It's been two weeks since President Obama started the bombing initiative of Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) positions in Syria, and the Pentagon leadership still hasn't made a decision on which Syrian rebels are trustworthy and capable enough to assist in taking territory away from the jihadist group.

Since the United States doesn't want to commit U.S. ground troops, the military is considering raising a Syrian rebel force, which would be crucial for destroying ISIS and their footholds.

"No decision has been made as to who will lead the program," said Commander Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, to the Guardian.

Once selected for the training, the rebels will be led by Major General Michael Nagata, a special operations veteran. The supposedly moderate Free Syrian Army is expected to form the kernel of the proxy force, reported the Guardian. (Nagata smeared journalists Seymour Hersh and  Jeremy Scahill in a classified briefing after they published separate articles exposing secret U.S. military operations inside Pakistan.)

The Pentagon hopes to have an initial force of about 5,000. Estimates of ISIS fighters range from 20,000 to over 30,000. According to officials, it would take approximately 8 months to prepare the ground troops.

One of the main issues that hang over the operation is that the U.S. wants to use "vetted" and "moderate" Syrians against ISIS. However, those fighters have consistently lost groups to both ISIS and al Qaeda-linked groups.

We reported Vice President Joe Biden admitting "there is no moderate middle in Syria" and compared these fighters to "shop keepers."

But the Obama administration and the mainstream continues the charade that the US is only supporting "moderate" rebels.

Recently talk show host Michael Savage told Alex Jones that he wasn't buying the narrative of the US airstrikes on ISIS. Savage questioned why the US hasn't targeted the Abrams tanks that ISIS took from the Iraqi army.

Savage asked Jones, "Have you seen one Abrams tank blown up?"

"No," said Savage. "This entire war against ISIS is a sham. It's a pretext for invading Syria, taking down Assad…"

Robert Dreyfuss, in his book Devil's Game, How the US helped Unleash Fundamental Islam, states the US has supported radical Islamic activism over the past six decades, "sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly," and is thus "partly to blame for the emergence of Islamic terrorism as a world-wide phenomenon."

Dreyfuss cites a statement from Chas Freeman, "The neoconservatives' intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel."

It could be possible that America's strategy is to continue to supply arms to rebels – which ultimately falls into the hands of ISIS – through covert and overt operations in order to keep the Middle East in chaos.

After all, many analysts believe that a Middle East that is unstable with sectarian squabbles and no central power threatening Israel is in America's best interest.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.