Sunday, September 18, 2016

U.S. Strike On Syrian Army, 'Moderate' Rebels Take U.S. Money And Weapons But Hate America

US Coalition Strike on Syrian Army: 'Revenge of the War Hawks' Amid Ceasefire

American airstrikes against the Syrian Army may be an attempt by war hawks to get revenge for the agreement between Russia and the United States on Syria, a member of the Russian Senate suggested.

On Saturday, two F-16 fighter jets and two A-10 ground attack aircraft entered Syrian airspace without authorization from the Syrian government. They bombed positions of the Syrian Army near Deir ez-Zor, leaving at least 62 personnel killed.
Later, the US Central Command acknowledged responsibility for the attack but claimed that the attack was an accident, with the intended target being Daesh militants.
"This mistake could be very costly. Now it is important to find out whether it was intentionally or accidentally," Deputy Speaker of the Russian Senate Ilyas Umakhanov told RIA Novosti.

According to the lawmaker, if it was a mistake it means that the US military lacks professionalism, control and accuracy.

"Or it may have been a deliberate move, in a bid to prevent further advances by the Syrian Army and, what is more, to undermine the Lavrov-Kerry agreement," he underscored.
He added that it cannot be ruled out that "some war hawks in Washington are trying to get revenge after the agreement."
The senator said that Russia has always insisted and called for support for Syria’s legitimate government in fighting terrorism.

"Now, that the US is making critical mistakes we should have more guarantees," Umakhanov added.
According to the political analyst, Russia should respond to the accident by continuing its policy in the region because "the actions of its allies cannot be justified."
"By fueling tensions in the region, they are trying to pursue their own goals," he said.
According to analyst Alexander Nesmiyan, the attack was a warning.
"It was a clear warning from the Americans. They’re sending a signal that both the Syrian Army and Daesh are their enemies," Nesmiyan assumed.

"It is also a signal to Russia from Washington. The Russian Defense Ministry has accused the US of not observing the closed provisions of the agreement. The US wants to show that if Russia accepted an agreement with closed provisions Washington will not make excuses for breaching them," he said.
In an interview with RT, political analyst Anton Khashchenko suggested that the attack may be a provocation.
"Some in the US and NATO are not interested in cooperation between Moscow and Washington on Syria. They’re trying to undermine the agreement," he said.

Rebels from the US-backed Free Syrian Army appear to have kicked a group of US special operations forces out of a Syrian border town, calling the fleeing Americans "infidels" and "crusaders." This incident, experts say, shows that groups Washington persists on calling "moderate" are in fact "mercenaries" and "fanatics."

"The subgroup that did this supposedly is Ahrar al-Sham, which is a really nasty piece of work. It is as Wahhabist, as radical, as violent as [al-Nusra Front] or [Daesh]," former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT.
Interestingly, Washington blocked Moscow's initiative to add Ahrar al-Sham, who often conducts joint operations with al-Nusra Front, to the UN Security Council's terrorist list, claiming that they are in fact moderate rebels and should be treated as a legitimate opposition to the government in Damascus.

"I don't see any evidence that there are any [moderates in Syria]," Jatras said. "What you have is a variety of Wahhabist terrorist groups some of which are maybe slightly less terrorist than others but I don't know how you measure that exactly. Who are the moderates? Where are the moderates?"

"These are the kind of people we have been supporting here and every once in a while we see their true colors, just as we saw in Benghazi, just as we saw in other countries where we support jihad terror groups and then we are shocked to find out that they have this really hostile and violent ideology," he added.

"Looking at this video certainly reminds us of what happened to US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya and his whole unit in 2012, when they were executed by the very fanatical forces that the US had brought to life in order to pull down the government of Libya," she told RT.

"None of the forces that the US has armed are called 'moderate forces.' They are contending and competing groups engaged in looting Syria and also with no program for the people of Syria," she said.

Flounders was also critical of the US' foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that Washington "is really trying to spread complete chaos in the region and sectarian divisions."

The United States is unlikely to reduce its military presence in Europe since this is the most efficient instrument to control the continent along with North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, as well as trade routes in the Atlantic worth over $4 billion annualy, political analyst Andrey Koshkin told Radio Sputnik.

"Geopolitical configuration has forced the United States to hold on to Europe like to no other part of the world," he said. "This is what allows Washington to control North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, let alone trade routes across the Atlantic Ocean that yield more than $4 billion per year."

The only way for the US to "keep tabs" on its allies in Europe is to be present in the region, the analyst added. The fact that Washington pays the largest share of NATO's military budget is not enough.

"Physical presence in the countries and joint military drills are the one efficient mechanism that forces Europe to obey the US," he said.
Koshkin further turned to Washington's pivot to Asia. He pointed out that even when the US decreases its military presence somewhere in the world, these cuts do not affect the Pentagon's capabilities in the Asia-Pacific.
"It is highly unlikely that anything will change when the next US president comes to power. This strategy will be expanded to include necessary military installations, financial streams and agreements. This will help to expand NATO to the Asia-Pacific since the rise of Russia and China is a matter of major concern to the US," he said.

No comments: