US President Barack Obama delivered a short speech to the American people on September 10 to lay out his strategy for dealing with the IS terrorist group. He was very direct and spoke in simple terms in order to resonate with as many people as possible. Still, there are some elements of his speech which are purposely vague and, in some cases, misleading. This makes it necessary to decode Obama’s speech in order to expose the regime change and proxy war motivations hidden behind the eloquent syntax.
Beating the War Drums
The first significant point Obama expresses occurs after all of the emotional fluff used to buffer his militant message. He asserts that IS is a threat to Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East; that muchis true. However, he then goes on to say that IS threatens “American citizens [a clear reference to the beheaded journalists who were cavorting with terrorist groups in Syria and were there illegally], personnel [which were only just reintroduced into Iraq in order to combat IS, representing a circular logic] and facilities [which also were just reintroduced near the conflict zone]”. Clearly, Obama is marketing death to beget even more death and his circular logic about US personnel and bases is blatant. He then continues to justify the upcoming war by stating that US and EU citizens fighting with IS could return home and carry out terrorist attacks, thus creating a future precedent for the US to intervene in any conflict zone abroad where its rogue citizens or those of its allies are fighting on the ‘wrong side’.
The Kurdish Component
Once more, the US is justifying its strategic alliance with the Kurds under an anti-terrorist banner. Obama reminded the world that Kurdish forces, as well as Iraqi ones, “reclaimed[ed] key territory” due to US airstrikes in Iraq. The President’s incorporation of Kurdish forces in this statement is puzzling, as no Kurdish territory has ever been taken by IS. In fact, the Kurds actually expanded their territory by nearly 40% through the de-facto incorporation of Kirkuk, which itself was held by Iraqi forces. It could be that the US has intentions to continue to expand the Kurdish Regional Government’s territory past its previous boundaries prior to its upcoming referendum on independence. This would continue the pursuit of another major strategic objective of the US, which is the creation of a new pro-American ‘geopolitical Israel’ in the heart of the Mideast.
Proxy Wars
Per the ‘Lead From Behind’ paradigm first unveiled during the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, the US is helping its “Arab partners in securing their region.” This is a clear indication that the US intends to muster a regional coalition of ‘allies’ besides NATO-allied Turkey (likely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and possibly the new Iraqi government) to militarily involve itself in Syria to varying extents. This comes as Obama follows up on his previous statement by boasting of the United States’ recent soft regime change against former PM Maliki and touting this as the key to creating the international coalition against IS. In fact, it appears ever so likely that Iraqi forces under the new soft-coup government could intervene into Syria. IS therefore, besides using Kurdish proxies to chase IS’s Iraqi forces into Syria’s borders and deeper towards Damascus, the US could likely use Iraq, Turkey, and Jordan’s militaries to further penetrate into the country under an ‘anti-terror’ aegis and to ‘fill the void’ left in certain regions after IS is defeated. This is because the US will never allow the Syrian government to liberate the territories and reestablish control, since the main objective in Syria still remains regime change.
The Invitation to Regional Intervention
Jordan will likely be a key component of this coalition, especially in recent weeks, since it could provide either its own troops or its territory for US special forces to stage military operations to rescue any future hostages taken by terrorists near the Golan Heights. Although the UN Fijian peacekeepers have been released, there is no discounting that a repeat situation will not occur or that it could purposely be staged by terrorists as a provocation of sorts. Foreign intervention under these circumstances could expand well past a simple insertion mission and into a full-fledge military offensive, especially if the Syrian Arab Army rightfully defends its territorial integrity (which is exceptionally important near the capital) against foreign military aggression no matter under what banner it is being waged.
The worst scenario here is a coordinated Jordanian, Turkish, and Iraqi intervention and Ankara can even stage a false-flag IS attack on the Sulieman Shah Tomb in Northern Syria to provoke its ‘legitimate’ intervention into the conflict. Actually, secret recording of Turkish officials alleging such have been online since spring and right before the Turkish parliamentary elections, and their existence is the reason why Erdogan briefly banned Facebook and Youtube during that time. It is also unknown what role America’s main regional ally, Israel, will have throughout all of this.
Opening the Libyan Door to Syria
Obama confidently asserted that the US “will not hesitate to take action against IS in Syria”, thereby officially confirming that the US is on the verge of bombing the country. He then reveals that the US will be training Iraqi and Kurdish fighters (once more, attention should be placed on the Kurdish component) to defeat IS, as well as the training of the ‘moderate’ anti-government forces in Syria. There is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ militant opposition in Syria, since those who are seen as fitting this mold have either defected to IS in droves or, in the case of Steven Sotloff, sold their prisoners to the terrorist group. Both IS and the ‘moderates’ also engage in beheadings, as this post-battle ‘ritual’ by the ‘moderates’ was the only reason why the ‘rebels’ found out who Douglas Artur McCain, the first American killed while fighting for IS, was. Just as in the Libyan scenario, the arming of ‘moderates’ (when there really are none) will result in a complete terrorist takeover a year or two after the legitimate government is overthrown, should this come to pass.
In actuality, this regime change objective is the underlying mission behind the United States’ rush to war in Syria, just as it was in Libya. Obama states that democratically elected President Assad and his government “will never regain the legitimacy it has lost”, despite winning over 88% of the popular vote in June (and this despite the US government prohibiting Syrians in its country from voting). He accuses Assad of “terrorizing [his] people”, when it is he that is commanding the existential war against the terrorists, a struggle which is just as epic for the Syrian people as the Great Patriotic War was for the Soviets. By evoking such aggressive language, Obama is clearly hinting that the ‘anti-terror’ operation may expand itself towards ultimately exploiting the ‘international coalition’ (which is NATO and its regional allies) and getting them to eliminate the ‘terrorizing’ Syrian government, thus completing the regime change cycle that was started back in spring 2011.
The US will thus be clearly repeating the Libyan template by eliminating a stable and legitimate government through the use of a NATO-affiliated coalition of states engaged in a bombing campaign and the use of extreme proxy militants. As should have already been learned in Libya, this is a failed paradigm that only results in more chaos and destruction, not in ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’.
No-Limits Warfare
In the most dangerous message communicated by Obama, he reaffirmed that American combat troops would not be involved, but that’s the only restriction he placed on military activity. Reading between the lines, this means that all other options are on the table, including special forces, heavy bombing, cruise missiles, drone strikes, and so on. Obama strongly suggests that American servicemen will be directly involved in bombing Syria, referring to the “pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East”. Thus, there is no limit to the US’ aggression in this forthcoming war besides not using combat troops, which itself is unwieldy and inappropriate in this instance anyhow.
Concluding Thoughts
The US has made its official sales pitch for the War in Syria and is rapidly moving towards its implementation. Taking advantage of Russia’s preoccupation with the Ukrainian Civil War and its losing end on the strategic initiative vis-à-vis the US, the Pentagon sees a prime window of opportunity for finally actualizing its regime change vision in Syria. It is gathering a coalition of NATO-affiliated states under the banner of ‘anti-terrorism’ to advance its objectives, marketing critics of the war as being on the wrong side of this new ‘war on terror’. Instead of working with the Syrian government, the US wants to topple it, and it is depending on the Kurds, its Syrian proxies, and neighboring pro-NATO states to do this for it, while the US provides strategic air support and utilizes tactical special forces to facilitate this. Time may tell, however, that it is the US and its pro-NATO allies that have been on the wrong side of the Global War on Terror, since everywhere one looks in the Mideast, their actions have only bred more terrorists and failed states.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Sputnik.
