http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html
While we will be giving weapons and support to the FSA at the same time presumably. A truly remarkable piece of hypocritical contrivance. This is not the first time,nor will it be the last, when the arms trade has managed to sell weapons in this case via the UK government, to all sides in a conflict. Eighteen months ago we were arming a group, which is now called the Islamic State, as well as the Free Syrian Army, and numerous other splinter groups because they were opposing and seeking to remove Bashar al_Assad, a dictatorial President, who we said, who had "lost all credibility and legitimacy" as the leader of Syria. The British and the American governments were desperate (and still are, but that will have to wait as circumstances have now changed), to bomb Syria in support of the "rebels" and hasten the removal of al-Assad. There was even a conference convened in Geneva to talk about a "transition government" in Damascus.
Now it seems that we were wrong or at least the politicians and military establishment would have us believe we were wrong, or is it simply a case of expediency, a commodity in abundant supply amongst politicians both here and in the united States.
Today, Bashar al-Assad in "one of the good guys" and we must join forces with him to defeat the evil Islamic state. It may or may not be that the FSA and the many other "rebel" groups will join this "coalition of the righteous" to bring about the end of the so called Caliphate now stretching across vast parts of Syria and Iraq. Well equipped and well armed with American materiel obtained when the Iraqi army abandoned their positions (and everything else) in Northern Iraq, to add to the arsenal of weapons given to them when they were the good guys two years ago, Islamic State now it seems represent a threat to American and European interests even more dangerous than al-Qa’ida.
Over the past week or two we have heard, almost ad nauseum, the words "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", a phrase going back in history to the 4th century BC, with an English version being introduced in 1884 but made popular more recently by George W Bush and numerous other neoconservatives in connection with Middle East intrigues. The phrase is merely an excuse to justify expedient changes in relationships between hypocritical governments and it is no more true today than it was 2000 years ago.
History has shown us that politicians in "the west" will stoop to any depths to justify their duplicitous actions, particularly when seeking to influence events in the Middle East. The latest round of shifting relationships, spattered as it is with the rhetoric of "Apocalyptic." "End-of-days strategic vision." "Beyond anything we have ever seen." "An imminent threat to every interest we have." "Beyond just a terrorist group." "We must prepare for everything." demonstrates all too clearly that Washington, London and Europe require a new ally in the region to combat the perceived threat. Bashar al-Assad fits the bill. The man who lacked any legitimacy as the leader of Syria, now through some remarkable piece of transformation and expediency, becomes our friend, because our enemy is his enemy. It has yet to be explained whether his enemy becomes our enemy as well. The complications of that scenario are mind boggling, but no doubt the script writers in the Whitehouse, Downing Street and the military establishment could crate an almost credible interpretation should the need ever arise, even though the rest of us will not believe a word of it.
West poised to join forces with Assad in face of Islamic State
 |
| Bashar al-Assad |
While we will be giving weapons and support to the FSA at the same time presumably. A truly remarkable piece of hypocritical contrivance. This is not the first time,nor will it be the last, when the arms trade has managed to sell weapons in this case via the UK government, to all sides in a conflict. Eighteen months ago we were arming a group, which is now called the Islamic State, as well as the Free Syrian Army, and numerous other splinter groups because they were opposing and seeking to remove Bashar al_Assad, a dictatorial President, who we said, who had "lost all credibility and legitimacy" as the leader of Syria. The British and the American governments were desperate (and still are, but that will have to wait as circumstances have now changed), to bomb Syria in support of the "rebels" and hasten the removal of al-Assad. There was even a conference convened in Geneva to talk about a "transition government" in Damascus.
Now it seems that we were wrong or at least the politicians and military establishment would have us believe we were wrong, or is it simply a case of expediency, a commodity in abundant supply amongst politicians both here and in the united States.
Today, Bashar al-Assad in "one of the good guys" and we must join forces with him to defeat the evil Islamic state. It may or may not be that the FSA and the many other "rebel" groups will join this "coalition of the righteous" to bring about the end of the so called Caliphate now stretching across vast parts of Syria and Iraq. Well equipped and well armed with American materiel obtained when the Iraqi army abandoned their positions (and everything else) in Northern Iraq, to add to the arsenal of weapons given to them when they were the good guys two years ago, Islamic State now it seems represent a threat to American and European interests even more dangerous than al-Qa’ida.
Over the past week or two we have heard, almost ad nauseum, the words "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", a phrase going back in history to the 4th century BC, with an English version being introduced in 1884 but made popular more recently by George W Bush and numerous other neoconservatives in connection with Middle East intrigues. The phrase is merely an excuse to justify expedient changes in relationships between hypocritical governments and it is no more true today than it was 2000 years ago.
History has shown us that politicians in "the west" will stoop to any depths to justify their duplicitous actions, particularly when seeking to influence events in the Middle East. The latest round of shifting relationships, spattered as it is with the rhetoric of "Apocalyptic." "End-of-days strategic vision." "Beyond anything we have ever seen." "An imminent threat to every interest we have." "Beyond just a terrorist group." "We must prepare for everything." demonstrates all too clearly that Washington, London and Europe require a new ally in the region to combat the perceived threat. Bashar al-Assad fits the bill. The man who lacked any legitimacy as the leader of Syria, now through some remarkable piece of transformation and expediency, becomes our friend, because our enemy is his enemy. It has yet to be explained whether his enemy becomes our enemy as well. The complications of that scenario are mind boggling, but no doubt the script writers in the Whitehouse, Downing Street and the military establishment could crate an almost credible interpretation should the need ever arise, even though the rest of us will not believe a word of it.
Comments
Post a Comment