Konflikten i Syrien

arbetet skrev

Ja, man har ju vunnit mor Daesh så det är väl dags att varva ner och ge sig på andra oroshärdar. Putin har ju fått tillstånd att använda egyptiska baser så att det blir väl Libyen nästa för att ordna upp kaoset som Obama/Hillary/NATO ställt till med:

http://tass.com/politics/980112

As War Winds Down in Syria, Reconciliation Is the New Trend

TEHRAN (FNA)- Unlike what “fakestream” media outlets in the West would like to suggest, no ethnic group or community is going to be forgotten by the government in post-ISIL Syria – even those who colluded with the foreign-backed terrorist group.

Syrian people want to get on with their lives in the liberated cities and towns and that’s a fact – including in the de-escalation zones. Regional and international reporters are free to travel to these regions as there are no threats from the Syrian Army or its allies. This includes the cities that gave up their rebellion and ties to the foreign-backed terrorist groups and their affiliates, and surrendered to the Syrian government.

And it’s never been the choice to surrender or starve. The Syrian government is taking care of everyone, including the surrenders and rebel sympathizers who stayed behind and put their fate in the hands of the government. The only problem is that the destruction is massive and every house can count at least one family member killed or wounded. But no one has been imprisoned for that.

The rebuilding has begun and many schools have reopened, while other civilian objects have been partially rebuilt. Shops have reopened, even though prices are very high. The army is in control of these cities and towns and it’s business as usual for everyone.

Putin: "If the terrorists raise their heads again, we will strike them with blows, the likes of which they have never seen". The bulk of Russian military contingent in Syria would begin withdrawal, but Moscow will continue to maintain the two permanent bases

/.../The rollback of Islamic State must come as a shock to the chorus of journalists and analysts who spent years insisting that such progress would never happen without toppling the regime of Bashar Assad — which is, of course, still standing. A cavalcade of opinion makers long averred that Islamic State would thrive in Syria so long as Assad ruled because the Syrian Arab Army was part of the same disease.

John Bolton, former United Nations ambassador under George W. Bush, insisted in the New York Times that “defeating the Islamic State” is “neither feasible nor desirable” if Assad remains in power. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham asserted that “defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad.” Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution prescribed a policy of “building a new Syrian opposition army capable of defeating both President Bashar al-Assad and the more militant Islamists.” Similarly, Max Boot, a contributing writer to this newspaper, argued that vanquishing Islamic State was futile unless the U.S. also moved to depose the “Alawite regime in Damascus.” Like other regime-change salesmen, he pitched a no-fly zone across the country to facilitate airstrikes against the Assad government, while boosting aid to the so-called moderate rebels.

Prominent Syria analysts also claimed that Assad supported, even sponsored Islamic State. CNN’s Michael Weiss pushed the line that Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin would not fight Islamic State and that Syria and Russia were the group’s “unacknowledged air force.” His co-author, Hassan Hassan, contended that the Syrian regime must go because “Assad has never fought [Islamic State] before.”

For a while, everywhere one looked, the media was peddling the same narrative. The Daily Beast described Islamic State fighters as “Assad’s henchmen.” The New York Times promoted the idea that “Assad’s forces” have been “aiding” Islamic State by “not only avoiding” the group “but actively seeking to bolster their position.” Time parroted the pro-regime-change line that “Bashar Assad won't fight” Islamic State.

But these popular arguments were, to put it mildly, empirically challenged.

How strange, then, that we haven’t heard many pundits acknowledge their mistakes; they’re not itching to atone for having almost forced another regime-change mission based on discredited analysis.