Last week, US President Donald Trump proposed pulling out of Syria on the basis that the US has invested a lot of political capital and resources into operations in the Middle Eastern country without any recognizable benefit to America or Syrian citizens, but only massive death and destruction. But that proposal wasn’t particularly popular amongst the military’s top brass, who were insistent that American remain to finish the mission, and that such a withdrawal would be contrary to America’s national interests.
On this week’s episode of Lee Camp’s Redacted Tonight, Eva Bartlett reveals what’s really going here, and why America isn’t pulling out of Syria any time soon:
As Bartlett reveals in this interview, there is a geopolitical dimension to America’s involvement in Syria, which is supposedly all about taking out the bad guys with guns who are doing all sorts of really bad stuff, and who everybody says they really hate a whole lot. In reality, however, it’s blaringly obvious that America has just about everything but the terrorists in mind with their “leadership” of coalition efforts to “fight terrorism” in Syria.
The US has been talking about regime change in Syria for decades, and the military’s top fellas in Trump’s revolving cabinet have been jabbering on about it, so how do we still see this business of “fighting terrorism” being peddled by the mainstream media? Maybe that’s because they still think that they have enough credibility amongst the world’s populace to think that this line still works, and maybe. If all of the foreign forces operating in Syria were really out to kill the bad guys [which, maybe they are, but their definition of ‘bad guys’ seems to be radically different depending on which group we’re talking about] then the designated enemy should have been eliminated years ago.