The United States has a “not-so-hidden agenda” in combating ISIL, and that is certainly not “peace and stability in the region,” says a political commentator.
“What the US cannot let go of is that they have their own interests. This has nothing to do with ISIS (or ISIL), which they have funded and trained, and nothing to do with peace and stability in the region,” Daniel Patrick Welch, American journalist and author, told Press TV in an interview on Thursday.
“This is a Trojan horse to try again to effect regime change in Syria,” he added.
Welch said there is currently a “split” between the US intelligence community and military on how to deal with ISIL.
FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday played down the effectiveness of US airstrikes on the terrorist organization and said the air campaign has actually boosted support for ISIL. “ISIL’s widespread use of social media and growing online support intensified following the commencement of US airstrikes in Iraq.”
“It is a big deal that Comey can come out and say this [US air campaign] is a big shot in the arm for ISIS recruitment,” Welch said.
He also dismissed the US-led coalition against ISIL. “And you see the assembly of the same, what I call, the coalition of the shilling, acting as willing handmaidens for US hegemonic interest, all the same countries, all the same faces and the same names.”
“And how can you (build) an anti-ISIS coalition that doesn’t involve the only army that’s willing to fight them openly on the ground, which is Syria or Iran which has enormous interest in doing so,” he noted.
US President Barack Obama vowed last week to broaden the war on ISIL to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terror organization, which has executed two American hostages in recent weeks.
American military aircraft have been targeting ISIL positions in Iraq since August 8. Obama has also authorized airstrikes on ISIL bases in neighboring Syria, and has yet to order the US military to carry them out.
The US president has ruled out American boots on the ground in a combat role, but a number of military leaders have contended that airstrikes alone would not be enough to defeat ISIL.