US Make-Believe in Syrian War

Official Washington and its mainstream media push deeper and deeper into a Mideast fantasyland where mythical “moderate rebels” in Syria represent a real force rather than a P.R. cover for Sunni jihadists, all the better to bash the Russians for their military offensive, as Gareth Porter explains at Middle East Eye.

By Gareth Porter

The U.S. response to Russia’s new Syrian military campaign in support of the Assad regime has struck a pose of moral superiority by arguing that the Russians have not been targeting the Islamic State but rather the non-ISIS Syrian opposition to the Assad regime.

That U.S. response is superficially accurate but deliberately misleading. Although the Russians are not focusing on targets in ISIS-controlled territory, there is a very good reason: it is not ISIS but the forces aligned with al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra or al-Nusra Front, that pose the most immediate threat to the very existence of the Assad regime.

President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisors to discuss strategy in Syria, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisors to discuss strategy in Syria, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In a series of statements on the Russian military campaign, the U.S. Defense Department has hammered the Russians for not targeting ISIS as Moscow initially claimed – later on the Russian rhetoric shifted to “terrorists.”  The U.S. statements strongly implied that it was the U.S.-backed “moderate” Syrian groups opposed to the Assad regime that are being attacked.

Major news media have taken the same line in covering the Russian offensive. In an Associated Press story on Oct. 13, for example, reporter Ken Delanian described the CIA as supplying “so-called moderate rebels to oppose Assad” for more than two years, along with its “Arab allies” and that American officials “have watched in recent days as the Russian bombs and missiles have targeted those groups.”

Delanian even quoted Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the think tank supporting Israeli interests, who complained that the United States had abandoned its moderate allies. “We’ve aligned ourselves to these guys, we trained them and paid them and sent them off to battle, and when the going gets tough, we’re not there,” said White.

But this framing of the issue fundamentally misrepresents the situation in Syria by conjuring up a non-existent powerful U.S.-backed “moderate” force while diverting attention from the real threat posed by al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise. The Russians are not hitting some imaginary set of “moderate” Syrian armed groups opposing the Assad regime; they are overwhelmingly focused on targeting the military command in which al-Nusra Front is the central strategic force.

The maps pinpointing the locations of the Russian strikes since Sept. 30 published in various newspapers and on the website of the Institute for Study of War – the original source for the other maps  all show very clearly that they are overwhelmingly concentrated in Idlib province, the adjoining Hama province, and areas of Latakia province near Idlib.

But that fact does not take on significance unless it is recalled that the al-Nusra Front – al Qaeda’s franchise in Syria – and the “Army of Conquest” linked to it, unexpectedly took control of Idlib province in a major military offensive in March.

That victory in Idlib was widely reported at the time to be the biggest turning point in the Syrian war in well over two years and to represent by far the most serious challenge to the Assad regime since the beginning of the war. And although a number of smaller commands were involved in the Idlib offensive, al-Nusra Front’s 3,000 troops represented the majority of the forces involved in the fight. And according to a well-informed source, al-Nusra and its close jihadist ally Ahrar al-Sham accounted for 90 percent of the troops.

We now know, moreover, that the Idlib campaign was the direct result of a policy decision by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with U.S. approval, to support the creation of the “Army of Conquest” and provide it with new military hardware that was a crucial factor in that campaign: the TOW anti-tank missile.

Liz Sly of the Washington Post revealed in a story on Oct. 11 that TOW missiles had been delivered to Syrian armed groups under a program coordinated between the CIA and the Saudis. Sly further notes that the CIA-supplied TOW missiles were so important to rebels who made “gains in northwest Syria” that they have called the missile the “Assad Tamer.”

“It is no accident,” Sly reported, “that the first targets of Russian airstrikes in Syria were the locations where rebels armed with TOW missiles have made the most substantial gain and where they most directly threaten Assad’s hold on power.” That is an obvious reference to the forces that took over Idlib province in March.

But Sly never refers to the “Army of Conquest” victory in Idlib or acknowledges that al-Nusra Front was the main benefactor of the CIA program. Her story quotes a proponent of the program, former U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford, as assuring us that the system prevented the missiles from “falling into extremist hands,” and that he was aware of only two TOW missiles having been obtained by al-Nusra.

Sly reported a very different story in March, however, after the dissolution of Harakat Hazm, the main CIA-supported “moderate rebel group” remaining in the north, following its complete defeat by al-Nusra Front. The victorious al-Nusra announced publicly, according to Sly’s report, that it had seized the TOW anti-tank missiles the CIA had supplied to Harakat Hazm when it occupied the group’s headquarters near Aleppo.

Moreover, the Saudis reportedly had ownership of TOW missiles, and they and the Qataris had already been funneling arms to al-Nusra Front, as Vice-President Joe Biden revealed in October 2014.

It is astonishing that at this late date, anyone in the media could still be seriously suggesting that the CIA somehow managed to turn the “moderate” Syrian rebels into a powerful offensive force threatening the Assad regime in the north. Since the Idlib victory, it is generally understood that the primary threat to drive the Assad regime from power comes from al-Nusra Front and the forces allied with it, and not from the Islamic State – and certainly not the mythical “moderate rebels.”

It is easy to understand why the Obama administration is not interested in talking about the role of al-Nusra in the present Syrian political-military situation. According to Sly’s source, the covert operation to provide the TOW missiles to the Army of Conquest was aimed at putting “sufficient pressure on Assad’s forces to persuade him to compromise but not so much that his government would precipitously collapse and leave a dangerous power vacuum.”

The Obama administration strategy on Syria assumed a degree of control that is so obviously unrealistic that it was inherently risky to the point of recklessness. That is why no one in the administration or the news media is discussing the reality that the Russian offensive is targeting the biggest jihadist threat to the Assad regime.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. [This article first appeared at Middle East Eye,]

16 comments for “US Make-Believe in Syrian War

  1. Ellis
    October 25, 2015 at 11:51

    Russia is helping IS. ISIS is benefitting greatly by Russia’s involvement as Russia is killing the people fighting IS, such as the FSA Free Syrian Army, a secular, patriotic, nationalist, democratic group advocating for human rights and civil society and mainly non ideological and non religious, consisting of 60,000 fighters led mostly by defectors from Assad’s regime, including 30,000 from the Southern front and 10,000 CIA trained rebels – forces Russia calls the “healthy opposition.”

    Less than 10% of Russia’s bombs go toward IS or Nusra. A typical day would see only 2 of 57 bombs hit IS. However, 80% of bombs are hitting the FSA. Just as Turkey used IS as a cover story to bomb PKK and YPG and other Kurds, who some consider terrorists and some do not, Assad and Russia use IS as a cover story to bomb Syrian rebel groups, claiming them to be terrorists, while others claim they don’t exist at all. Now Russia wants to work with the FSA, which is a shocking reversal from calling them terrorists the day before. In Russian media, every strike is described as hitting IS, even when IS has no presence for hundreds of kilometers.

    Before Russia’s air campaign began, Assad had been doing air cover for ISIS in Aleppo and now Russia is doing the same. Russia is bombing FSA and moderate rebels from the air as ISIS attacks them on ground with car bombs. So far, one-third of those killed by Russia have been civilians and Russia has bombed many hospitals. Russia is dropping cluster bombs on Syrian civilians that will become unexploded land mines in the future. Russia is de facto allies with IS. IS gains its ground by conquering lands from moderate opposition, not from Assad who IS has almost never fought. IS is now GAINING ground in Aleppo (gaining ground for the first time in many months) and doing better than they ever have in Aleppo due to Russia bombing the only people who are fighting IS!

    Under US bombing, IS has lost 25% of their land including 1,500 towns and villages recovered mainly by Kurds. Usa kills 300 Isis per week and has dropped 7,300 bombs on IS costing $10 million per day and $4 billion per year and $6.5 billion total. Usa coalition has killed 20,000 IS and also thousands of IS buildings and hundreds of IS military vehicles. The opposition to Assad also fights IS and suffers 40% of losses fighting IS. They are the best allies for defeating IS. However, IS has recruited 30,000 from abroad and sometimes converts local Syrians to join IS. Because of these recruits and conversions, the battle can look like a stalemate, but IS is now experiencing net losses due to losses on battlefield to US led coalition and defections.

    Assad had an 18 month truce with IS and Assad buys his oil from IS. Assad primarily kills Syrian civilians like his father who killed 40,000 Syrians in Hama in 1982. The Assads are a family dictatorship like the Kims in North Korea and equally as creepy and evil. During the liberation of Iraq by US led coalition, Assad trained and funded Al Qaeda forces to invade Iraq and kill Americans. 90% of foreign fighters entering Iraq came through Syria. Just as Turkey is accused of allowing foreign fighters into Syria now, it was Syria who channeled foreign fighters into Iraq for many years back then. These same forces have now turned on Assad in karmic justice. Assad released all the jihadists from prison so they would overshadow the democratic opposition to his totalitarian regime. Assad’s goal is to kill all Syrians opposing him leaving only IS. Then he can ask the world to fight IS as Assad and Russia will never fight IS. This strategy is actually typical of Arab strongmen who routinely persecute the democratic, secular and liberal forces most harshly while going easy on Islamists and pointing to their existence and threat as the reason for the authoritarian police state run by the dictator.

    Assad relies on terrorists and foreigners to prop up his regime. Assad was defeated in 2012 before being saved by the terrorist group Hezbollah. Then, in 2013, he was defeated again but was saved by the terrorist nation of Iran. Now Assad, at the point of imminent collapse in 2015 is merely buying a little more time with Russian aid. 8,000 Iraqi Shiite terrorists and 2,000 Afghanistan Shiite terrorists are also joining the 5,000 Hezbollah Lebanese terrorists and 15,000 Iranian terrorists and 3,000 Russians. So Assad is killing Syrians with the help of invasion forces from Iran and Russia. Assad also relies on Syrian Shiite terrorist gangs called Shabiha.

    Assad has murdered over 200,000 Syrians (estimates are as high as 370,000) and over 100,000 civilians and routinely targets hospitals, schools and mosques. Assad killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and thousands of people with poison gas attacks and 6,000 people per year with barrel bombs and Assad has tortured 11,000 people to death including ripping their eyes out. Assad is responsible for 80% of all deaths and 95% of civilian deaths and 97% of deaths of medical workers. Russia is simply engaging in and joining the genocide of Sunnis and the murder of innocent Syrians. Assad has indiscriminately bombed civilian areas with scud missiles and cluster bombs. Assad has used bulldozers to clear out entire neighborhoods considered disloyal to him. Assad has starved entire villages to death in starvation sieges and routinely blocks water and electricity to rebel areas.

    Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine and broke both countries into pieces and stole lands from both countries and now Russia is trying to steal muslim lands as they have so many times in the past. Russia is portraying this as a holy war but they will just attract more jihadists to fight them. Russia is portrayed as infidel invaders and muslims are very eager to fight the crusader invader Russia. Russia was defeated after invading Afghanistan and killing a million muslims there and Russia will be defeated again. TOW missiles are being supplied to rebels in unlimited quantity and stingers and manpads will be supplied after Russia is sufficiently stuck in Syria. Russia may find itself embroiled in wars at multiple fronts if Ukraine and crimea heats back up or if the north Caucasus flare up such as Chechnya.

    Russia will go bankrupt soon. Russia’s economy is decreasing at 5%. Russia has only 350 billion $ in foreign currency reserves. With oil around $40 per barrel and gas prices also halved, Russia’s budget is in shambles and the ruble is nearly worthless. Cruise missiles can cost $1.4 million a piece and russia fired 26 the other day. Some bombs cost $20,000 and others over $100,00. Russia can only afford to drop 20-30 bombs a day and is really already looking for a way out of Syria. They will never fight IS; they just want to kill Assad’s opposition to sign a quick political deal. Poverty is escalating in russia. Russia can only last 3 – 5 months in Syria and would like to be home by Christmas, but will get bogged down in syria for 10 years. Usa is planning for at least another 3 years. Ultimately russia will lose this war which will lead to revolution in Russia, as all military losses do in russia (1905, 1917, 1989). After Afghanistan, USSR was broken into 15 pieces and soon RusSia will be broken into pieces

  2. Dfnslblty
    October 19, 2015 at 17:46

    Please begin naming the participants, l-r, in “situation room” photos and the like, so that citizens might begin conversing with everyone concerned.
    Potus is the marionette; let us know the others behind The Curtain.

    Indict and impeach – top to bottom

  3. Peter Loeb
    October 19, 2015 at 06:11


    “The massive Russo-Syrian offensive now underway has
    completely destroyed foreign plans to neutralize Syria. “—
    Anthony Shaker ( in comment above)

    Mr. Shaker’s other points are well-taken and to the point.

    However, he continues to characterize Russia’s actions
    as “intervention” etc. This is the line of the west. ion denail
    of a decision of the UN of 22 February 2014.

    Instead Russia is implementing the call of the unanimous
    UN Security Council in the resolution cited above
    (S/Res/2139(2014), point # 14. This call was a unanimous
    oneincluding the US).

    No other affirmation of this call was followed by any other
    nation or “the opposition”. Instead of shouting “Assad
    must go!” such a coordinated effort would indeed have
    solved the Syrian problem a year ago. Note that the
    unanimous call of the UN Security Council of February 22
    did NOT call for special coalitions (eg Turkey and others)
    to invade Syria in order to defeat and remove the
    existing Syrian regime.

    Suggestions that the Security Council call was meaningful
    have occasionally been made and immediately considered
    —especially by the US—as totally absurd, “off the

    Obviously Russia has its own motives. It has a base in
    Syria and has had one for years. If my memory is
    near correct the US has similar bases all around
    the world. Turkey is just one example.

    Where has the US been after signing on to the
    resolution cited? Why did they—and all their
    patently illegal (CIA-supported) invasions not
    join to support the Assad regime and the people
    of Syria?

    Certainly we can all come up with regimes which we
    believe need to be changed. Saudi Arabia and
    Zionist Israel are high on my own personal list.
    But those are other issues. Our focus here is
    how Russia was NOT “aggressive” (etc.) but
    on the contrary responding to a unanimous call
    by the international community for action in
    support of the Assad Regime.

    This formulation as well as is reflected in
    analyses of Mr. Shaker and others of the
    depth of the pro-west anti-Russian PR which
    defies the will of international decisions by
    the UN Security Council.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Anthony Shaker
      October 19, 2015 at 10:10

      Mr. Loeb,

      You seem to be confusing my use of the word “intervention” with “interference,” a common mistake. I would not bother with your repeated confusions if you were not suggesting that I am somehow edging toward the non-arguments of the Syrian “opposition,” which we both know is a phantom outfit.

      I certainly didn’t mean “intervention” in a negative sense. But any outside assistance is an intervention. US actions in Syria, on the other hand, are interference, because they occur in a country where it has never been invited at all. Its trail on the terror war in Syria clearly indicates obstruction and cooperation with terrorism. This much has been established without the shadow of a doubt.

      You wrote:
      “Instead Russia is implementing the call of the unanimous
      UN Security Council in the resolution cited above
      (S/Res/2139(2014), point # 14. This call was a unanimous
      oneincluding the US).”

      That’s nonsense. Russia is not claiming this nor does it need a UN mandate to be invited in Syria. It is simply acting in cooperation with the Syrian government. As to its motives, well, it is clearly intent on saving what is left of government institutions in the region, because it is in its interest to do so. But it has not so far been in the interest of the US, which has been on a rampage in the Middle East for the better part of twenty years.

      Russia is helping to clear out foreign Wahhabi terrorists trained and financed by neighboring terrorist states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and further afield, by the United States, which has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism since the Vietnam War. Incidentally, with its current “revolutionary” pretensions, the US is trying to play the role it imagines the USSR played as a superpower on the side of liberation movements.

      If you understood my sense, why confuse matters by criticizing me on such a minor point and suggesting the opposite of my meaning? Your post is confused and requires no rebuttal, but it is not the first time you post messages about my letters, which you repeatedly misunderstand. Are you an expert on the Middle East?

      • Peter Loeb
        October 20, 2015 at 06:01

        NO “NONSENSE”

        Mr. Shaker: I shall be more careful in interpreting your use of terms.

        I wrote:

        “Instead Russia is implementing the call of the unanimous
        UN Security Council in the resolution cited above
        (S/Res/2139(2014), point # 14. This call was a unanimous
        one including the US).”

        This is certainly far from “nonsense”. There is (to update
        this) no need for any discussions etc. on a “solution”
        to the so-called Syrian “crisis”. We have been there,
        done that. The UN Security Council passed the resolution
        cited above to which there was no veto. NONE.

        The resolution was not covered in the US and as I
        observed was never recognized in public discourse.

        The so-called “international community” having made
        a decision in February of 2014, no nation implemented it.

        Incidentally, if any of the hundreds of US bases around the
        planet were to be in harms way, I have no doubt that
        Washington would see it as “in their interest” to
        respond. They would not in all probability endorse
        any covert invasions intended to remove the government
        with which they have a (SOFA) agreement.

        I would respectfully suggest that if “intervention” and
        “interference” are confused, you might seek another
        way of communicating this.

        As to Russia’s motives, I see nothing wrong at all
        with supporting Syria. Certainly the US does not
        ever hesitate to support its “allies” including
        provision of weapons etc. to continue the Palestinian
        extermination programs etc.

        On many points we are in agreement.

        I appreciate your respect and attention to my comments.

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

        • Peter Loeb
          October 20, 2015 at 06:39


          To Mr. Shaker: I remember that Russia DID claim international
          law as well as the invitation of the Syrian Regime as justifications
          for its actions in Syria.

          This would most probably be in a comment in Consortiumnews.
          It could well have been elsewhere. It was included in a statement
          by Russia of reasons for its actions, a kind of challenge as
          the US/West has neither.

          Since I am quite uncrertain where I got this information, I am
          reluctant refer to it as “fact”.

          In 2014 I thought that Russia had indeed performed a great
          service in drafting and passing unanimously a resolution
          which all could approve including Syria which has no
          formal role on the Security Council (as a member). Its
          agreement would have been crucial as it was in the
          discussion at the Security Council and the resolution of
          any suspicions of possible Syrian use of such gas.
          (According to Consortium this attack by the west may
          not itself have a factual basis but continues to be used by
          the west no matter what the realities may be.)

          If you find the citation about Russian reference to
          international law, please note it in a future comment.

          With appreciation,

          —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  4. Anthony Shaker
    October 17, 2015 at 11:04

    This is an accurate portrayal of the current situation. But it should not be forgotten that the factor that tilted the military standoff in Idlib in the terrorists’ favor was not simply technological–i.e., TOW missiles and whatnot–but, perhaps most importantly, the direct assistance provided by neighboring Turkey in logistics, communications and, still under-reported in the media, Turkish military personnel, mostly advisors. This is what brought the real force on the ground in that crucial province, Nusrah Front, under cover of the phantom “moderates,” to focus their efforts.

    In addition, Turkey has been sending thousands of well-trained ethnic Turkmen and Turkish nationals to a variety of Wahhabi terrorist outfits in Syria. This is besides the autonomous groups it has set up that are answerable only to Turkey. All that is the product of a newfound “spirit of cooperation” that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel have found in pursuing this slaughter until the Syrian government is utterly destroyed. They are afraid of where in this strategic maze they will be left if the government survives.

    God knows what they were contemplating as a replacement for the Syrian government before Russia’s intervention. The massive Russo-Syrian offensive now underway has completely destroyed foreign plans to neutralize Syria. The “bigger plan” had been to divide the Middle East into new zones of influence under Israeli dictates in Palestine and Saudi-Turkish dictates in the rest. The map was being redrawn anyway, with or without ISIL’s apocalyptic denunciation of the division of the region since Sykes-Picot.

    But Saudi Arabia has a further interest in Syria: it is seeking to build a oil pipeline to Europe, reportedly “in less than a year.” The idea is to bump off the Russian oil from the EU market in order to keep bot Russia and Iran away from the playground. The Saudis never forgot that years ago Russia managed to replace them as the main supplier of oil to EU. They are itching, with the US, to obliterate the Russian economy.

    Such a plan would work if oil were the only factor in their enemies’ calculus, or if oil were the only variable in the Russian and Iranian political economies,which it is most definitely not.

    This is a big game and everything is interconnected, but it is a game of desperation on the part of the Atlantic states and its local proxies. The Postwar world is long gone, and nothing will return the alliance’s last cavalry during WWI (the US) to world dominance.

    Ironic how it is Turkey, Saudi Arabia and now Israel that are teetering, while Iran remains an island of stability. Pres. Carter discovered just what it means to mess with Iran during his funny caper in the desert, with helicopters burning prominently on every TV screen in the US. In hindsight, Obama did the only sensible thing by signing the nuclear deal with Iran. The consequences otherwise would probably have been catastrophic for the United States’s presence in the region. Its last foothold is the Wahhabized Gulf “Arabs,” Israel’s only “friends” after 70 years of existence.

  5. Peter Loeb
    October 17, 2015 at 05:42


    Your insights are always most welcome.

    Recently I submitted to Consortiumnews the
    following comment:

    Peter Loeb
    October 15, 2015 at 7:28 am


    On February 22 the US voted UNANIMOUSLY with all other
    Members of the UN Security Council against “regime change”
    which is, in any case, against international law.

    The specific resolution is S/Res/2139(2014)

    The words cited are in point # 14 (page 4 of the document):

    “14. Strongly condemns the increased terrorist attacks resulting
    in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by organizations
    and individuals associated with Al-Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist
    groups, urges the opposition groups to maintain their rejection
    of these organizations and individuals which are responsible for serious
    violations of international humanitarian law in opposition held areas,
    calls upon the Syrian authorities and opposition groups to commit to
    combating and defeating organizations and individuals associated
    with Al-Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist groups, demands
    that all foreign fighters immediately withdraw from Syria, and reaffirms
    that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the
    most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any
    acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their
    motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed;..”

    The above citation would include al-Nusra. It would also include any other
    rebels COVERTLY backed by the US and any and all other members of
    any coalition operating OUTSIDE the bounds, processes and procedures
    of established international law. (This is as we all know is the common
    procedure of the US and its friends (“allies”) sometimes mistakenly referred
    to as “the international community” by Washington. Of course, it is anything

    Clearly the above which presumes the sovereignty of the current regime
    of Syria (Bashir Assad) contradicts all bases of current Washington
    policies. It nowhere alludes to “Bashir Assad must go”!

    Washington consequently and quickly threw this unanimous agreement
    by “the international community”—an agreement which they had signed—
    down George Orwell’s “memory hole.” It was not mentioned in public
    discourse, almost never referred to by Washington and mainstream

    Within days, Washington once again claimed that “Bashir must go” as
    though they had never signed the UN Security Council agreement
    cited (in part) above.Washington always thinks it represents
    “the international community” and evidently no one else. The UN
    was designed by Washington with a veto which they presumed would
    always be in Washington’s control.

    FDR insisted on adding China as a big power with a veto on the
    basis that the nationalist Chinese government (Chiang Kai-chek’s KMT)
    would always side with Washington against “them” aka the Russians.

    Churchill called this “a farce” and referred to China as a “faggot
    veto” (it was 1943).In working out the structure of the UN the UK
    supported Stalin’s demand for an “absolute” veto.

    Evidently Washington did not then consider the possibility that China
    would be victorious as a communist nation albeit following different
    principles than Russia’s Leninist ones.(The design was being
    worked on in 1943 while the Chinese Communist victory would not
    come until 1949.)

    Despite his politically incorrect expression, Churchill was protecting
    the UK’s interests which were being erroded by its debt to
    Washington during WW Two. (Information from Gabrial Kolko’s

    Just being common sensical instead of legalistic, it clearly is
    absurd to expect a nation to distinguish a weak “coalition” which
    claims it is fighting the very existence of a nation which is a
    SOVERIGN Member of the United Nations. As Robert Parry
    and others at Consortium have pointed out, the fact that
    such so-called “moderates” even exist or ever existed beyond
    a CIA figleaf is open to serious question. The UN resolution
    refers ONLY to Al-Queda and its affiliates. And to those who
    should be fighting them—the so-called “moderates” if they
    exist, do not seem to be doing that..

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    It is my hope that my comment can contribute some
    comprehension of events that have transpired in
    Syria since.—PL

  6. Greg
    October 16, 2015 at 17:04

    Of course the mainstream US media is not mentioning the fact that the U.S. is allying itself with Al Qeada and other terrorist groups. After 15 years of trumpeting our every bomb, bullet, and wedding party blown up and national sovereign border violated as justified because “we are at war with the terrorists!” to now suddenly have to tell the world that we are actually SIDING with the very group that killed 3000 Americans on 9/11???? Even the spin-meisters in Washington would have a difficult time getting the American sheeple – stupid as they are – to be cool with that truth.

  7. October 16, 2015 at 15:57

    what goes entirely unreported by all, is that anyone of those groups of wahabist, takfiri, daesh, isil, isis, or nusra, sham, whatever they wish to be called, will organize a bloody holocaust of any people not “sunni enough” for them. even secular sunni muslims would be killed in their wake.
    these are individuals bent on genocide, this must be more fervently reported.

    • Kiza
      October 16, 2015 at 22:17

      This is why they are the true terrorists, not what the Government-Media establishment calls terrorists. But they are “our SOBs, not someone else’s SOBs”, therefore they are “moderate” no matter how mean and crazy they are.

  8. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 15:06

    The Syrian conflict is profoundly misrepresented across the entirety of the Western press.

    To call it a civil war is a gross mischaracterization. The entire conflict was engineered and fueled from beyond Syria’s borders. And while there are a significant number of Syrians collaborating with this criminal conspiracy, the principle agents driving the conflict are foreigners. They include special interests in the United States, across the Atlantic in Europe, and regional players including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.

    Syria is far from an isolated conflict. America’s interest in dividing and destroying Syria is part of a much larger agenda serving its aspirations both in the region and globally. The division and destruction of Syria as a functioning, sovereign nation-state is admittedly meant to set the stage for the conquest of Iran next.


    Understanding the premeditated nature of the West’s war on Syria and the fact that this current conflict serves only as a stepping stone toward a well-defined strategy to next destroy Iran explains why “partnering” with the US in any kind of solution regarding Syria is an impossibility. A “political settlement” that results in the division of Syria or the removal of the current government is also entirely unacceptable for this same reason.

    Russia’s decision to defend the sovereign government of Syria and assist in the elimination of Syria’s enemies within its borders, as well as the warding off of its enemies beyond them is the most immediate course of action to “solve Syria.” Inviting Iran and even China to take take part in a larger campaign to secure Syria’s borders and assisting in the restoration of order within the country is a concrete next step. Expanding this coalition to cover Iraq next will create a geopolitical “no-meddling-zone” the West will find itself outside of.

    However, ultimately, it is Russia’s concept of a multipolar world displacing the unipolar international order established by the West – an order that breeds servile dependency among all drawn into it and which seeks to destroy all who try to avoid it – that stands the best chance of not only “solving Syria,” but preventing other nations from suffering its fate. Multipolarism aims straight at the source of Western global hegemony – at the corporate-financier, political, and institutional monopolies which prop it up. Multipolarism emphasizes national sovereignty and a decentralized global balance of power.

    Multipolarism Solves Syria at the Source
    By Tony Cartalucci

  9. paul
    October 16, 2015 at 14:55

    GREAT piece
    O-barmy Obama oblab-dee oblah-dah life goes on…lah lah lah life goes on…
    this is the weakest argument from the Obama since dis-information was invented…

    • Joe 'Ringo' Tedesky
      October 16, 2015 at 16:31

      okay Paul, here’s the song list:

      “Back in the USSR” – Putin
      “We can work it out” – Assad
      “Nowhere Man” – Obama

      now, on four Paul….Ringo

  10. Tom Welsh
    October 16, 2015 at 12:07

    “The Obama administration strategy on Syria assumed a degree of control that is so obviously unrealistic that it was inherently risky to the point of recklessness”.

    Sounds like a typical CIA operation.

  11. Tom Welsh
    October 16, 2015 at 12:06

    “Liz Sly of the Washington Post…”

    What a great name for a journalist of that somewhat slimy and selective “news” organ.

Comments are closed.