Outrage and criticism are growing across the political spectrum after Obama, contradicting his repeated past pledges not to put U.S. troops in Syria, decided without congressional or constitutional authority to deploy some 50 Special Forces operatives to aid Syrian jihadists. At least one U.S. soldier has already been killed, dying last month in what Obama officials claimed was a raid to free prisoners held by the Islamic State (ISIS). More deaths are likely, as are more troop deployments, according to lawmakers and analysts, potentially setting up a broader war in which the United States could become further ensnared in Syria and beyond. Thanks in large part to the administration's deceit and machinations in recent years, the whole region is likely to end up in flames — a kind of post-Obama Libya on a much larger scale. And Obama's Republican and Democrat enablers in Congress, despite voicing some complaints and concerns, have done practically nothing to stop it.
The official excuse for sending American forces to Syria is to help various jihadist “rebels” battle ISIS. Yet, based on the statements of Obama's own top officials, including Vice President Joe Biden and Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, members of Obama's “anti-ISIS” coalition have been arming, funding, and training ISIS from the start. In fact, in a public speech at Harvard, Biden said the anti-ISIS coalition had essentially created ISIS in the first place — on purpose. Official U.S. intelligence documents later confirmed that. The notion that Obama is sending U.S. troops to battle the Frankenstein creation of its own “anti-ISIS” coalition, then, sounds far-fetched at best. Far more likely is that the real agenda is not being publicly discussed, with ISIS merely serving as the excuse du jour to wage more illegal war.
The administration, of course, also claims that the U.S. military deployment will remain small, supposedly in a mostly advisory capacity along the lines of what got the U.S. government embroiled in Vietnam. Chief White House mouthpiece Josh Earnest even claimed Obama would “not allow the U.S. to be drawn into a sectarian quagmire in Syria.” As he was speaking, though, Obama was in the process of sinking America deeper into the sectarian quagmire that Obama himself helped create and fuel in Syria. “The president believes that by committing a relatively small number of forces, fewer than 50, that they can serve as a force multiplier and further enhance the efforts of these local forces on the ground,” Earnest continued. The “force” that would be “multiplied” by U.S. forces, of course, is a jihadist force, as Obama's own top officials have already acknowledged publicly and as U.S. military documents show conclusively.
Either way, there is no reason to believe anything Earnest or anyone else in the administration has to say about the deployment, the purpose of it, or anything else, really — and there are plenty of reasons not to believe it. As The New American reported this week, Obama decided to lawlessly commit U.S. troops into Syria's civil war after years of repeated promises to not deploy U.S. troops in Syria. Indeed, reporter C. Mitchell Shaw compiled a list of 18 separate instances in which the Obama administration publicly pledged not to deploy U.S. troops in Syria. Instead of keeping its promise and U.S. boots off the ground in Syria, though, the administration announced last week that a contingent of American Special Forces personnel were on the way to help various jihadist groups battle other jihadist groups.
It appears, however, that the administration and its war-mongering allies are having trouble keeping their lies straight on all fronts. For instance, the White House claims it has the authority to deploy U.S. forces in Syria based on an “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001 authorizing military strikes on “al Qaeda and associated forces.” Yet, the Obama administration and various warmongers demanding military action in Syria also claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are at odds with each other. Indeed, disgraced former General David Petraeus, who oversaw the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even called for a U.S. government alliance with al-Qaeda to fight ISIS. Seriously. Official U.S. documents also show that Washington, D.C., has known from the beginning that the Syrian “opposition” was being led by al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist organizations.
Meanwhile, Obama's unconstitutional “regime-change” plot against Libya also discredits the administration's false claim that the AUMF against al-Qaeda authorizes U.S. government support for jihad in Syria. In Libya, retired U.S. military generals and others even concluded that Obama had “switched sides” in the terror war when he backed self-declared al-Qaeda leaders against former U.S. terror-war ally Moammar Gadhafi. In that war, which turned what remains of war-torn Libya into a jihadist paradise mired in ongoing civil war, Obama did not cite the AUMF, instead pointing to an illegitimate United Nations Security Council “resolution” as the source of authority. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even promised to ignore Congress if it tried to stop the illegal war. The U.S. Constitution, of course, requires a declaration of war before the president is authorized to wage war.
Even some congressional Democrats, though, are speaking out against Obama. “It’s hard not to be concerned when the president very clearly ruled out putting troops on the ground in Syria and now they’re on their way into the battle,” explained U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), adding that he expected Obama to deploy even more U.S. troops in Syria going forward. “We’ve crossed a line here that’s hard to understand.” Another Senate Democrat, Tim Kaine of Virginia, echoed those concerns, saying lawmakers were not convinced. The White House's efforts “to say, ‘Don’t worry, this is not ground troops,’ people don’t think that’s credible,” he said. Various Republicans have also slammed Obama's decision. The public, too, is catching on, with a recent Associated Press poll showing that more than 6 in 10 Americans reject Obama's “anti-ISIS” machinations in Syria.
Unsurprisingly, the warmongering Republican neoconservatives in Congress who supported the disastrous U.S. government invasion, “regime change,” and occupation of Iraq were standing fully behind Obama. Some even demanded that Obama deepen his involvement in Syria's civil war even further. “Democrats and a few Republicans have absolutely no clue as to the threat we face,” complained Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports sending even more U.S. troops to the region. “We’re going to get attacked from Syria. That is where the next 9/11 is coming from.” He may be right.
What Graham and his fellow warmongers in Congress failed to mention, though, is that creating a fundamentalist Islamist principality in Syria — known today as ISIS — was official U.S. government policy as far back as 2012, according to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report. Top U.S. officials said they warned against such an absurd and deadly policy, but were overruled by Obama and his cohorts desperate for more war. Graham and his neocon sidekick Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), though, have been cheerleading for Obama's military support to Middle Eastern jihadists for years. McCain even posed for pictures with them. So if it is true that the next terror attack on U.S. soil comes from Syria, the Republican neocon enablers in Congress and the Obama administration will bear a major part of the blame.
But what is the real purpose of Obama's latest scheming in Syria? According to Kremlin-backed media voices, it is about using U.S. troops as “human shields” to protect Obama's anti-government jihadist “rebels” from Vladimir Putin's air power. “The troop dispatch signals that the U.S. [is] trying to forestall Russian successes in wiping out Washington’s regime-change assets in Syria,” wrote analyst Finian Cunningham in a piece published by the Moscow-controlled RT. “In short, the US Special Forces are being used as 'human shields' to curb Russian air strikes against anti-government mercenaries, many of whom are instrumental in Washington’s regime-change objective in Syria.”
Despite Moscow's ostensible support for Assad, however, it appears that the globalist goals in Syria still include deposing the autocratic dictator, eventually — but not before the nation is reduced to rubble, Libya-style, and the genocide of Syria's ancient Christian communities by Western-backed jihadist “rebels” is complete. Also apparently on the globalist agenda: exploiting the Syrian war to flood the West with millions of refugees, empowering the UN and its kangaroo “court,” and imposing a European Union-style “Middle-East Union” pushed by the global-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations.
Hundreds of thousands of innocents are now dead. More are dying every single day. Christians are being exterminated in the cradle of Christianity where they have lived continuously for almost 2000 years. Millions of Syrians have been forced to flee their homes. And much of the responsibility for the tragedy can be traced straight back to the deadly machinations of Obama and his allies.
Congress must take immediate action to rein in the White House, or the growing rivers of blood drenching the Middle East will be on their hands, too.
Photo of President Obama: AP Images