Justin King | The Anti-Media
Last year, the American government pushed to intervene in Syria by supporting the insurgency against Assad. The US has been sending arms to what the administration calls “moderate rebels” fighting to overthrow the Syrian government. Now the US government is entertaining the idea of hitting the insurgents in Syria with airstrikes as part of a plan to help end the insurgency in Iraq. Image credit: The U.S. Army
The justification for the airstrikes comes from a plan to strike against insurgents in Iraq. As many that opposed the intervention in Syria last year pointed out, the organizations carrying out the insurgency in Iraq are also some of the same organizations participating in the Syrian insurgency that has now been armed by the United States. While the West claims to only be arming the “moderate insurgents,” defections from the Western-back groups to the extreme groups happen time and again. When these groups defect, they take their weapons and training with them.
“not simply going to involve itself in a military action in theabsence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”
That is to say that the United States will only offer the Iraqi government assistance in dealing with the insurgency, largely created by the decade-long US occupation, if the Iraqi government does as it’s told.
The insurgency is fueled by the fact that when the borders for Middle Eastern nations were basically drawn up on a bar napkin by colonial diplomats, the Europeans paid no attention to the people that lived within those borders. The borders were simply drawn up based on geography and the dispersal of natural resources. A country like Iraq, for example, has Kurds, Shia, and Sunni within its borders. Those are just the main religious subdivisions; ethnic divisions also abound in the country.
The West is desperate to find the “good guys” in the Middle Eastern conflicts, even if that means attacking the insurgency it has supported for the last nine months. The need to find “good guys” is a necessary component in selling involvement in a civil war to the American people. The search for a new war to become involved in is a direct desire to feed the defense industries in the United States. After thirteen years of booming wartime profits, the industry doesn’t want to go back to a peacetime footing with smaller profits. After all, it was lobbyists for the defense industry that supported the initial push into Syria and attempted to make the case for war on the nightly news.
The defense industry and US war machine has a serious problem in that it is unable to find a likable “good guy” in the region. When almost all sides to a conflict seek to gain power to oppress another ethnicity or religious group, it is almost impossible to sell the war to an informed population. The only subset that doesn’t seem intent on subjugating the opposition if it were to come to power is the Kurdish minority in Iraq. Unfortunately for the US defense conglomerates, the Kurds have also expressed no interest in fighting a war.
While the push to become involved in the conflicts is mainly a plan of the Democratic Party it is backed by the corporate interests that typically support the Republican Party, and some Republicans are calling for the airstrikes. The American people must realize that just like the fight in Syria, perhaps there is no “good guy” in the fight that occurs on Capitol Hill.
Media note: It should be noted that while many foreign reports state the United States is considering an “air assault” on insurgent positions in Syria, this is a misuse of US military terminology. The United States has not publicly indicated it is considering the use of US ground troops in the engagement. There are also no reports of US Air Assault units being placed on a heightened state of readiness. “Air Assault” in the US military lexicon specifically designates infantry troops deployed by helicopter.