Rare News Desk
Washington’s official narrative, which the media has promoted, is that the purpose of America’s latest military action in Syria is to “degrade and destroy ISIS” with no current intention of going to war with Assad’s regime. The details of the situation seem to indicate that the Obama administration is, in fact, willing to act militarily against Assad even if mostly by proxy.
Videos by Rare
But that isn’t too surprising since US ambassador Samantha Powers recently stated that the administration’s goals haven’t actually changed at all since its overt attempt to go to war with Syria just one year ago.
While it might be fair to argue there is a place for the United States in halting ISIS’s advance, Americans should never believe stopping ISIS is the President’s primary focus.
We’ve known for weeks now that the “moderate” Syrian rebels America is arming, training, and funding have brokered a peace agreement with ISIS.
As AFP reported Sep. 13th:
Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between ISIS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.
Under the deal, “the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime.”
Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.
We also know that the Obama administration is considering establishing a no-fly zone against Assad inside Syrian territory along its borders with Turkey and Jordan. General Dempsey himself is open to the option despite having previously warned that it would be both expensive, costing $1 billion a month, and extremely challenging given Assad’s relatively formidable air force. Creating a no-fly zone is unquestionably an act of war and the fact it is even being considered before congress has authorized force against ISIS or Assad provides a clear indicator of the administration’s true priorities.
And what does it say about Obama’s determination to “degrade and destroy” ISIS that his drone strikes have been deemed mostly ineffective by everyone from Syrian citizens on the ground to ISIS fighters themselves? Hardly seems like his heart is in it.
If Obama is arming and training rebels who have made it clear that fighting Assad is their priority—not fighting ISIS who they have a peace treaty with—and Obama’s administration is mulling over no-fly zones against Assad who they have already sanctioned, and the airstrikes against ISIS aren’t even doing anything…
Is it possible that combatting ISIS may be little more than political cover for moving forward with an unpopular intervention in Syria?
