Militant Islamist fighters take part in a military parade along the streets of Syria’s northern Raqqa province June 30, 2014. (Reuters/Stri
The US is creating in Syria a perpetual state of war, funding jihadists on one side and then attacking them on the other, while the civilian casualties are just a part of the game, investigative reporter Ben Swann told RT.
RT:Washington says that the strikes are being carried out so that the oil facilities remain largely intact and can possibly be used again in the future. Given the weapons and missiles that are being used in this campaign, how likely is that?
Ben Swann: I think it is very difficult, and I think most viewers would agree, it is very difficult to target anything precisely through airstrikes. We refer to drone strikes as signature strikes and we know that drones wipe out a square block of space. So it is not a very definite signature. Look, whenever we talk about airstrikes we’re talking about very large plots of land and very imprecise strikes. I think it would be extremely difficult for the US to be able to preserve oil fields while striking.
RT: The refineries that have been hit are now controlled by Islamic State. What is the impact of these attacks in the long run? Are the destroyed refineries much of a blow to the nation’s economy?
BS: In the long term, it is going to have a very strong effect. I heard someone said yesterday that the administration should just come out and say what they are trying to do, which is go ahead and launch the strikes against Assad as well because that is what they are really there for. What I think is fascinating about this kind of geopolitical battle here is that the US has neither sought nor received approval, along with coalition partners to be in Syria conducting these strikes right now. It is a really fascinating kind of situation when you consider the [US] president stood up in front of the UN General Assembly yesterday and he talked about the importance of the rogue states not being able to just run roughshod over others and use the term “might” does not equal “right.”Well, I think in this case “might” is trying to make “right” for this coalition of partners and the US simply going into Syria and deciding they will conduct whatever war operations they choose to perform without even seeking the consent of the government.
