FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Syrian Horror

by SAUL LANDAU

President Obama has fueled Syria’s civil war flames and lied to Congress about his “modest” role in that conflict. Between 2002 and 2007, I visited Syria four times. I drove through the fertile valleys that parallel the Mediterranean coast, and to the Golan Heights’ barbed-wired border with Israel.

Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians and even Jews reassured me: Assad’s government encouraged free religion but had not practiced democratic politics. During the Arab Spring his failure to reform got his government into trouble. Instead of dialoguing with Syrian protestors, he tried to cover the holes of his authoritarian government’s façade. Then Saudi Arabia and Qatar, not models of democracy, supplied money and arms, and foreign troops into Syria to intensify the conflict. Washington and Western Europe, with their oily regional partners, began fueling a war that has taken 70,000 Syrian lives, and left one million plus refugees.

Obama assured Congress that Washington only supplied minimal non-lethal aid to the “Free Syrian Army,” while simultaneously ordering the CIA to supervise large weapons shipments to the rebels, including some who were sworn enemies of the West with extremist Islamic perspectives. Photos and horror stories show ruins where homes and public buildings once stood, dramatize famine where restaurants and markets once offered abundant food. Why has Obama directed this death march in which Washington “helps” rebels allied to right wing Islam? These are sectors that, should they prevail in the war, could and would turn these weapons against the very governments that supply them.

The New York Times revealed Obama’s lies about the U.S. role in this war, and, about Washington’s level of participation. U.S. efforts have far exceeded what the President has admitted. The CIA has funneled and distributed large weapons shipments to the rebels – more than 3,500 tons worth to date – from Jordan and Turkey, while Obama claimed it as “non-lethal” military aid. (C. J.Chivers and Eic Schmitt, NY Times March 24, 2013)

“The C.I.A. role in facilitating the [weapons] shipments… gave the United States a degree of influence over the process [of weapon distribution]…American officials have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the [weapons] shipments.”

Obama supervised arms supplies to the Al Nusra Front, the Syrian rebels’ most effective fighting force, with links to Islamic terrorist groups.

Witnesses in northwest Syria testify that some rebels have used those weapons to  slaughter Alawite and Christian villages.

Obama’s opposition to peace talks with the Assad government, from which he demands surrender, raises a question. Why demand as a  “precondition” for negotiations the ouster of Syria’s government?

Over the last decade, Assad’s government delivered to Washington intelligence warnings about planned terrorist attacks aimed at U.S. targets. These tips, confirmed by then U.S. Ambassador Theodore Kattouf to former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, a Democrat from South Dakota, and myself (2003), helped save U.S. lives and property. A former Syrian ambassador to Washington complained of the U.S.’ lack of positive response to them, as in “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Obama chose his own candidate to represent the “National Coalition of Syrian Revolution” by naming as Syria’s non-elected prime minister, Ghassan Hitto, a Syrian American and a U.S. citizen, who lived most of his previous 30 years in the U.S.

Moaz al-Khatib, previous National Coalition of Syrian Revolution head, had resigned to protest Obama’s opposition to peace negotiations with Assad. So, “Obama made a U.S. citizen the opposition group’s Prime Minister and instructed him not to talk with the Assad government as if ignoring the millions who remain in Syria and have become witnesses to their country’s destruction because outsiders have banned negotiations that might settle the conflict.”

Obama also pressured the Arab League, mostly undemocratic governments loyal to Washington, to authorize the non-elected National Coalition of Syrian Revolution as Syria’s government. The rebels’ seat in the Arab league implies that the U.S. wants “regime change,” no matter how many people die, or the acrimonious odor of existing political alternatives.

Russia called the Arab League’s decision “… an open encouragement of the \[rebel] forces which, unfortunately, continue to bet on a military solution in Syria, not looking at multiplying day by day the pain and suffering of the Syrians…” Moscow wants a political settlement, not destructive military scenarios.

Obama’s increased weapons trafficking. “…Secretary of State John Kerry dismissed Syria’s Foreign Minister’s offer of peace talks and instead began a nine-nation tour of European and Arab capitals to help organize support for the Syrian rebels.” Obama cannot dictate the outcome of Syria’s war because he doesn’t have popular support to send in U.S. forces. He will, however, decide when peace talks can begin and under what conditions.

After two years, Assad’s Air Force still attacks rebel posts. Assad obviously retains significant support inside the country, which mainstream media ignores.

Obama feigned outraged when the media reported chemical weapons use in Syria. Did he forget the tons of Agent Orange U.S. planes dropped on Vietnam, when he warned Assad against even thinking of using chemical weapons? Syria had actually accused the rebels of using the chemicals, which Washington dismissed without investigating. Syrian rebels, however, admitted they had used chemical weapons to kill 16 Syrian government soldiers and 10 civilians. The rebels then claimed the government had accidentally bombed themselves with those chemicals. Obama has not responded to claims of rebel atrocities against the Syrian population.

Why should Washington get so invested in the Syrian war? To weaken Iran, Syria’s ally, and strengthen NATO’s sordid Middle East partners?

In his quest to overthrow the Assad government, Obama has focused exclusively on the strategy “to weaken Iran’s strategic position, and incite a movement to spark the Islamic Republic’s overthrow.”

Saul Landau produced “Syria: Between Iraq and a Hard Place,” (2004) on DVD from roundworldproductions.com.

SAUL LANDAU’s A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD was published by CounterPunch / AK Press.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 01, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Hillary: Ordinarily Awful or Uncommonly Awful?
Pam Martens
Clinton Says Wall Street Banks Aren’t the Threat, But Her Platform Writers Think They are
Jason Hirthler
Washington’s Not-So-Invisible Hand: It’s Not Economics, It’s Empire
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Marx on Financial Bubbles: Much Keener Insights Than Contemporary Economists
Pete Dolack
Brexit Will Only Count if Everybody Leaves the EU
Evan Jones
Ancillary Lessons from Brexit
Aidan O'Brien
Brexit: the English and Welsh Enlightenment
Jeremy R. Hammond
How Turkey’s Reconciliation Deal with Israel Harms the Palestinians
Margaret Kimberley
Beneficial Chaos: the Good News About Brexit
Phyllis Bennis
From Paris to Istanbul, More ‘War on Terror’ Means More Terrorist Attacks
Ishmael Reed
OJ and Jeffrey Toobin: Black Bogeyman Auctioneer
Ron Jacobs
Let There Be Rock
Ajamu Baraka
Paris, Orlando and Turkey: Displacing the Narrative of Western Innocence
Robert Fantina
The First Amendment, BDS and Third-Party Candidates
David Rosen
Whatever Happened to Utopia?
Andre Vltchek
Brexit – Let the UK Screw Itself!
Jonathan Latham
107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators
Steve Horn
Fracked Gas LNG Exports Were Centerpiece In Promotion of Panama Canal Expansion, Documents Reveal
Robert Koehler
The Right to Bear Courage
Colin Todhunter
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of “Shameful White Men of Privilege”
Binoy Kampmark
Who is Special Now? The Mythology Behind the US-British Relationship
Mark B. Baldwin
Russia to the Grexit?
Andrew Wimmer
Killer Grief
Manuel E. Yepe
Sanders, Socialism and the New Times
Franklin Lamb
ISIS is Gone, But Its Barbarity Still Haunts Palmyra
Mark Weisbrot
A Policy of Non-Intervention in Venezuela Would be a Welcome Change
Cesar Chelala
How Tobacco Became the Opium War of the 21st Century
Joseph Natoli
How We Reached the Point Where We Can’t Hear Each Other
Andrew Stewart
Skip “Hamilton” and Read Gore Vidal’s “Burr”
Christopher Brauchli
Educating Kansas
George Wuerthner
Ranching and the Future of the Sage Grouse
Thomas Knapp
Yes, a GOP Delegate Revolt is Possible
Gilbert Mercier
Democracy Is Dead
Andy Piascik
The Hills of Connecticut: Where Theatre and Life Became One
Charles R. Larson
Mychal Denzel Smith’s “Invisible Man, Got the Whole World Watching: a Young Black Man’s Education”
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Four Morning Ducks
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail