Peace Talks Notwithstanding:

US Is Increasing Airdrops of Arms to Militants in Syria

Rasa - War-party Washington continues to work for the downfall of the Syrian government, concentrating negative policy towards peace, without also taking cognisance of the slippery ground in which it is standing.

News ID: 426663

Date: 19 January 2017 - 19:12

RNA - At a time when the Syrian government and opposition militants have announced the names of their delegation heads for the upcoming peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, the United States is doing the exact opposite. It is increasing airdrops of weapons, ammunition and other equipment to foreign-backed terror forces in the northeastern city of Raqqah.

According to Gen. Carlton Everhart, commander of the US Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, “Our expanded precision airdrop capability is helping ground forces take the offensive and efforts to retake Raqqah (ISIL’s self-proclaimed capital). Airdrops are meant to boost the capabilities of militants who do not have extensive ground supply lines in a hostile environment. In those instances airdrops are absolutely essential.”

It couldn't be clearer than this: The dirty war on Syria and the humanitarian crisis will continue to grind on. The United States and its allies have no intention to talk peace, let alone stop aiding various terrorist groups on the pretext of fighting ISIL. The “Assad must go” hordes are backing a proxy force of about 45,000 militants, allegedly battling ISIL, with airstrikes and dozens of US Special Operations troops. But in reality, they are arming the Al-Qaeda affiliates, fighting the Syrian government and Iranian-Russian allies.

In the prevailing environment, don't believe it when the Pentagon says US Air Force uses GPS technology and steerable parachutes to guide bundles of supplies, ranging from small arms ammunition to vehicles, onto rebel-held landing zones. The terrorist group of ISIL always releases videos later, showing its forces collecting the same weapons and supplies airdropped by the US military.

Further still,  the State Department has itself on several occasions told the whole world that the US cannot guarantee the weapons it sends to the militants would not end up in the hands of ISIL terrorists. It’s the same official position shared by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon, which in tandem are providing the same Al-Qaeda-linked militants with military training and weapons.

As is,  the case for US airdrops of arms for militant forces has been, and still is, evasive and wrong. It’s in no way in compliance with international law and UN Security Council authorization. It is silly for the War Party to try to trump complying with international law and UNSC authorization, making arguments within the general category of “humanitarian necessity” backed by “moral responsibility.” Syria is not Rwanda or the Balkans. It has a functioning government, so they better stop. There is no “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” being committed by the Syrian Army either. If there is any, it is being carried out by America’s own proxy forces. The UN makes that clear.

Likewise, the regime changers better stop loading the highly-emotive image into this line of argument that is “chemical weapons.” According to the United Nations investigators, the Syrian government has no chemical weapons and it has never used them against its own people. Again, it is America’s own “moderate” darlings that have used chemical weapons against people and government forces.

The mere fact of the ongoing crisis does nothing to confer US airdrops of arms with international legitimacy. True, such legitimacy can be found in the norm of international law called ‘the responsibility to protect.’ US acting on that norm nevertheless requires UNSC authorization for military intervention, which for obvious reasons has not been forthcoming and will likely not be forthcoming.

To sum it up though, if Washington is really serious about fighting terror and helping to relieve the human suffering of the Syrian population, there are immediate means by which it could act more intensely, such as by supporting the peace talks, by ending its support for militants, and by increasing aid to millions of civilians who have fled for refuge in neighbouring countries. Then again, this could only happen if Washington first replaces its artless pragmatism of regime-change fantasy with the diplomacy of wisdom.

847/940