Unparalleled Hypocrisy: U.S. Decries Russian Attack on ISIS

The brazen hypocrisy of United States foreign policy has reached epic proportions with U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s recent denunciation of Russian airstrikes against ISIS takfiri militants in Syria as “pouring gasoline on the fire“. Carter also declared that fighting Daesh aka ISIS “without pursuing a political transition only risks a civil war”, as if civil war hasn’t been ravaging the nation of Syria since 2012! Furthermore, he called Russia’s strategy in Syria one of “contradiction” as Secretary of State John Kerry, blindsided by Russian President Vladimir Putin, calls for “de-confliction” talks with Russia.

So what’s with the sudden about-face when it comes to fighting ISIL? After all, for more than a year we’ve been told that it is necessary for the United States to bomb the living daylights out of Syria in order to rid the world and the ‘Middle East’ of Daesh, all while forming a coalition with the very same state actors – Saudi Arabia and Turkey among others – who’ve been providing the funding and training necessary for the terrorist group to capture territory the size of Great Britain in the first place. As if this weren’t contradictory enough, far from achieving the goal of “destroying and degrading” ISIL, the US-led coalition has so far been an utter failure when it comes to fighting the group, demonstrated most visibly by the fact that it has grown three-fold since U.S. airstrikes in Syria began. Certainly part of the reason the U.S. has been such an abysmal failure in this regard is because ISIS has never been the main target of U.S. activity in the region to begin with. The main target has always been and continues to be the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Army. ISIS is just one of several self-proclaimed jihadist groups whose stated goal is to topple the Syrian Arab Republic, the most prominent of which has always been Jahbat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate which has been the main opposition to Assad since the fighting began four years ago. The so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ which the U.S. champions as its proxy has always been at most a weak force and at times appeared to be practicably non-existent. U.S.-trained fighters and U.S.-provided weapons regularly end up firmly in the ISIS or al-Nusra camps. The “moderate” opposition the U.S. claims to support is for all intents and purposes an illusion.

So here we have, on the one hand, the U.S., which condemns Russia for bombing ISIS and al-Nusra militants all the while claiming it has been doing the same thing for the past year (with nothing but chaos to show for it). What the U.S. has been doing can without a doubt be called an assault on a sovereign nation – Syria – which wasn’t even consulted before U.S. airstrikes began. On the other hand there’s Russia, whose intervention I might add was actually called for by the legitimate government of Syria. Russia has taken the fight directly to the takfiri militants and is being condemned by the Americans because of it. Which country is it really then that is actively “pouring gasoline on the fire” and is not only “threatening civil war”, but has time and again fueled it?! Russia, with its direct involvement in the Syrian war, has exposed U.S. foreign policy for the sham it is. President Obama recently stated that “the reason Assad is still in power is because Russia and Iran have supported him.” Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps Russia and Iran, having looked around and seen the absolute state of chaos left in the wake of U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, want to prevent the same thing becoming of Syria.

13 thoughts

  1. Syria turned into planet’s shooting gallery. 11 state army and hundreds of militants and terrorists are at there. After Baath regime, which also you now my Earthling friend Caleb, Suriye tried to stay away Islamic Sharia. But this is Syria, and it is sort of silk road of petroleum. After the disintegration of Iraq, imperialist west wants to create broken Syria, but they know that this wouldn’t be easy. Because of that they used and created Islamic Front which established from many organization against Baath regime. All them is consist of many sectarian. And all them against Baath regime and secularism. When we look at all them lays claim to management.
    One of my Earthling comrade who was borned in Syria said me this proverb one day: “One who gets up early founds a coup d’état first in Syria”. I am seeing this is too much true for last two years.

    1. Another interesting aspect of this is how in the case of both Libya and Syria, both countries’ leaders had decided to cooperate during the 2000’s with the so-called “War on Terror”, even allowing for the CIA to send supposed terror suspects there for “rendition”. Gaddafi and Assad have learned the hard way (much as Saddam did after cooperating with the west in the ’80’s) just how much “respect” cooperation with their enemies earned them from those same enemies, who still sought to overthrow and violently assassinate them in the following decade anyway. I wonder when it will be that the Saudi monarchy faces the same fate?

      1. Thank you for the fitted and right recall, my Earthling friend Caleb. Saddam was the weakest link in this chain, I guess. Of course, Saddam’s Iraq was very different from Gaddafi’s Libya. However, despite Gaddafi knows this very well that, in 2003, behind the signing of the protocol on the prohibition of chemical weapons which was between Libya and America, there was the Gaddafi fear about he could be the target like Saddam.
        The other side, I don’t think so Saudi Arabia monarchists will share the same end. They do have British imperialism behind them. But maybe, 60 years later when the petroleum sources dry up at Arabian peninsula, it can destroy itself with naturally:)

        1. I agree it doesn’t appear very likely or imminent, but history has a way of sometimes striking when you least expect it. True, Saudi has the support of British and US imperialism, but even those aren’t exactly as powerful as they used to be (though they are still certainly quite powerful). Perhaps the brutal war on Yemen and the pushback against the suppressive tactics employed by the monarchy’s proxy in Bahrain will signal the first crack in SA’s seeming invincibility.

Have something to add to the discussion? Tell us how you feel in the comments field below..

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s