Various news sources have reported that the US is deploying its High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) from Jordan into the Al-Tanf border region in southern Syria. The missiles are reportedly capable of hitting targets at a range of 300 km.
Al-Masdar News states:
“US soldiers in southern Syria are embedded with vetted Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels. Due to a recent border offensive by the SAA, the US-led coalition no longer shares a frontline with ISIS in southern Syria which may in turn prompt American forces to retreat into Jordan.”
While the news always refers to the SAA as pro-regime, the fact is, it is the military of the legitimately elected government of Syria, which has invited Russia and Iran to aid it in its fight against terrorists. It has not invited the US, and for an understandable reason. The US has now teamed up with a group in the Tanf area called the Free Syrian Army, which is a glorified terror group that has beheaded government-friendly people and ultimately aims to install sharia law in Syria, which has never had sharia. Only a small minority of Syrians might be in favor of this group’s policies. Yet the US wants to foist this on Syria, cynically calling it democracy.
The most straightforward commentary we have seen on this group is an article titled “The Dark Side of the Free Syrian Army” by Daniel Wagner.
“…the Western media has adopted a sympathetic orientation to the FSA and is not reporting many of the distasteful details that are coinciding with its rise. Indeed, there is an ugly side to the FSA that much of the Western media and its governmental supporters appear to be willfully neglecting. They are in essence turning a blind eye to many of the human rights violations and actions contrary to their own beliefs that the FSA is committing in order to support the ouster of Assad.”
“The primary reason Aleppo was attacked by the FSA is because it was and remains supportive of the government. In response, the FSA has been acting more like a force opposed to the citizens of Syria than a force intended to secure their freedom. For example, it has in the recent past stolen wheat reserves intended for the residents of Aleppo and sold it to private Turkish grain traders, expropriated stocks of pharmaceuticals and forcibly resold them back to its owners, and ransacked schools. These are hardly the actions of a ‘liberation force.’ “
“In the outskirts of Aleppo, the FSA has implemented a Sharia law enforcement police force that is a replica of the Wahhabi police in Saudi Arabia — forcing ordinary citizens to abide by the Sharia code. This is being done in a secular country which has never known Sharia Law.”
“Lebanese newspapers such as Al-Akhbar and Assafir, and Alex Jones’ infowars.com, have broadcast a disturbing video of a 12-year-old child apparently forced by the FSA to cut off the head of a Syrian military officer. If such atrocities were more widely reported in the West, it seems unlikely that the FSA would enjoy such wide spread support. So, whether by intention or design, the Western media is also tacitly supporting FSA atrocities.”
Clearly the US government has not given a thought to the moral aspect of their military alliances. The only plausible motive for their behavior is the petrodollar agreement with the Saudis signed between King Faisal and President Nixon in the early 70s, details of which were shrouded in secrecy until Bloomberg brought details of the agreement to light with a Freedom-of-Information-Act request submitted by that news agency. In essence, the agreement was reached for the purpose of “protecting the Saud family and their oil wells.”
But a quick look back at all the wars waged by the US since then suggests that the real meat of that bargain was something else. None of these wars was against an enemy posing a threat to the US people – the original Constitutional reason for waging war – but rather targeted specific leaders that the Saudis could not tolerate – many of them not even their direct enemies. They were secular leaders like Saddam Hussein, who committed the unpardonable sin of dispensing with sharia law and even had a Christian in his cabinet; Serbian leaders who were defending themselves against Muslim terrorists; a Libyan leader who threatened the US dollar by planning an all-African currency and also protected minorities including Christians (not Muslim enough); and the most grievous perpetrator of all, Bashar al-Assad, who is not Sunni, is secular, too tolerant of minorities, especially Christians. None of these things were in any way offensive to Americans, who – absent the powerful propaganda – naturally would sympathize with them much more than with the bloody dictators in Riyadh.
What we are seeing in Syria, the obvious support of terrorists by the US military against a leader who would easily be the most popular Middle Eastern figure among non-brainwashed Americans.
But we are victims of decades of indoctrination and it has profoundly damaged our collective mind and our reasoning power.
A very high percentage of Americans believe that the US power brokers who sell war to us 24-7 are not the real culprits in all these wars. For them, the real culprit is Islam. Therefore, since Assad is a Muslim, the Syrian problem is his fault. The Saudis? Well of course they are fine because our anti-Muslim president is their pal. They couldn’t be bad.
We the canines are being wagged vigorously.
New Silk Strategies will explore this in further detail later and will examine the obvious, hidden-out-in-the-open support of the Sauds in exchange for their support of the US dollar.
What’s morality in comparison to money? Isn't morality passé?