The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

[seemslikeadream]

U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing "red line"
Updated at 6:30 p.m. ET

The Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to overthrow him and, in a major policy shift, President Obama has decided to supply military support to the rebels, the White House announced Thursday.

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the Supreme Military Council. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

President Obama has repeatedly said that the use of chemical weapons is a "red line" that, if crossed, would be a "game changer" for more U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

"The President has been clear that the use of chemical weapons - or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups - is a red line for the United States," said Rhodes in a separate written statement.

"The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," he continued.

In terms of further response, Rhodes said, "we will make decisions on our own timeline" and that Congress and the international community would be consulted. Mr. Obama is heading to Northern Ireland Sunday for a meeting of the G8 group of nations; Rhodes indicated the president will consult with leaders of those countries.

"Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity," Rhodes said.

To date, the U.S. policy on Syria has primarily focused on offering the rebels nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.

Rhodes said helping the opposition improve their effectiveness as a fighting force means helping with "nonlethal assistance" such as communications equipment and transportation. "These are things that allow them to cohere as a unit," he said.

He added, meanwhile, that no decision has been made about enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria. "A no-fly zone... would carry with it open-ended costs for the international community," Rhodes said. "Furthermore, there's not even a clear guarantee that it would dramatically improve the situation on the ground."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who met with the rebels last month and has been a vocal critic of the president's Syria policy said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: "We appreciate the President's finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. We also agree with the President that this fact must affect U.S. policy toward Syria. The President's red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions."

McCain: Syrian rebels don't understand why we won't help
Syria death toll tops 92,000, U.N. says
"A decision to provide lethal assistance, especially ammunition and heavy weapons, to opposition forces in Syria is long overdue," they added.

Rhodes laid out the intelligence assessment that led to the president's decision saying the U.S. intelligence community determined "that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year."

Rhodes added that "the intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete."

Although that is a small fraction of the more than 90,000 who have died in the civil war, Rhodes said "the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades."

"We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons," Rhodes continued. "We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons."

The conflict in Syria has raged on since March 2011 when Assad began cracking down on protesters inspired by the Arab Spring. The war has fallen along ethnic lines, between the Sunni rebels and Assad's Alawite-dominated regime. Rhodes said today that the use of chemical weapons adds an element of urgency to the situation, as does the influx of foreign pro-Assad fighters from Hezbollah and Iran.

While Mr. Obama has said unequivocally that Assad must go, the administration has said it's still aiming for his regime to engage with the opposition to reach a political settlement. In the absence of a political settlement, Rhodes said Syria would be left with "for all intents and purposes, a civil war" that Hezbollah and Iran would jump into. Syria's position in the heart of the Middle East makes the scenario particularly unpredictable.

Rhodes further added that the end of the Assad regime should not have to necessitate the disillusionment in all elements of the state. "There is a future for those in the Assad regime who are willing to accept the end of Bashar Assad's reign but are willing to work for a better future for Syria," he said.

[seemslikeadream]

Published on Friday, June 14, 2013 by Common Dreams
US 'Military Support' in Syria Will Lead to Full-Scale War, Critics Warn
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
As Western leaders and major media outlets rushed to back the White House's recent claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its rebel forces—urging increased U.S. "military support" for the rebels—progressive voices emerged Friday to warn against U.S. intervention, which would only escalate the conflict and lead to an even greater loss of life in the region.


A Syrian boy sits in the rubble of house in the town of Taftanaz, Syria. (AP)
Firstly, speaking on Democracy Now! Friday morning, Patrick Cockburn reminded viewers that very similar claims, which proved to be false, were made before the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq:

Well, there must be, you know, some doubts about this. You know, they [The White House] say this in a sure voice, but it’s a sure voice which reminds me of what they were saying in 2002 and 2003 about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Both Syria and its close ally Russia—who promised to send air-defense missiles to the Syrian government in the wake of Western powers lifting the ban on arms shipments to rebels in the region—denied the accusations Friday.

Alexei Pushkov, leader of the Russian lower house’s international affairs committee, accused the US of fabricating evidence, comparing it to America's incorrect claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003.

“Information about the usage of chemical weapons by [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad is fabricated in the same way as the lie about [Saddam] Hussein's weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq],” Pushkov tweeted.

Cockburn hightlighted the complexities of the conflict, of which the U.S., Russia, and others have already involved themselves in several ways. According to Cockburn, the conflict has become a "proxy war" between several foreign interests vying for power:

Cockburn states:

Yeah, it already has turned into a proxy war. You can see that with—Hezbollah and Iran were involved, but also the U.S. was—had already combined with Qatar to send weapons. Qatar has sent up to $3 billion to the rebels, 70 loads of flights of weapons, organized by—with the CIA. So, that was already happening. I think one of the—you know, what ought to happen would be to go down the diplomatic road to try and have a ceasefire. I don’t think you can have any solution at this moment in time, because you people are too involved in the war, they hate each other. But they should push for a ceasefire, and then there might be the basis for some talks afterwards. But the decision by the U.S. looks as though it’s going to push this into an all-out and long-running conflict.
Likewise, Phyllis Bennis, Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project, told the Real News Network Friday that "this has been in the works for a while," including recent U.S. troop movements in Syria's neighbor, Jordan.

More recently, just in the last few days, we've seen 5,000 U.S. troops, as well as a group of Patriot missiles, sent off to Jordan on the Syrian border for a long-planned but conveniently timed, let's say, military exercise that's involving troops from a number of countries. But it's quite likely that at least some of those troops and all of the Patriot missiles that are being sent will be remaining in Jordan after the two-week long exercise is over as part of the preparation for a possible direct military intervention.
Bennis went on to insist that there is absolutely no military "solution" in the region—that increased loss in human life is more than likely, as well as a long drawn out occupation:

The problem here, of course, is that they're acting as if there is a military solution in Syria when in fact there is no military solution. And the possibility of negotiations in Geneva, something that the U.S. and Russia jointly have been working towards and calling for, is now looking less and less likely, with moves towards escalating the arms sales on both sides. [...]

It can absolutely get worse. And it probably will, unfortunately. The reality is that civil wars--and this is partly a civil war. It's also now a proxy war. There's actually five separate wars being waged in Syria. But part of it is a civil war. Civil wars, if one side doesn't qualitatively destroy the other, end with negotiated settlements. The question is: do those negotiations begin now, or do we wait until there's another 70,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 Syrian casualties before going ahead with negotiations?
"So, I think once you get entangled in this," Cockburn continued, "rather like Iraq, it’s very different to—difficult to disentangle yourself, and this could go on for years."

Similarly, Bob Dreyfuss, writing for the Nation, described further U.S. involvement as a "slippery slope" that could lead to all out war:

So yesterday the White House decided to send weapons to the rebels. Reading the White House’s statement on the matter, it’s clear that they’re not quite ready to go all in, but that’s the problem with a slippery slope: once you send in small arms and ammunition, next comes anti-tank weapons, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and – oops! – before you know it, you’re bombing Syrian airports and imposing a no-fly zone. [...]
U.S. escalation is certain to make things worse for Syrians, Dreyfuss warns:

Saying “coming weeks” makes it sound as if adding the weapons isn’t all that urgent, but the message is clear: the United States will be arming the Supreme Military Council, and it will get worse.
An unnamed "Western diplomat" told Reuters Friday that the U.S. is considering a no-fly zone in Syria.

"Washington is considering a no-fly zone to help Assad's opponents," one diplomat said. He said it would be limited "time-wise and area-wise, possibly near the Jordanian border," giving no further details.

As many Common Dreams contributors have pointed out in the past, including Bennis, a no-fly zone is synonymous with an aggressive air bombing campaign, which often escalates quickly into a full scale invasion.

"How many civilians would die in that bombardment," asked Bennis recently, "given the widespread presence of anti-aircraft facilities across the country, including in populated areas?"

Watch Bennis on the Real News below:

[seemslikeadream]

JUNE 17, 2013

Sapping Assad’s Strength
Israel Stirs the Pot in Syria
by JONATHAN COOK
Nazareth.

For much of the past two years Israel stood sphinx-like on the sidelines of Syria’s civil war. Did it want Bashar al-Assad’s regime toppled? Did it favour military intervention to help opposition forces? And what did it think of the increasing visibility of Islamist groups in Syria? It was difficult to guess.

In recent weeks, however, Israel has moved from relative inaction to a deepening involvement in Syrian affairs. It launched two air strikes on Syrian positions last month, and at the same time fomented claims that Damascus had used chemical weapons, in what looked suspiciously like an attempt to corner Washington into direct intervention.

Last week, based on renewed accusations of the use of the nerve agent sarin by Syria, the US said it would start giving military aid directly to the opposition.

With suspicions of Israeli meddling growing, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was finally forced last week to deny as ”nonsense” evidence that Israeli forces are operating secretly over the border.

Nonetheless, the aura of inscrutability has hardly lifted, stoked by a series of leaks from Israeli officials. Their statements have tacked wildly between threats to oust Assad one moment and denials that Israel has any interest in his departure the next.

Is Israel sending out contradictory signals to sow confusion, or is it simply confused itself?

The answer can be deduced in the unappealing outcomes before Israel whoever emerges triumphant. Israel stands to lose strategically if either Assad or the opposition wins decisively.

Assad, and before him his father, Hafez, ensured that for decades the so-called separation of forces line between Syria and Israel, after the latter occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, remained the quietest of all Israel’s borders.

A taste of what might happen should the Syrian regime fall was provided in 2011 when more than 1,000 Palestinians massed in the no man’s land next to the Golan, while Assad’s attention was directed to repressing popular demonstrations elsewhere. At least 100 Palestinians crossed into the Heights, with one even reaching Tel Aviv.

Last week, following intensified fighting between the rebels and the Syrian army over Quneitra, a town next to the only crossing between Israel and Syria, UN peacekeepers from Austria started pulling out because of the dangers.

Briefly the opposition forces captured Quneitra, offering a reminder that any void there would likely suck in Palestinian militants and jihadists keen to settle scores with Israel. That point was underlined by one Israeli official, who told the Times of London: “Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos, and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there.”



For that reason, the Israeli military is reported to considering two responses familiar from Lebanon: invading to establish a security zone on the other side of the demarcation line, or covertly training and arming Syrian proxies inside the same area.

Neither approach turned out well for Israel in Lebanon, but there are indications – despite Netanyahu’s denial – that Israel is already pursuing the second track.

According to the New York Times, Israel is working with Syrian villagers not allied to Assad or the opposition and offering “humanitarian aid” and “maintaining intense intelligence activity”. In an interview with the Argentinian media last month, Assad accused Israel of having gone further, “directly supporting” opposition groups inside Syria with “logistical support”, intelligence on potential targets and plans for attacking them.

If the future looks bleak for Israel with Assad gone, it looks no brighter if he entrenches his rule.

A strong Assad means Syria will continue to play a pivotal role in maintaining a military front opposed to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. That in turn means a strong Iran and a strong Hizbullah, the Shia militia in Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s formidable record in guerrilla warfare is the main reason Israel no longer occupies south Lebanon. Similarly, Hizbullah’s arsenal of rockets is a genuine restraint on greater Israeli aggression towards not only Lebanon but Syria and Iran too.

Israel’s air strikes in early May appear to have targeted shipments through Syria of more sophisticated weaponry for Hizbullah, probably supplied by Iran. Longer range missiles and anti-aircraft systems are seen as “game-changing” by Israel precisely because they would further limit its room for offensive manoeuvres.

Israel will be equally stymied if Assad stays in power and upgrades his anti-aircraft defences with the S-300 system promised by Russia.

Either way, Israel’s much vaunted ambition to engineer an attack on Iran to prevent what it claims is Tehran’s goal of developing a nuclear bomb – joining Israel in the club of Middle Eastern nuclear-armed states – would probably come at too high a price to be feasible.

So what does Israel consider in its interests if neither Assad’s survival nor his removal is appealing?

According to some well-placed Israeli commentators, the best Israel can hope for is that Assad holds on but only just. That would keep the regime in place, or boxed into its heartland, but sapped of the energy to concern itself with anything other than immediate matters of survival. It would be unable to offer help to Hizbullah, isolating the militia in Lebanon and cutting off its supply line to Iran.

In closed-door discussions, analyst Ben Caspit has noted, the Israeli army has put forward as its “optimal scenario” Syria breaking up into three separate states, with Assad confined to an Alawite canton in Damascus and along the coast.

A long war of attrition between Assad and the opposition has additional benefits for Israel following the decision by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to draft thousands of fighters to assist the Syrian army. Protacted losses could deplete Hizbullah’s ranks and morale, while fighting is likely to spill over from Syria into Lebanon, tying up the militia on multiple fronts.

But there is a risk here too. If Hizbullah performs well, as it did in defeating the rebels this month at the town of Qusayr, its position in Lebanon could be strengthened rather than weakened. And in that situation Assad’s debt to Hizbullah would only deepen.

Such calculations are doubtless exercising Israeli military minds.

The greatest danger of all is that yet more parties get drawn in, turning the conflict into a regional one. That would be the likely outcome if Israel chooses to increase its interference, or if the US comes good with its recent threats to increase military aid to the opposition or impose a no-fly zone over parts or all of Syria.

Either way, Israel might see the transformation of Syria in to a new mini-cold war theatre as advantageous.

However, the Israeli sphinx isn’t offering any answers quite yet.

[beeline]

http://ctnbreakingnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/breaking-news-its-about-to-go-down-in.html

Arabiya
Some 80 thousand military forces trained by Lebanese Hezbollah were preparing to launch a ground offensive to recapture Syria’s commercial city of Aleppo.
According to a report in the UK-based Sunday Times, a Hezbollah commander said the fighters belonging to Syria’s National Defense Force (NDF) have been taught “to fight street by street.”
The fighters were also trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the newspaper added.
The commander on Sunday said Hezbollah will not deploy its fighters in Aleppo, but will only provide tactical support for forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“The battle for Aleppo will be fought by the NDF and the Syrian army, with Hezbollah supervising and providing military tactical advice on how to coordinate and conduct the offensive,” the Hezbollah commander said as quote by Sunday Times.
“It will consist mainly of commanders and experts advising and planning together with the Syrian army’s commanders in charge of Aleppo, on how best to utilize the men on the ground, how to advance and where to fight,” he added.
The planned assault on Aleppo aims to drive back Syrian opposition fighters who have been in control of the country’s second city.
Earlier this month, Assad forces regained control over the strategic town of Qusayr in Homs with the help of Hezbollah’s militia.

Regaining Aleppo “would strengthen the growing impression” that Assad is winning the war, the newspaper said.
On Friday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said his militia’s intervention in Syria came in response to a “global project” led by the United States and Israel to control not only Syria but the Middle East as a whole.
The Hezbollah commander told the Sunday Times their group intervened in Qusayr because of the direct threat Syria’s Jabaht al-Nursa, extremist Islamist group affiliated with al-Qaeda, to Lebanon’s borders.
“Aleppo is more of a Syrian matter,” he said, adding that the group will continue its supportive efforts because it wants to “ensure the survival of Assad’s regime” to preserve what it considers “the axis of resistance” against Israel.
The Iran-backed group, a close ally of Assad, initially justified its involvement in the Syrian conflict by saying that it wanted to defend villages along the border where Lebanese Shiites live, and the Sayyeda Zeinab shrine near Damascus, which is revered by Shiites around the world.
Meanwhile, Syrian opposition activists have reported that regime forces fired 700 missiles on Sunday towards southern Damascus.

[seemslikeadream]

The Latest Pack of Lies?
The Chemical Weapons Pretext for War on Syria
by BEN SCHREINER
In the wake of having its illegal domestic surveillance dragnet exposed, laying bare (yet again) the utter duplicity and criminality of the U.S. ruling class, Washington is once again digging deep to conjure up a pretext for yet another war of aggression in the Middle East.

Using the tired menace of weapons of mass destruction, the White House Thursday claimed with “high confidence” that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons, specifically the nerve agent sarin, against rebel fighters.

Washington’s announcement of “credible evidence” of chemical weapons use by Syrian forces, coming despite a dearth of actual hard evidence revealed, is now being used as the justification for providing direct U.S. military aid to the Syrian rebels.

The decision to wade further into the Syrian morass, however, came well before the supposed crossing of President Obama’s “red line.”

As the Washington Post reported, “the determination to send weapons had been made weeks ago.” Moreover, it has long been known that the CIA was overseeing the arming of opposition groups inside Syria. The debate in Washington over Syria has thus really been over the degree and overtness of U.S. military intervention. And while the typical Republican hawks (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) have used the latest chemical weapons scare to resume the calls for a “no-fly zone,” prominent Democrats continue to come around to supporting a “no-fly zone” as well. But then again, American politics has long stopped at water’s edge.

With such bipartisan war drums beating louder, it’s little surprise to learn that the Pentagon is working on plans for establishing a “limited no-fly zone” in order to carve out a buffer zone of up to 25 miles along the Jordan-Syria border.

This “no-fly zone,” the Wall Street Journal reports, would “be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom.” And on cue, the Pentagon has confirmed that it will indeed be keeping a contingent of F-16s and Patriot missiles in Jordan following scheduled war games there next week. (NATO already has Patriot missile batteries stationed along the Turkey-Syria border.)

The very notion of a “limited no-fly zone,” though, stands as but the latest addition to Washington’s growing newspeak. One may add it to the likes of “collateral damage,” “surgical strikes,” and “protecting civilians.” Indeed, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarked prior to the NATO assault on Libya in 2011, “Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” Syria would be no different.

Of course, the latest impetus used for directly arming the Syrian rebels and reviving the talk of bombing the country—the supposed crossing of President Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons—is on its very face tenuous, at best.

According to Foreign Policy’s “The Cable” blog, despite their “high confidence,” American intelligence officials have still not been able to determine a chain of custody for the blood samples supplied by Syrian rebels that reportedly tested positive for sarin. That is, they have not been able to establish who exactly handled the principal piece of evidence establishing “proof” of chemical weapons use by the regime. A rather remarkable admission given that it took two full weeks for the blood samples to reach Western intelligence agencies from rebel hands.

Faced with such flimsy evidence from U.S. officials, Yuri Ushakov, senior foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, commented that, “what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing.”

“It would be hard even to call them facts,” Ushakov added.

Indeed, as McClatchy reported, independent chemical weapons experts maintain that “they’ve yet to see the telltale signs of a sarin gas attack, despite months of scrutiny.”

“Ultimately, without more information, we are left with the need to trust the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community in arriving at its ‘high confidence’ judgment,” Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Arms Control Association told McClatchy.

And what a leap of faith to place one’s trust in the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community! After all, that would be the very same intelligence community which claimed it a “slam dunk” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; the very same intelligence apparatus now snooping on the communications of virtually every American.

Given such an abundant recent history of brazen illegality from Washington, it’s no wonder the American public simply isn’t buying another war in the Middle East. In fact, just 15 percent in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll favor U.S. military intervention into Syria. Only 11 percent favor arming the opposition.

Yet, in a revealing look into the anti-democratic impulse of the U.S. ruling elite who now cynically champion democracy in Syria, former President Bill Clinton publicly advised President Obama last week to disregard the firm public opposition to U.S. military intervention into Syria. As Clinton remarked, “any president risks looking like ‘a total fool’ if they listen too closely to opinion polls.”

And thus not wanting to look a fool, President Obama has set the American war machine on the grinding path toward deeper intervention into the Syrian conflict. The threat of a global confrontation ensnaring the likes of Iran and global powers Russia and China is evidently but the price of saving face. Or as former Obama State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter more tactfully put it, it’s but the price of saving “U.S. credibility.”

The American working class, let alone working people globally, have nothing to gain from saving Washington’s credibility and satiating its imperial blood lust. In fact, those at real risk of looking like fools are those still listening to the deceitful claims of the war-hungry elite. For amid deepening internal economic and political crises, all the American ruling class has on offer is but further imperial aggression to be sold on little more than a pack of lies.

[justdrew]

the stupidity of setting trigger conditions. draw a line in the sand and it will be crossed.

This is just too much, the insanity of this war on Assad is beyond belief. I guess it's up to congress to enforce the will of the people banning such actions by the executive. Been done before. but of course, with the congress controlled by republicans there is zero chance of that happening. So I guess that's that then.

at the same time, 'supplying them with weapons' may not amount to much help. In fact it may just embolden them enough to stand up to be shot. Regardless of the who wins, a bunch of islamic combatants are soon to be dead.

and I can't ignore that 100% of the "civil society" reformers are dead or fled (mostly fled, lotta refugees). This is in no way the same revolution as it once was.

I can't help but suspect that the forces against Assad at this point comprise those forces under the patronage of the secret western elite. I think I can faintly hear the bray of pigs.

[slimmouse]

Patrick Helsinger of 21st Century wire, discusses all thing Syria related in the interview with Red Ice Radio, along with the various color coded revolutions and lots of other stuff.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 130628.php

[justdrew]

been pretty quiet for a couple weeks. I guess they're all busy in basic training, where? Jordan? Turkey?

I thought Hezbollah was supposed to be on Assad's side. Odd that there is this channel clearly anti-assad... Probably fake...

http://www.youtube.com/user/HezbollahNews

it appears to have been created two weeks ago and hacked a week ago, the perspective of the uploaded videos changes then.
but the hackers haven't removed all the older videos.

so take a look at some of the soldiers of the legitimate government of Syria

Syrian Lioness Training to Defend Syria from Wahhabi Jihadists

[conniption]

Voice of Russia

June 29, 2013

‘Splitting Syria is the best possible outcome’ – Henry Kissinger


Фото: РИА Новости

Syria is a constant source of bad news for the US and its allies, who are keen to arm and finance the terrorists who are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Bashar Assad. Speaking at the Ford School, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger commented on the current Syrian situation, expressing his preference for a broken-up and balkanized Syria to emerge after the civil war.

Henry Kissinger admitted that the seeds of Syrian conflict were planted by the West during the colonial era. “First of all, Syria is not a historic state. It was created in its present shape in 1920, and it was given that shape in order to facilitate the control of the country by France, which happened to be after UN mandate. The neighboring country Iraq was also given an odd shape that was to facilitate control by England. And the shape of both of the countries was designed to make it hard for either of them to dominate the region”, he explained.

After describing the roots of the conflict, the former secretary of state outlined the real nature of the war in Syria, pointing out that it is a sectarian war and not a war for democracy. Henry Kissinger showed no remorse for the American support of the terrorists but was clearly saddened by the military victories of the Syrian army.

In his view, the US can no longer hope for a decisive victory and liquidation of the Syrian government. However, Henry Kissinger believes that Syria can be split into several regions and that such a scenario is the best outcome for America: “There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they can’t oppress each other. That’s the outcome I would prefer to see. But that’s not the popular view.”

This statement made by one of the most influential American strategists shows that Bashar Assad is very close to victory and the US is trying to propose a compromise because it is clear that the original plan to overthrow the Syrian government has failed. Mr. Kissinger is a bit late with his proposal. Last year, when Assad was losing the war, it could have been accept. Now, when Assad’s forces are winning, no one will agree to split Syria into several enclaves.

[justdrew]

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks for that jd...at least we can follow a couple of stories at the same time

[justdrew]

Thanks for that jd...at least we can follow a couple of stories at the same time

a LOT of this current shit is tightly connected I suspect

this clown James Clapper is one of the fools who helped sell the Iraqi WMDs lie.

[seemslikeadream]

If They Can Lie About NSA/Snowden, They Can Lie About Syria and Iran
Wednesday, 03 July 2013 13:14
By Robert Naiman, Truthout | News Analysis

Truthout doesn’t take corporate funding - that’s why we’re able to confront the forces of greed and regression. Support us in this mission: make a tax-deductible donation today by clicking here.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (Photo: Medill DC / Flickr)
In March, something happened in Congress that all Americans who love the rule of law need to hold in our teeth.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
To which Clapper responded, "No, sir ... Not wittingly."
In light of what National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed about the NSA's domestic data-gathering, Clapper has now admitted that his answer in Senate testimony was "untruthful" - what ordinary people call a "lie."
Lying to Congress in testimony is, literally, a crime - it's a violation of federal law. Raise your hand if you think that Clapper is going to serve any time in federal prison for lying to Congress.
Regardless of what one thinks about Clapper as an individual human being, if government officials can lie to Congress without consequence, we're in big trouble in terms of democracy and the rule of law, especially as these apply to the reform of US foreign policy. If senior government officials can lie to Congress about the NSA's domestic surveillance of millions of Americans without consequence, what can't they lie to Congress about?
There's a culture in much of Washington that believes that government officials can do and say whatever they want, so long as it's in the service of the Empire. It's the foreign policy version of Nixon's "If the President does it, it's not illegal." That may be useful for running an Empire, or it may not, but it's not the rule of law. If it's illegal for Joe and Mary Schmoe to do it, it's illegal for the president and his or her lieutenants to do it - that's the rule of law.
The Obama administration has announced that the United States is going to arm Syrian rebels and is considering imposing a "no fly zone" over Syria, which means bombing Syria. The public - Democratic, Republican and Independent - is overwhelmingly opposed. Congress has neither authorized arming Syrian rebels or imposing a no-fly zone. Under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, in the absence of an armed attack on the United States, Congress, not the president, has the power to authorize the use of military force.
The administration says that it will make sure that US weapons won't fall into the hands of people who want to hurt Americans or people who execute Catholic priests. Many independent observers think this assertion is bunk.
What basis would we have for believing that the administration's assertion is not likely to be a lie, if there are no consequences for Clapper's lie about the NSA's domestic surveillance? If Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's domestic surveillance without consequence, what incentive does he have to hold back from lying to Congress about Syria? Or Iran? What confidence can we have about administration statements about Syria or Iran, if there is no Congressional debate or scrutiny?
Like the Fourth Amendment, the War Powers Resolution is not going to enforce itself. If we want the War Powers Resolution to be enforced, members of Congress have to speak up and take action. That means members of the public have to speak up and take action, because that's what gets members of Congress to move.
A bipartisan group of senators and representatives has started to stand up. They've introduced legislation that would expressly prohibit the Obama administration intervening militarily in Syria's sectarian civil war without explicit Congressional authorization.
Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), Chris Gibson (R-New York), Rick Nolan (D-Minnesota) and Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) have introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 2494) to block US military intervention in Syria without an affirmative vote of Congress. Identical legislation (S. 1201) has been introduced in the Senate by Sens. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mike Lee (R-Utah).
Sending military assistance to Syrian rebels, or any direct military intervention, would lead to the Americanization of Syria's sectarian civil war. Congress and the American people should be part of a vigorous debate before any such military escalation takes place. Urge your senators and representative to support legislation that would require Congressional authorization before any military escalation in Syria.

[seemslikeadream]

Shamming into Syria
WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
WEDNESDAY, 03 JULY 2013 22:49
Here is my latest column for the print edition of Counterpunch.

Shamming into Syria

When I saw the news on June 13 that Bill Clinton had joined with John McCain in blasting Obama's "inaction" on Syria and calling for direct U.S. military intervention in the conflict, I knew we would soon hear the other shoe dropping. And lo, just hours later, pat it came, with that reliable old house organ of the power structure, the New York Times, portentously reporting that “intelligence” had “confirmed” the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government -- the flashing "red line" that Obama had declared would be the trigger for more American intervention.

One day later, the New York Times reported that the White House will now supply the rebels with arms -- yet another loose, uncontrollable flood of weaponry washing through the most volatile region on earth, guaranteeing more death, more ruin, more terrorism, more needless suffering not only on the Syrian killing grounds, but far beyond as well -- exactly as we saw in the Libyan intervention. And no doubt the Sunni militants in Iraq -- currently killing dozens of people weekly in the sectarian hell created by the American invasion -- will love the U.S. ordnance they'll soon be getting from their al Qaeda allies in the forefront of the Syrian rebel campaign.

The move by Clinton, the progressive’s beloved “Big Dawg,” move was obviously part of a sham operation to "force" poor, peace-loving Obama into significantly ramping up American military involvement in Syria. (And the sight of this self-infatuated gasbag -- with the blood of half a million sanction-murdered Iraqi children on his hands – now demanding more bloodshed for innocent people was truly sickening. Especially the "reasoning" he gave for urging action, despite that fact that intervention is opposed by 85 percent of the American people: if Obama failed to help kill more people in Syria, Clinton said, he would end up "looking like a wuss." Yes, that really is the level of intellect that drives policy at the highest reaches of the American power structure. Yes, they really are juvenile neurotics with third-rate minds obsessed with their illusory "manhood," which can apparently be expressed only by the large-scale slaughter of human beings and military domination of the whole earth. Christ Jesus, boys -- ain't you ever heard of Viagra? Bob Dole can get it for you wholesale. You really don't have to kill people just to get it up.)

For months, Obama has been playing this rope-a-dope game, stringing along both the rabid interventionists and the remaining "progressives" who still believe, against all evidence, in the president's good intentions. But now the time has come to up the ante. Why?

One reason -- noted by the Times -- is the fact that the Syrian rebels are clearly in danger of losing, despite the best efforts of close American allies like the woman-hating, head-chopping, extremism-abetting religious tyrants in Saudi Arabia to keep the bloodshed going. Indeed, as As'ad AbuKhailil points out, the Saudi and Qatari gun-runners and paymasters of the predominantly Sunni rebels in Syria are increasingly using the conflict to foment a genocidal fury against Shiites and related sects across the Middle East. As in Iraq, Western intervention is fuelling a spiral of uncontrollable sectarian violence at a level unseen in the region for centuries, AbuKhalil notes. And American warmongers love to see Muslims killing each other, especially if it opens up new opportunities for war profiteering and oil deals, as in Libya and now in Syria. For example, just one day before the intelligence apparat “confirmed” chemical weapon use by Syria, the administration eased export restrictions to “help facilitate oil sales from rebel-controlled areas,” Reuters reports. One of life’s little coincidences, I reckon.

Equally coincidental, no doubt, is the fact that this intelligence “finding” comes just as Team Obama is reeling from revelations of the Orwell-surpassing cyber-panopticon it has imposed on the entire populace. What better distraction from domestic skullduggery than the ever-reliable foreign threat: “Look over yonder -- WMDs!” Time to rally round the flag – and fill airtime and newsprint with endless blather and Pentagon propaganda about the noble humanitarian “surge” against Syria.

This is a momentous move -- however juvenile and shallow and irredeemably stupid its perpetrators may be. Syria is not Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan, isolated regimes on the outskirts of the Middle East. It is in the very center of the powder keg. And it has powerful allies in Russia and Iran. Expanding the civil war there could draw those countries more directly into the conflict, as well as Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, even Turkey. The risk of a wider regional war -- even a world war -- is very real.

This is the reality we are now entering. It's not just blasts of point-scoring partisan rhetoric ricocheting around Capitol Hill, cable news and Twitter. There is a real world out there beyond the various screens that transfix us all, sealing us in an abstract, virtual space of light and pixels. Real people will die from this decision, and from the ludicrous, sinister games played by the stunted power-seekers on every side of the increasingly savage conflict.

[seemslikeadream]

Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria's 'heart-eating cannibal'
By Paul Wood
BBC News, Syria

Continue reading the main story
In today's Magazine

Why are so many Japanese men refusing to leave their rooms?
Will there ever be another massive tank battle?
Inside the Arizona 'tinderbox'
Seeking America's next cyber protector
It sounded like the most far-fetched propaganda claim - a Syrian rebel commander who cut out the heart of a fallen enemy soldier, and ate it before a cheering crowd of his men.

The story turned out to be true in its most important aspect - a ritual demonstration of cannibalism - though when I met the commander, Abu Sakkar, in Syria last week, he seemed hazy on the details.

"I really don't remember," he says, when I ask if it was the man's heart, as reported at the time, or liver, or a piece of lung, as a doctor who saw the video said. He goes on: "I didn't bite into it. I just held it for show."

The video says otherwise. It is one of the most gruesome to emerge from Syria's civil war. In it, Abu Sakkar stands over an enemy corpse, slicing into the flesh.

"It looks like you're carving him a Valentine's heart," says one of his men, raucously. Abu Sakkar picks up a bloody handful of something and declares: "We will eat your hearts and your livers you soldiers of Bashar the dog."

Then he brings his hand up to his mouth and his lips close around whatever he is holding. At the time the video was released, in May, we rang him and he confirmed to us that he had indeed taken a ritual bite (of a piece of lung, he said).

Now, meeting him face-to-face, he seems a bit more circumspect, though his anger builds when I ask why he carried out this depraved act.

"I didn't want to do this. I had to," he tells me. "We have to terrify the enemy, humiliate them, just as they do to us. Now, they won't dare be wherever Abu Sakkar is."

He is 27, a stocky, tough-looking Bedouin from the Baba Amr district of Homs, with a wild stare and skin burned a dark brown by the sun. He tells me the story of his involvement in the revolution, leading to his current notoriety.


Abu Sakkar fought with the Farouq Brigade before starting his own
Before the uprising, he was working as a labourer in Baba Amr. He joined the demonstrations when they started in the spring of 2011. Then, he says, a woman and child were shot dead at a protest. His brother went to help. He, too, was shot and killed.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Put yourself in my shoes - they slaughtered your brothers, they murdered your uncle and aunt... all this happened to me”

Abu Sakkar
Watch: Abu Sakkar interview in full
In a YouTube video from June 2011, Abu Sakkar can be seen at the front of a crowd waving olive branches to greet deserting army officers. He took up arms against the regime, one of the first to join a new organisation called the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

In February 2012, he was fighting with the Farouq Brigade, and they tried, and failed, to stop the regime taking Baba Amr. When the FSA fled Baba Amr, he started his own brigade, the Omar al-Farouq. They saw bitter fighting in Qusayr.

Along the way, he lost another brother, many relatives, and countless of his men. His parents were arrested and he says the police rang him so he could hear them being beaten.

"Put yourself in my shoes," he says. "They took your father and mother and insulted them. They slaughtered your brothers, they murdered your uncle and aunt. All this happened to me. They slaughtered my neighbours."


He goes on to talk about the man whose flesh he held in his hands: "This guy had videos on his mobile. It showed him raping a mother and her two daughters. He stripped them while they begged him to stop in the name of God. Finally he slaughtered them with a knife... What would you have done?"

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

"If we don't get help, a no-fly zone, heavy weapons, we will do worse - you've seen nothing yet”

Abu Sakkar
Well, perhaps not make a meal of my enemy, I think. At the time, Abu Sakkar's men greeted what he did with cries of "God is Great". Now the fighters looking after him while he recovers from an injury just seem a bit embarrassed.

Abu Sakkar says the dead soldier was an Alawite or Shiite militiaman. "He was insulting us. He was shouting, 'Oh Ali, Oh Hussein, Oh Haydar [Shia slogans],'" he says.

"In the beginning, when we captured an Alawite fighter, we would feed him, make him feel comfortable. We used to tell him we were brothers. But then they started raping our women, slaughtering children with knives."

A man in the room interrupts to say the Alawites are not proper Muslims. This war is becoming increasingly sectarian.

Abu Sakkar shows me scars from 14 different bullet wounds on his body. "We're under siege, it's been two years now," he says. "Videos from the Shabiha [government militia] show many more terrible things than what I did. You weren't too bothered. There wasn't much of a media fanfare. You didn't care. You suffer a fraction of what we suffered and you'll do what I did and more."


Abu Sakkar's home district of Baba Amr has seen heavy fighting
He continues: "Qusayr was destroyed, Baba Amr destroyed, Homs was entirely destroyed. No-one cares. See how the refugees are living? Would you accept your parents living the same way? The Syrian people refuse to be humiliated. We are defending the Islamic nation and this is how the Arabs and the West treat us? What did the West do? Nothing."

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Is the West asking me now to fight Abu Sakkar and force him out of the revolution?”

Gen Salim Idris
FSA chief of staff
Finally, he adds: "If we don't get help, a no-fly zone, heavy weapons, we will do worse [than I did]. You've seen nothing yet."

So Abu Sakkar has become the "cannibal rebel" - a handy symbol for all those who, like the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, oppose arming the Syrian rebels.

Standing next to an uncomfortable looking David Cameron, Mr Putin told a G8 summit news conference: "These are people who don't just kill their enemies, they open up their bodies, and eat their intestines in front of the public and the cameras. Are these the people you want to… supply with weapons?"

It is possible that Abu Sakkar was mentally disturbed all along. Or perhaps the war made him this way. War damages men - and Syria is no different. As the poet W H Auden wrote: "Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return."


Gen Salim Idris: Why do our friends in the West focus on this?
I asked the Free Syrian Army's chief of staff, Gen Salim Idris, why Abu Sakkar hadn't been arrested. His answer tells you a lot about the reality of how the war is being fought on the rebel side.

"We condemn what he did," said the general. "But why do our friends in the West focus on this when thousands are dying? We are a revolution not a structured army. If we were, we would have expelled Abu Sakkar. But he commands his own battalion, which he raised with his own money. Is the West asking me now to fight Abu Sakkar and force him out of the revolution? I beg for some understanding here."

Abu Sakkar seems unsure how to respond to his notoriety. He is, by turns, sheepish, nervous, angry and bitter. He definitely has the look of a man who has seen too many bad things. At the end of our interview he says he is an "angel of death" coming to cash in the souls of the enemy.

After the video became public, his men filmed him making a statement. (Not for nothing has this been called the YouTube war.) In this video, Abu Sakkar is in a freshly pressed uniform, jauntily smoking a cigarette in a way that lends a slightly absurd air to the whole performance. He says he's willing to stand trial - but only if President Bashar Assad does too.

There's no immediate prospect of either men facing their accusers. Nor of peace talks, or even of a ceasefire. And so Syria's descent into madness continues.