By Edmond Y. Azadian
The bloodbath in Syria cannot be called a civil war, no matter how much the news media continues to promote that misnomer. What has happened was part of a Neocon plan of creating a domino effect to destroy stable regimes in the Middle East, beginning with Iraq, then Libya and Syria, with the end target being Iran.
The Bush-Cheney Administration did not have time to complete its plan, to which new life will be breathed after President Obama’s term expires in January, no matter which candidate wins.
Just as the Clinton Administration drew a line in the sand for Europe, by dismantling Yugoslavia and curtailing Russia’s influence on that continent Moscow tried to do the same in Syria, despite the fact that it had conceded that it was no longer a superpower.
Many interests and policies collide on the Syrian battlefront, with sometimes shifting allegiances — Al Nusra Front, Free Syrian Army, Ahrar El-Sham, ISIS, al Qaeda, etc. New factions with new names appear on the map and sometimes they disappear when funds and arms are cut off as most of these groups are composed of foreign mercenaries, disqualifying the strife from being called a “civil war.”
Despite pressure from the State Department and Neocons, President Obama thus far has been paying only lip service to the idea of regime change in Syria, because it is obvious to any informed observer what could happen when a strongman is removed: devastation and destabilization have been well-documented in Iraq, Libya and Yemen in the wake of this very action.