Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 01, 2014

Syria: New Hints Of A Changing U.S. Position

Here are some remarkable media mentions of Syria.

From RAND, the Pentagon think tank, on Alternative Futures for Syria.

Among the Key Findings:

Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests.
It is regime victory that now appears to be most likely in the near to mid-term, due to the confluence of military and political factors favoring pro-Assad forces.

An Associated Press reporter visits the Latakia area and talks to the people who are all staunch supporter of the Syrian government: Syria's Alawites pay heavy price as they bury sons.

The piece includes this fact that has been true since the fighting in Syria started:

Syria's army represents the sectarian makeup of the country: it is largely Sunni Muslim, fighting mostly Sunni Muslim rebels.

This was so far hardly ever mentioned in "western" media" which was thereby propagandizing sectarianism and further war.

Another remark that does not fit the usual picture. Some people protest against President Assad not because he is fighting against the insurgents but because he is not waging enough war:

"If anything, their critique of Bashar is that he is too weak, so they would rather have a hard-line guy in power," said the aid worker, who requested anonymity because he wasn't meant to speak to reporters.

Also remarkable. Who does the U.S. trust to have the best intelligence to fight the Islamic State? Syria of course. But as official collaboration is not (yet) allowed, the arrangement is covered up as espionage: U.S. Spying on Syria Yields Bonus: Intelligence on Islamic State:

U.S. Spies Have Been Tapping the Communications of President Bashar al-Assad’s Regime for Information on Islamic State Militants

I am sure that the U.S. could not listen to Syria government communication about IS, and would not make the fact that it can public, if the Syrian (and Russian) government would not want them to.

The U.S. plan was to let some of its "enemies", the Syrians, Iranians, Russians, fight it out with some of its other "enemies", the radical Islamists and by proxy the Saudis and Qataris. All would be weakened and the relative U.S. role in the Middle East would be strengthened. But with the Islamic State blowback in Iraq, in Lebanon and in future likely in further places, the plan to let the enemies destroy each other is increasingly risky.

What we are seeing now, and the Associated Press report above is in my view not just a coincidence, is a slow change in the U.S. position. It is starting to lean towards a more appreciating view towards the Syrian government. How far that change will go is not yet knowable.

My take on the letter Secretary of Defense Hagel sent to the White House is that his demand for a clearer strategy on Syria is not, as Reuters assumes, a request for more help to the insurgents but a request to let go of the animosity towards the Syrian government and to further cooperate with it in the fight against the Islamic State. That is the essence of the RAND study quoted above which Hagel's house paid for. If my reading of it is correct the White House would be wise to follow Hagel's view.

Posted by b on November 1, 2014 at 19:42 UTC | Permalink


I don't know what to make of this Rand report but one thing is certain, the US has never reversed it's agenda once Regime Change has been declared as the desired goal.

The fact that the Syrian Army is mostly Sunni is irrelevant because it is a conscript army that has been routed every time it faced the Islamic State and the Kurds are also Sunni yet they face the same dilemma.

The Islamic State is a political movement that will vanquish anyone who opposes it with arms no matter what religious affiliation.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 1 2014 20:34 utc | 1

thanks for this b.

it is almost like the usa is coming to a level of sanity we haven't seen in a long time! maybe they are getting spread too thin in all their regime change and colour revolution operations? i can't imagine any of them taking down the picture of cheney on the wall overlooking their working desks anytime soon, but having faith in the hopey changey president is always fun for a nanosecond..

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2014 21:20 utc | 2

@b - how much of this propaganda is to influence the negotiations with Iran? Is the US using the prospect of some kind of rapproachment withe the Syrian govt to have an influence on the Iranian negotiators? Make some concession on the nuclear front and we will make concession on the Syria front? Through the managed chaos and destruction of Syria by US, KSA, Qatar and Turkey they gained a leverage over the Iranians.

Posted by: Irshad | Nov 1 2014 21:24 utc | 3

This RAND study was done principally by a 30-year CIA veteran whose only academic experience is a B.S. in forestry, so of course he can't know.

RAND: "Regime victory in Syria will not offer as large a win to Iran as previously thought.
--How does Syria's victory which "will not offer as large a win to Iran as previously thought" translate to any advantage for the US? It doesn't.
RAND: "ISIS's gains in Iraq worsened Iran's strategic position in the Middle East and established a new threat to Tehran on its western border."
--How does a slight possible worsening of Iran's strategic position result in any tangible benefit to the US? Syria is all about that country being a bridge between hated Iran and hated Hezbollah. The RAND study doesn't even mention that aspect. And ISIS is not on Iran's western border.

Meanwhile, SecState Kerry has remained adamant that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad must go. No coalition government, he said, is possible with him there. No change in the US position. Syria is bad to the bone.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2014 21:40 utc | 4

Here are some remarkable media mentions of Syria.


If you people could ever have gotten out of your conspiracist mindset, it would have been obvious that "regime chnge" was never in the offing.

In fact there was zero interest in a large-scale intervention in Syria in either civilian or military quarters. All this is documented in a NY Times article from October 22nd 2013, written when the alarums over a looming war with Syria were at their loudest, that stated “from the beginning, Mr. Obama made it clear to his aides that he did not envision an American military intervention, even as public calls mounted that year for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians from bombings.” The article stressed the role of White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough, who had frequently clashed with the hawkish Samantha Power. In contrast to Power and others with a more overtly “humanitarian intervention” perspective, McDonough “who had perhaps the closest ties to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria.” In other words, the White House policy was and is allowing the Baathists and the rebels to exhaust each other in an endless war, just as was White House policy during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Nov 1 2014 21:47 utc | 5

It's not a "mindset" it's something the US has pushed for years; it was Hillary Clinton's pet project with her national political councils and supreme military councils etc. Just because they resemble the Keystone Kops in whatever they do, from Washington, doesn't mean they don't try.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2014 22:00 utc | 6

>>"Syria is all about that country being a bridge between hated Iran and hated Hezbollah"<<

So yet again American lives and treasure are being spent for the benefit of the vile racist entity.

Posted by: chet380 | Nov 1 2014 23:23 utc | 7

Syria is an important launchpad for the Islamic State for destabilizing Turkey and destroying Lebanon on their way to the sea but Iraq is still the main prize in this stage of the conquest. The oil fields of Iraq is where the funding for the Caliphate will come from and recent events near Fallujah show that the IS leaders were taking names of Sunni traitors years ago.

The tribal leaders that took CIA bribes during the so called Awakening are being systematically eliminated along with their minions so their will be no Sunni resistance to the new order.

You have to wonder why these people could be so stupid to believe US promises with our history of lies and abandonment.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 2 2014 0:15 utc | 8

these IS guys are either deluded or lying
if their relgion doesnt dispose them to volence why are they bearing arms? 'fighting injustice' is the carrot dangling before them as they commit violence....and why this focus on russia? who has been talking to them?

Posted by: brian | Nov 2 2014 0:18 utc | 9

The US will keep creating a state of tension so all parties keep trying to get US backing. It is classical colonial policy.

This here is not just anybody's conspiracy theory, the guy is a former Egyptian ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq.

America is using ISIS to consolidate her presence in the region. She said the war will take three years. Had there been no ISIS, America would have created some other Islamic terrorist group.

He is blaming Zionism but that is silly. Nasser enjoyed US support when it suited US interests.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 2 2014 0:44 utc | 10

...if their relgion doesnt dispose them to volence why are they bearing arms
That's amusing. What would Jesus do? Would he do Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2014 2:01 utc | 11

The US doesn't like Assad because he is a "dictator" so they have enlisted Gulf dictators to help depose him. The US, #1 home of prisons, and torture central, condemns Iran because of its human rights transgressions. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. Are they deluded, or lying? brian?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2014 2:08 utc | 12

Encouraging, but, maybe we shouldn't pop the corks just yet, given the USA's record on keeping agreements, written or otherwise.

Posted by: ben | Nov 2 2014 2:47 utc | 13

#4. Don, don't make the assumption that the U.S. govt is monolithic in its policies. Kerry, Obama, Hagel, Clonton all have different views and to assume lockstep coordination is foolish.

Perhaps, given the growing rift between the obama and Netenyahoo, this is Obama saying that he is no longer willing to help drive the aganda promoted by Tel Aviv? Or a signal to Iran that they will not be as isolated as they originally thought and to push forward with the nuclear deal.

Posted by: Base | Nov 2 2014 9:34 utc | 14

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Nov 1, 2014 5:47:19 PM | 5

Of course it was about regime change and also this.

Posted by: really | Nov 2 2014 9:56 utc | 15

Thanks Martin Luther, Somebody is back!

Posted by: Mina | Nov 2 2014 12:32 utc | 16

Q: Why do Saudi Arabia and Egypt request that Syria be part of the coalition?

A: It should be.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 2 2014 13:29 utc | 17


ISTANBUL — Al Qaida-backed militants Saturday stormed the base of the most prominent civilian commander in the U.S.-backed Syrian rebel force, forcing him and his fighters to flee into hiding in the Jebal al Zawiya mountains of northern Syria.

Jamal Maarouf, a contractor in private life, became internationally known for leading the successful offensive in January that forced the Islamic State from most of two northern provinces. His ouster from his own village was an enormous setback for him, the rebel forces and his international backers.

Even more ominous was that that the Islamic State, now far stronger and claiming to run a Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, reportedly had joined Jabhat al Nusra in the attack on the village of Deir Sinbul.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2014 13:55 utc | 18

Deaf dumb and blind squirrels find few acorns,and these people in charge,both Reps and Dems are definitely special AHRC b,d and dumb squirrels,so expect nothing by Obomba and his minions of afflicted brain disease sufferers changing their Zionist stripes.
Look at the way they squirmed over the Yahoo chickensh*t stuff.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 2 2014 13:55 utc | 19

The Syrian rebellion, in my view, is pretty much dead. However hard the US tries, it cannot revive the revolt in the way it is talking about. The rebels (apart from ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra) are exhausted and not ready to launch offensives.

In any case its efforts are taken up with ISIS. That affair is not going to finish soon.

What the US can do is to prolong the war, if it wishes, and if it is planning to cause even more pain to the Syrian people. I can see no real resistance in Washington to causing ever more pain and suffering to Syrians. But it may be, I hope so, that people in Washington are beginning to see the pointlessness of the policy. well, pointfulness if we're talking about Netanyahu's desires.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 2 2014 14:13 utc | 20

Interesting post, b, but the cynic in me can't disregard the prediction that the Dems are facing defeat in the mid-terms. And they've seen their (& Bibi's) Good Friend Tony Abbott win an election and then break almost every "non-core" promise he made during his campaign.


"...That is the essence of the RAND study quoted above which Hagel's house paid for. If my reading of it is correct the White House would be wise to follow Hagel's view."

Up until a few weeks ago, I was a Hagel fan on the basis that he was the only member of the Obama Admin who hadn't told a Whopper. But he has recently sailed a course a bit too close to my Ambiguity comfort zone. And even though he hasn't told an outright porkie yet, my enthusiasm has slipped a couple of notches.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 2 2014 16:34 utc | 21

news: Mitt Romney says: Election Day will be Americans' 'last chance' to judge President Obama’s administration.

And if the Dems do take a hit this week, I'm afraid the administration will veer rightward and cause the Iran/Iraq/Syria situation to get even worse; somehow they'll figure out how. In other words the US position might change, but for the worse.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2014 16:56 utc | 22

The USA has to choose between two humiliations.

The first is to loose the battle against ISIS and this is well under ways because without troops on the ground, it is recognized that ISIS cannot be defeated. The USA will appear as a loser.

The second is for the US administration to admit that the Syrian Army is the only force on the ground that would make a difference and may allow the USA to come out victorious against ISIS. That would imply postponing undefinitly the "regime change" and in the contrary boost the cooperation with the Syrian government, under Bashar al Assad.

Which would it choose?

Posted by: Virgile | Nov 2 2014 17:19 utc | 23

I don't see any way the US might cooperate with Syria any time soon. It would be political poison. Kerry has been very clear that Assad has to go.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2014 17:39 utc | 24

What we are seeing now, and the Associated Press report above is in my view not just a coincidence, is a slow change in the U.S. position. It is starting to lean towards a more appreciating view towards the Syrian government.

Well... maybe. I will remain sceptical for now, until I see some hard evidence of a policy change coming from Washington. The scenario being floated by some of the posters above strikes me as far more plausible: that ISIS and the Axis of Resistance will be used to weaken and neutralize each other. It reminds me of Kissinger's old quip about the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's: "two scorpions in a bottle."

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Nov 2 2014 17:44 utc | 25

Loui8s Proyecty's post points out the real flaw in America's policy - it is not only completely amoral, but it's real goal bears zero relationship to those it claims publicly.

"He questioned how much it was in America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria.”

The fundamental fact is that the US prefers war to peace in Syria. Despite the US dragging the interested parties to Geneva so it can grandstand about human rights and peace, it is all for show. It's all a cover while the US pumping more and more weapons into the conflict. And because of this disconnect - a disconnect it exhibits in so many spots around the world - the US is utterly untrustworthy and seeks only its interests.

The US displays concern in State Dept. pressers and through it's media outlets, but it didn't seek peace when there were 100,000 dead or 200,000 dead, and it doesn't actually care wether that number reaches 300,000 or half a million. In fact, it prefers this outcome. And that is why the vast stretches of the globe which reside outside of the US/Western media bubble concludes that ISIS is in fact an American creation - because America has not tried to put an end to it either by trying to limit the arms flow to the rebel regions, or by engaging in a genuine peace process.

Yet there are still those who would attack honest Syrians under direct threat (Mother Miriam comes to mind) as "regime mouthpieces" and claim - in a mighty, media amplified chorus with such dishonest fiends like Ken Roth and HRW - that Assad "the brutal dictator" is the real problem in the region. Such is the "peace movement" in the West today. If this force cannot find its footing and cannot admit its mistakes then there is likely no hope for a sensible policy to emerge from the Western governments. It's time for the peace movement to realize it's commitment is to finding peace for the people of Syria, not pursuing the dreams of old movement allies and assorted Syrian intellectuals, many long in exile and not facing any threat. It's time for the peace movement to push for peace, and this means first of all, pushing against the US, NATO, Israel, and the GCC states.

That the US now seeks to build a third force in the region - a force to fight both the Syrian government and ISIS - only confirms its commitment to war instead of peace. And when I hear in the media, again and again, this third force described as support for "non-ISIS" rebels I think we all have to wonder wether this includes not just recreating the many-times vanquished FSA, but also support for those al Qaeda aligned beheaders in Jabhat al-Nusra.


As for those here who build up ISIS as capable of gobbling up the whole Middle East - its black flag, flying from Istanbul to Tehran and over everything in between: this is a complete joke. Some would have us believe (I can't believe that they believe it themselves) that this gang, which cannot seem to successfully overrun a small city defended by a handful of committed militia, is going to destroy a NATO powerhouse and roll over the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah? Your credibility (such as you ever had) withers with every such far out claim you make.


Posted by: guest77 | Nov 2 2014 17:52 utc | 26

proyect quote "regime chnge" was never in the offing."

does he say that about the history on saddam or gadaffi as well? maybe he has a new way of framing usa foreign policy for anyone stupid enough to believe him.

Posted by: james | Nov 2 2014 17:57 utc | 27

Unfortunately I don't think the Administration will change there policy on Assad for the better. You have to many external countries and Neo-Cons like this guy pushing Obama to attack Assad and the Syrian Army.

Posted by: Ron | Nov 2 2014 18:07 utc | 28

The game the US is playing in Syria is far more complicated that the game it played in the Iran-Iraq War, where it clearly backed Saddam Hussein.

The game the US is playing in Syria is far more like the game the West played in building up Hitler and waging it's "Phony War" against the Germans in 1940, in the hopes that he would strike East first. It was a bet they lost - a bet which though it couldn't have turned out better for the United States - largely cost the English and French their vast Empires.

I don't see much of a threat towards the US though. It is worth noting that in all their public statements, ISIS members sounds far more like committed US allies than enemies. A recent RT interview with "an ISIS member in Norther Lebanon" we heard the fanatic declare that "Hezbollah pursues a foreign agenda set by Russia and Iran". After all, which such "enemies" as those, who needs friends in the region?

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 2 2014 18:07 utc | 29

This kind of video is a real call for waking up
When brainless idiots parade on camera joyful because they start to get their share of "women and slaves" as part of the booty, you really wonder where we got to.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 2 2014 19:39 utc | 31

Interesting links at the Angry Arab

Posted by: Mina | Nov 2 2014 19:41 utc | 32

Perhaps the answer is as simple as this: the dude who wrote that RAND report hadn't bothered to read the memo, and so he had the wrong idea what his masters wanted to hear.

Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 2 2014 20:38 utc | 33

A bit of good news (via Angry Arab) ...

Tunisia expels Bernard Henry Levy only 24 hours after his arrival


News of his arrival spread like wildfire in social media. In their postings, Tunisians took issue with Levy’s support to Jihadist formations in the region and with his role in the NATO-led war on Libya. He was also taken to task for his unquestioning support to Israel.

The authorities and main political parties denied any intent to meet with him. Informed sources disclosed to the Middle East Online (MEO) that “BHL” was in Tunis to meet with Libyan factions in Tunis. Levy is known for maintaining close ties to Libyan Jihadist formations.

Al Chourouq newspaper which described Levy as “the godfather of civil wars” in the Arab world said “His visit to Tunis aims at provoking sedition and causing the failure of next presidential elections."

Posted by: fairleft | Nov 3 2014 0:38 utc | 34

@34 That is good news. Wherever you find western and zionist aggression and imperialism, you find BHL there to apologize for it. One of the world's true scumbags.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 3 2014 2:05 utc | 35

'You would be partly correct, in that there is a grassroots element to ISIS, one which coalesces around vulnerable poor, economically and politically disaffected, young Sunni Muslims – all needed to refill the lower foot soldiers ranks of their fighting force, and yes, some members of ISIS have an ideological belief system, even though it’s not a very pleasant one. Theirs is a highly distorted, violent version of Islam, and a 360º theater of terror.
According the latest UN report, foreign jihadists are heading into Iraq and Syria on “an unprecedented scale”, with bulk of the Syrian rebellion being 15,000 ‘Islamist’ foreign fighters. Hardly an Arab Spring. The middle and upper ranks of ISIS include thousands of seasoned mercenary Islamic fighters from countries far and wide including, but not limited to, escaped terrorist convicts, and former detainees released from Guantanamo Bay.

The other mythology that’s been erected around ISIS, is the idea that they are an “Islamic State” and economically self-sufficient, fledgling Caliphate – with global ambitions. How western leaders and their media minions can refer to an terrorist-organized crime confab as a “state” defies belief and, in a funny way, actually dignifies and lends an air of political legitimacy – which this ‘brand’ doesn’t actually deserve.

Posted by: brian | Nov 3 2014 3:23 utc | 36

brian, you should be writing for the State Department. Perhaps they will pick up your stuff and peddle it as the truth, particularly the parts about "vulnerable poor, economically and politically disaffected, young Sunni Muslims" and "escaped terrorist convicts, and former detainees released from Guantanamo Bay." How many ex-Gitmo folks would that be, brian? Three? And what would you do if you'd been held in a cage w/o charges and tortured for thirteen years, forgive and forget? Anyhow, there are thousands flocking to the black flags.

Their "brand" may not be legitimate in your small world, but in the Middle East it seems to be really catching on. The US, again, has started something (supporting radicals) that it can't control. And the US can't control it because it has caught fire with a lot of people who actually don't like the U.S., nor its allies, and they enjoy raising hell to demonstrate it. It's not so different from the way the US has been raising hell in the MENA for a dozen years, just different methods, which to you makes them terrorists.

So go ahead, be real snotty about it, put these people down as simple shits who don't know any better (as if you do) if it pleases you, but the simple fact is that they exist and they are a real factor in the area, a factor which requires some intelligent thought and comment and not dismissal. That's what they do in Washington, and it doesn't work.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 3 2014 4:36 utc | 37

'The wind is at our back'
Polls show GOP candidates surging ahead in key states
The GOP got momentum in the 2014 campaign cycle's final hours. "People are ready for new leadership," Sen. Rand Paul tells CNN.//

This may affect foreign policy, quite possibly for worse. Obama has been charged with being a weak leader. It does have some logic, when stupidity translates to weakness. There may be cries for boots on the ground, which would put General Dempsey right in the hot seat he deserves for pushing the IS as enemy. What's the Plan B, Dempsey?

Meanwhile ISIS is scoring in Syria and also in Iraq where it has begun a strategy of assassinating ex-army and -police. There goes the recruiting pool for Allen's "National Guard" idea, the new "Awakening," that was going to maintain security[sic] so the New Iraq Army would conquer Mosul, in a year or so.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 3 2014 4:56 utc | 38

@38 Hillary has made sure 2016 starts tomorrow night, so even though she is crazy, I think both sets of thugs will find out audiences aren't up for a more aggressive fp, even Republicans. GOP congressmen were sufficiently frightened by public opinion to back off their slim Pickens March towards Syria.

No politician is holding Libya or the war on terror up as a badge of honor except for McCain and the dandy Senator from South Carolina, and if the 2016 cycle starts, anyone with pipe dreams will see their tarnished very quickly.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Nov 3 2014 13:45 utc | 39

@ 36: Thanks for the link. History, does indeed repeat itself.

Posted by: ben | Nov 3 2014 14:45 utc | 40

Our whole foreign policy regarding this conflict has been a farce, from the beginning how do we not back a government waging a war on Al Qaeda, right from the get go, alarms had to go off Washington, we spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of men in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting Al Qaeda yet suddenly we started backing up their allies which down the line turned out to help them directly. I knew American soldiers which were baffled at the situation and rightfully so.

We allied ourselves with every country fighting terror but when all the terrorists of the World went to Syria, instead of taking advantage of the situation and striking them, we started helping them, us and our proxies which were giving money and weapons to anyone with a beard and a Quran in his hand. And those animals went there and started killing all the minorities from the ruling Alawites to Christians which had no choice but to suddenly back Al Assad, they know better, an opposition victory means their slaughter or them becoming refugees.

There were never moderates, at least from the ones fighting, never, every time we've documented the so called moderates you could hear their intentions, they were never in it for democracy and more for a religious cleansing and a Sharia based law in the whole country.

The fact that our so called allies, from Turkey to the Saudis and Qatar are still devoutly backing these groups needs to ring fucking alarm bells, hell ever since I started following this conflict my Point of view towards Iran has changed dramatically and I'd rather have them become our partners in the region, especially for oil than the creators and backers of brutal Islamic jihad.

Posted by: B_Jenner | Nov 3 2014 16:13 utc | 41

@ B_Jenner #41

how do we not back a government waging a war on Al Qaeda
(1) Because Syria is an ally of Iran and therefore an enemy, and so the U.S. does not support Syria (nor Iraq for the same reason), and (2) Because the US supports al-Qaeda, which transformed into IS in Syria/Iraq. As you say: "our proxies which were giving money and weapons to anyone with a beard and a Quran in his hand." The U.S. has a massive military presence in Qatar, the political and financial home of al-Qaeda.

we spent trillions of dollars...
The people doing this don't look at it as an expense. It's not their money and they profit handsomely from endless war.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 3 2014 17:20 utc | 42

The policy change you are mentioning is simply a buying time tactic for the NATO criminal leadership. it will give them time to form those "Awakening Councils" in a rerun of Iraq's destruction

I mentioned in August the possibility of a truce being offered - a truce that will be nothing of the sort

The US is not suddenly 'coming to it's senses'
There is plan a or plan b or plan whatever? They have options their exercising them. It's great PR for the west, bad for Assad if he doesn't accept the gift of a truce...

Posted by: Penny | Nov 4 2014 16:51 utc | 43

The comments to this entry are closed.