jump to navigation


Posted by wmmbb in Middle East.

As the bloodbath in Syria reaches potentially new levels, and as the Syrian opposition asks for, and probably gets new weapons, the unasked question as to Western, most probably American influence in these events, should be raised.

Aside from observing the behavior of the Syrian Government has been disgraceful, that is on the same level as the practice of human rights and the rule of law in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, what is to be gained by destabilizing the status quo in Syria? One would imagine that Syria reduced to disarray, much like Libya, would create a more dangerous neighbourhood for Israel, although one less likely to demand return of the stolen Golan Heights, comfortably secured under the nuclear umbrella. And unlike Libya and Iraq – never mind war crimes and the suffering of the people – where predatory oil exploiters seize their opportunities to engage in dishonest looting, the disarray in Syria is likely to draw in the neighbours, not excluding Turkey and Iran.

Where did the “rebels” get their military hardware? Al Jazeera reports:

Paul Craig Roberts at Counter Punch observes:

The fact that the “rebels” are armed is an indication of interference from outside. There have been reports that Washington has ordered its Saudi and Bahrain puppet governments to supply the “rebels” with military weaponry. Some suspect that the explosion that killed the Syrian Defense Minister and the head of the government’s crisis operations was not the work of a suicide bomber but the work of a US drone or missile reminiscent of Washington’s failed attempts to murder Saddam Hussein. Regardless, Washington regarded the terror attack as a success, declaring that it showed the rebels were gaining “real momentum” and called on the Syrian government to respond to the attack by resigning. (reuters.com)

The following is from a leaked intelligence document describing a previous Western terrorist intervention in Syria just in case any reader is so naive as to think that “our government would never do that.”

“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …

Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …

Further: a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957) (globalreasearch.ca)

Obama has not said why his government is so desperate to overthrow the Syrian government. The current president was an eye doctor in London who was brought back to Syria to replace his father, who had passed away, as president of the country. Washington is reticent about its real motives, which it masks with high-sounding humanitarian rhetoric, but Washington’s motives are transparent.

One motive is to get rid of the Russian naval base in Syria, thus depriving Russia of its only Mediterranean base.

A second motive is to eliminate Syria as a source of arms and support to Hizbullah in order that Israel can succeed in its attempts to occupy southern Lebanon and acquire its water resources. Hizbullah’s fighters have twice defeated the Israeli military’s attempts to invade and to occupy southern Lebanon.

A third motive is to destroy the unity of Syria with sectarian conflict, as Washington destroyed Libya and Iraq, and leave Syria to waring factions to dismember the country, thus removing another obstacle to Washington’s hegemony.

Syria, a secular Arab state, like Iraq was, is ruled by a political party composed of Alawis, more or less Shia Muslims. The Alawis comprise about 12% of the Syrian population and are regarded as heretics by the Sunni Muslims who comprise about 74% of the Syrian population. Thus the orchestrated “uprising” appeals to many Sunnis who see the opportunity to take over. (In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that ruled a Shia majority, and in Syria it is the opposite.)

There are reports of NATO-supported death squads. If so, Washington can be proud of its’ handiwork across the Middle East. The trail of tears, death and destruction is unheard and unseen as always, so it does not matter. What does not matter, cannot be remembered. The fact that this policy is criminal will only be a problem when justice is taken seriously. Otherwise the Syrians will follow the Iraqis, the Afghans and before them the Filipinos, and the Cherokee in 1838.

It is ironic, that those Americans simultaneously who believe that their firearms protect their liberty from their government, although not their democratic freedoms and processes, and who are averse to world government, are simultaneously indifferent to both the designs of  the Washington elite and imperial overreach.

Then their the view from Russia. There are contradictions that do not bear contemplation. Aleksey Pushkov, the chair of the Russian parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs,says the opposition is fighting for dictatorship. RT reports:

Then again, perhaps the American Government is a completely innocent bystander, totally surprised by developing events, and suggestions to the contrary are as out of character as they are scurrilous?


Luke Harding in The Guardian reported on Friday the Syrian Army was on the verge of collapse. His sources are rebels. Should that happen, the violence will not be stopped, nor a newly formed government is likely to spontaneously emerge.

Robert Fisk, in The Independent, is even more dyspeptic than usual.

Tom Engelhardt of Tom Despatch says this NYT article is a must read on post-Assad Syria.Vali Nasr writes:

THE conflict in Syria has reached a tipping point, but not one that promises a quick end to the fighting. With or without Bashar al-Assad as its leader, Syria now has all the makings of a grim and drawn-out civil war: evenly matched protagonists who are not ready for a cease-fire, and outside powers preoccupied with their own agendas and unable to find common ground.

There is no easy way out of such a stalemated struggle, and this one threatens the stability of the whole Middle East. So the United States and its allies must enlist the cooperation of Mr. Assad’s allies — Russia and, especially, Iran — to find a power-sharing arrangement for a post-Assad Syria that all sides can support, however difficult that may be to achieve.

There is, of course, before any other consideration, a priority and an imperative to stop killing and harm to human beings. Intervention, although necessary as it appears, will not be successful without justice and reconciliation. It is unlikely that any peace keeping will be unarmed.

Phillip Giradi discusses the state of play in Syria with Scott Horton.



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: