Absurdity beyond comprehension.

Washington supported the Free Syria rebels who aligned themselves with the terrorist group called Al-Nusra to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad,

Then the Syrian rebels and other groups in Iraq form another terrorist organization who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).



The consequences of Washington’s policies of aiding the Syrian rebels including ISIS have served a purpose. ISIS has spread to both Syria and Iraq gaining territory. ISIS has claimed it has executed 250 Syrian soldiers last weekend as they seized an airbase in the province of Raqqa.

Washington considers the advancement of ISIS a threat to its national security. As reported by the Associated Press, US surveillance planes were already deployed to pinpoint specific targets. The article titled ‘US surveillance planes fly over Syria, officials say’ stated that

“Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.”

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey did not comment on surveillance flights currently in use but did say that “Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture,” said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. “The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have … some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward.” Obama’s rationale is that ISIS is a direct threat to American citizens after the public execution of photojournalist James Foley. Republicans are willing to give the Obama administration an authorization to take military action against ISIS in Syrian territory. Historically, Both Republicans and Democrats have always agreed on foreign policy issues, especially when war is on the agenda:

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday the administration “has not yet shared with us what their plans are.” He said he hoped the White House would go to the Congress with a request for an authorization to act. “I think it’s our responsibility as elected officials to let the American people know where we stand with respect to national security matters,” Corker told MSNBC. “For the American people’s sake, Congress should weigh in. Congress should be a part of it”

Rest assured, Congress would vote for military action against Syria. They have an agenda that is multi faceted. First, it supports weapon’s manufacturers such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in a time of war. An online guide to campaign contributions that influence politicians’ called opensecrets.org states that there were 227 Republicans and 188 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 49 Democrats and 40 Republicans that received funding from the defense industry. Second, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has an interest in removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of his diplomatic relations with several of Israel’s enemies including Iran.

Washington also has a keen interest of having a military presence in the Middle East to control the natural resources including oil and gas. Washington and its corporate partners want its military to stay in the Middle East for the long term. By supporting Israel (a U.S. watchdog in the region) and having their military bases in key areas in close proximity to oil producing facilities, it would guarantee the import of natural resources into US and European markets. China would then have limited capacity to obtain natural resources it needs for its economy. Now Washington’s favorite enemy, ISIS is in the picture. The Obama administration will obviously use this crisis as a way to prepare US forces for a future “blitzkrieg” against Assad’s forces. According to the Daily Beast, A mainstream media online news source stated the following:

One former senior U.S. diplomat who has consulted with the administration on the ISIS threat told The Daily Beast that he would expect Obama to be presented with an option similar to Vice President Joe Biden’s favored policy from 2010 for Afghanistan known then as counter-terrorism plus. This kind of approach would be a drone and air campaign against ISIS targets in Syria. The United States has conducted drone and airstrikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. But in all of these cases the host government has requested them. This week, Syria’s foreign minister warned the United States not to enter Syrian air space

According to the Associated Press, Obama is concerned that if he orders airstrikes against ISIS, it would weaken the US position to topple the Assad government, because on the international stage it would solidify the fact that the U.S. and Syria has partnered to take out a common enemy “Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

But it would also become an act of aggression on Syrian territory. The Obama administration has publically stated that it would not ask the Syrian government for permission to enter its air space. Why? Maybe Washington wants to raise tensions with the Assad government? “A top Syrian official said Monday any U.S. airstrikes without consent from Syria would be considered an aggression” the AP report said. It also stated the fact that “The Islamic State is among the groups seeking Assad’s ouster, along with rebel forces aided by the U.S.” So ISIS and the U.S. government has a common enemy?

Now let get this straight. Originally the Obama administration has repeatedly called for the removal of the Assad government. The Obama administration has consistently supported the Syrian rebels to remove Assad, but has failed because the Syrian government defeated the Western backed Free Syrian Army (FSA). Another question is why would the Syrian government allow the US to battle ISIS on its territory? Syria is more than capable of defeating ISIS as it did with the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration will not ask the Assad government for permission to launch airstrikes in Syria. Now let’s see who the enemies of all parties involved are. First, the U.S. Government’s enemy is clearly the Assad government who was recently re-elected by a majority of the people. ISIS is an enemy of the U.S. and the U.S. is an enemy of ISIS, especially after the brutal beheading of James Foley made it somewhat clear. Syria’s enemy is the U.S. government who has destabilized many areas of Syria resulting in the deaths of at least 160,000 people. The US has aided the FSA which resulted in the creation of Al-Nusra and ISIS, all considered enemies of Syria. Now all terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and Syria are supposedly enemies of each other. Lebanon’s Daily Star reported this past May that:

Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have in recent months fought intense, bloody battles against each other, particularly in eastern Syria on the border with Iraq. “We will follow the orders of… Ayman al-Zawahiri… to stop any attack from our side against ISIS, while continuing to respond whenever they attack Muslims and all that is sacred to them,” Al-Nusra said in a statement.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is hard to comprehend. Syria is the enemy of the U.S. government and its terrorist organizations it has supported over the years. In this case, who is the enemy and who is the friend? The U.S. does not have a real friend in this fight because it already has what it wants, instability. All parties are expendable as we clearly seen with U.S. airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq. Washington has friends in the Middle East, and that is Israel and the Gulf state dictatorships. Syria is back in the spotlight. Washington is determined to oust the Assad government and create a fragmented state as they did to Libya. By supporting Israel and its Gulf states allies including Turkey and Jordan militarily and economically, U.S. interests would be secure. In a sense, it is order out of chaos.