Archive
Pentagon Chief Rallies Arab, Israeli Allies Against Syria, Iran
Stop NATO
July 30, 2012
Pentagon Chief Rallies Arab, Israeli Allies Against Syria, Iran
Rick Rozoff
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has begun a five-day, four-nation tour of North Africa and the Middle East to consolidate military ties with traditional allies against the backdrop of mounting Western pressure aimed at the governments of Syria and Iran.
His first two stops are to Tunisia and Egypt, long-standing American military client states and members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership program. The next two are to Israel and Jordan, also Mediterranean Dialogue members, the first the main and the second one of the largest recipients of American military aid.
The two North African countries were the bellwethers of the so-called Arab Spring, a topic Panetta dwelled on at some length during his visit to Tunisia, though in relation to following Pentagon diktat Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak might well still be in power for all the difference that now exists. Last year’s biennial joint U.S.-Egyptian Bright Star military exercise was cancelled during the early months of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, but there is no reason to believe next year’s won’t go ahead as usual.
Four months ago Washington released $1.3 billion in military assistance to the Egyptian junta, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waiving congressional conditions introduced last year and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stating, “These decisions reflect America’s over-arching goal: to maintain our strategic partnership with an Egypt made stronger and more stable by a successful transition to democracy.”
The strategic partnership is one that began with the Carter-Brzezinski administration buying off President Anwar Sadat in 1978 and in so doing switching the largest and militarily most powerful Arab nation from non-alignment (Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser was a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement) and close state-to-state relations with the Soviet Union to the U.S.’s major military client state in Africa and the Arab world. It was also initiated to break the back of Arab unity in relation to Israel and Palestine.
Because of its unique value to the Pentagon, Egypt is the only African nation not to be assigned to the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), instead remaining in Central Command. The latter, launched in 1983, grew out of the Carter administration’s Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, which had been established to counter Soviet bloc influence in Northeast Africa: Egypt, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Sudan.
Similarly and for complementary geopolitical purposes, Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation not in Central Command’s area of responsibility, instead being assigned to that of European Command.
Since the Camp David Accords of 1978, Egypt has been one of the two largest recipients of annual American aid (almost all of it military) and a dependable Pentagon ally bordering Israel and the Gaza Strip to the east, Libya to the west and Sudan to the south as well as controlling the Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. The Mediterranean is the route through which U.S. warships, including nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and their assigned strike groups, pass after leaving the eastern coast of the U.S. en route to the Suez, whence they pass through the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the broader Indian Ocean for air strikes in Afghanistan.
Panetta, no matter what he says formally, is visiting Egypt to ensure it remains in the American political and, especially, military column.
According to the Pentagon website, “The United States has had a strong military-to-military relationship with Egypt since the 1970s, and Panetta said he wants that relationship to continue and grow.”
En route to Tunisia, Panetta stated to reporters: “Our goal is to advance security by supporting peaceful change throughout the region. This means establishing strong partnerships with new democratic governments in the region.”
He also said that the recent Syrian government offensive against armed insurgents in Aleppo will be – will be made to be – “a nail in Assad’s coffin.” He, like his civilian opposite number Hillary Clinton (“Wow!…We came, we saw, he died”), is not noted for excelling in the powers of abstract thinking, so his comment is not to be interpreted as merely a metaphor.
As though alleged humanitarian intervention was not casus belli enough, Panetta also invoked the Iraq war-style menace of “chemical and biological warfare sites in Syria that U.S. planners say need to be secured.”
About those exaggerated threats, he said, “We’ve been in close coordination with countries in the region to ensure that this is happening.”
He also pledged to strengthen the “very close partnership” with Israel, particularly in respect to Iran. According to the Pentagon, “Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons technology will be a discussion point at all stops.”
The defense chief added:
“My view is that when I sit down with my counterpart in Israel, we are unified in our view with regards to Iran. We’re unified in the position that they should not obtain a nuclear weapon, (and) we’re unified in our position that we have to bring every bit of pressure on them to change their ways.”
“The more we are working together, the more unified we are in the effort against Iran, the better off we will be in convincing Iran that there is no room here for them to do anything other than to back away from the nuclear program they are engaged in.”
Panetta will inspect the U.S.-funded Iron Dome anti-missile system while in Israel.
Again according to the Defense Department’s account of his position while on the way to Tunisia, “Peaceful, democratic change has taken place since the Arab Spring, but Syria, Iran and extremism in general have continued to pose challenges.”
That is, Panetta’s mission is to recruit America’s Tunisian, Egyptian, Israeli and Jordanian military allies to confront Syria and Iran.
The Pentagon’s website cited an unnamed senior Defense Department official affirming that “Panetta plans to lay out the roadmap for the future military-to-military relationship between the United States and Tunisia.” He was quoted asserting that “The military has played a positive role in Tunisia and we want that to continue.”
During the press conference aboard the aircraft taking him to Tunisia, Panetta explained what Washington understands to be both the means and the ends of so-called democracy promotion in stating, “The United States continues to support efforts to strengthen Tunisia’s democracy, and DOD [the Department of Defense] will play an important role in that effort.”
In Egypt Panetta will meet with newly installed President Muhammad Mursi and Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi – “Panetta has been in constant touch with Tantawi since former President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown” – who led the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces from February 11, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
In Israel he will consult with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Then he will hold talks on bilateral military cooperation with King Abdullah in Jordan. According to the above-cited Pentagon official, “Syria will obviously be a topic of conversation, as the Jordanians are on the front line of that.”
As with his visits earlier this year to South America and Asia, Panetta’s trip to North Africa and the Middle East has a concrete objective: To solidify military ties with states bordering or near the remaining handful of nations in the world not enmeshed in the Pentagon’s global network.
Moving Beyond Militarization: Northeast Asia Need Peace, Not Conflict
The Hankyoreh
July 25, 2012
Moving Beyond Militarization: Northeast Asia needs collective security, not conflict
By Honda Hirokuni
Professor of Economics, Dokkyo University
====
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system
The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii.
====
Korea and Japan recently drafted GSOMIA (General Security Of Military Information Agreement), an agreement for closer military cooperation. The proposed agreement caused tremendous backlash in Korea. Media reports in Japan suggest that the Korean people are opposed because of anti-Japanese sentiment. But I personally feel that for Japan and Korea to take a military approach to their role in supporting the geopolitical order in Asia, under the supervision of the United States, is in no way a positive development for the stability of East Asia.
The American government over the last few decades has supported efforts to increase the overseas activities of the Japanese self-defense forces and strived to draw South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia into military cooperation agreements as part of its effort to maintain a robust military presence in Northeast Asia. The current redeployment of the United States military is aimed at increasing the effectiveness and speed of the deployment to the region of US troops currently stationed in Guam and Hawaii. The relocation of the Futenma base in Okinawa and the demands from the United States for increased intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) concerning North Korea and China from the Self Defense Forces are part of this overall change in American posture.
Japanese administrations over recent decades have accepted US demands and transformed the original self-defense forces from a purely defensive role to one of both defense and active capability that is integrated with the United States military system. Japan has systematically developed a new military system both in preparation for a possible military conflict and also for the proactive sharing of intelligence and the division of labor with the United States in future conflicts.
In addition, the Japanese government claims that the American forces stationed in Japan are meant as deterrence to maintain order in the Pacific Region, thus recognizing the need for US bases throughout Japan and even establishing a so-called “good will budget” of 200 billion Won to support the costs of US troops. The whole situation is rather humiliating for Japan.
Even as economic interdependency increases in Asia, the US-Japan alliance priority for military relations increases the overall insecurity in the whole region and increases distrust between the China and the United States and a tendency to think of responses to problems in military terms.
What is really needed for peace and prosperity in Asia is not a system that supports military responses to all problems between nations based on collective defense capacity, but rather a security architecture for the mutual inhibition of military build ups and of military intimidation. That depends on a collective security assurance regime to resolve conflicts through open means.
Moreover, with regard to historical issues, territorial issues, and other disputes, we need exchanges in terms of collaborative research on history, scholarly and cultural exchange, tourism and economic interaction. We need to assure the safety of fishermen in their work. At the same time we need to work towards mutual prosperity through the systematic pursuit of mutual plans for the development of undersea resources in the region. I feel that the critical role in this process lies with Asia‘s scholars and scientists.
British military affairs analyst Michael Howard has pointed out that the peace in Europe after the Second World War can be attributed primarily to a massive shift in the culture of Europe after the terror of the First and Second World Wars. Howard suggests in his book “War in European History” (2009) that the people of Europe came to the conclusion that war was certainly not the unavoidable fate of humanity, but not even a powerful political tool. The terrible price that Europe paid for two world wars led to the formulation of a completely different deterrence architecture than had existed previously over centuries of unending conflict.
So what about East Asia? Before the end of the war in East Asia, the leaders of the allies gathered in Yalta and established a blueprint for the post-war order. That vision clearly was not enough to prevent the Korean War, or the Vietnam War and to some degree America’s overreaction to the spread of socialism at Yalta meant that democratization of East Asia was constrained.
Whereas the economic development in Europe took place within the context of the Cold War and a balance of power, in the Asian case, although there was some variation between countries, the distorted developmental model that countries found themselves following ineluctably was a combination of a developmental authoritarian government system paired with a model for economic development based on exports.
And yet, although the feelings may have been slightly weaker than the case in Europe, there was also a tremendous desire to avoid war in Asia after the Second World War. Japan established a peace constitution, which included Article 9, which renounces the right to declare war or use military force.
Of course Japan and the United States signed a mutual defense treaty and the Self-Defense Forces were established with the encouragement of the United States thereafter, so Japan did in fact have a military. Nonetheless, the restrictions imposed by the constitution meant that for many years Japan‘s military was exclusively defensive in nature as a matter of policy. As a result, the role of the Self-Defense Forces was quite limited.
There are already many organizations formed by citizens, scholars, journalists and local governments dedicated to creating a peaceful future for the Asian region. Some recent examples include the response to the problem of assured security by constitutional law scholars written up in the study “Research on a Comprehensive Peace Assurance Policy that can replace military power” and “The Campaign for a United Nations Declaration for the right to peaceful existence.” In addition, Korean, Chinese and Japanese historians have been working on a joint history of the region since 2004.
Aggressive U.S. Policy From East To South Asia, Gulf To Russia
The News
July 28, 2012
Aggressive US foreign policy
Brian Cloughley
Air travel isn’t much fun these days, what with searches, pat-downs, holdups, crowds and queues, so it’s good when sometimes you can have a laugh while travelling, which I did when reading a newspaper report. It made me hoot with mirth in the airport lounge, thus attracting a few raised eyebrows, but I couldn’t stop for a few moments, such was the wackiness of a statement by Hillary Clinton.
It wasn’t intended as humour, of course. It was one of the usual self-righteous scolding sermons to which Washington figures are so addicted. When lecturing the world from Phnom Penh she declared that “the nations of the [South China Sea] region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats, and without use of force.” Which prompts the question: in that case why does the United States of America, which has no justification for any presence in the South China Sea, have a vast fleet, including carrier strike groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, menacing the area? And it doesn’t explain why the US refuses to ratify a UN Treaty relevant to the China Sea which, inter alia, expresses the “desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea.”
As the Asia Times noted about American military expansion in Asia, “The US also intends to station four new US Navy Littoral Combat ships and increase ship visits and base surveillance aircraft in Singapore. In addition, upgraded military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei will support already existing US plans with Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.”
And US Defence Secretary Panetta, never one to ignore an opportunity to increase international tension, declared to Fox News during a visit to Vietnam that “The more I am out here, the more critical I view this region in terms of our national defence and the defence of the world. This is an area that is critical to the future security and prosperity of our country and the world. For that reason we need to be rightly focused on playing a bigger role here in the Asia Pacific.”
US confrontation with China looms ever closer, and it’s hardly the fault of the Chinese, whose position, in the words of Beijing, is that “the tree craves calm but the wind keeps blowing.” But there’s one thing certain: the Chinese tree will whip back if the Washington wind increases its intensity. As the Chinese well understand, the world in general craves calm, but the out-of-control US military machine, in an expansionist wave of unprecedented energy, is hell-bent on domination.
The Chinese can look after themselves, of course, even if their defence spending is only an eighth of that of America, and if the US is foolish enough to provoke a military engagement there will be interesting developments, not the least of which could be massive cyber attacks on the US systems. Washington’s intimidating posture and threats are taken seriously in Beijing, and China is concentrating on advanced weapons systems specifically intended to engage enemy warships.
The Chinese navy is nowhere near as powerful as the USN (United States Navy) – but it is capable of resisting attempted US domination in its own backyard. The Iranian navy, on the other hand, is far from being in a similar position.
It would be absurd to try to claim that there is no coercion intended or threat presented by the huge US fleet, 10,000 troops and vast aerial strike capability in the Persian Gulf region, where some 400 combat aircraft and 50 ships are ready to join Israel in attacking Iran. It was reported that on July 15 “the Pentagon confirmed it had brought forward the deployment of a third strike group, led by the carrier USS John Stennis, by four months, in order to further bolster its presence [in the Gulf].”
It seems that the US foreign policy concerning avoidance of coercion and threats does not extend to its dealings with Tehran. In May Israel’s Haaretz reported Vice President Biden’s threats to Iran, made at the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly, to the effect that “the US takes ‘no options off [the] table,’ and that the ‘window has not closed to Israelis if they chose to act militarily’.” The message to Iran was unmistakable, and the US wind keeps blowing hard against the Iranian tree.
And so it goes on, round the world – from Cuba to the South China Sea, by way of the determined military encirclement of Russia – the constant US menace to nations which seek to pursue policies deemed inconvenient to Washington.
In Pakistan’s case the campaign of coercion includes Clinton’s threat to destroy the economy by sanctions if Pakistan and Iran build the gas pipeline which is so vital for Pakistan to reduce power cuts. It doesn’t sound much in international terms, but it’s a vitally important matter for Pakistan. Let’s hope this tree can resist the wind.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website is http://www.beecluff.com
Afghanistan: U.S., NATO, Pax Americana Face Defeat
Frontier Post
July 28, 2012
American and NATO misadventures
Abid Mustafa
After having fought for more than a decade in Afghanistan, America has yet to show any considerable gains for its brutal occupation. Nonetheless, there are some diehard American strategists who beg to differ, and argue that America has achieved its primary objective, which was to establish a few military bases in Afghanistan to counter Russia, China and the future Caliphate state for eventual supremacy over Eurasia.
But, even this lofty ideal when measured against the reality on the ground appears too remote to be categorized as a worthy accomplishment. On the contrary, the rampant instability in Afghanistan not only puts into jeopardy the viability of such strategic objectives, but more importantly raises questions about how long can America afford to stay stuck in the Afghan quagmire and continue to report failure after failure.
Clues about this very prospect were provided at the NATO summit convened in Chicago back in May 2012. Speaking about America’s ubiquitous nemesis the Taliban, Obama candidly admitted that they were a hardened opponent and whatever gains NATO had made could easily be undone.
He said, “The Taliban is still a robust enemy, and the gains are still fragile. But think about it. We’ve been there now 10 years. Ten years in a country that’s very different, that’s a strain, not only on our folks but also on that country, which at a point is going to be very sensitive about its own sovereignty.”
Just how much time does the world’s lone superpower need with all of its sophisticated weaponry to defeat a ragtag army of no more than 25,000 or so? Did America not assemble under its supervision 400,000 soldiers – not to mentions the tens of thousands of private contractors – on both side of the Afghan-Pakistan border? After several years of warfare, America is still unable to crush their avowed adversary. Outgunned and outmanned Taliban are definitely proving to be more than a ‘robust enemy’.
Equally unfathomable is that it has taken several years for the US to accept the fact that NATO is not only fighting the Taliban but also the Afghan people. The reference to “be[ing] very sensitive about its own sovereignty” is an admission by President Obama that NATO faces a popular resistance which cuts right across ethnic fault lines and trumps traditional tribal loyalties.
Another fiasco of America’s Afghan war is its exorbitant cost, which has placed a huge toll on the defense budget and this has been further exacerbated by the economic crisis of 2008. America has spent circa $550 billion on the Afghan war since 2001.
Other NATO member states like Britain have spent in the region of $20 billion. Yet despite squandering billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, NATO has very little to show. Karzai’s government is corrupt to the core and hated by ordinary Afghans.
Karzai’s writ does not extend beyond parts of Kabul, and if it does exist elsewhere, it is totally reliant on foreign forces. According to some estimates Taliban controls around 80% of Afghanistan. This probably explains why it is so difficult for NATO to hold on to territorial gains. All attempts to coopt the Taliban into a political solution have likewise failed.
The Financial Times summed up the West’s sorry state: “Five years ago the Americans were refusing to speak to the Taliban. Now the Taliban are refusing to speak to the Americans. That is a measure of how the balance of power has shifted in Afghanistan. The western intervention there has failed.”
Added to this is the human toll on NATO forces, which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. So it came as no surprise to find that the joint communique issued at the end of the Chicago summit expressed the collective desire of all the NATO countries to draw the curtain on their Afghan misadventure. The statement read: “After 10 years of war and with the global economy reeling, the nations of the West no longer want to pay, either in treasure or in lives, the costs of their efforts in a place that for centuries has resisted foreign attempts to tame it”.
Whilst 2014 (a date revised several times) is the final withdrawal date for most NATO countries, America and her opportunist partner Britain both steeped in arrogance have still not learnt their lesson and plan to stay beyond this date.
No doubt they will do their utmost to delay the inevitable collapse of Karzai’s government and try and save face with their domestic audience.
Concluding, the writing is on the wall; America and NATO are heading for a catastrophic defeat and no matter how hard they try to dress up their failings, their only success will be to unite and embolden Afghans along with their brethren across the border in Pakistan to claim the scalp of Pax-Americana and deal a devastating blow to NATO’s first ever mission in Eurasia.
Interview on Syria and U.S.-Saudi Arabia-Qatar-Turkey axis
U.S. Campaign Against Syria: Years In The Making
Stop NATO
July 28, 2012
U.S. Campaign Against Syria: Years In The Making
Rick Rozoff
Those occupying seats of power in Western capitals and their complicit film editors of politics and history in the corporate mass media, who decide when the narrative begins, how it proceeds and where it inevitably ends, have provided the world with a crude but consistent account of the current Syrian crisis. It is a sequel to, or better a remake of, last year’s Libyan crusade, a six-month NATO bombing onslaught and naval blockade culminating in the gruesome slaying of the nation’s head of state and the securing of Western control of the country and its resources.
The script reads as follows, with a signal absence of subplots, reversals, believable characterizations, political verisimilitude and the merest hint of complexity or subtlety:
Peaceful demonstrations by Syrian opposition forces last year met with a disproportionate and ruthless crackdown by government security and military personnel, who embarked on a gratuitous bloodbath against the Syrian population as whole. A scenario that might evoke, for the uninstructed observer, the situations in Bahrain and now Saudi Arabia, but which is to be applied exclusively to Syria for the moment…until it’s revived for the next targeted government in the Middle East or elsewhere.
One of the myriad problems with that version of affairs is that U.S. and allied attempts to effect regime change in Damascus precede by several years what NATO powers portray as its opening scene.
From President Dwight D. Eisenhower dispatching the U.S. Sixth Fleet and 15,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958 to counteract Syrian influence in the nation to the 2004 move in the United Nations Security Council by the U.S. and its NATO allies to secure the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon, there is plentiful thematic material for what in contemporary cinema lingo would be deemed a prequel.
The campaign for overthrowing the Syrian government is part, is the current phase, of the relentless project to supplant ruling powers and substitute a new generation of political vassals and military clients in what Washington has alternatively referred to as the Greater, Broader and New Middle East – from Mauritania on the Atlantic Ocean to Kazakhstan on the Chinese and Russian borders.
Syria being only one of four Mediterranean Sea littoral and islands nations not a member of NATO and its Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue programs – the others are, though for how long is not certain, Libya, Lebanon and Cyprus – its incorporation into the U.S.-led military bloc is a necessary Western objective. Libya is on its way to joining the Mediterranean Dialogue, Cyprus is being pressured to join the Partnership for Peace and Lebanon will follow Syria into the Mediterranean Dialogue if Western plans proceed as planned, thus completing the transformation of the Mediterranean into a private NATO preserve.
Russia will lose its only military facility outside former Soviet space and its only firm ally in the Arab world; Iran will lose its only governmental ally in the Arab World as well. Both will be driven out of the Mediterranean, which will be patrolled uncontested by the U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor naval forces.
Almost eight years ago the U.S. and France, Syria’s former colonial master, introduced a resolution in the United Nations Security Council which called on “all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.”
NATO allies Britain, Germany, Romania and Spain voted for what became Resolution 1559 in September 2004 and Russia, China and Algeria were among six Security Council members abstaining.
Five months later former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was killed in a bomb attack against his motorcade in Beirut, which his supporters and the West attempted to blame on both Hezbollah and Syria and which resulted in the so-called Cedar Revolution which brought about the collapse of a pro-Syrian government.
By April 26 Syria had withdrawn all 14,000 troops it had stationed in Lebanon, ending a 29-year mission. Israeli troops remain in the Shebaa Farms area in Southern Lebanon and fifteen months after the last Syrian troops departed the nation Israel launched 34 days of air and artillery attacks and a ground invasion in Lebanon, as there were then no “remaining foreign forces” in the country.
A week and a half after the completion of the Syrian withdrawal then-President George W. Bush extended sanctions against Syria, claiming the nation of slightly over 20 million people continued to present a threat to American national security by allegedly “supporting terrorism” and “by continuing its invasion in Lebanon, and weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.” Bush could not have been unaware of the fact that no Syrian forces remained in Lebanon as he issued his denunciation and barely veiled threat, all the more serious and urgent because of its mention of weapons of mass destruction, along with “supporting terrorism” the pretext employed to invade neighboring Iraq only two years before.
As an indication of what has since become a major U.S.-Russian conflict over the fate of Syria, later in the same month, May, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov met with Lebanon’s prime minister, foreign minister and parliamentary speaker in Beirut and they collectively warned that exerting further pressure on Syria after it had withdrawn it troops from Lebanon would endanger security and stability in the region.
Later in the month Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a similar warning, recalling that “Significant progress has been made in implementing Resolution 1559, in particular the withdrawal of Syrian troops and security forces from Lebanon, the formation of a government there on the basis of a consensus, and organization of parliamentary elections on a date prescribed by the constitution.”
In fact the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was heralded in Western circles at the time as the beginning of the end of the government of President Bashar Assad.
A May 1, 2005 article in the Financial Times disclosed American plans at the time, which have now reached full fruition. Reporting from Washington, Guy Dinmore wrote:
“The US will keep up pressure on Syria long after the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon, US officials say, outlining a policy that analysts believe is aimed at destabilising the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad.”
The feature quoted former President George H.W. Bush administration official Flynt Leverett stating the new U.S. policy toward Syria was “basically regime change.”
Leverett, at the time an official at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, was paraphrased as adding “US officials were now inclined [to accept] that forcing Syria out of Lebanon would cause the regime to start to unravel” and that Washington could spare itself the expenditure of blood and treasure the Iraq model – attack, invasion and occupation – entailed, as it “believed regime change could be done ‘on the cheap’ through destabilisation.”
During the summer of 2005 U.S. troops in Iraq engaged in several skirmishes with Syrian counterparts near the two countries’ border, according to the New York Times resulting in the deaths of several Syrian soldiers.
As another portent of current developments, in June Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Washington to meet with President Bush in the White House, where the two heads of state emphasized the “important strategic relation” between their nations.
Among other commons concerns discussed – the counterinsurgency war against the Kurdistan Workers Party and Cyprus – Bush praised Erdogan for “strong support” of the Broader Middle East Initiative.
Already indicating Turkey’s new intended role in the Arab world in general and in Syria in particular, Erdogan stated: “Syria is our neighbor and we have a 800 km border with them. We talked about how we will bring Syria to our own line of action. [The prime minister had recently completed visits to Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.] They talked with our President about a troop withdrawal from Lebanon. They said, ‘we will pull them out’ and they did.”
Bush and Erdogan meet to discuss Broader Middle East
The month before, Bush had visited Georgia and his speech there contained words that were unfortunately ignored at the time and have been since, though their pertinence need hardly be stressed.
George W. Bush in Georgia promoting “color revolutions” in the Broader Middle East
Referring to the U.S.-backed “Rose Revolution” of late 2003 and early 2004, the prototype for the so-called color revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and in Lebanon and in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (to be followed by the Twitter Revolution in Moldova in 2009 and attempts to replicate the model in Armenia, Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Venezuela), Bush ticked off and celebrated his geopolitical victories:
“Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echoes across the world.
“Now, across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the Broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people.
“In recent months, the world has marveled at the hopeful changes taking place from Baghdad to Beirut to Bishkek [the Kyrgyz capital]. But before there was a Purple Revolution in Iraq, or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was the Rose Revolution in Georgia.”
On November 11, 2005 President Assad delivered a speech at Damascus University in which he reflected on the retreat from Lebanon and what even then was the challenge his nation would face in the future.
His comments included these:
“A number of international circles, and their agents in our Arab establishment, have been trying to promote their destructive political schemes under exciting names which touch people’s feelings and emotions and have been targeting people’s minds and souls before targeting their countries and invading their cultural identity and national existence before invading their national borders.”
“The danger lies in the fact that they target the intellectual, psychological and moral structure of Arabs, within the framework of a media, cultural and scientific war which targets our young generation in particular with the aim of separating them from their identity, heritage and history and making them lose confidence in themselves and their capabilities, and consequently pushing them to surrender to the illusion of certain defeat at the first attempt to confront and stand fast before outside pressure put on the whole region, and on Syria in particular.”
Washington announced and Damascus understood years in advance what the intended endgame in Syria would be. The past sixteen months’ unrest and violence in Syria are both partially the result of and the opportunity to complete the Broader Middle East strategy of the U.S. and NATO. And to escalate the most dangerous diplomatic and political, perhaps ultimately military, confrontation with Russia and China since the Cold War.
U.S. Foreign Policy Adventurism Approaching All-Time High
Voice of Russia
July 28, 2012
US foreign policy adventurism approaching an all-time high
Christoph R. Hörstel
====
It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
[T]hose well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline.
====
Whenever the US warns there is an imminent danger of violence, even of a massacre or atrocities, it pays to take notice. Such predictions seem to have an almost uncanny knack of turning out to be accurate. So recent US “concerns” could mean bad news.
The world is just getting over the shock of accounts of massacres emerging from Syria, like the one in al-Houla at the end of May this year. The novelty of the outrage lies in the astonishing fact that from the mainstream conservative German daily FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) and Christian clergy, a shock wave went through major Western media. New grizzly details of the plot were uncovered, namely that known loyalist families, including dozens of women, children and the elderly, who denied support to the insurgents fell victim to the carnage.
According to intercepted rebel phone calls, massacres and other incidents are being perpetrated with the intention of later putting the blame on the government.
But what happened on Thursday seems to be yet another remarkable pointer as to how far the US is ready to go: “This is the concern, that we will see a massacre in Aleppo, and that’s what the regime appears to be lining up for,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said – and the news spread quickly around the world. The announcement raises global fears as much as disgust, since several recent official international gatherings on the Syrian issue were preceded by mass killings on the ground, whether massacres or house-to-house fighting in major Syrian towns, with the brunt of the blame duly attributed to the Syrian government by the usual suspects in Western mainstream media in the usual media hype style. It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
Looking back at recent history, we may summarize thus: ever since Hillary Clinton’s like-minded predecessor, the gifted piano player Condoleezza Rice, threatened the whole Middle East with democracy in 2008, clearly defined strategic steps have been taken by the US to get the process going.
Rice received the most popular Egyptian bloggers, whose work helped facilitate the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring”, which in fact looks more like a blossom time for the CIA and other related US and aligned agencies. However, actions under cover look much more serious: a retired senior officer of the Egyptian army residing in Tunisia appears to have been functional in completing training for US-guided mercenaries and “Al-Qaeda” personnel since 2009. In the same year, the first advance parties of US agents arrived in Turkey to get acquainted with the area and its people. This information was obtained by Syrian officers from the not-so-small number of captured foreign fighters. Their various ID cards from Turkey, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan, among others, have been presented in many TV reports.
About the hundreds of armed but non-uniformed personnel crossing freely, uncounted and unchecked, into Syria across all borders in March 2011 the defected correspondents of Al-Jazeera – among others – have amply spoken out.
Since an operation of this size does not appear to be set up on an ad-hoc basis – nor could it be – it is no wonder that those well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
Against this background, recent US State Department utterings appear to be little other than a thinly veiled threat to the Syrian people, its rightful government and its international allies. The threat bears all the marks of complete bigotry, since many observers are aware that it is mostly US policy management that stages most of the killings in the region and beyond in the last 20-plus years, cooperation from all sorts of allies notwithstanding.
Starting from the Balkans in the late 90s, to the still shadowy 9/11 affair and pumped-up justifications for the 2003 war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the US record of staging media hypes looks impressive by now.
Those who wonder about the perfect integration of media, policies, secret services and the military may be advised to help themselves to a most interesting pamphlet on the Internet entitled “Joint Vision 2020”, which, in an update to “Joint Vision 2010”, incorporates asymmetrical warfare and extensive public relations scheming through the reliable media. The main line is that increasingly highly integrated machinery always works. “Peace” has stopped, the US Army fulfils its tasks all the time; war in all shapes and colors is permanent.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
As this author has outlined, Syria needs to take successful action on five challenges: public relations in NATO countries; winning back a few members of the defected/disgruntled circles, namely the Islamic movement; large-scale reconstruction on war damages all over the country; large-scale efforts towards better care for refugees and needy people; and indisputable successes against brutalities committed by government-appointed personnel of all sorts and againstrampant corruption.
This outline of Syrian government homework comes with a firm prediction – that failure to achieve two of the five will have dire consequences for the survival of the Assad regime.
The war in Syria will not be won militarily but in the civilian arena.
Military contributions can only buy time for implementation. Today’s threats by Syrian insurgents against the Russian naval base in Tartus are just a reminder how far the situation can deteriorate without a firm and sustainable strategy-based response.
UN UNSMIS commander General Robert Mood’s statement on the imminent fall of President Assad shows the way.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline. Mid-term requirements are that the peacefully-minded global majority develops a coherent joint vision of how to counter the ever-growing challenge by a debt-driven hyper-power in decline.
“Crime doesn’t pay” is a central message to maintain state order. The same applies to our troubled blue planet, whether we fight for that or not at all. Troubles unfortunately do not tend to go away if they are ignored.
There are many more people in NATO countries hoping for a stabilizing response than may be assumed today.
Сhristoph R. Hörstel is managing director at Hörstel Networks, Government & Business Consulting. http://syria-help.blogspot.de/
“Islamic NATO” As New Step Toward Ottoman Empire Revival
PanArmenian.net
July 28, 2012
Islamic NATO as a new step towards Ottoman Empire revival
The new organization first targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover
Karine Ter-Sahakian
====
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
====
Turkey is trying to become a more active player in the Near East, voicing ideas which then appear to be alarming, if not dangerous. The complete failure of its foreign policy pushes Ankara to seek new ways of implementing “neo-Ottomanism”. This, first of all, assumes the endorsement of a caliphate and restoration of the following title:
“Sultan (given name) Khan, Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem”, et cetera, et cetera.
This was not just a detailed listing of the sultan’s titles. A huge army that conquered vast territories in 400 years including Mecca and Medina, now under the rule of the Al Saudi dynasty, was of major importance for the Ottoman Empire. Establishment of a new caliphate needs an army as well – united Islamic forces, if possible.
Mustafa Kamalak, chairman of the Turkish Saadet (Felicity) Party voiced this idea in Morocco last week. Saadet is the hardline wing of the former Turkish Refah (Welfare) Party, the moderate Eurocentric wing of which is now Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Kamalak declared that “Islamic NATO” and Islamic peacekeeping forces need to be established urgently.
“Today’s events in Islamic countries again prove that the former Turkish PM Necmettin Erbakan was right in his urging the creation of Islamic peacekeeping forces. We heartily welcome the awakening in Islamic states and pray for their success. Still, the Western states are trying to benefit from it. We must first push forward unity and integrity, rather than our conflicts,” Kamalak noted.
Former prime minister of Turkey Necmettin Erbakan is known as the author of the “universal caliphate” concept. Ideologically, the caliphate is based on Islam, while its martial aspect relies on an independent military-political bloc. Erbakan named this bloc the “Islamic peacekeeping forces” and its supporters “Islamic NATO”. The North Atlantic Alliance is facing hard times now; meanwhile, Turkey is increasingly gaining weight, entitling it to come up with such statements. No doubt, Azerbaijan will be the first to join an Islamic NATO in case it does emerge. Baku will definitely attempt to thus settle its issues; otherwise, it will lose a second Karabakh war as well if it relies on its own resources.
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
However, these obstacles can be overcome: monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia dominated by the Wahhabi branch of Islam, will hardly insist on the Sunnism they practice.
The new structure will also try to move away from the West and just ignore Iran. The West may also welcome the new bloc, hoping it will help settle the Syrian and Iranian issues. In a word, everybody will be happy.
Just one minor note: is the Arab world willing to see Turkey take the lead of their united forces? History hints the answer is negative. The thing is that the ideas Ankara is coming up with every now and then may once become a reality. So, one has to rely on Saudi Arabia and Qatar in this. Formal support to Erdogan with his sultanic aspirations is one thing, while tolerating, so to say, such a leader of the Islamic world is quite another.
Saudi Arabia’s kingdom rightfully believes this to be its prerogative and is not going to step down as yet. “As yet” being the key phrase here…
Interview on Syria, Turkey and U.S.-dominated global order
Progressive Radio News Hour
July 26, 2012
Stephen Lendman
Rick Rozoff’s an activist, anti-war supporter, and editor of the web site Stop NATO.
It “document(s) and oppose(s) global militarist trends and an expanding theater of war that began” by balkanizing Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
It then expanded to South Asia, and now ravages the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.
Major world and national issues will be discussed.
Interview: Regional and global implications of Syrian crisis
Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Public Network
July 26, 2012
Interview on Syria begins at about the seven-minute point.
*****
