Parry writes: "The U.S. State Department is trying to block Russian supplies
going to Syria's embattled government despite the risk that collapsing the
regime would create a vacuum filled by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda,
another nightmare dreamt up by the neocons and liberal hawks."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Madness of Blockading Syria's Regime
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
12 September 15
The U.S. State Department is trying to block Russian supplies going to
Syria's embattled government despite the risk that collapsing the regime
would create a vacuum filled by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, another
nightmare dreamt up by the neocons and liberal hawks, writes Robert Parry.
Does the U.S. government want the Islamic State and/or its fellow-travelers
in Al Qaeda to take over Syria? As far as the State Department is concerned,
that seems to be a risk worth taking as it moves to cut off Russia's supply
pipeline to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad - even as
Sunni terrorist groups expand their grip on Syrian territory.
It appears that hardliners within the Obama administration have placed the
neocon goal of "regime change" in Syria ahead of the extraordinary dangers
that could come from the black flag of Sunni terrorism raised over the
capital of Damascus. That would likely be accompanied by the Islamic State
chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other "heretics"
and/or Al Qaeda having a major Mideast capital from which to plot more
attacks on the West.
And, as destabilizing as the current flow of Middle East refugees is to
Europe, a victory by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda's Nusra Front would open
the flood gates, sending millions of desperate people pouring out of Syria
and creating a political as well as humanitarian crisis. At that point,
there also would be enormous pressure on President Barack Obama or his
successor to mount a full-scale invasion of Syria and attempt a bloody
occupation.
The human and financial costs of this nightmare scenario are almost beyond
comprehension. The European Union - already strained by mass unemployment in
its southern tier - could crack apart, shattering one of the premier
achievements of the post-World War II era. The United States also could
undergo a final transformation from a Republic into a permanent-warrior
state.
Yet, Official Washington can't seem to stop itself. Instead of working with
Russia and Shiite-ruled Iran to help stabilize the political/military
situation in Syria, the pundit class and the "tough-guy/gal" politicians are
unleashing torrents of insults toward the two countries that would be the
West's natural allies in any effort to prevent a Sunni terrorist takeover.
Beyond words, there has been action. Over the past week, the State
Department has pressured Bulgaria and Greece to bar Russian transport
flights headed to Syria. The U.S. plan seems to be to blockade the Syrian
government and starve it of outside supplies, whether humanitarian or
military, all the better to force its collapse and open the Damascus city
gates to the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda.
In explaining its nearly inexplicable behavior, the State Department even
has adopted the silly neocon talking point which blames Assad and now Russia
for creating the Islamic State, though the bloodthirsty group actually
originated as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in reaction to President George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Then, backed by money and weapons from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S.
"allies," AQI moved into Syria with the goal of ousting Assad's relatively
secular government. AQI later took the name Islamic State (also known by the
acronyms ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). Yet, the State Department's official position
is that the Islamic State is Assad's and Russia's fault.
"What we've said is that their [the Russians'] continued support to the
Assad regime has actually fostered the growth of ISIL inside Syria and made
the situation worse," State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.
"If they want to be helpful against ISIL, the way to do it is to stop arming
and assisting and supporting Bashar al-Assad."
Yet, the reality is that Assad's military has been the principal bulwark
against both the Islamic State and the other dominant Sunni rebel force, Al
Qaeda's affiliate, the Nusra Front. So, by moving to shut down Assad's
supply line, the U.S. government is, in effect, clearing the way for an
Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory since the U.S.-trained "moderate" rebels are
largely a fiction, numbering in double digits, while the extremists have
tens of thousands of committed fighters.
In other words, if the U.S. strategy succeeds in collapsing Assad's
defenses, there is really nothing to stop the Sunni terrorists from seizing
Damascus and other major cities. Then, U.S. airstrikes on those population
centers would surely kill many civilians and further radicalize the Sunnis.
To oust the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda would require a full-scale U.S.
invasion, which might be inevitable but would almost certainly fail, much as
Bush's Iraq occupation did.
A Scary Fantasyland
As scary as these dangers are, there remains a huge gap between the real
world of the Middle East and the fantasyland that is Official Washington's
perception of the region. In that land of make-believe, what matters is
tough talk from ambitious politicians and opinion leaders, what I call the
"er-er-er" growling approach to geopolitics.
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton joined in that growling on
Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, which has become home to neocons
such as Robert Kagan and a host of "liberal interventionists," such as
Michael O'Hanlon and Strobe Talbott.
Though she formally endorsed the nuclear agreement with Iran, former
Secretary of State Clinton insulted both the Iranians and the Russians.
Noting Russia's support for the Syrian government, she urged increased
punishment of Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin - aimed at forcing
Russia to abandon the Assad regime.
"We need a concerted effort to up the costs on Russia and Putin; I am in the
camp that we have not done enough," Clinton declared. "I don't think we can
dance around it much longer," she said, claiming that Russia is trying to
"stymie and undermine American power whenever and wherever they can."
Clinton appears to have learned nothing from her past support for "regime
change" strategies in Iraq and Libya. In both countries, the U.S. military
engineered the ouster and murder of the nations' top leaders, but instead of
the promised flourishing of some ideal democracies, the countries descended
into anarchy with Sunni terrorists, linked to Al Qaeda and the Islamic
State, now controlling large swaths of territory and engaging in widespread
atrocities.
Yet, for Clinton, the higher priority is to come across as super-tough,
proving her value to Official Washington's influential neocons and liberal
hawks. Thus, a potential Clinton presidency suggests an even more warlike
foreign policy than the one carried out by Obama, who recently boasted of
ordering military strikes in seven different countries.
Clinton seems eager for more and more "regime changes," targeting Syria and
even Russia, despite the existential risks involved in such reckless
strategies, especially the notion of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia. The
neocons and liberal hawks always assume that some malleable "moderate" will
take power, but the real-life experience is that U.S. interventionism often
makes matters worse, with even more extreme leaders filling the void.
Where's Obama?
Now, with Official Washington lining up behind a blockade of Russian
assistance to the Syrian government - even if that would mean an Islamic
State/Al Qaeda victory - the great unknown is where President Obama stands.
A source familiar with the back channels between the White House and the
Kremlin told me that Obama had encouraged Putin to step up Russian aid to
the embattled Syrian government as part of the fight against the Islamic
State and that the Russians are now bewildered as to why Obama's State
Department is trying to sabotage those efforts.
As odd as that might sound, it would not be the first time that Obama has
favored a less confrontational approach to a foreign crisis behind the
scenes only to have neocon/liberal-hawk operatives inside his own
administration charge off in the opposite direction. For instance, in 2009,
Obama bowed to demands for what turned out to be a useless "surge" in
Afghanistan, and in 2014, he allowed neocon Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland to start a new Cold War with Russia by helping to
orchestrate a "regime change" in Ukraine.
As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Nuland would
presumably be at the center of the recent arm-twisting in Bulgaria and
Greece to get those countries to block Russian flights to Syria, which has
been a longtime neocon target for "regime change," a goal that the neocons
now see as within their grasp.
Typically, when his underlings undercut him, Obama then falls in line behind
them but often in a foot-dragging kind of way. Then, on occasion, he'll
break ranks and make a foray into genuine diplomacy, such as Syria's 2013
agreement to surrender its chemical-weapons arsenal or Iran's 2015 nuclear
deal - both of which were achieved with significant help from Putin. But
Obama has proved to be an unreliable foreign-policy partner, bending to the
hawkish pressure from many of his subordinates and even joining in their
rhetorical insults.
Today, Obama may feel that he has gone as far as he dares with the Iran
nuclear deal and that any foreign policy cooperation with Iran or Russia
before Congress decides on the agreement's fate by Sept. 17 could cause
defections among key Democrats.
Once the deadline for congressional review passes, Obama could get serious
about collaborating with Iran and Russia to stabilize the situation in
Syria. By strengthening the Syrian government's military - which has
protected Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities - and
incorporating reasonable Sunnis into a power-sharing arrangement, there
would a chance to stabilize Syria and push for elections and constitutional
reforms. But that would require dropping the slogan, "Assad must go!"
So, while President Obama is saying little about his Syrian plans, his State
Department has moved off on its own aggressive course hoping to finally
achieve the neocon/liberal-hawk dream of "regime change" in Syria -
regardless of what nightmares might follow.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/10/madness-of-blockading-syrias-regime/ht
tps://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/10/madness-of-blockading-syrias-regime/
Madness of Blockading Syria's Regime
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
12 September 15
The U.S. State Department is trying to block Russian supplies going to
Syria's embattled government despite the risk that collapsing the regime
would create a vacuum filled by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, another
nightmare dreamt up by the neocons and liberal hawks, writes Robert Parry.
oes the U.S. government want the Islamic State and/or its fellow-travelers
in Al Qaeda to take over Syria? As far as the State Department is concerned,
that seems to be a risk worth taking as it moves to cut off Russia's supply
pipeline to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad - even as
Sunni terrorist groups expand their grip on Syrian territory.
It appears that hardliners within the Obama administration have placed the
neocon goal of "regime change" in Syria ahead of the extraordinary dangers
that could come from the black flag of Sunni terrorism raised over the
capital of Damascus. That would likely be accompanied by the Islamic State
chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other "heretics"
and/or Al Qaeda having a major Mideast capital from which to plot more
attacks on the West.
And, as destabilizing as the current flow of Middle East refugees is to
Europe, a victory by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda's Nusra Front would open
the flood gates, sending millions of desperate people pouring out of Syria
and creating a political as well as humanitarian crisis. At that point,
there also would be enormous pressure on President Barack Obama or his
successor to mount a full-scale invasion of Syria and attempt a bloody
occupation.
The human and financial costs of this nightmare scenario are almost beyond
comprehension. The European Union - already strained by mass unemployment in
its southern tier - could crack apart, shattering one of the premier
achievements of the post-World War II era. The United States also could
undergo a final transformation from a Republic into a permanent-warrior
state.
Yet, Official Washington can't seem to stop itself. Instead of working with
Russia and Shiite-ruled Iran to help stabilize the political/military
situation in Syria, the pundit class and the "tough-guy/gal" politicians are
unleashing torrents of insults toward the two countries that would be the
West's natural allies in any effort to prevent a Sunni terrorist takeover.
Beyond words, there has been action. Over the past week, the State
Department has pressured Bulgaria and Greece to bar Russian transport
flights headed to Syria. The U.S. plan seems to be to blockade the Syrian
government and starve it of outside supplies, whether humanitarian or
military, all the better to force its collapse and open the Damascus city
gates to the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda.
In explaining its nearly inexplicable behavior, the State Department even
has adopted the silly neocon talking point which blames Assad and now Russia
for creating the Islamic State, though the bloodthirsty group actually
originated as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in reaction to President George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Then, backed by money and weapons from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S.
"allies," AQI moved into Syria with the goal of ousting Assad's relatively
secular government. AQI later took the name Islamic State (also known by the
acronyms ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). Yet, the State Department's official position
is that the Islamic State is Assad's and Russia's fault.
"What we've said is that their [the Russians'] continued support to the
Assad regime has actually fostered the growth of ISIL inside Syria and made
the situation worse," State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.
"If they want to be helpful against ISIL, the way to do it is to stop arming
and assisting and supporting Bashar al-Assad."
Yet, the reality is that Assad's military has been the principal bulwark
against both the Islamic State and the other dominant Sunni rebel force, Al
Qaeda's affiliate, the Nusra Front. So, by moving to shut down Assad's
supply line, the U.S. government is, in effect, clearing the way for an
Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory since the U.S.-trained "moderate" rebels are
largely a fiction, numbering in double digits, while the extremists have
tens of thousands of committed fighters.
In other words, if the U.S. strategy succeeds in collapsing Assad's
defenses, there is really nothing to stop the Sunni terrorists from seizing
Damascus and other major cities. Then, U.S. airstrikes on those population
centers would surely kill many civilians and further radicalize the Sunnis.
To oust the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda would require a full-scale U.S.
invasion, which might be inevitable but would almost certainly fail, much as
Bush's Iraq occupation did.
A Scary Fantasyland
As scary as these dangers are, there remains a huge gap between the real
world of the Middle East and the fantasyland that is Official Washington's
perception of the region. In that land of make-believe, what matters is
tough talk from ambitious politicians and opinion leaders, what I call the
"er-er-er" growling approach to geopolitics.
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton joined in that growling on
Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, which has become home to neocons
such as Robert Kagan and a host of "liberal interventionists," such as
Michael O'Hanlon and Strobe Talbott.
Though she formally endorsed the nuclear agreement with Iran, former
Secretary of State Clinton insulted both the Iranians and the Russians.
Noting Russia's support for the Syrian government, she urged increased
punishment of Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin - aimed at forcing
Russia to abandon the Assad regime.
"We need a concerted effort to up the costs on Russia and Putin; I am in the
camp that we have not done enough," Clinton declared. "I don't think we can
dance around it much longer," she said, claiming that Russia is trying to
"stymie and undermine American power whenever and wherever they can."
Clinton appears to have learned nothing from her past support for "regime
change" strategies in Iraq and Libya. In both countries, the U.S. military
engineered the ouster and murder of the nations' top leaders, but instead of
the promised flourishing of some ideal democracies, the countries descended
into anarchy with Sunni terrorists, linked to Al Qaeda and the Islamic
State, now controlling large swaths of territory and engaging in widespread
atrocities.
Yet, for Clinton, the higher priority is to come across as super-tough,
proving her value to Official Washington's influential neocons and liberal
hawks. Thus, a potential Clinton presidency suggests an even more warlike
foreign policy than the one carried out by Obama, who recently boasted of
ordering military strikes in seven different countries.
Clinton seems eager for more and more "regime changes," targeting Syria and
even Russia, despite the existential risks involved in such reckless
strategies, especially the notion of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia. The
neocons and liberal hawks always assume that some malleable "moderate" will
take power, but the real-life experience is that U.S. interventionism often
makes matters worse, with even more extreme leaders filling the void.
Where's Obama?
Now, with Official Washington lining up behind a blockade of Russian
assistance to the Syrian government - even if that would mean an Islamic
State/Al Qaeda victory - the great unknown is where President Obama stands.
A source familiar with the back channels between the White House and the
Kremlin told me that Obama had encouraged Putin to step up Russian aid to
the embattled Syrian government as part of the fight against the Islamic
State and that the Russians are now bewildered as to why Obama's State
Department is trying to sabotage those efforts.
As odd as that might sound, it would not be the first time that Obama has
favored a less confrontational approach to a foreign crisis behind the
scenes only to have neocon/liberal-hawk operatives inside his own
administration charge off in the opposite direction. For instance, in 2009,
Obama bowed to demands for what turned out to be a useless "surge" in
Afghanistan, and in 2014, he allowed neocon Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland to start a new Cold War with Russia by helping to
orchestrate a "regime change" in Ukraine.
As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Nuland would
presumably be at the center of the recent arm-twisting in Bulgaria and
Greece to get those countries to block Russian flights to Syria, which has
been a longtime neocon target for "regime change," a goal that the neocons
now see as within their grasp.
Typically, when his underlings undercut him, Obama then falls in line behind
them but often in a foot-dragging kind of way. Then, on occasion, he'll
break ranks and make a foray into genuine diplomacy, such as Syria's 2013
agreement to surrender its chemical-weapons arsenal or Iran's 2015 nuclear
deal - both of which were achieved with significant help from Putin. But
Obama has proved to be an unreliable foreign-policy partner, bending to the
hawkish pressure from many of his subordinates and even joining in their
rhetorical insults.
Today, Obama may feel that he has gone as far as he dares with the Iran
nuclear deal and that any foreign policy cooperation with Iran or Russia
before Congress decides on the agreement's fate by Sept. 17 could cause
defections among key Democrats.
Once the deadline for congressional review passes, Obama could get serious
about collaborating with Iran and Russia to stabilize the situation in
Syria. By strengthening the Syrian government's military - which has
protected Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities - and
incorporating reasonable Sunnis into a power-sharing arrangement, there
would a chance to stabilize Syria and push for elections and constitutional
reforms. But that would require dropping the slogan, "Assad must go!"
So, while President Obama is saying little about his Syrian plans, his State
Department has moved off on its own aggressive course hoping to finally
achieve the neocon/liberal-hawk dream of "regime change" in Syria -
regardless of what nightmares might follow.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
