SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Next War of 'Aggression'? US Drones over Syria Seen as Sign of Looming Airstrikes
Unilateral strikes by Obama administration would be "considered as aggression,' says Syrian foreign minister
Aug 26, 2014
Under orders from President Barack Obama, according to reports, U.S. drones are now conducting reconnaissance missions over Syria in what many interpret as the preface to airstrikes in the country.
As the Associated Press reports on Tuesday:
The U.S. has begun surveillance flights over Syria after President Barack Obama gave the OK, U.S. officials said, a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militant targets there.
While the White House says Obama has not approved military action inside Syria, additional intelligence on the militants would likely be necessary before he could take that step. Pentagon officials have been drafting potential options for the president, including airstrikes.
One official said the administration has a need for reliable intelligence from Syria and called the surveillance flights an important avenue for obtaining data.
Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
"There is no decision yet to do strikes," one senior Pentagon officials told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, "but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible."
In a joint news conference last week, both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that striking targets inside Syria is an option now under high-level consideration within the Pentagon and the White House.
Following indications that such missions might be underway on Monday, Syrian officials in Damascus said that though the government of President Bashar al-Assad is committed to continuing and intensifying its fight against ISIS militants, any unilateral strikes by the U.S. military inside its territory would be seen as direct aggression and an attack on its sovereignty.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, speaking to reporters on Monday, pointed out how the U.S. decision to support, fund and arm Islamist militants aligned against the Assad government was at least partly to blame for the rise of ISIS in the region. He indicated that Syria had repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by these factions, but that "no one listened to us."
Al-Moellem went on to say that the Syrian government was willing to "cooperate and coordinate" with forces willing to take on the ISIS threat, but said that unilateral strikes by the U.S. would be intolerable. "Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.
The Guardian's Matthew Weaver--who recognized that the Syrian government may now be revelling "in the awkward position the west now finds itself"--reports:
Obama has been reluctant to take military action in Syria, but the flights are being seen as laying the groundwork for extending US air strikes against Islamic State militants (Isis) into the group's stronghold of Raqqa in north-eastern Syria, where it has been leading the fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in a civil war that has killed almost 200,000 people.
The irony that the US only a year ago considered - but ultimately rejected - conducting air strikes against Syrian government forces was not lost on the regime.
Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, quoted in the New York Times, said: "It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and indicated that working with the Assad regime was not a viable option from the White House's perspective.
According to AP, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama has not made a decision on whether to take military action inside Syria, but noted that the president has demonstrated his willingness to take military action when he deems it necessary to "save American lives."
It was not made clear how bombing Syria might achieve that end.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Under orders from President Barack Obama, according to reports, U.S. drones are now conducting reconnaissance missions over Syria in what many interpret as the preface to airstrikes in the country.
As the Associated Press reports on Tuesday:
The U.S. has begun surveillance flights over Syria after President Barack Obama gave the OK, U.S. officials said, a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militant targets there.
While the White House says Obama has not approved military action inside Syria, additional intelligence on the militants would likely be necessary before he could take that step. Pentagon officials have been drafting potential options for the president, including airstrikes.
One official said the administration has a need for reliable intelligence from Syria and called the surveillance flights an important avenue for obtaining data.
Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
"There is no decision yet to do strikes," one senior Pentagon officials told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, "but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible."
In a joint news conference last week, both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that striking targets inside Syria is an option now under high-level consideration within the Pentagon and the White House.
Following indications that such missions might be underway on Monday, Syrian officials in Damascus said that though the government of President Bashar al-Assad is committed to continuing and intensifying its fight against ISIS militants, any unilateral strikes by the U.S. military inside its territory would be seen as direct aggression and an attack on its sovereignty.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, speaking to reporters on Monday, pointed out how the U.S. decision to support, fund and arm Islamist militants aligned against the Assad government was at least partly to blame for the rise of ISIS in the region. He indicated that Syria had repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by these factions, but that "no one listened to us."
Al-Moellem went on to say that the Syrian government was willing to "cooperate and coordinate" with forces willing to take on the ISIS threat, but said that unilateral strikes by the U.S. would be intolerable. "Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.
The Guardian's Matthew Weaver--who recognized that the Syrian government may now be revelling "in the awkward position the west now finds itself"--reports:
Obama has been reluctant to take military action in Syria, but the flights are being seen as laying the groundwork for extending US air strikes against Islamic State militants (Isis) into the group's stronghold of Raqqa in north-eastern Syria, where it has been leading the fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in a civil war that has killed almost 200,000 people.
The irony that the US only a year ago considered - but ultimately rejected - conducting air strikes against Syrian government forces was not lost on the regime.
Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, quoted in the New York Times, said: "It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and indicated that working with the Assad regime was not a viable option from the White House's perspective.
According to AP, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama has not made a decision on whether to take military action inside Syria, but noted that the president has demonstrated his willingness to take military action when he deems it necessary to "save American lives."
It was not made clear how bombing Syria might achieve that end.
Under orders from President Barack Obama, according to reports, U.S. drones are now conducting reconnaissance missions over Syria in what many interpret as the preface to airstrikes in the country.
As the Associated Press reports on Tuesday:
The U.S. has begun surveillance flights over Syria after President Barack Obama gave the OK, U.S. officials said, a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militant targets there.
While the White House says Obama has not approved military action inside Syria, additional intelligence on the militants would likely be necessary before he could take that step. Pentagon officials have been drafting potential options for the president, including airstrikes.
One official said the administration has a need for reliable intelligence from Syria and called the surveillance flights an important avenue for obtaining data.
Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
"There is no decision yet to do strikes," one senior Pentagon officials told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, "but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible."
In a joint news conference last week, both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that striking targets inside Syria is an option now under high-level consideration within the Pentagon and the White House.
Following indications that such missions might be underway on Monday, Syrian officials in Damascus said that though the government of President Bashar al-Assad is committed to continuing and intensifying its fight against ISIS militants, any unilateral strikes by the U.S. military inside its territory would be seen as direct aggression and an attack on its sovereignty.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, speaking to reporters on Monday, pointed out how the U.S. decision to support, fund and arm Islamist militants aligned against the Assad government was at least partly to blame for the rise of ISIS in the region. He indicated that Syria had repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by these factions, but that "no one listened to us."
Al-Moellem went on to say that the Syrian government was willing to "cooperate and coordinate" with forces willing to take on the ISIS threat, but said that unilateral strikes by the U.S. would be intolerable. "Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.
The Guardian's Matthew Weaver--who recognized that the Syrian government may now be revelling "in the awkward position the west now finds itself"--reports:
Obama has been reluctant to take military action in Syria, but the flights are being seen as laying the groundwork for extending US air strikes against Islamic State militants (Isis) into the group's stronghold of Raqqa in north-eastern Syria, where it has been leading the fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in a civil war that has killed almost 200,000 people.
The irony that the US only a year ago considered - but ultimately rejected - conducting air strikes against Syrian government forces was not lost on the regime.
Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, quoted in the New York Times, said: "It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and indicated that working with the Assad regime was not a viable option from the White House's perspective.
According to AP, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama has not made a decision on whether to take military action inside Syria, but noted that the president has demonstrated his willingness to take military action when he deems it necessary to "save American lives."
It was not made clear how bombing Syria might achieve that end.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.