The State Department has issued a statement today declaring itself officially “appalled” at yesterday’s Syrian airstrikes against a rebel suburb of Damascus, accusing the Syrian military of deliberately targeting civilians in the attack.
The Syrian military reported the strikes to have targeted local fighters in a town under control of al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front. One of the strikes hit a mosque, however, killing several civilians within, including children.
Nusra isn’t a party to the ongoing Syrian ceasefire, and is free to be targeted by everyone. This has complicated the ceasefire, as many rebel groups who are party to the ceasefire are closely aligned with Nusra, often putting them in the line of fire.
The US has mostly responded to incidents involving Nusra by condemning the Syrian military for targeting them, though again such strikes are not covered by the ceasefire, and while it’s not always clear what Nusra controls, there appears to be little doubt they are present in Eastern Ghouta.
Collateral damage is acceptable “worth it” when the US is bombing/droning. On DemocracyNow! yesterday, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, reported, “What’s less known and less understood, and what the U.S. government has
been very deliberately vague about, is that the U.S. is actually sitting
in the Riyadh Command Center providing targeting assistance—this is
what they’ve told us—as well as providing refueling for aircraft. Now,
the targeting assistance, it is what’s most problematic, because we
don’t know whether they’re providing targeting assistance on a
strike-by-strike basis, whether they’re just reviewing the strike lists,
whether they’re actually telling the Saudis what they should strike.
And that is what we are asking the United States to come clean about. We
want to know exactly which strikes the U.S. government has provided
assistance for.”
Of course, it’s well know that many of the Saudi airstrikes have killed large numbers of civilians.
But surely, Empire expansion is in
direct proportion to Empire brutality.
Rarely talked about–7 middle east countries to be destroyed for the security of Israel Memo to Bill Clinton 1996. Washington does not give up–one remains Iran.
Two remain. Syria and Iran. Obama made his red line speech, Putin and Obama cooperated on the deal, and Assad met the demands. What is still most likely is that Putin and Obama colluded in cheating the US out of it’s planned war.
No problem, only a small delay and Clinton will get it all in gear soon! The problem is, 8 years of the most antiwar president your country will ever have slipped by without antiwar.com noticing.
luv from Canada.
Assad didn’t cross a “red line”. The Turks, who are the bankers of the terrorists, conducted that false flag operation.
Of course Assad didn’t cross Obama’s red line. So I’ll assume you understand the issue and tell you again that Obama and Putin most likely colluded with each other in setting the stage for stealing any legitimacy the US had for a war on Assad’s Syria. Hoping you can understand that. Assad was offered an opportunity to comply and he did. Big mistake on the part of the US. Saddam didn’t have that opportunity and there was absolutely nothing he could do to stop the US war. Nothing!
Let’s put it this way. No matter how much Americans hate Obama, it’s almost a certainty that any other president would have done Syria and Iran by now. The next one will and it’s not necessary to know who it will be.
If Obama were antiwar, Qaddafi would still be the President of Libya, and Libya would sill have the highest standard of living in Africa. Also, Obama was chomping at the bit to attack Syria in 2013. It wasn’t any antiwar bias of his that held him back, but a vote of the UK Parliament, the mysterious disappearance over the Mediterranean of a cruise missile bound for Syria and the objections of his own military that stopped him. The overwhelming opposition of the war-weary American public? Not so much, though we’d like to think so.
Being only 20 years old, Antiwar.com wasn’t around to notice or not notice the most antiwar president our country has ever had — that would probably have been John Quincy Adams — but presumably we’ll notice if one more antiwar than Adams comes along any time soon.
I couldn’t find that. Could you provide a link to the memo. Thanks.
So, the State Dept is “appalled” at Syrian airstrikes (against those who would overthrow the legal government) but not against what the Saudis (with US support) in Yemen. OK…
This is a laugh, the State Department is “appalled” at the Syrian military for the airstrikes that they say are deliberately targeting civilians in the attack. What about Saudi Arabia not once but the entire air campaign against Yemen deliberately targeting civilians???? And worse, we are actually participating in them.
Not only participating, but present in the targeting center in Riyadh. (See my quote above of Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, from http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/1/human_rights_advocates_us_backed_saudi )