From my Indigenous perspective, this article is discouraging—strikes against the Assad government would not only empower terrorists, but they could also bring the US into conflict with Russia and eventually into a nuclear war!
The plan to maintain a “unipolar US World” has been in effect through several administrations—probably since the end of the last cold war. As you can see, destroying the Assad government is part of that plan.
The US plan refuses to tolerate any country that might become a strategic competitor. Both Russia and China are considered potential strategic competitors. Therefore they need to be neutered. Syria and Hezbollah viewed as providing “strategic depth” to Iran and Russia (maybe even to China). Iran opposed by both Israel and the Sunni Gulf states. Iran is Shia, and Shias are under assault throughout the ME. Israel wants to have freedom of operation over the Golan and Lebanon, but can’t because of Hezbollah.
The US opposes Putin and wants to reduce Russia to a vassal state to exploit its resources. Ongoing efforts to implement these policies have destroyed Syria and drawn Russia and China into a strategic partnership—which may soon include Iran and Turkey. The US administration seems to be on automatic pilot. This attitude is reflected in the aggressive expansion being carried out by NATO in Eastern Europe.
Apparently, these people see no risk to the US—but I see plenty. What if the plan goes awry and Russia and China do not give up? What if NATO crosses a “red line” and triggers a Russian response? These people seem to think the next “war” will be fought somewhere else, perhaps on Russian or Chinese soil—it appears that both countries are determined not to let this happen—again.
The US uses covert means including, “color revolutions” posing as popular uprisings, to overthrow uncooperative governments and thus provide plausible deniability. Both Russia and China have taken measures against this tactic—so will the next step be more direct?
Both China and Russia have highly evolved, aggressive IT capacity and will use cyber war and other means to bring the destruction of war home to the US. There are many ways to do this other than bombs—some of these means are covert. How would you like to wake up without electricity, water, transportation, or food? Maybe it’s time for an honest discussion and perhaps a change in policy?
"Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton’s choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for “limited military strikes” against the Assad regime."
"And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help “moderate” groups against President Bashar al-Assad. (When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of “no more war!”
"Flournoy left her Pentagon position in 2012 and returned to CNAS as Chief Executive Officer. She has been described by ultimate insider journalist David Ignatius of the Washington Post, as being on a “short, short list” for the job Secretary of Defense in a Clinton administration."
"Last month, CNAS published a report of a “Study Group” on military policy in Syria on the eve of the organization’s annual conference. Ostensibly focused on how to defeat the Islamic State, the report recommends new U.S. military actions against the Assad regime."
"It is highly unusual, if not unique, for figures known to be close to a presidential candidate to make public recommendations for new and broader war abroad. The fact that such explicit plans for military strikes against the Assad regime were aired so openly soon after Clinton had clinched the Democratic nomination suggests that Clinton had encouraged Flournoy and Panetta to do so."
"The rationale for doing so is evidently not to strengthen her public support at home but to shape the policy decisions made by the Obama administration and the coalition of external supporters of the armed opposition to Assad."
Now I understand that some relatives believe if you are Indigenous, you are only supposed to reflect on Indigenous issues, but I do not believe this limited point of view, just like a French Person would not accept they can only think about " French" issues!