admin
Patrick Martin Correspondent
. . . the real purpose of the US intervention is to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and establish a pro-US regime in Damascus, just as the invasion and conquest of Iraq
The US House of Representatives voted on Wednesday afternoon to approve the Obama administration’s plan to build up Syrian “rebel” forces as part of a greater US military intervention in the Middle East. The bipartisan approval came by a margin of 273-156, with majorities of both Republicans (159-71) and Democrats (114-85) supporting the measure.
The nominal target is the Islamic fundamentalist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which now controls much of eastern Syria and western Iraq. ISIS has carried out atrocities against religious minorities in Iraq and executed three Western hostages, two of them American journalists.
But the real purpose of the US intervention is to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and establish a pro-US regime in Damascus, just as the invasion and conquest of Iraq — also in the guise of fighting “terrorism” — produced an American puppet government in Baghdad.
The measure approving US training of Syrian opposition forces came in the form of an amendment to a Bill known as a “continuing resolution”, which authorises funding for all federal government operations from October 1, when the current fiscal year begins, through December 11.
Shortly after approving the amendment, the House passed the continuing resolution by a larger margin, 319-108. The Bill went to the Senate, which was expected to pass it easily yesterday, approving the Syria training programme as part of the continuing resolution rather than taking a separate vote.
Those voting for the Syrian intervention included the entire leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties in the House: Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.
A raft of prominent liberal Democrats voted “yes”, including Xavier Becerra of California, John Conyers of Michigan, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
The seven congressmen who are candidates for US Senate seats in the November election all voted for the Bill, demonstrating that support for military intervention overseas is a requirement for promotion to higher office within both corporate-controlled parties. These included five Republicans and two Democrats, Gary Peters of Michigan and Bruce Braley of Iowa.
A majority of those who voted against the Bill, including most of the Republicans and many Democrats, wanted a more sweeping and aggressive approach to ISIS, authorising direct US military strikes in Syria and even the use of ground troops. Only a few dozen representatives claimed to oppose any form of military escalation in Iraq and Syria.
Numerous comments in the House debate indicated that the Congressmen were well aware that the measure could open the way to a US war against the Assad regime.
Carolyn Maloney of New York said she opposed the measure because it “could turn into a war on three fronts: fighting ISIS in Iraq, fighting ISIS in Syria and potentially Assad in Syria”.
As for the nature of the “rebels” that the US government is now publicly committed to arming and training, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday, described meeting US-backed fighters who openly declared their willingness to use chemical weapons against the Syrian army.
While the subject was quickly swept under the rug by Secretary of State John Kerry, the principal administration official at the hearing, Gillibrand was raising a touchy issue: ISIS is itself a creation of previous US military interventions, not merely because it arose as a by-product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but because many ISIS fighters were trained and armed by the CIA or US allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as part of their joint efforts to subvert and overthrow the Assad regime since 2011.
The Obama administration has already outlined one scenario in which the war it has launched against ISIS could be transformed into a war with Assad. The Associated Press reported on Monday, citing “senior Obama administration officials”, that the US would attack Syrian air defences if they fired on US warplanes bombing ISIS targets.
The AP story elaborated on a report that first appeared on Sunday in the New York Times, which suggested that such air strikes could lead to the overthrow of Assad. – WSWS.
Online Reporter