Currently, we are planning several political maneuvers that seem counter to our stated beliefs and also counter to our own best interests. For one, we are really pushing on the borders of Russia in a manner that threatens the peace of the whole world. For another, our movements or lack thereof in the middle east seem destined to precipitate very serious regional war. It seems very unlikely that this war would be beneficial to American interests. Based upon history, when have we ever benefited from our ill-conceived middle-eastern adventures?
Al Qaeda has long been considered 'the' enemy having claimed responsibility for attacking us at the World Trade Center in New York. In our battles to 'bring Al Queda to justice, we created ISIS who is now our recognized enemy. But, our relationships with both of our 'enemies', Al Queda and ISIS are 'strange' at the very best.
While ISIS is stated to be the object of our war, our real purpose is to overthrow the Assad regime as well as to solidify US domination over Syria and Iraq (and the entire Middle East). To that end, ISIS who we have declared the 'enemy' gets funding and support to overthrow the Syrian government.
Similarly, the "Houthi militia" is fighting against our enemy Al Qaeda, but we support the Saudi invasion of Yemen against the "Houthi militia" which means that in actual fact we are assisting our 'enemy' Al Qaeda. The New York Times says the Houthi militia “is considered Al Qaeda’s most determined foe.” Meaning, we are working to destroy our enemy's 'most determined' enemy?
So, we are really after Syria while still trying to subdue Iraq.
"'think tanks". These are teams of 'policy advisors' who create documents that direct the debates in congress and in the U.S. media.
The Brookings Institution, one of the "think tanks" has published a document entitled, “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country.” In this document, likely to become U.S. policy, the "think tank" thinks that the best strategy in Syria is to:
The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government.
In simple terms, this says that our goal is to break Syria in to smaller parts that we can more easily control rather than having to fight against a 'strong central government'. Of course, the Brookings Institute doesn't predict any "blow-back" from this line of attack.
It seems that we are both short sighted and have a short attention span. Our goals shift constantly as circumstances change (usually because of 'blow-back' from our own actions) and our targeted 'enemies' shift according to whom is fighting whom.
Truthfully, Israel, Saudi Arabia and, the United States seem to be the real villains.
directly to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Essentially, the terrorists of 9/11 have been identified as Saudis.
And there's us. We've been meddling in the Middle East overtly and covertly seemingly forever. One of our most famous actions was the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 and installation of our 'puppet'.
Plus we followed the lies of President George Bush and invaded Iraq in 2003 'in search of weapons of mass destruction'. The Iraq invasion carried over into Syria where we are seeking another “regime change”.