© abcnews.go.comDespicable or reprehensible, the decisions and realities...
The Obama administration's agenda in Syria hit roadblocks from his military generals, who had a "more realistic" view of the war, an American political analyst says. President Barack Obama appears to have made
"backroom deals" with Turkey and Israel to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power, but his
military and intelligence advisers warned of the consequences of that plan, Mark Glenn said in an interview on Thursday.
In an investigative report, published in the January 7, 2016 edition of the
London Review of Books, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that Obama ignored warnings from senior military and intelligence officials that
the fall of Assad would lead to "chaos" and extremist militants taking over Syria."Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office -- and that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him -- has in recent years
provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon's Joint Staff," Hersh said. Hersh cited a highly-classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2013 which warned the White House about the dire consequences of the push to topple the Assad government.
"Even though there may have been this difference of opinion, this rift, between Obama and his military men... nevertheless, at the end of the day,
Syria has been made closer to the intended goal that Obama had set out to achieve which was the destabilization of another country in the Middle East," Glenn told Press TV. "250,000 Syrians have been killed, millions more have been displaced and made homeless, Syria is a shambles in terms of its infrastructure and stability, and in that regard—
at least as far as the United States and Israel are concerned—a large part of the agenda has been accomplished," he noted.
Comment: There has to be more to it than a false flag
chemical weapons incident blamed on Assad to equate the hard-line policy that has killed 250,000 Syrians (so far) and destroyed the country. Mr. Obama is not listening to his military and obviously not to his American constituency. So, who is really steering this president? What is the
undefiable leverage that commands his allegiance and dictates an agenda that assures the US to reap the consequences so deserving of its actions? Who benefits?
Comment: There has to be more to it than a false flag chemical weapons incident blamed on Assad to equate the hard-line policy that has killed 250,000 Syrians (so far) and destroyed the country. Mr. Obama is not listening to his military and obviously not to his American constituency. So, who is really steering this president? What is the undefiable leverage that commands his allegiance and dictates an agenda that assures the US to reap the consequences so deserving of its actions? Who benefits?