Jeffrey D. Sachs is known for loathing the CIA. Now he accuses Obama of intenisfying "the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion." Then he points out that "the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia," as if they were the perpetrators and that Russia was a victim of their aggression.

Does Sachs know "America's true role in Syria?" He seems exaggerate its "secretive role in the Syrian conflict," suggesting it be the only player that could end "many countries’ reckless actions" there, and urging it to give an "honest accounting" on "who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides." He says Obama has not "kept the US out of the Syrian war," even though he had been widely criticised for taking no action after Assad crossed the "red line" in 2013. Instead he ordered the "CIA to arm /and train/ the Syrian rebels," while "Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments."

What angers Sachs is that the US government doesn't answer questions regarding "How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war?" And the "mainstream media aren’t pursuing them, either," leaving the public "in the dark." It shows that he knows nothing about military and warfare, which are cloaked in secrecy for strategic reasons.

Then he takes Obama to task for not telling the American people the truth - “no US boots on the ground.” Yet now and then, the public learns that there are "US special operations forces" are in Syria, although not "in the front lines," as the Pentagon claims. However the US had warned the Kremlin against attacking "American troops on the ground," when Russia and the Assad regime "recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria." According to Reuters, a deployment of up to 250 Special Forces soldiers in April increased U.S. forces in Syria roughly sixfold. That means there are less than 2,000 American servicemen in Syria. But they serve as advisers, and are not fighting "a two-front war against Assad and ISIS," which he sees as "a cynical and reckless gamble."

He criticises the administration for unilateralism, without allowing the American people to have a say in these decisions, who he is convinced would have said no. The administration shouldn't be abusing the "vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack," that "gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa."

In an earlier commentar on the war in Syria Sachs chided the US and European mainstream media, that condemned Russia’s military intervention in Syria as treacherous and expansionist. He says: "The truth is different. The US is not allowed under the UN Charter to organize an alliance, fund mercenaries, and smuggle heavy weapons to overthrow another country’s government. Russia in this case is reacting, not acting. It is responding to US provocations against its ally."

No doubt "America’s secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter," if it is really a war. Sachs seems to have no idea about the hybrid warfare Russia is conducting. Indeed, Sachs should remain in his ivory tower and stick to economic issues.