An excerpt from, "Obama’s Syria Review Looks to Shift Focus to Attacking Assad" by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, November 13, 2014:
Gulf Arab nations involved in the US war are keen to see Assad ousted, and that’s at least part of the force driving them toward a faster regime change, with officials saying they want such a move within the next 6-12 months.An excerpt from, "Obama seeks review of Syria strategy, sees Assad removal as necessary: CNN" Reuters, November 12, 2014:
That means having the regime change imposed long before any alternative faction has been manufactured to take over. Officials like Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R – GA) have conceded as much, saying the US will simply hope that someone preferable steps forward to take office.
President Barack Obama wants his advisers to review the administration's Syria policy after determining it may not be possible to defeat Islamic State militants without removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, CNN reported on Wednesday.You can run a presidential campaign on hope and win, as Obama has done on two occasions, but when your entire war strategy is based on hope then you have problems.
The narrative that ISIS can only be defeated if Assad is first taken out was written before ISIS captured Mosul back in the summer and came on the stage of history as a real and coherent Islamist force. So there is nothing surprising about this news. Taking down the Assad regime at all costs has been Washington's plan all along.
The Obama administration took a 180 degrees turn in September when it tilted its military attention towards the CIA-trained Islamic State army, but they were always coming back to center stage in Syria, which is Damascus. Washington views ISIS as a temporary diversion, a battlefield proxy, and a propaganda boogeyman. The picture changes depending on the week.
The scary thing is that in the near future both Damascus and Kabul could come under the control of Islamist extremists. As Washington draws down in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for in over a decade of occupation, the Taliban is surging and poses a threat to Kabul.
So ISIS and the Taliban, neither of whom would be nowhere near as powerful without the direct and indirect aid of Washington and her allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could be in control of Damascus and Kabul.
And neither the banksters who run Washington, nor the princes in Saudi Arabia and the generals in Pakistan, have a problem with either of these catastrophic developments for the region and beyond. They are encouraging these hellish, barbaric, and insane forces, giving them weapons and political legitimacy.
Pakistan is irrationally afraid of India and Afghanistan getting along economically and politically, so they want their proxy the Taliban to be in power in Kabul, and Saudi Arabia is irrationally afraid of the Shiites and Iran so they want to see a radical proxy regime replace Assad in Damascus.
Both of these governments are stupid and insane because a stronger Taliban in Afghanistan will come back and haunt Pakistan, and a stronger ISIS is bad news for the king of Saudi Arabia. But if they want to see their corrupt kingdoms and garrison states destroyed because of their jealousy, envy, and fear of Indians and Shiites then that's up to them. No one is forcing them to act stupid and crazy.
Assad may fall, and Kabul may fall, but Syria and Afghanistan will eventually be rebuilt because their people are talented, resourceful, and tolerant of other cultures, whereas Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of them products of British imperialism, will collapse and won't be remembered well by both Muslims and non-Muslims.