俄罗斯支持叙利亚抗击国际恐怖主义标志着多极化世界发展进入新阶段。西方国家在中东地区的主导地位不复存在，其政权更迭政策显然是一次彻底的失败。美国的领导地位受到质疑
西方国家在伊拉克、利比亚以及叙利亚引发的不稳定对整个世界来讲都是一场灾难。导致了恐怖主义在中东甚至整个国际社会的扩散，影响到其他地区。
美国西方世界的盟友如今初食恶果，西方在中东地区引发的混乱，导致人民流离失所，造成了日益恶化的移民危机。
美国政策在过去两任总统任职期间未发生显著变化。首先，乔治·布什对伊拉克发动战争，导致政权更迭和萨达姆·侯赛因下台。这场不必要的战争被认为是美国历史上最严重的战略失误。
错误总会带来不良影响，战略失误则会削弱国家能力并导致其国际立场遭到质疑。这正是美国对伊拉克发动战争后的处境，然而美国对利比亚和叙利亚的政策则成为战略失误的延续。
对利比亚和叙利亚发动的政权更迭战争得到了英国和法国的大力支持。英国首相托尼·布莱尔、大卫·卡梅伦、法国总统尼古拉·萨科齐以及弗朗西斯·奥朗德均成了美国总统奥巴马在中东地区制造混乱的帮凶。
对叙利亚的长期斗争在于改变世界格局
美国对于叙利亚的政权更迭政策根源在于改变世界格局。尽管美国打着人权和民主的旗号，其根本目的在于改变国际体系和国际法所扮演的角色。
奥巴马政府与之前的布什政府一样，错误地采取地缘政治的方式来强化美国领导下的单极世界，企图延缓多极世界的兴起。
在中东地区，许多美国政治家和政策制定者都将以色列视为美国关键的战略盟友。随着美国将重心转向亚太地区，他们希望以色列的区域地位得以加强，而作为敌国的叙利亚和伊朗应被削弱。
美国克拉克将军在2007年提出了以副总统迪克·切尼为主导的新保守主义策略，他在布什政府对伊朗和阿富汗战争中起到关键作用。
在一次旧金山联邦俱乐部演讲中，克拉克将军指出在“9·11事件”结束后，根据五角大楼信息，未来对于中东的策略将是对于伊拉克、叙利亚、黎巴嫩、利比亚、索马里、苏丹和伊朗的政权更迭。
毫无疑问，美国将会促使叙利亚的政权变更。尽管不同政府之间存在差异，但是潜在的干预主义政策却存在连贯性。这一点已在以色列游说团、新保守主义政策网络、基督教正统主义者、人权问题及民主活动中得到证实。
尽管最终议程存在差异，3个有影响力的施压群体有着共同的对外政策导向：采取军事干预措施支持中东及其他地区政权更迭。这些群体大力煽动伊拉克和阿富汗战争并且呼吁对叙利亚和伊朗采取军事干预。
政权变更政策需要有平行的政策来削弱国际法、以联合国为代表的国际机构以及主权国家的传统法律原则。
签订于1648年的威斯特伐利亚合约中就规定了应尊重传统国际法、主权国家的原则，禁止干预主权国家内政等。该合约建立起了近代欧洲国家体系。在之后几个世纪中，这些原则广泛被国际社会所接受。
在1999年科索沃危机期间，托尼·布莱尔曾在芝加哥经济俱乐部演讲中对国际法和国家主权展开攻击。布莱尔声称为解决人权问题应采取军事干预。
尽管布莱尔对于军事干预国家主权的言论已经过时，但仍然受到很多美国的人权和民主激进分子的热捧。实际上克林顿、布什和奥巴马当局也步了布莱尔的后尘。在近些年里，它已发展成为“保护职责R2P”。
为支持R2P原则，日前奥巴马政府采取改变官僚机构的措施以干预主义作为美国外交政策的工具。白宫设立了防爆委员会，直接向总统报告。出生于爱尔兰的萨曼莎·鲍尔是奥巴马总统的亲信，同时也是人权基金主义者。她担任新的委员会主席，决定采取干预措施保障人权的时间、地点和方式。
可以断定，叙利亚的胡拉大屠杀被视为暴行并直接触发了军事干预。一些美国官员，如苏珊·赖斯、美国驻联合国大使以及人权问题上的盟友力量，都呼吁越过联合国程序单独对叙利亚采取军事干预。
如此极端的立场反映出美国政策权不断上升的影响力，他们希望削弱国际法并以军事干预辅佐其单极世界的计划。人权和民主的鼓吹为掩盖霸权主义战略目标提供了很好的掩饰。
然而在世界范围内，促进多极化世界发展的行动在传统国际法原则下很难一蹴而就。
事实上，如今美国和西方国家对于叙利亚的空袭和其他行为从传统国际法角度讲是非法的，因为他们并没有得到联合国安理会的授权，也没有得到叙利亚合法政府的认可。
然而俄罗斯对于叙利亚的支援却是合法的，因为叙利亚政府要求俄罗斯提供帮助以对国际恐怖主义进行防御。实际上全世界都明白美国和西方国家通过支持叙利亚当地的国际恐怖主义来促成政权变更并消灭阿萨德政府。
西方对叙利亚发动战争引发地区不稳定
西方国家通过采取军事袭击叙利亚政府制造中东地区的不稳定究竟还能维持多久？华盛顿的讨论主要围绕所谓的奥巴马“遗产”。
在华盛顿，共和党和民主党中的主战派和主和派就叙利亚政策分为两队。尽管美国民众强烈反对美国干预，但是主战派显然并不在意公共舆论。
如今美国的处境使得美国军队陷入困境，他们不顾国会主战力量的反对以及来自以色列游说团和人权游说团影响下的媒体压力，不情愿地在叙利亚进行干预。
奥巴马“遗产”前景如何
奥巴马总统处于其第二次连任也是最后一次连任，因此其核心集团依赖于其历史“遗产”。核心集团专注于创造更多外交政策上的遗产。
但批评者认为乔治·布什最先发动了一场不必要的战争，又被奥巴马无谓地延长了。他们还认为奥巴马在阿富汗扩大影响也与美国适时退出战争背道而驰。
如今白宫的顾问们更不必说总统候选人希拉里·克林顿，都面临着班加西事件丑闻的扩散。这是一次对于阿以和平进程的失败推动，也导致了叙利亚复杂而血腥的局势。简而言之，中东拜美国政策所赐已成为一片灾难之地。
美国企图指责叙利亚政府发动生化武器攻击，但是最终却发现恐怖主义本身应对此负责。主战的欧洲和美国政客倾向于以近期事件作为发动对叙利亚政府军事打击的借口。
另一方面，不久前退休的参谋长联席会议主席马丁·丹普西将军反复提醒国会和美国民众，如美国对叙利亚采取直接的军事行动将导致地区严重不稳定甚至给恐怖主义敌人以可乘之机。
不仅美国军队开始谨小慎微，据报道英国现役和已退休的军官也反对任何造成混乱的武装干预。此外，以色列现役和退休军人以及情报领导同样反对任何形式的破坏稳定的行动。
尽管军方、情报机构、外交官员态度谨慎，但是美国及其他主要西方国家主战政客仍在推动武装干预和战争的扩大。这些政客相应的也受到美国、英国和法国以色列游说团的影响。
华盛顿当前局势如何？
奥巴马总统在2012年第二次当选时重新组建了国家安全机构。苏珊·赖斯、前驻联合国大使成为白宫国家安全理事会主席。学术人权倡导者萨曼莎·鲍尔取而代之成为驻联合国大使。赖斯和鲍尔均是人道干涉主义和R2P相关原则的支持者。
奥巴马总统曾将美国称为“不可或缺的国家”。这种说法最早是由克林顿总统的国务卿玛德琳·奥尔布赖特提出的，她曾是1999年美国和北约武装干预科索沃战争的幕后主要力量。
苏珊·赖斯可以算是奥尔布赖特的门徒，她同样热切倡导使用武力方式进行人道主义干预。鲍尔亦是如此。鲍尔与奥巴马总统有着紧密的私人关系。科索沃事件如今又被白宫的顾问们援引。
1999年美国和北约为避免安理会问题，越过联合国制度干预科索沃战争。因此，以此为先例，美国如今可以在武装干预叙利亚政府时安抚世界舆论。
西方与伊斯兰原教旨主义联盟传播恐怖主义
伊拉克和叙利亚的基地组织与伊斯兰国组织（ISIS）希望维吾尔族帮助建立泛伊斯兰-伊斯兰教王权。穆斯林恐怖组织的战略目标有着广泛的含义。
穆斯林极端分子一直以来都企图建立所谓的伊斯兰王国并从中东延伸到中亚。在现代，阿富汗尼（1838〜1897）曾发动一场泛伊斯兰政治运动。该运动是跨国的，忽视国家边界，主要针对传统伊斯兰区域。
尽管是波斯族的后裔，阿富汗尼却自称是阿富汗逊尼派教徒。近年来学者揭露出他被多个西方情报机构和秘密组织利用，在19世纪煽动暴乱制造不稳定。这种方式一直持续到20世纪，直到21世纪仍然困扰着我们。
冷战期间，沙特阿拉伯地区信仰正统伊斯兰教的瓦哈比教派曾在20世纪60年代被西方国家利用，在意识形态层面对抗苏联共产主义。该政策一直持续到阿富汗战争期间用于对抗苏联。
在此期间，西方国家通过接受沙特阿拉伯及其他国家的资助策划阿富汗反苏联圣战。基地组织和其他很多恐怖组织正是在这种环境下得以发展。当时有专家就对这种鲁莽而无远见的战略可能出现的负面影响发出警告。
众所周知，乌兹别克斯坦的伊斯兰恐怖分子与基地组织和其他恐怖组织相勾结。相应的，分析者表明维吾尔族极端分子也与乌兹别克斯坦和其他极端组织发展联系。
将时间快进至今天的基地组织和伊斯兰国组织，我们会发现相同的泛伊斯兰政治意识形态，它将正统伊斯兰教与地缘政治目标相结合。
基地组织、伊斯兰国和类似组织对于他们的泛伊斯兰目标和地缘政治议程丝毫不做掩饰。最近一期基地组织官方出版物中讨论了维吾尔族人在将中国新疆维吾尔族自治区过程中所扮演的角色，目前极端分子与中东地区已产生这种想法。伊斯兰国组织首脑最近已声称新疆是伊斯兰王国的一部分。
目前中东地区出现的动荡是西方在伊拉克、利比亚和叙利亚政权更迭政策的直接后果。该地区出现的不稳定和激进化与美国、英国、法国和其他西方国家政权变更战略有着密不可分的联系。
在长达一个世纪的时间里，西方政府始终扶持激进的伊斯兰组织作为其战略工具。但是历史证明西方并不能有效地操控他们的工具，即便通过类似沙特阿拉伯的正统伊斯兰国家也难以实现。
中东盟国尽管支持西方政策，但是他们也拥有各自议程，这通常与西方的既定政策是背道而驰的。
毫无疑问，美国副总统拜登表示出对于土耳其、沙特阿拉伯以及阿联酋对于恐怖主义公开和私下支持的担忧。美国政府认为他们可以发动并且主导政权更迭，但是这种不顾后果的行为最终给了他们一记响亮的耳光。
中东地区的局势早已超出控制范围，极端的泛伊斯兰力量对俄罗斯、中亚国家、中国和印度都产生了威胁。东南亚也未能从威胁中幸免。在眼下局势下，无疑会引起一些主要国家对于西方政策的关切。
如果美国对于局势的思考方式和政策倾向不做调整，局势便不会有好转。考虑到白宫和国会的态度，能够出现明显改观的可能微乎其微。
在美国和西方国家冷静下来之前，其他国家职能依靠自身力量，例如，上海合作组织、金砖国家组织以及东南亚国家联盟都应制定符合时局的政策。
正如日益扩散的伊斯兰王国运动所印证的，美国需要尽早改变其行事方式。
俄罗斯支持叙利亚的政策与国际恐怖主义划清界限。俄罗斯政府深知近年来西方如何利用正统伊斯兰国家来获取利益。普京总统无畏的政策在国际恐怖主义威胁叙利亚、伊拉克局势动荡的关键时刻发挥了作用。
俄罗斯对于叙利亚的支持在短时间是有效的，因为它旨在摧毁伊斯兰国组织和基地组织等恐怖组织。西方的政策对这些组织提供支持以颠覆叙利亚政权。这种对比再鲜明不过。
近期，在俄罗斯的支持下，叙利亚爱国武装在打击恐怖主义上取得进展。当然，时间会证明一切，但是国际社会应感谢俄罗斯以及叙利亚政府在坚定抗击国际恐怖主义中付出的努力。
英文原文
SYRIA AND THE EMERGING MULTIPOLARWORLD
Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe
Russia’smove to assist Syria against international terrorism marks a new phase in thedevelopment of a multipolar world. Nolonger does the West have the initiative in the Middle East because its regimechange policy there has been a complete failure. USleadership is in question.
The Westerndestabilization of Iraq, Libya, and Syria has proven to be a disaster for theworld. The result has been the spread ofinternational terrorism not only in the Middle East but also from the MiddleEast to other areas.
Western alliesof the United States are now suffering the beginning of the consequences asexemplified by the present immigration crisis caused by Middle Easternersfleeing the chaos caused by the West.
US policy hasbeen unchanged through two presidencies. First, George W. Bush made war against Iraq to cause a regime change andthe downfall of its leader, Saddam Hussein. This unnecessary war against Iraq has been called the greatest strategicmistake in the history of the United States.
Mistakes haveconsequences and strategic mistakes can weaken a country’s capabilities andcall into question its international standing. This has been the case with Washington’s Iraq war and the mistake hasbeen compounded by US policy in Libya and in Syria.
The regimechange wars in Libya and in Syria have been strongly supported by the UnitedKingdom and France. British leaders TonyBlair and David Cameron and French leaders Nicolas Sarkozy and FrancoisHollande have been partners of President Barak Obama in the destabilization ofthe Middle East.
CRUSADE AGAINST SYRIA IS ABOUT WORLDORDER
Washington’sregime change policy in Syria is about world order. While human rights and democracy are featuredin the propaganda mix, the real issue turns on the future of the internationalsystem and the role of international law.
The Obamaadministration, as the Bush administration before it, mistakenly seeks throughgeopolitical measures to enforce a US led unipolar world and to delay theemergence of a multipolar world.
In theMiddle East region, many Washington politicians and policymakers see Israel asthe key US strategic ally. As the US pivots to the Asia-Pacific region,they want Israel’s regional position strengthened and its enemies, such asSyria and Iran, weakened.
USGeneral Wesley Clark in 2007 revealed the game plan of the neoconservativepolicy network around Vice President Dick Cheney which played the key role inthe Iran and Afghan wars of the Bush administration. In a speech to the Commonwealth Club of SanFrancisco, General Clark said that in the wake of the 911 attack, he learnedfrom Pentagon sources that the Middle East game plan for the future would beregime change in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
It shouldcome as no surprise that Washington calls for regime change in Syria. Despite a difference in administrations, theunderlying interventionist policy shows continuity. This is explained by the political influenceof the pro-Israel lobby and neoconservative policy network, the Christianfundamentalists, and the human rights and democracy activists.
Whiletheir ultimate agendas may differ, these three influential pressure groups havea common foreign policy direction: military intervention to support regimechange in the Middle East and elsewhere. These pressure groups called for the Iraq and Afghan wars and have sincecalled for military intervention against Syria and Iran.
Regimechange policy requires a parallel policy to undermine international law,international institutions such as the United Nations, and the traditionallegal principle of state sovereignty.
Withintraditional international law, the principle of the sovereignty of states, andthe concomitant illegality of intervention into the internal affairs of states,was put forward as a foundation of the European states system established in1648 at the Peace of Westphalia. Infollowing centuries, these principles received general internationalacceptance.
Duringthe Kosovo crisis in 1999, however, Tony Blair launched a significant attack oninternational law and state sovereignty in a speech to the Chicago EconomicClub. Blair said that militaryintervention should be used to solve human rights issues.
Blair’sdoctrine of military interventionism with state sovereignty as an anachronismwas well received by human rights and democracy activists in the UnitedStates. Indeed, the Clinton, Bush, andObama administrations have all been in step with the Blair doctrine. In recent years, this policy concept hasemerged as the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” doctrine.
Insupport of the R2P doctrine, the Obama administration recently made asignificant bureaucratic change to promote interventionism as a tool of USforeign policy. The White Houseestablished an Atrocities Prevention Board which reports to the president. Irish-born Samantha Power, a close Obamaconfidante and human rights activist, is director of the new board which willadvise on when, where, and how to intervene in support of human rights.
Predictably, the Houla massacre in Syria was cited as the atrocity which shouldtrigger military intervention. SomeAmerican officials, such as Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nationsand ally of Power on human rights issues, call for countries to go outside theUN process and independently intervene with military force in Syria.
Such anextremist position reflects the increasing influence of American policy circleswho wish to undermine international law and launch military interventions insupport of their unipolar world project. Human rights and democracy promotion provide convenient cover for themain strategic objective of hegemony.
For manyaround the world, however, movement toward a progressive multipolar world undertraditional principles of international law cannot come soon enough.
The fact todayis that US and Western air strikes and other actions in Syria are illegal underinternational law because they have not been authorized by the UN SecurityCouncil nor by the legitimate government of Syria.
The Russianassistance to Syria, on the other hand, is legal because the government ofSyria requested such assistance to defend against international terrorism. It is a fact that the world well knows by nowthat the US and Western countries support international terrorism in Syria inorder to promote regime change and eliminate the Assad government.
WESTERNWAR AGAINST SYRIADESTABILIZES REGION
How much longer can the West further destabilize the MiddleEast by launching military strikes against Syrian government targets? Debate in Washington is by the so-called Obama “legacy.”
InWashington, pro-war and pro-peace factions in both the Republican andDemocratic parties have lined up on Syriapolicy. Although the American public isstrongly opposed to more US intervention, the pro-war faction could care less about public opinion.
Thespectacle in Washington today pits the US military which is reluctant tointervene in Syria against the pro-war forces in the Congress and in the mediawhich are pressured by the pro-Israel lobby and by the Human Rights lobby.
Whatabout Obama’s legacy?
President Barack Obama’s inner circle isfixated on his historical legacy now that he is in his second and final term ofoffice. His inner circle is focused onforeign policy for legacy making. So the White House spins the foreign policylegacy presenting the president as ending two wars.
Butcritics say President George W. Bush’s Iraq War, unnecessary in the firstplace, was needlessly prolonged by Obama. They also say that the Obama escalation in Afghanistan wascounterproductive and delayed a timely US exit.
TodayWhite House advisors, not to mention presidentialcandidate Hillary Clinton, face a worsening scandal with theBenghazi affair, a failed Arab-Israeli peace process, and a complex and bloodysituation in Syria. In short, the MiddleEast is a disaster zone owing to US policy.
The US attemptedto blame the Syrian government for chemical weapons attack but it was shownthat the terrorists themselves were responsible. Pro-war European and US politicians areinclined to use the recent incident as a pretext for military strikes againstSyrian government targets.
On the other hand, the just retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,General Martin E. Dempsey, repeatedly warned Congress and the American publicthat direct US military action against Syria could be highly destabilizing andcould even help America’s terrorist enemies.
Not onlyis the US military cautious but active and retired senior British militaryleaders reportedly are opposed to any destabilizing use of force. On top of this, very senior active andretired Israeli military and intelligence leaders are also said to oppose anydestabilizing actions.
In spiteof the caution of military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials, it is thepro-war politicians in Washington and in Westerncapitals who are driving the move towardexpanded military intervention and war. These politicians, in turn, are under the strong ideological andfinancial influence of the pro-Israel Lobby whether in Washington, London, or Paris.
What isthe situation now in Washington?
PresidentObama reorganized his national security team after his reelection in 2012. Susan Rice, his former Ambassador to the United Nations, was made had ofthe National Security Council at the White House. Samantha Power, an academic human rightsadvocate, replaced Rice as the UN. BothRice and Power are proponents of humanitarian interventionism and theassociated doctrine of responsibility to protect.
PresidentObama has spoken of the US as the so-called “indispensible nation” a phrasefirst used by Madeleine Albright, President Bill Clinton’s Secretary ofState. Albright was the key figurebehind the US and NATO military intervention in the Kosovo war in 1999.
SusanRice is a protégé of Albright and is a passionate advocate of the use of militaryforce in humanitarian intervention situations as is Power. Power has a very close personal relationshipwith President Obama. The Kosovo casenow is invoked by White House advisors.
The 1999Kosovo intervention by the US and NATO was done outside the UN process to avoidproblems with the Security Council. Thus, the use of this precedent is convenient for Washington today as away of preparing global public opinion for military action against the Syriangovernment.
WesternAlliance with Fundamentalist Islam Spreads Terrorism
AlQaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) want Uighur help to createa pan-Islamic “caliphate.” Thisstrategic objective on the part of Muslim terrorist organizations has wideranging implications.
Thereis nothing new about Muslim extremists plotting to create a vast so-calledcaliphate extending from the Middle East into Central Asia. In modern times, an extensive pan-Islamicpolitical movement was created by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897). The movement was transnational, did notrecognize state boundaries, and focused on traditionally Islamic zones.
Althoughan ethnic Persian, al-Afghani claimed to be an Afghan Sunni. Scholars in recent years have shown how hewas used by several Western intelligence services and secret organizations tofoment insurrection and instability in the nineteenth century. This method continued in the twentiethcentury and is now with us in the twenty-first century.
Duringthe Cold War era, the fundamentalist Islam of the Saudi Arabian Wahhabi sectwas used by the West from the 1960s in its ideological struggle against SovietCommunism. The policy continued in theAfghan War era against the Soviet Union.
Duringthis era, the West with funding by Saudi Arabia and others orchestrated theanti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and many other terrorist organizations grew out of thismilieu. Experts at the time warned of“blowback” from such a reckless and short sighted strategy.
Itwas well known that Islamic terrorists from Uzbekistan interfaced with Al-Qaedaand other terrorist organizations. Inturn, analysts have said, Uighur extremists developed relations with Uzbek andother extremist organizations.
Fastforward to al-Qaeda and ISIS today and we find the same pan-Islamic politicalideology that combines fundamentalist Islam with geopolitical objectives.
Al-Qaeda,ISIS, and similar organizations make no secret about their pan-Islamicperspective and geopolitical agenda. Arecent edition of an official al-Qaeda publication specifically discussed therole of Uighurs to bring the Xinjiang province of China into the geographiccaliphate being created today in the minds of extremists and on the ground inthe Middle East. The head of ISISrecently referred specifically to Xinjiang as part of the caliphate.
Thepresent turmoil in the Middle East is a direct result of the Western strategyof regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The destabilization and radicalization of the region is directly relatedto the foreign policies of the United States, Britain, and France and the Westernregime change strategy.
Forover a century, Western governments have supported and even created radicalIslamic organizations as strategic tools. But history has shown that the Westcannot effectively manage such tools even with the assistance of fundamentaliststates such as Saudi Arabia.
Middle Eastallies supporting Western policies have their own agendas which are often atvariance with the best laid plans of Western policy makers.
It is no wonderthat US Vice President Joe Biden expressed concern about the overt and covert supportfor terrorism by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Washington thought that it could create andcontrol the regime change game but instead its reckless policy has blown up inits face.
The Middle East regionalsituation is spinning out of control and extremist pan-Islamic forces pose athreat to Russia, Central Asian states, China, and India. South East Asia is not outside the boundariesof such a threat. Under present circumstances it is little wonder that somecapitals express deep concern about Western policies.
Without majorchanges in thinking and in policy by Washington the situation will notimprove. Given the mindset of the WhiteHouse and Congress the likelihood for real and consequential change appearsdim.
Until the US andthe West come to their senses, others in the world will have to move forward ontheir own. For example, suchorganizations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and ASEAN must develop their own appropriate policies.
As the spreadingIslamic caliphate movement shows, Washington must changes its ways soonerrather than later.
Russian policyto assist Syria against terrorism draws a line against internationalterrorism. Moscow knows only too wellhow the West for decades has used fundamentalist Islam to advance itsinterests. The bold policy of PresidentVladimir Putin comes at a critical time when the forces of internationalterrorism operating against Syria and also Iraq have destabilized the entireregion.
Russianassistance to Syria has been effective in just a short time because theobjective is to destroy ISIS and related Al Qaida terrorist groups. Western policy has been to assist thesegroups to overthrow the Syrian government. The contrast could not be clearer because the policies are polaropposites.
In recent days,it appears that the Russian assistance combined with the patriotic Syrian armedforces is making good progress against the terrorists. Of course, time will tell, but theinternational community can thank Russia and the Syrian government for theirfirm against international terrorism.