It appears that the military/intelligence arm of the deep state has gone rogue, bombing Syrian Army positions, and potentially jeopardizing the truce agreement with Russia that Secretary of State, John Kerry negotiated, and President Obama signed off on.
Here’s Mike Whitney writing at Counterpunch.org.
“A rift between the Pentagon and the White House turned into open rebellion on Saturday when two US F-16s and two A-10 warplanes bombed Syrian Arab Army (SAA) positions at Deir al-Zor killing at least 62 Syrian regulars and wounding 100 others. The US has officially taken responsibility for the incident which it called a “mistake”, but the timing of the massacre has increased speculation that the attack was a desperate, eleventh-hour attempt to derail the fragile ceasefire and avoid parts of the implementation agreement that Pentagon leaders publicly opposed. Many analysts now wonder whether the attacks are an indication that the neocon-strewn DOD is actively engaged in sabotaging President Obama’s Syria policy, a claim that implies that the Pentagon is led by anti-democratic rebels who reject the Constitutional authority of the civilian leadership. Saturday’s bloodletting strongly suggests that a mutiny is brewing at the War Department.”
Why has the deep state gone rogue and escalated the new Cold War with Russia?
The dirty little secret of the war in Syria, is that for all the rhetoric about the “war on terror,” the US is wielding terrorists as part of its regime change policy. The US Defense Department and the CIA have been working with Sunni extremists, including al-qaeda, and ISIS, in an effort to overthrow the Syrian government, headed by Bashar al Assad.
When the Russians intervened forcefully in Syria to prevent the regime change plot from going forward, the deep state reaction in Washington was rage, and dismay. The new Cold War that’s been whipped up in the corporate media is a direct result of this reaction. ” The ‘Cold War Bloc,’ which includes Defense Secretary Ash Carter and House Speaker Paul Ryan, is extremely angry.”
Indeed, the deep state hawks are in open rebellion against any agreement with Russia to resolve the conflict in Syria. They don’t want to admit it, and are doing everything they can to deny the reality, but their terrorist proxies have been decisively stalemated and are on the way to being defeated through the efforts of Russian air-power.
There is also a domestic angle to this story. The deep state hawks, and their political intermediaries are truly bipartisan, with as many Democrats as Republicans. For instance, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is the queen of the neocons. For the hawks, the conflict with Russia is also related to domestic politics, a way to appear tough and paint their opponents as soft. And, of course, it’s also a way to steer lucrative military contracts to their districts or states.
The first Cold War was largely about domestic politics, despite breathless descriptions of imminent Soviet invasions, “steely eyed” deterrence, or protecting the “free-world.” The Republicans, with overwhelming business support, were desperate to regain the presidency and terminate the New Deal reforms, initiated by FDR. Communism was a very convenient cudgel with which to pummel liberal New Dealers.
Similarly, this present conflict is largely about domestic politics. With an election shaping up to a be nail-biter, the Democratic administration of Barak Obama, is using the conflict with Russia to discredit Donald Trump, who’s made some quite rational statements about Putin and Russia.
Despite the ongoing Constitutional crisis involving civilian control over the military, an even greater danger is the potential for a mishap between two nuclear armed protagonists, resulting in a “hot war.”
This could get interesting.
Update: Investigative journalist Robert Parry wonders why this behavior is not a big story.
“If you were living in a truly democratic country with a truly professional news media, you would think that this evolution of the United States into a rogue superpower violating pretty much every international law and treaty of the post-World War II era would be a regular topic of debate and criticism.”