Syria

[Awol]

Peter I don't buy your proposition that there is some level of moral equivalence between drone strikes (counter productive and illegal as they may be) and the large scale use of rape, torture and murder against a civilian population to no end other than sadistic terrorism.   I also don't think that the reconciliation processes in either Ulster or South Africa are comparable to the situation in Syria. The only modern point of reference I can think of is Bosnia, and although the numbers of dead in Syria are not as high as that yet, it will almost certainly go that way, or worse. The only thing that stopped the killing there was direct intervention and the realisation in Belgrade that continuing the campaign would mean fighting NATO. The only thing that stopped the problem from re-emerging was physical separation of the populations on the ground.

 

The main problem with the political solution you suggest is its utter rejection by the belligerent parties in the country. The Basel II proposals are dead, there is no political peace process to cling to.  The UN are not going to do anything, not because the west is undermining its moral authority but because it has none. The other actors (Saudi and Qatar on one side, Iran and Russia on the other) are not going to be pressured by anyone into disengaging their support for either the Jihadists or Assad. That leaves the only people who want a free and pluralistic society as the only side not being directly supported.

 

Is that sensible?

[peterms]

Peter I don't buy your proposition that there is some level of moral equivalence between drone strikes (counter productive and illegal as they may be) and the large scale use of rape, torture and murder against a civilian population to no end other than sadistic terrorism.   I also don't think that the reconciliation processes in either Ulster or South Africa are comparable to the situation in Syria. The only modern point of reference I can think of is Bosnia, and although the numbers of dead in Syria are not as high as that yet, it will almost certainly go that way, or worse. The only thing that stopped the killing there was direct intervention and the realisation in Belgrade that continuing the campaign would mean fighting NATO. The only thing that stopped the problem from re-emerging was physical separation of the populations on the ground.

 

The main problem with the political solution you suggest is its utter rejection by the belligerent parties in the country. The Basel II proposals are dead, there is no political peace process to cling to.  The UN are not going to do anything, not because the west is undermining its moral authority but because it has none. The other actors (Saudi and Qatar on one side, Iran and Russia on the other) are not going to be pressured by anyone into disengaging their support for either the Jihadists or Assad. That leaves the only people who want a free and pluralistic society as the only side not being directly supported.

 

Is that sensible?

 

Well, I was comparing drone strikes with the smaller-scale and more personal murders you referenced, rather than the whole conflict.  But let's be clear that widespread use of rape, torture and murder against civilian populations are sadly not unique to Syria, but a commonplace in war.  I don't know if any war has been conducted with regard for civilian populations.  The aim is generally not sadism per se (though if you're a psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain, joining an army is probably a better route to job satisfaction than librarianship), but to terrorise the population in the hope of gaining advantage.  We've done it, the US have done it, the Syrians and their opponents are doing it.  No moral high ground available for any of these.

 

My comparison with NI and SA is simply in respect of the level of fear and hatred both sides in that conflict had for each other.  Obviously things like large-scale flight of refugees and subsequent theft of land would make it more like eg Israel, where reconciliation isn't on the agenda.  I'm simply saying that the human capacity for reconciliation, like barbarity, is perhaps greater than we sometimes realise.

 

I agree that physical separation of the parties is a necessary step.  Not only are "we" not doing this, we're more like someone at a cockfight, strapping bigger and sharper blades to the cocks' feet.  The role of the West is not that of a concerned bystander wondering what to do for the best, but of someone who is actively, knowingly and deliberately making it far worse.  We started funding, training and encouraging the opposition as a tool in the struggle for control of which pipelines will go through Syria, and who will profit from them.

 

This is where the position of the West (which effectively here means the US and whoever can be persuaded to fall in line behind it) is so transparently hypocritical.  Any honest attempt to reduce the level of conflict would first seek international agreement, second stop arming the parties, and third support intervention led by countries perceived as neutral.  Instead of that, we have a proposed unilateral and illegal bombing campaign aimed at regime change, accelerating support for the opposition (including those elements which would be termed "terrorists" anywhere else), and frantic efforts to bypass, sideline and undermine the UN, because the US absolutely does not want a neutral approach to resolving this conflict.

[blandy]

There's all kinds of folk from "the West" (and elsewhere) doing humanitarian stuff in and around Syria. Just doesn't get on the news nearly as much as "Cameron wants to drop some bombs". Some of it with Gov't support, some of it direct, and some of it NGOs.

 

I say this to point out that "the West" is more than just the shouty politicians. Not that you'd know it from media coverage or discussion.

[peterms]

Israel being unusually honest about what they want from the Syrian mess.

 

 

...Israeli officials have consistently made the case that enforcing Mr. Obama’s narrow “red line” on Syria is essential to halting the nuclear ambitions of Israel’s archenemy, Iran. More quietly, Israelis have increasingly argued that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.

 

For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

 

“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.”...

 

[peterms]

Interesting piece apparently from retired US intelligence and forces peeps, publicised by Michael Moore.

 

 

September 7th, 2013 9:46 AM

Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

By Ray McGovern

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

 

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

 

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

 

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond …  the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

 

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

 

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

 

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

 

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

 

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

 

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

 

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

 

The Intelligence

 

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

 

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

 

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

 

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

 

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

 

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

 

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

 

Cui bono?

 

That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

 

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

 

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

 

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

 

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

 

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

 

Iran’s Role

 

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

 

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

 

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

 

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

 

Inevitable Retaliation

 

We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

 

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

 

[peterms]

[NurembergVillan]

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

[peterms]

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

 

Well, yes.  That's about it.  Except that "The West" should be understood to mean the military-industrial complex and its puppets, rather than the people who happen to live there.

[NurembergVillan]

That's broadly what I was getting at.

[Juju]

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

Sounds very clever to fellow liberal left wingers.

 

To those affected by actual terrorist atrocities, from the bombing of Manchester Arndale Centre, to the London tube bombs, or even the nailbombing of Brixton Tube or the Admiral Duncan, is sounds glib, shallow, smug and ill informed.

 

And I declare I am usually a liberal left winger, and this post left a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth. If your allowed free speech to say such thoughtless things, I am free to signal the crass, sweeping nature of a rather daft soundbite.

[bickster]

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

Sounds very clever to fellow liberal left wingers.

 

To those affected by actual terrorist atrocities, from the bombing of Manchester Arndale Centre, to the London tube bombs, or even the nailbombing of Brixton Tube or the Admiral Duncan, is sounds glib, shallow, smug and ill informed.

 

And I declare I am usually a liberal left winger, and this post left a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth. If your allowed free speech to say such thoughtless things, I am free to signal the crass, sweeping nature of a rather daft soundbite.

Julian the point is that Al Qaida have been rightfully labelled as a terrorists for what they've done but now they're on the "right" side in Syria they are all of a sudden being called rebels and very little mention of AQ appears in the media, they are just rebels or the Syrian Opposition Forces

[chrisp65]

 

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

Sounds very clever to fellow liberal left wingers.

 

To those affected by actual terrorist atrocities, from the bombing of Manchester Arndale Centre, to the London tube bombs, or even the nailbombing of Brixton Tube or the Admiral Duncan, is sounds glib, shallow, smug and ill informed.

 

And I declare I am usually a liberal left winger, and this post left a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth. If your allowed free speech to say such thoughtless things, I am free to signal the crass, sweeping nature of a rather daft soundbite.

 

The people of Chile say hi!

 

As do the Mujahideen

[NurembergVillan]

Exactly Bicks.  I'd suggest you've completely misunderstood my point Julian - it's more pointed at the media than at a particular cause.

 

There are constant references to the Syrian "rebels" in our media outlets, yet to those whose views against which they are rebelling they could be considered terrorists themselves.

 

I'm genuinely intrigued as to when an act of terrorism becomes classified as an act of rebellion.  Surely if terrorism and rebellion were so neatly interchangeable then Rosa Parks would've left a rucksack full of explosives on that now infamous bus.

[peterms]

 

Is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel just whether or not your cause is endorsed by the West?

Sounds very clever to fellow liberal left wingers.

 

To those affected by actual terrorist atrocities, from the bombing of Manchester Arndale Centre, to the London tube bombs, or even the nailbombing of Brixton Tube or the Admiral Duncan, is sounds glib, shallow, smug and ill informed.

 

And I declare I am usually a liberal left winger, and this post left a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth. If your allowed free speech to say such thoughtless things, I am free to signal the crass, sweeping nature of a rather daft soundbite.

 

 

Must say I don't follow the "unpleasant taste".  He's simply pointing out that the exact same acts and the people who do them are presented as either appalling or heroic, according to whether they suit the current political agenda of those who tell us what's what.  It's just a statement of fact.

[blandy]

So the people who blew up the tube train on 7/7 were "Rebels"?

[peterms]

So the people who blew up the tube train on 7/7 were "Rebels"?

 

To some people, possibly.  People who do equally bad things in Syria are called that, by our own media.  Much as a government becomes a "regime" if it's one our leaders disapprove of.  The use of such terms to shape perceptions is all around us - so much so, it becomes almost invisible, we're so used to it.

[blandy]

Despite the "one man's freedom fighter...." cliché, the people who blew up the tube train, or the towers, or the pub were not "rebels" in anyone's eyes, and that's where JuJu is completely right. That "rebels" (or govt forces) in civil wars can commit horrors is not in dispute. But in media or social terminological terms its like elephants and grey. They are not interchangeable,

[blandy]

Much as a government becomes a "regime" if it's one our leaders disapprove of. The use of such terms to shape perceptions is all around us - so much so, it becomes almost invisible, we're so used to it.

which is why, even though it wasn't robs intention to offend, or Julian's to discuss media shorthand, it's important ( to me) not to fall into the same lazy, thoughtless, way.

[NurembergVillan]

Maybe I AM far too left-wing in my thinking, but if both sides are purported to be using chemical weapons (it's believed the govt opposition used sarin) and the "rebels" are releasing footage of themselves cutting out soldiers hearts then surely they're all terrorists really.

 

I'm probably taking this all off topic anyway, so apologies.  I'm trying to get my head around whether we should act or not, and the only way I can do that is through what I find in the media (and read here of course).

 

At first glance it would seem natural that we would be supporting the "rebels".  Everyone loves a rebel - Ché Guevara, Nelson Mandela, James Dean, Peter Odemwingie.  But the more I read the more it becomes complicated.  It seems like all sides are merely pawns in a massive chess match involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and, the spiritual home of the rebel, USA.  And that's before you dig a bit deeper and get into Sunni, Shiite, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah etc.

 

So, in summary, my seemingly glib comment about rebels and terrorists is born of frustration.  Frustration that our media, those upon whom we rely to give us a picture of what's going on over there, have to boil it down to good vs evil, black vs white, rebels vs terrorists.  I want to understand more fully what is going on and how I should think about it.  I don't believe that jingoistic labelling and terminology helps anyone.

[peterms]

Despite the "one man's freedom fighter...." cliché, the people who blew up the tube train, or the towers, or the pub were not "rebels" in anyone's eyes,

 

Rebel is probably not the right term in that situation, because there is no recognised rebellion of which they are a part (though possibly some view it as a rebellion against western governments).  But some people will refer to them in terms of approval, whether it is martyrs, or guerillas, or whatever.  Not many in this country, but in other places those acts are likely to be seen by some people as legitimate. 

 

The problem we should be thinking about is why anyone would see such acts as defensible, or even heroic.  It's really not hard to understand that someone whose family has been killed by drone attacks might see such acts against civilians in this country as simple reprisal.