We are being very quickly drawn into the conflict in Syria, and no one seems to care.

Well, Americans don't care, but everyone else in the world does. They care a lot.



Australia has suspended all air operations over Syria in the wake of US forces downing a Syrian jet and a warning from Russia that US-led coalition planes are now targets for its forces in parts of the country.

The news from Australia, one of the coalition partners fighting ISIS in Syria, was described as a blow for the US, putting it in a "very difficult position" at a critical time as the battle to liberate the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa continues.

One of our closest, most loyal allies took a look around, assessed the situation, and said, "Fuck that sh*t! I'm out of here. Good f*ckin' luck!"

That should tell you something.

Most notably is the details of Russia's warning/threat.



The ministry said in a statement: "All kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets."

That's a no-fly zone!

Russia just declared a no-fly zone in Syria against the U.S.!

And the American media didn't notice, which is just bonkers.

And then hours later, this happened.



A US F-15E fighter jet shot down a pro-Syrian regime drone near At Tanf, Syria, on Monday, two US officials told CNN, the third downing of a pro-regime aircraft this month.

The situation is ratcheting up by the day.

People outside of the U.S. have noticed. What's more, they've noticed that our focus has shifted.



The Syrian army, supported by the Russians, is fighting Isis. I have witnessed this with my own eyes.

But what is America doing attacking first Assad’s air base near Homs, then the regime’s allies near Al-Tanf and now one of Assad’s fighter jets? It seems that Washington is now keener to strike at Assad – and his Iranian supporters inside Syria – than it is to destroy Isis. That would be following Saudi Arabia’s policy, and maybe that’s what the Trump regime wants to do.

On the rare occasion that our news media pays attention to this crisis, it is usually framed in a way that Assad is the one forcing a conflict.

However, there are exceptions to this spin.



“American forces and American allies are not only taking territory from ISIS, they’re holding that territory against regime forces,” David French writes at National Review. “There’s a word for what happens when a foreign power takes and holds territory without the consent of the sovereign state —‘invasion.’ In many ways, current American policy is a lighter-footprint, less ambitious version of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We’re using local allies, but our own boots are on the ground, and we’re directly defending our forces and our allies from threats from Syria’s own government.” In his estimation, “the key warring parties increasingly face a stark choice—agree to a de facto partition of the country or inch toward a great-power conflict.”

Let's recall that there has been no congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria, or even a real debate. Nor has the U.N. approved of our intervention.

Let's also recall what candidate Trump said about war in Syria:

“What I am saying is stay out of Syria… AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

Where did that guy go?