conflict zones, latest
Comments 4

US Senate hearing discusses using refugees as human shields in Syria

Heavy rains at Al Tanf Refugee camp on the Syrian/Iraqi border flooded tents and over flowed latrines leaving many of the Palestinians refugees without homes, October 2008
The Al Tanf Refugee camp on the Syrian/Iraqi border.

Sott Net reports:

[…] At a recent US Senate hearing on Russian strategy and military operations, sitting US Senators, retired generals and representatives from various think-tanks and lobbying groups attempted to produce a response to Russia’s most recent move.

Rather than interpreting Russia’s actions as a welcomed addition to the supposed “War on Terror,” the hearing appeared to interpret the entire Syrian conflict as a mere pawn in a wider proxy war Washington clearly believes it is waging against Moscow. Those attending the hearing admitted to the deterioration of American foreign policy, its global legitimacy and credibility, and the diminishing returns US State Department media operations are having worldwide.

In this context, many of the solutions regarding Syria centered not on how to stop ISIS or restore peace and stability to the country, but rather how to foil Russia’s military operations aimed at terrorist organizations, how to humiliate and turn global public opinion against Moscow.

It was among these discussions that retired US Army General John Keane stated:

“If we establish free zones – you know, for moderate opposition forces – but also sanctuaries for refugees, that gets world opinion support rather dramatically. If Putin is going to attack that, then world opinion is definitely against him. You take this issue right off the table in terms of why he’s in Syria and if you’re doing that [attacking free zones] and contributing to the migration that’s taking place by your aggressive military actions, then world opinion will have some rather – I think – significant impact on him.”

One must wonder – if players among US policy circles believe Syrian refugees are pawns of potential use in turning public opinion against Russia in Syria itself, did they not also see them as pawns that could be used to flood Europe and turn public opinion in favor of waging wider and more direct war on the Syrian government itself? […]


  1. This is presumably an attempt at satire since no-one with any humanity left would even think something like this up. I therefore, have to believe it is satire.
    It is worth mentioning though, that the Pentagon has begun to lose the plot (about 20 years ago although many would argue longer than that) and in it’s current deranged state could well pull something like this out of their magic hat. Even the UK government seems to think slaughtering more Syrians and loosing IS/Jabhat al Nusra on them is a good idea, so they don’t actually represent the most sane and intelligent brains on the planet.

  2. they can’t welcome this attack on the rebels as the rebels are their very own trained, armed , fed, clothed and controlled warriors.

  3. Marc Krizack says

    Most of the US political establishment and much of the US media may understand that it was a “mistake” for the US to invade Iraq, but they are unable to draw its lessons. This is why they refuse to listen to Putin’s reasoned remarks, even when presented in such an august forum as the United Nations, and instead see Russia’s policy as being Putin “flexing his muscles” or trying to “make Russia a great power again.” The Neocon policy of taking down Iraq, Syria and Iran placed the US in the sole leadership position in international affairs as part of their larger strategy of “full spectrum dominance”. But the Neocon strategy has been finally stymied, and as a result the US can no longer act as sole international leader. This is difficult for Americans to accept, even to the point where they cannot see that it is in the interests of the US that there be an alliance with Russia and Iran and others to fight ISIS and other terrorists. Those in positions of authority in the US, who understand that the Iraq war was ginned up by the Neocon warmongers, need to finally place the blame for the failed US policy directly on the Neocon’s backs. If they don’t, they will be caught in an untenable position and could even lose the 2016 elections by being blamed for America’s “retreat” from international leadership.

    • It was not a mistake to invade Iraq. It was fully successful They stopped Iraq switching out of the petro$.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole