With the announcement of US special forces joining Western-backed militants on the ground in Syria, many still appear confused as to exactly what the implications of this move are. As if to assure the public that indeed, the move is to use the so-called Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a pretext to invade and occupy Syrian territory, the Washington Post has published an article explaining the move in detail titled, “Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles.”

In it, it states openly that ISIS is being supplied via Turkey. It states specifically that:

They will increase air operations in northern Syria, particularly in the Turkish border area to cut the flow of foreign fighters, money and materiel coming in to support the Islamic State.

Of course, it should be noted that Turkey itself has been a NATO member since the 1950’s, with a US airbase located on Turkish territory at Incirlik for nearly as long. Since the war started in Syria in 2011, the US has admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times and the Washington Post itself has reported on numerous occasions regarding the US Central Intelligence Agency steering weapons to militant groups across this very border.

There are also multi-billion dollar refugee camps built in a joint effort between Western governments and nongovernmental organizations and the Turkish government itself along the border, as well as US-run training camps for “moderate rebels.”

The question becomes then, if ISIS is receiving the summation of its “foreign fighters, money, and materiael” from Turkey, and the US is operating all along the Turkish border, why isn’t it being interdicted before it reaches Syria? Washington Post answers that too, but in the way of a denial from an unnamed Pentagon official:

This step is not to be considered “the start of a no-fly zone or a creeping no-fly zone. That’s just not the intent,” the Pentagon official said.

2300syria-ISIS-7-27-15But of course it should be considered the start of a creeping no-fly-zone – because that is precisely why ISIS was created to justify in the first place, and that is precisely what is materializing before the world’s eyes. And the Washington Post elaborates on just what this no-fly-zone will lead to amid this feigned fight with ISIS:

Defeating the Islamic State in Syria, under Obama’s strategy, rests on enabling local Syrian forces not only to beat back Islamic State fighters but to hold freed territory until a new central government, established in Damascus, can take over.

There already is a central government in Damascus, that should ISIS supply lines flooding out of NATO territory be cut, could easily reestablish control over this “freed territory” the Washington Post refers to. But the Post is careful to mention the term, “new central government,” or in other words, a government hand-selected by the US and its regional partners, affiliated with the terrorists that have laid waste to Syria since 2011.

Invading Syria with US special forces-backed militants, and taking and holding Syrian territory is verbatim the plan laid out by US foreign policymakers from various corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks, and more specifically the Brookings Institution.