Warplanes Are Dropping Firecrackers
Over the last few days, coalition planes have shelled Islamic State targets. At the same time, the American administration and its intelligence apparatus have issued statements pointing to the origin of this organization and those supporting its expansion and proliferation in the past.
Naturally, the busy world in the supposed heat of battle couldn’t exactly halt the general Western narrative before those statements were issued, despite the certainty of what it will do to follow up on them.
Theoretically, up to now, American and coalition raids haven’t achieved their prospective goals. The Islamic State group continues to be strong on the ground, expanding and threatening villages and cities — some of which they don’t even occupy — imposing greater control.
So what is happening? Are coalition planes dropping firecrackers? What is happening among the allies? Or is there a Western political agreement planning what to do in order to accomplish its goal?
In the meantime, statements are bandied about regarding the necessity of risking ground forces in battle, while holding meetings overseas to this end. This coincides with French-Turkish statements, consistent with the importance of imposing a buffer zone in Syria. Iranian-Russian statements refused these ideas outright, considering any movement of this type as occupation, and outside the scope of international legitimacy. The matter needs a decision from the general council because the American administration and its Western allies taught us that we cannot trust what they say or do. Hence, it is our right to use hundreds of question and exclamation marks in the face of what is happening.
Our question is about the real goal that is currently behind the scenes, and the seriousness of the airstrikes in terminating and minimizing the Islamic State group threat. Was the Islamic State group simply a declared target in order to hide other, undeclared objectives, the most important of which being the coalition's arrival in the buffer zone within the body of the Syrian state under the guise of fighting terrorism and extremism? The impact of which would lead to the partition of Syria and Iraq and the cutting off of vital supplies moving towards Lebanon, where there is Hezbollah, thus removing the danger to Israel?
Let us recall that memory that continues to work. Western powers have been silent about ideological terrorist organizations, and the allied states turned a blind eye to the influx of militants into Iraq and Syria. However, the terrorists in Iraq and Syria didn’t drop out of the sky; rather, they came through the border in the hope that they would create structural balance and outweigh circumstances on the ground, ending the rule of the Syrian regime. Without this in mind, the battles will drag on and militancy will increase.
Of course, the allies didn’t understand the regime’s intention for three years; the Syrian regime appears to be holding onto its strongholds and building a rooted state by enhancing its strength, despite its losses on the ground. The regime is still intact and sometimes capable of shocking the heart of the conflict. The story is not an indictment of the Syrian regime’s actions, or to condemn or support what it is doing. The current situation is deeper and more comprehensive than that; it laid the ground for militants in Iraq and Syria. Any talk of human rights, freedom and a civil state, to change the system in favor of a democratic system, becomes useless. As evident from the title, we don’t believe that the slaughter and destruction represent a democratic model.
Today, the issue is different. The equation has become clear. It is expressed in individual statements, coming from here and there. Today the fear is of a repetition of the Libya experience, and dragging the region, the whole region, into a Western plot which ends in re-partition and the creation of Arab nanny states, which have no economic or political effect.
Naturally, the busy world in the supposed heat of battle couldn’t exactly halt the general Western narrative before those statements were issued, despite the certainty of what it will do to follow up on them.
Theoretically, up to now, American and coalition raids haven’t achieved their prospective goals. The Islamic State group continues to be strong on the ground, expanding and threatening villages and cities — some of which they don’t even occupy — imposing greater control.
So what is happening? Are coalition planes dropping firecrackers? What is happening among the allies? Or is there a Western political agreement planning what to do in order to accomplish its goal?
In the meantime, statements are bandied about regarding the necessity of risking ground forces in battle, while holding meetings overseas to this end. This coincides with French-Turkish statements, consistent with the importance of imposing a buffer zone in Syria. Iranian-Russian statements refused these ideas outright, considering any movement of this type as occupation, and outside the scope of international legitimacy. The matter needs a decision from the general council because the American administration and its Western allies taught us that we cannot trust what they say or do. Hence, it is our right to use hundreds of question and exclamation marks in the face of what is happening.
Our question is about the real goal that is currently behind the scenes, and the seriousness of the airstrikes in terminating and minimizing the Islamic State group threat. Was the Islamic State group simply a declared target in order to hide other, undeclared objectives, the most important of which being the coalition's arrival in the buffer zone within the body of the Syrian state under the guise of fighting terrorism and extremism? The impact of which would lead to the partition of Syria and Iraq and the cutting off of vital supplies moving towards Lebanon, where there is Hezbollah, thus removing the danger to Israel?
Let us recall that memory that continues to work. Western powers have been silent about ideological terrorist organizations, and the allied states turned a blind eye to the influx of militants into Iraq and Syria. However, the terrorists in Iraq and Syria didn’t drop out of the sky; rather, they came through the border in the hope that they would create structural balance and outweigh circumstances on the ground, ending the rule of the Syrian regime. Without this in mind, the battles will drag on and militancy will increase.
Of course, the allies didn’t understand the regime’s intention for three years; the Syrian regime appears to be holding onto its strongholds and building a rooted state by enhancing its strength, despite its losses on the ground. The regime is still intact and sometimes capable of shocking the heart of the conflict. The story is not an indictment of the Syrian regime’s actions, or to condemn or support what it is doing. The current situation is deeper and more comprehensive than that; it laid the ground for militants in Iraq and Syria. Any talk of human rights, freedom and a civil state, to change the system in favor of a democratic system, becomes useless. As evident from the title, we don’t believe that the slaughter and destruction represent a democratic model.
Today, the issue is different. The equation has become clear. It is expressed in individual statements, coming from here and there. Today the fear is of a repetition of the Libya experience, and dragging the region, the whole region, into a Western plot which ends in re-partition and the creation of Arab nanny states, which have no economic or political effect.