The truth behind this account is pretty clear if you learn to parse the rhetoric coming from the neocons.
In Iraq, the goal was always stated as “free and fair elections.” That’s always the goal of the neocons, as long as all the candidates are pro-US.
However, that’s never the goal in Syria. They never talk about holding “free and fair elections”; they talk about “Assad must go.” Obviously elections cannot be “free and fair” if there are certain people who are not permitted to stand for election. The reason they don’t talk about free and fair elections in Syria is simple: that term implies that (a) Assad would be allowed to run for election, and (b) they know he would probably win, because he remains incredibly popular with the religious and ethnic minorities.
The other day, this appeared:
US Air Force to quit Incirlik, move to Syria base
US engineering teams are working round the clock to build a big new air base in northern Syria after completing the…
I have the ability to confirm this, because I have relatives pinned down in al-Qamishley. If true, this begs the question: if we are (a) building military bases in Syria without (b) the invitation of the Syrian government……then how are we NOT referred to as “invaders”?