Washington's chagrin over Syria is compounded because only a few weeks ago, Kerry flew to Moscow to offer a "deal" on joint military cooperation between the US and Russia, allegedly to fight terrorist brigades in Syria. It transpired that what the American deal was really all about was to inveigle Russia's concession for Assad to stand down. That is, for Russia to acquiesce to the American goal of regime change.
Russia was having none of it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated the position that the future of Syria's presidency was a matter for the Syrian people to determine alone, without any external interference.
Then the military offensive embarked on Aleppo by Syrian and Russian forces -- without regard to Washington's concerns for its "moderate rebels"/terror assets -- was a further sign that Moscow was following its own strategic assessment and objectives. To Washington that was a stinging snub.
The Washington Post editorial cited above carried the peeved headline: "Stop trusting Putin on Syria." It was but the latest in a series of tetchy editorials admonishing the Obama administration for "caving in" to Moscow over Syria. One such earlier headline ran: "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria -- again."
Within the Obama administration there appears to be sharp dissent over its perceived failing policy on Syria. The Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and National Intelligence Director James Clapper were opposed to Obama and Kerry's now-redundant gambit to enlist Russia's military cooperation.
Earlier, a list of 51 US diplomats signed a joint letter calling on the Obama administration to step up its military operations in Syria against the Assad government. It is also clear that Obama's would-be Democrat successor in the White House, Hillary Clinton, is surrounded by Pentagon aides pushing for greater American intervention in Syria -- even though that poses a grave risk of confrontation with Russian forces.
Facing mounting criticism for failure in Syria, it seems that the US air strikes on Libya were ordered as some kind of compensation. President Obama reportedly ordered the strikes on the advice of Pentagon chief Ashton Carter. It looks like the Obama administration is trying to fend off accusations of being soft.
Secondly, by ordering air strikes against Islamic State jihadists in Libya's Sirte, that allows Washington to regain the narrative which it has lost to Russia in Syria.
Russia's success in Syria has seriously undermined Washington's claims of waging a war on terror. The last stand of the terror groups in Aleppo -- including militia supported by Washington and its allies -- represents an incriminating moment of truth.
Hence, as the net tightens on Syria's Aleppo, Washington's hand was forced to lash out in Libya, in an attempt to burnish its tarnished claim that it is fighting against Islamist terrorism.
In truth, however, the bigger net seems to be tightening on Washington. World public opinion increasingly understands that terrorism is closely correlated with everywhere Washington engages. The terrorism spawned in Afghanistan and Iraq under US occupation, was grafted onto Libya during NATO's regime-change bombing operation in 2011, which in turn contaminated Syria as part of another regime-change campaign under Obama and his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
For Obama to now revisit Libya with further air strikes due to failure of a criminal policy in Syria -- a failure resulting from Russia's principled intervention -- is simply plumbing the depths of American degeneracy. And the rest of the world can see it.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
5
3
