ISIS a long time ago and avoided untold bloodshed and the loss of important and priceless historic and artistic monuments.
Consider that to reach Palmyra, in the middle of the desert, the ISIS troops had to cross many miles of desert with no cover whatsoever. Nothing stood in the way of US or allied planes bombing them to 72 virgin heaven. Well, sorry, I forgot: The desire of the US policy makers to preserve ISIS as a way of ousting Assad did stand in the way of this, didn't it? In other words, the US was willing to sacrifice innocent lives and priceless monuments to preserve the lives of a band of cut throats who were politically useful.
Here is the US narrative in a nutshell: ISIS is bad but we can't defeat it unless we defeat Assad (who happens to be desperately trying to protect his population from a band of marauding murderers).
Nope. According to US "authorities," ISIS is bad, but Assad, a popular figure in Syria whom Syrian Christians and other minorities depend on for their survival http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/25/syrian-christians-look-to-assad-regime-for-protection-from-jihadis/, is worse. Let me write that more plainly: the leader who protects Christians and other minorities is worse than the terrorists who slit their throats on sight. Of course, we must also oppose the other bad guys who are fighting ISIS, like the Iranian militias and Russia.
And while virtually the entire Western press corps, almost all think tanks and major Western politicians agree with this assessment, no one has ever succeeded in explaining in rational terms just why ISIS must stay and Assad must go.
Take a look at this:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (a UK-based think tank that writes favorably about US foreign and military policies https://www.iiss.org/ ) has published a report concluding that Assad is more dangerous than ISIS. But if you read the relevant article linked below you will find not one clue as to why this would be so:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-bigger-threat-than-isis
I have been reading both US propaganda and Russian geopolitical analyses for years, and one thing stands out:
when you read Russian analyses, you find facts and cogent arguments.
When you read US analyses, you find speculation, dirt slinging and a dearth of facts and logic.
So is US policy insane, stupid, inconsistent...? None of these. It is written and enforced by Saudi Arabia, as shown here:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150314
Can we call ourselves "free" as long as we serve as a mercenary force to the devotees of the most savage, uncivilized, intolerant and dangerous religion in the world?
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
