How badly do the neocons and deep state military industrial complex want their major war in the Middle East? The Associated Press reported “The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants, an action that appeared to mark a new escalation of the conflict.”
Is the “Russia threatened our democracy” mantra losing its steam to the point that they have to try to provoke a response or create anti-Russian sentiment in another way, militarily? Is a strike against a sovereign nation defending its own territory acceptable as long as the claim is made that it is part of an anti-terrorist operation? No Americans had been harmed, none of our “freedom fighter” allies in the SDF were targeted. A bomb strike occurred near them, but not striking them, we’re told. Still that is considered sufficient to potentially spark an escalation in the level of tensions. Perhaps a strike on the SDF was next in the cards, perhaps not. Maybe the American leadership was justified in seeing the need to send a message in the manner they did but there are elements of our government, the John McCain types, who are desperate to get us embroiled in another treasury draining, deadly conflict.
The AP wrote, “While the U.S. has said since it began recruiting, training and advising what it calls moderate Syrian opposition forces to fight IS that it would protect them from potential Syrian government retribution, this was the first time it resorted to engaging in air-to-air combat to make good on that promise. The Assad government is right to be wary that those forces will next be used to defeat them. They’ve got four years under Obama plus some mixed signals from the neocons populating the Trump administration to make them anything but trusting. Our leadership has stated on numerous occasions that the Assad government must go. Are they not to take that as an existential threat?
That vow to protect the SDF from potential Syrian government retribution could become an open-ended commitment to intervene in a preventative, defensive role, for as long as necessary to “protect” them after they have taken control of the country. We’ve been protecting South Korea since 1950, and they are in no way a unique situation.
The US-led coalition headquarters in Iraq said in a written statement that “a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian government SU-22 after it dropped bombs near the U.S. partner forces, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. The shootdown happened near Tabqa, a Syrian town in an area that has been a weeks-long focus of fighting against IS militants by the SDF as they surround the city of Raqqa and attempt to retake it from IS.”
They report, “The U.S. military statement said it acted in ‘collective self defense’ of its partner forces and that the U.S. did not seek a fight with the Syrian government or its Russian supporters. A Pentagon statement detailed the events, saying, ‘Pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja’Din, south of Tabqah in northern Syria, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.'” That could be translated as Syrian forces attacked invading anti-government insurgents backed by the United States. It is their country, after all.
Our government describes those defending Syria as pro-regime forces and considers them to be the enemy.
Pentagon reports said, “Coalition aircraft conducted a show of force and stopped the initial pro-regime advance toward the town. Following the pro-Syrian forces attack, the coalition called its Russian counterparts ‘to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing.’ Why is it that those fighting against the SDF are referred to as pro-Syrian. Our government describes those defending Syria as pro-regime forces and treats them as the enemy, effectively making the US the enemy of the Syrian state. Shouldn’t all of those fighting to eliminate the ISIS threat from Syria and elsewhere also be considered pro-Syrian? Does the fact that the qualifier of the current government is inserted expose the true ultimate intentions of our involvement? Is the plan to acquire territory and later unleash the SDF against the Syrian government?Are we already engaged in regime change?
The Pentagon reports that “A few hours later, the Syrian SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters and, “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces,” was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet. They said, “The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat.”
We expected an accident, a mishap of some type would likely be the result of different forces operating within the compacted space of the Syrian conflict. A deliberate shootdown of a Syrian aircraft is an unfortunate development. Defeating ISIS is one thing we can all support. Invading and conquering another nation after having created the ISIS terrorists that we’re using as a pretext for that conquest is quite another.
This shootdown may have been necessary and the appropriate action, but given our track record and the open lust many in power have for the spoils of war, we should be cautious about being manipulated into a war we simply don’t need for the benefit of a few.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.