When it comes to acting in accordance with the national interest, no one can hold a candle to the newspaper of record. Yes, it sued the government when the publication of what later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers (a U.S. government study about the Vietnam War, leaked by former U.S. Marine Corps officer Daniel Ellsberg, the publication of which was stopped by the Nixon Administration) but back then there was a bigger interest in question: more sales! Otherwise, The New York Times, and all other U.S. media to that effect, always sides with the government. Case in point: its editorial article titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran" published on the day Aleppo fell.

Nobody denies the Russian bombings of civilian towns and villages, the destruction of hospitals and even nurseries, and the slaughter of innocent people by the Iranian Shiite thugs. Russia committed crimes against humanity to support the Assad regime. Russian warplanes used the Iranian airfields to bomb food, fuel and medical supply convoys on their way to noncombatants. All these things are true. The New York Times mentions these atrocities, and more; but stops there. It does not mention the failures of the administration of President Barack Obama in general, and secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, in particular.

It mentions the U.S. once when it refers to the Russian vetoes in the U.N. Security Council. According to the newspaper, the U.S. wanted to sanction Bashar Assad, but Russia shielded him. Had the U.N. declared an embargo on the Assad regime it would have been forced to make political compromises and the war would have been averted. The U.S.-backed opposition, it says, were about to win, Russia sent jets and troops; Iran sent Hezbollah guerrillas with arms and money; and this chaos has allowed Daesh to establish a headquarters in Syria.

If any future generation tries to understand what happened in Syria during the civil war that started in 2011 they should look elsewhere because this "journal of record" apparently failed to record what happened over the last five and a half years. Turkey's name appears in that editorial in the last paragraph as one of the brokers of the recent ceasefire. Of course, there is no mention of Turkey's untiring and recurrent calls for a no-fly zone in Syria, neither a word about the train-and-equip program for the Syrian opposition. Ms. Clinton had difficulty in finding opposition fighters to her liking; therefore the opposition never had a good chance of resisting the military might of the last socialist armada of the Ba'ath Regime. When Turkey tried to equip and train Syrian Turkmen guards, its convoys were raided by the members of a cult whose leader is still running his terror and espionage organization from Pennsylvania.

Turkey offered the Obama administration to jointly get rid of the Daesh terrorists, but the United States preferred a handful of PKK terrorists disguised under the name of the Democratic Union Party (PYD). The U.S. declared them their troops on the ground. To fight off a terrorist group using another terror organization was not a good idea; and eventually it did not work. The PYD started to grind its own axe and scared all the other opposition groups off. As if that were not enough, the U.S. allowed the PYD terrorists to dismember Syria, declaring cantons in the northern part of the country. This alone was a good reason for many tribes to leave the U.S.-backed coalition against Saddam Hussein.

In the end, the Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) incursion from the north had a limited scope to purge the Daesh terrorists from the al-Bab area. Turkey is trying to rescue the last baby from the hands of the Iranian militia. The U.S., its coalition partners and their boots on the ground, as well as their chronicler in New York, are simply watching as they have been doing since 2011.

They were all in la la land; they still are.