FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

US Aids Syrian Rebels

by

What began in Syria as modest protests in 2011 driven largely by widespread hunger from four years of drought in the Middle East’s breadbasket known as the Fertile Crescent  (including Iraq), grew into a full scale civil war with unbelievable suffering thanks to foreign intervenors intent on ousting Syrian President Bashar alAssad.   According to the UN, famine conditions are expected to continue for the foreseeable future and now threaten to exacerbate an already dire refugee crisis.

Late last summer, the American public spoke with one voice in opposition to the Obama Administration’s proposed bombing of Syria.  Even as Secretary of State John Kerry promised an “unbelievably small” strike, the response from Americans spanned the political spectrum with a resounding No.    The denial of the British Parliament’s participation in the strike on Syria represented a historic break with US policy as Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated (at Pope Francis’ behest) negotiations to rid Syria of its chemical weapons; providing President Obama with an opportunity to avoid a disastrous foreign policy blunder.

Imagine today’s reaction if the American people knew that the US is, in fact, invigorating the war in Syria – true, there are no boots on the ground; at least no boots that we know for certain are American boots but who would be willing to bet that somewhere between Aleppo and Damascus there is a US military presence engaged in perpetuating the violence.  The American public deserves to know.

While Ahmad al-Jarba, president of Syria’s National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces visited  President Obama and National Security Adviser Susan Rice last week seeking support for anti-aircraft missiles, the President warned of “risks posed by growing extremism in Syria and  on the need to counter terrorist groups on all sides of the conflict.”  With all of its sophisticated intel and CIA presence, it is difficult to believe that the president remains unaware of the growing liaison between the mythical ‘moderate’ Coalition and radical Sunni extremists.

Is the president aware of  Coalition leader Jarba’s criminal background in Saudi Arabia?

In the White House ‘readout’  of his meeting with Jarba, a shady character with close ties to the Sunni monarchy in Saudi Arabia,  the president “reaffirmed that Bashar al-Assad has lost all legitimacy to rule Syria” but the president cannot be unaware that the loss of the strategically important city of Homs represents a distinct shift over the last several months with the opposition, which  has never been able to solidify a base of support with the Syrian population, having now ‘surrendered’ a distinct military advantage.     With evidence of a growing split amongst the armed extremists themselves, how does the US  identify the difference between multiple islamist rebel groups  and  how do we know, with any certainty, where  their loyalties lie?

In an earlier meeting with Jarba and despite Secretary of State John Kerry touting a “negotiated political settlement that puts an end to the violence,” the White House approved the use of American-made anti-tank missiles to Jarba’s Coalition eschewing the Administration’s earlier concern that such weapons could eventually end up in the hands of al-Qaeda related groups and  pose a threat to commercial aircraft.  That same day, UN Special Envoy for Peace Lakhdar Brahimi resigned.   What intelligence did the President receive to accelerate the proxy war to justify US weaponry to the rebels?

Despite a ceasefire that returned Homs to the Syrian military marking a significant turn in the conflict with Assad seen as more firmly in control, other high-level US officials met with Jarba who remained in hot pursuit of surface-to-air missiles. After making the diplomatic rounds, the Coalition was awarded with official foreign mission status since the US gave up on a negotiated settlement and suspended its relationship with the Syrian Embassy in March thereby ceasing all diplomatic contact.  An additional $27 million was pledged to the rebel cause bringing the total to $287 million in non-lethal military aid in addition to the $1.7 billion in ‘humanitarian’ aid; complemented by weapons and additional funds from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Conferring official diplomatic status on the rebel group appears to be a replay of the State Department role in Libya when the US officially recognized a questionable opposition force as it engineered the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi.   A more moderate ruler than acknowledged, Qaddafi was less a fan of international financiers and the existing monetary structure than permissible.   Today, the US State Department, which had a hand in Qaddafi’s removal, considers Libya a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists.  Has anyone in the White House or the National Security Council (which apparently has more influence formulating  foreign policy than the State Department) learned anything from former DOD Secretary Robert Gates caution in Duty regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that “We entered both countries oblivious to how little we knew.”

As reported by IntelNews.org, the agreed to ‘pilot program’  will provide sophisticated weapons to Syrian rebels as part of “new clandestine program” to be coordinated by US and Saudi intelligence in “close collaboration.”  In early April, Israel’s Debkafile reported that the Pentagon had supplied Syrian rebels with the powerful armor-piercing, optically-guided BGM-71 TOW missiles.   Citing anonymous military sources, Debkafile further reported that US Joint Chief Chair Gen. Martin Dempsey requested Israeli officials to help Saudi Arabian fighter jets provide air cover as American forces moved the weapons into southern Syria. The Jerusalem Post reported that during their visit in Riyadh in late March, Obama assured King Abdullah that Saudi concerns that “Washington was slowly disengaging from the Middle East and no longer listening to its old ally were unfounded.”  If the Wall Street Journal and the international media report on budding cooperation between US-supported ‘moderates’ and the Islamic Front as long ago as last January, does the President of the United States have that information at his fingertips?

While the Administration’s public position had been no weapons to Syria, the American public remains unaware that in December, 2013 the Congress (via classified Defense appropriation bills) secretly agreed to provide small anti-tank rockets.   In other words, several months after the bombing of Syria was shelved by popular demand, the Congress and Administration used a back-door to circumvent public opinion and provide weapons to the ‘moderate’ rebels.  Why would the rocket shipment be kept secret other than in fear of the American public’s reaction?

Of more immediate concern is the news of a major shift in US policy that up to 13,000 troops  have arrived in Jordan and Israel for ‘joint exercises’ near the Syrian border and the deployment of  two Navy destroyers in the Mediterranean off the Israeli coast with additional US reinforcements due  to arrive in Aqaba, Jordan this weekend.  Hezbollah, a long time Syrian ally, is reportedly on the move to south Syria to reinforce the outnumbered Syrian Army.   At stake is control of areas in the Golan Heights and control of a highway from Quenitra to Damascus, recently abandoned by the rebels.   A phone call initiated by President Obama to the King of Jordan regarding the situation in Syria does not bode well for peace.

The timeline of events raise considerable questions of exactly what role American public opinion  plays in the government’s foreign policy decision-making – an issue of contention since the 1960’s war in Vietnam.   As if all of the unanswerable questions were not troubling enough to conclude that US foreign policy is a distorted mish-mash beyond comprehension, US Joint Chief General Martin Dempsey spoke recently to the Atlantic Council indicating that Syria would not necessarily benefit from removal of Assad and offered a less than enthusiastic appraisal of the ‘rebels’ as not having the necessary ‘counterterrorism capability’ to defeat the al-Qaeda related groups.  In Pentagon-ese lingo, one guess is that Dempsey, who has proven to be a thoughtful Chief, is saying No – just like the American people.

Renee Parsons was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth.  in 2005, she was elected to the Durango City Council and served as Councilor and Mayor.  Currently, she is a member of the Treasure Coast ACLU Board.

 

Renee Parsons was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth.  in 2005, she was elected to the Durango City Council and served as Councilor and Mayor.  Currently, she is a member of the Treasure Coast ACLU Board.

More articles by:
July 26, 2016
Andrew Levine
Pillory Hillary Now
Kshama Sawant
A Call to Action: Walk Out from the Democratic National Convention!
Russell Mokhiber
The Rabble Rise Together Against Bernie, Barney, Elizabeth and Hillary
Jeffrey St. Clair
Don’t Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention
Angie Beeman
Why Doesn’t Middle America Trust Hillary? She Thinks She’s Better Than Us and We Know It
Paul Street
An Update on the Hate…
Fran Shor
Beyond Trump vs Clinton
Ellen Brown
Japan’s “Helicopter Money” Play: Road to Hyperinflation or Cure for Debt Deflation?
Richard W. Behan
The Banana Republic of America: Democracy Be Damned
Binoy Kampmark
Undermining Bernie Sanders: the DNC Campaign, WikiLeaks and Russia
Arun Gupta
Trickledown Revenge: the Racial Politics of Donald Trump
Sen. Bernard Sanders
What This Election is About: Speech to DNC Convention
David Swanson
DNC Now Less Popular Than Atheism
Linn Washington Jr.
‘Clintonville’ Reflects True Horror of Poverty in US
Deepak Tripathi
Britain in the Doldrums After the Brexit Vote
Louisa Willcox
Grizzly Threats: Arbitrary Lines on Political Maps
Robert J. Gould
Proactive Philanthropy: Don’t Wait, Reach Out!
Victor Grossman
Horror and Sorrow in Germany
Nyla Ali Khan
Regionalism, Ethnicity, and Trifurcation: All in the Name of National Integration
Andrew Feinberg
The Good TPP
400 US Academics
Letter to US Government Officials Concerning Recent Events in Turkey
July 25, 2016
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
As the Election Turns: Trump the Anti-Neocon, Hillary the New Darling of the Neocons
Ted Rall
Hillary’s Strategy: Snub Liberal Democrats, Move Right to Nab Anti-Trump Republicans
William K. Black
Doubling Down on Wall Street: Hillary and Tim Kaine
Russell Mokhiber
Bernie Delegates Take on Bernie Sanders
Quincy Saul
Resurgent Mexico
Andy Thayer
Letter to a Bernie Activist
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan is Strengthened by the Failed Coup, But Turkey is the Loser
Robert Fisk
The Hypocrisies of Terror Talk
Lee Hall
Purloined Platitudes and Bipartisan Bunk: An Adjunct’s View
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of Collective Punishment: Russia, Doping and WADA
Nozomi Hayase
Cryptography as Democratic Weapon Against Demagoguery
Cesar Chelala
The Real Donald Trump
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Propaganda Machinery and State Surveillance of Muslim Children
Denis Conroy
Australia: Election Time Blues for Clones
Marjorie Cohn
Killing With Robots Increases Militarization of Police
David Swanson
RNC War Party, DNC War Makers
Eugene Schulman
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Nauman Sadiq
Imran Khan’s Faustian Bargain
Peter Breschard
Kaine the Weepy Executioner
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail