Presidential Debate: US to Have More Dogs in the Fight in Syria

Rasa - The first 2016 presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump took place Monday in New York, with themes "America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity," and "Securing America".

News ID: 423928

Date: 27 September 2016 - 22:07

RNA - On foreign policy, there was little in the debate that accurately reflected reality in Syria and elsewhere throughout the Middle East. On ISIL, for instance, Trump blamed President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton for creating the terrorist group after the US pulled out its troops from Iraq, leaving “a vacuum the way they got out of” the country. He said ISIL wouldn’t have even been formed if they left some occupying troops behind.

Trump, however, did not reveal his plan for defeating ISIL, with Clinton saying, he had no plan at all. Clinton said, "Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIL,” noting the US needs to intensify airstrikes against ISIL in Syria and work with Turkish and Kurdish forces to fight the terrorists.

Obviously, this propagandistic debate was intentionally aimed at distracting from US involvement in a long-term joint criminal enterprise to overthrow an elected government that indeed did not discriminate against people because of “how they pray”, and replace it by ISIL fanatics who are ready to behead people because of “how they pray”.

Here, the would-be presidents would like us to believe that when they escalate the US war on Syria, it will be legal as it is all about protecting civilians from “evil” government forces, whose only aspiration is to “bomb their own people”. They would also like us to believe that they are the saviours of Syria and the real McCoy when it comes to fighting terror and defeating ISIL.

It never occurred to them that the war to destroy Syria had been planned for years – even though top officials like Joe Biden revealed this years ago. Or that the the War Party already has many dogs in the fight in Syria; the dirty war is carried out to eliminate Israel’s enemies; to keep Muslims busy killing each other; and to help Saudi Arabia spread its Wahhabite fanaticism. No, the would-be presidents will never talk about these historic facts and realities.

Instead, they assured Tel Aviv that they would veto any UN actions against Israel, expressing support for President Obama’s $38 billion military aid deal, the largest in history. They promised to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and spend well beyond the $38 billion already in place. They even said they are “committed” to fighting against the boycott movement and other attempts to delegitimize the usurper regime internationally. And for this to happen, they said they are prepared for the second phase of regime change war on Syria.

Here, both Clinton and Trump refused to address many of the myths surrounding America’s war on Syria, such as support for “moderate” rebels, freedom, and democracy. Instead, they talked about maintaining the status quo, destroying a sovereign nation on the pretext of bombing ISIL, appeasing Israel, and empowering the Military-Industrial Complex.

Finally, the first debate between Trump and Clinton suggests a wholesale lack of substance in American foreign policy. With regard to Trump, the Republicans have always contributed to America’s foreign wars. On Clinton’s side, much (probably most) of her time in office as foreign secretary was spent attacking Muslim nations, rather than laying out a positive vision for progressive change, regional dialog, and global peace and security.

Under these circumstances, it is hard for the world community to take comfort in the media promises that the next president of the United States will be a peace president. Unfortunately, this conventional narrative is contradicted by much of the available evidence. As the first presidential debate itself demonstrated, little is likely to change regarding America’s warmongering foreign policy, particularly its ongoing war on Syria.

847/940