Top US generals want to bomb Russian-backed Syrian military to prevent the defeat of Islamist rebels trapped in eastern Aleppo
There won't be a direct US military intervention against Assad under Obama. Obama turned back from plunging the US into what was clearly going to be an unpopular adventure after the false flag Ghouta chemical attack in 2013. He certainly isn't going to roll the dice at the height of election season and with the Democratic candidate just barely edging out the Republican Trump.
Moreover, we've now learned that this time around even Secretary of State John Kerry -- who was one of the main proponents of bombing in 2013 -- is against it. The Washington Post:
This time around, Kerry has not favored using U.S. military force against the Assad regime, two administration officials said. He now prefers continued diplomacy with Russia, even in the face of what he says is Moscow’s willingness to “turn a blind eye” to, if not participate directly, in war crimes in Aleppo.
But just so you don't think this means there are now fewer utter morons running around DC; since renewed brainstorming on Syria begun in the Obama administration last week the Joint Chiefs of Staff have joined the CIA in backing the US entering the Syrian civil war on the side of the Islamist rebels:
The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented in the Deputies Committee meeting by Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said. That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.
Even these clowns understand this would be blatantly illegal, but not to worry, they have a solution for it:
The options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me.
One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.
This proposal -- raining down cruise missiles without taking responsibility for them -- happens to be the exact same hare-brained scheme Kerry was banding about in 2013, and even he has since grown out of it.
Funny how the US on the one hand is talking up its bombs as a fitting instruments of its virtuous foreign policy but on the other hand would actually be reluctant to carry out this virtuous bombing out in the open. If the campaign is a virtuous one why the apparent shame?
And just so you know, the reason why Assad has to be bombed is counter-terrorism:
“There’s an increased mood in support of kinetic actions against the regime,” one senior administration official said.
“The CIA and the Joint Staff have said that the fall of Aleppo would undermine America’s counterterrorism goals in Syria.”
That's right. Should the jihadis allied and intermingled with al-Qaeda be driven from Syria's Aleppo city this will set back "America’s counterterrorism goals in Syria". For America's "counter-terrorism" goals in Syria to keep a strong foundation terrorist sympathizers have to remain in control of half of Syria's largest city. Somebody has read their Orwell well.