US Strategy in Syria
The United States "has reported" about the creation of a broad coalition of countries that have confirmed their readiness to participate in the fight against the armed units of the radical Muslim movement "Islamic state" in Iraq and Syria.
This was declared by the U.S. president Barack Obama, speaking at the 18th session of the UN General Assembly in New York on 24 September. In his speech on the major challenges of our time, the American president set the terrorist threat in the third place after the Ebola outbreak in Africa and "Russian aggression" in Europe.
All of Obama's speech came down to the fact that "we will make sure that Russia will pay for its aggression" and "Russia's recent actions in Ukraine have jeopardized the world order." In the end, he confessed that "the world has become more free and safe..."
According to American Foreign Minister John Kerry, some 60 countries agreed to support the United States in its struggle against "Islamic state". Unspoken agreements on this issue were reached in September in Paris by the foreign ministers of the states interested in rallying the organization of joint countering international terrorism. But by that time the Air Forces of the United States, France and Britain had already been bombing terrorist targets inside Iraq.
Meeting in Paris unleashed Washington to the beginning of air strikes by Air Force and missile attacks by Navy on Syria, whose leadership (unlike Iraq) did not give consent for such actions of the Americans. As of September 26, 2014 16 strokes were delivered on Syrian territory. The French and British have not yet participated in the raids on Syria.
Such actions of the Americans roughly violate international laws - armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states may be exercised only by special decision of the UN Security Council. No other way. However, Obama explains his decision to use weapons in Syria by "the exclusive right of the United States to protect American interests in the region and the fight against terrorism."
At the same time a year ago, thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Russia the so-called "chemical crisis" introduced from outside was settled, and the United States had to temper its martial ardor. And in the current situation, the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Security in August warned Obama about the futility of air strikes on the positions of Islamic militants in Iraq and the danger of a military intervention in Syria.
However, the American president assures the senators of the need for increased aid to "moderate Syrian opposition", which supposedly should be prepared by the U.S. allies to conduct victorious operations against "Islamic state" militants. He demands that government should provide 500 million dollars over three years to be spent on the training of 5,000 soldiers of the Syrian Free Army ("moderate" opposition).
This initiative was extremely ambiguously perceived in the American Senate. And it's not that the costs will allegedly be borne by American taxpayer - the United States has long ceased to take that into account. "We print dollars ourselves, so we expend them themselves" - today it is the main principle of the American ruling the world.
Obama's opponent, Senator John McCain, who can't be suspected of sympathizing with the Syrian authorities, didn't agree with this plan. Moreover, he consistently and always most rigidly supported the Syrian opposition. So, it was he who criticized the American president, in fact accusing him of incompetence.
McCain said that the President's intention to provide the "moderate" militants with half a billion dollars was "a hopeless adventure, as prepared by the Syrian Free Army fighters will still go over to the"Islamic state"and weapons and military equipment supplied to the opposition will fall into the hands of Islamic radicals.
What broad coalition against terrorism is discussed in Washington? Sober-minded politicians, world experts in the field of combating international terrorism and analysts-Arabists persistently warn that success in the struggle against terrorist international, which has become "Islamic state," is possible only with the substantial political, economic and military efforts of the leading states under UN auspices. No other way.
In the American capital, they think differently. The main thing is not a coalition, but the leadership in it. And more - no UN involved! All members of the coalition should be dependent on the United States and only act according to its plans.
Today France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates provide active assistance to Washington's actions in Iraq and Syria. The governments of Belgium and the Netherlands plan to send to the region a squadron of F-16s each in the near future.
It is noteworthy that these countries called for the conduct of "democratic" reforms in the Arab East, actively supported the military coups in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria. They are also a kind of political (and financial - Arab monarchies) sponsors of the creation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL), later renamed to "Islamic state" and transformed into an Islamic caliphate.
By the way, the name of the Islamic caliphate was not chosen by chance. Sunni ruling elite of Saudi Arabia and Qatar created ISIL not only and not so much to remove the Shiite leadership in Syria and Iraq, but to build a Sunni axis from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean with a view to include the North African region. In other words, to recreate the medieval caliphate.
Take into account the fact that at the end of this year, the Pentagon will withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. And what can be expected from the radical Taliban claiming power - Allah knows alone.
However, the monarchies did not expect that the leader of the "Islamic state" Al-Baghdadi (more precisely - the head of "al-Qaeda" Al-Zawahiri) will claim to overthrow the descendants of kings, emirs and sultans. As the saying goes, they slit their own throats.
In Paris, all the participants of the meeting took a unanimous decision to combat financing of the "Islamic state." It would seem an entirely justified strategic course of action. In fact, the United States is going to use this decision to further destruct the economy of Syria, especially. It is believed that Al-Baghdadi has up to $ 3 million per day from Syrian oil contraband sales. Washington has already said that does not exclude the possibility of attacking the oil fields in the area of Qamishli.
At the same time, Obama holds back that Syrian oil terminal pipelines are located on the territory of neighboring Turkey, which controls the dumping sale of Syrian hydrocarbon resources. According to Arab sources, the main buyer of Arab oil is... Israel.
It is also noteworthy that the plans of the "Islamic state" do not include a confrontation with Israel. Or Turkey. These countries, by the way, did not join the anti-terrorist coalition, although only their military and organizational (reconnaissance) capabilities allow to promptly destroy the backbone of the armed forces of Al-Baghdadi in Syria and Iraq.
This begs the question: is it profitable for the United States and its allies to eliminate armed groups of "Islamic state" if they are an effective tool to maintain the controlled chaos and ongoing instability in the Middle East, without threatening the strategic interests of Washington? Obviously, no.
Therefore, the present form of the so-called "anti-terrorist coalition" is aimed at assisting the Islamist international in overthrowing the legitimate authority in Syria and dismembering Iraq into three separate territorial entities in the near future.