Written by Nasser Kandil,
Since the beginnings of the Syrian crisis, the American President Barack Obama is taking over the foreshadowing of the countable days of the Syrian President, the years of the second mandate of the American President have passed, while the Syrian President is still at Al Muhajreen Palace waiting for the countable days of the American President who will leave the White House surely. Maybe the Syrian President is the only president after the Cuban President Fidel Castro through whom the American history has witnessed the evacuation of the strength of the fleets, and the air bombers for a decided war against him and their return back without a war, in addition to the culmination of the conflict with him after the escalation peak has led to a reconciliation that its opportunities have waited for many years to be achieved.
Despite the announcement of the American President of his intention to cooperate with Russia for a political solution that is based on considering the Syrian Presidency a matter that belongs to the Syrians themselves, he repeats his speech about the necessity of the departure of the Syrian President. Now he is moving from considering this matter a condition for any understanding about cooperation in the war on terrorism to presenting the matter as an expectation, opinion, and advices. So his speech is characterized with foreshadowing of the impossibility of the stability of Syria or to win in the war on ISIS and then on Al-Nusra, which he was obliged to re-add it to the list of the enemies by the force of the Russian-Syrian war, after his administration was presenting it as a partner in the war on ISIS except if the Syrian President has stepped down, towards making Russia and Iran choose whether to stick to the Syrian President and the preservation of the Syrian country and its institutions, so what does Obama want to say?
A year ago when Obama was asked in the 20th Summit in Australia about if his administration has any road map to remove the Syrian President, he answered with negation, but he continues the foreshadowing and the predicting of the bad situations in case he stays. So did not he forget that he is talking about the war on terrorism which is waged by the Syrian country represented by its army the strongest of its institutions, an accomplishment after accomplishment is achieved by the army which is led by the President Bashar Al-Assad, So did he want to tell us that the winning in the war on terrorism is by a ground force other than the Syrian army and that the Syrian country which he talked about has something important that represents its force, unity, and presence other than the Syrian army, thus the question becomes does Obama want to tell us that the unity of the country which means the army, and the fate of the war on terrorism which means the force of army would be better without the Syrian President. Does Obama really believe that the army can be present other than unified and strong without the President Al-Assad, so does he lie to us or to himself?
It seems that Obama at least knows what we know that the unity of the army and its force in Syria, and thus the fate of the war on terrorism which is waged by the army and the fate of the country require more than any time the adherence to the Syrian President, but Obama wants to lie to the third party which is the American voters along with the Saudis and the Israelis the three elements which the electoral battle consists of, and which is started upon the American presidency, the votes, money, and the lobbies, and the way to win is the lying, thus let Obama lie as long as he says his words and leaves.
It is certain that Obama will leave and Al-Assad will remain.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-11-21 | عدد القراءات 1888
