When Is Direct Military Intervention Not Direct Military Intervention?
Jim Naureckas, FAIR, Oct 4 2-16
“President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria,” the NYT asserted in an editorial (9/29/16) about “Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.” That’s a peculiar thing to say, given that the NYT regularly covers Pindostan’s ongoing direct military intervention in Syria. Since 2014, according to official Pentagon figures, Pindostan has carried out 5,337 airstrikes in Syria. According to the monitoring group Airwars, these airstrikes (along with a few hundred strikes by vassals) have likely killed between 818 and 1,229 Syrian civilians. Nor is direct Pindo military intervention in Syria limited to aerial attacks. In May 2015, the NYT (5/16/15) reported on a combat raid by Delta Force commandos in eastern Syria. Later that year, the NYT (10/30/15) observed that Obama had announced he was sending (in the paper’s words) “several dozen” special forces troops on an “open-ended mission” inside Syria.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the NYT (9/16/16) wrote about three dozen more SOF going to aid Turkish troops inside Syria. Officially, these will have an “advise and assist” role, but the NYT (12/27/15) has elsewhere noted the frequent Pindo practice with regard to SOF of “resorting to linguistic contortions to mask the forces’ combat role.” The NYT, for its part, is engaging in some kind of linguistic contortion of its own to make none of this qualify as “direct military intervention in Syria.” Presumably it has something to do with the airstrikes and special forces not being aimed at Assad but at Daesh, a rival to Assad’s power in Syria that Pindostan is semi-officially at war with, even as Washington provides arms and training to other armed groups trying to overthrow Assad.