WASHINGTON, September 12, 2014 — Obama is formulating plans to deploy airstrikes in Syria against the very terrorist group that his administration partnered with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan to originally train, equip and mobilize. The Washington Post outlines:
Obama discussed his plans at a dinner with a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts this week at the White House and made clear his belief that he has the authority to attack the militant Islamist group on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border to protect U.S national security. said.
And then Obama gave a speech on the ‘strategy’ he earlier claimed that his administration didn’t have:
“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. This is a core principal of my presidency: If you threaten America you will find no safe haven.”
Evidently this administration is not even playing from the same sheet of music internally. John Kerry in today’s interview with CNN, denied that the U.S. is at war with ISIS:
“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation,” Kerry told CNN’s Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counter-terrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”
Maybe this is just the administration attempting to control the nomenclature and the symbolism of it’s narrative, but how does one conduct counter-terrorism without being “at war” with the insurgents it plans to fight against? Or perhaps they don’t want to use the terminology “war” because of the connotation that should naturally accompany the concept of “it’s going to go on for some period of time”?
But in the effort to deliver a deceptive message to the American people, the Obama White House and the State Department need compliant allies in the corporate mass media. They have them. In an article in today’s edition of USA Today, Susan Page – a reliable neo con voice, delivers an incredibly false summary of the Obama administrations handling of the Syrian situation:
“Critics say Obama’s reluctance contributed to the troubles he faces. They cite his refusal to arm Syrian rebels in 2012 despite the recommendation of Secretary of State … Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and his (Obama’s) decision last year to delay airstrikes in Syria without congressional authorization – even though Bashar Assad’s regime had crossed a “red line” Obama had set on the use of chemical weapons”.
It is clear that Ms. Page is articulating the warfare state’s warped version of events here and it is so reality deficient that it is – in military parlance, a ‘target rich environment’. Obama did not “refuse to arm Syrian rebels”. He most certainly has armed “Syrian rebels”. The fact that he did, is not in dispute by any credible examination of the evidence. He did provide arms, training and logistical assistance to rebel factions directly and indirectly tied to Al Qaeda and the factions that now form the core of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in Syria and Iraq.
An IHS / Jane’s report issued last year, dispelled the ongoing myth that ‘moderate’ elements within the Syrian opposition are in any way a viable resource in routing either the dedicated terrorists among them or securing a ‘secular’ form of government in Syria.
Charles Lister, author of the analysis, said: “The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out.”
That’s a mild mannered, tempered way of saying that it’s pure rubbish. And this is not new. The Obama White House and State have had access to the same intelligence data that IHS and other credible counter terrorist researchers – even those in our own intelligence community had, that clearly demonstrate that ‘moderates’ and ‘secularists’ are marginal and of no strategic value whatsoever.
The Rand Corporation, also last September, concluded that Syria was the prime staging and occupation zone for the majority of the Salafi-Jihadist groups world wide, “either clandestinely or with regional and local allies.” “Clandestinely” is the key term here. The Islamic State, in the ramp up to its mobilization in Iraq, was not publicly advertising its various components as jihadists, although they were not taking pains to hide that fact either.
This week also, the Daily Star in Lebanon quoted a FSA brigade commander admitting that his forces were working with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate near the Syrian/Lebanon border:
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”
Yet, Ms. Page and others persist in parroting the administration’s misleading and untruthful version of affairs in Syria. Assad could not have “crossed Obama’s ‘red line’” with respect to chemical weapons, because it did not use chemical weapons on its own citizens, says Pulitzer Prize investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who reported that:
The administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra. It was seen, Hersh says, as an alarming threat by May, with the U.S. being aware of al-Nusra member able to make and use sarin, and yet the group – associated with the rebel opposition in Syria – was never considered a suspect in the sarin attacks. Hersh refers to a top-secret June cable sent to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency that said al-Nusra could acquire and use sarin. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency could not find the document in question, even when given its specific codes.
So, why is the media regurgitating the falsehood that Obama has failed to act in Syria? Because the claim that Obama has intentionally neglected to deal with terrorists is much less damning than revealing the actual truth that Obama has, in fact, partnered with Saudi Arabia, Turkey (NATO ally) Qatar – and ironically enough, Kuwait, in promoting the evolution of a terror group that commits atrocities that shocks the sensibilities of Americans.
Because, additionally, Obama cannot afford to be seen as providing assistance to a group (Al Nusra Front / Ash Sham / ISIS / ISIL) that gassed civilians in Ghouta and Aleppo, staged crucifixions in Raqqa, mass executions in Mosul and a host of other abominable ethnic cleansings, genocides and sexual assaults in Syria and Iraq.
What would the Administration’s motive be for co-parenting the Islamic State? In order to enfranchise the flagging profits of the military industrial complex in these relatively lean times of sequestration, you must have a conflict, preferably one that does not have a defined expiration date. In order to justify American involvement in such a conflict, that, to quote John Kerry, is “going to go on for some period of time”, you have to have an enemy.
If the enemy is not of sufficient magnitude and menace, it must be brought up to industrial strength by the parties that stand to benefit. All of those ingredients existed at the time the U.S. originally brought Al Qaeda into existence in the 1980’s in the guise of Osama Bin Laden and they exist today with the propagation of the Islamic Caliphate.
Now, prompted by the prospect of enhanced profits for the global elite that provide Obama his policy directives and the added advantage of the bounce in popularity polls that comes from a ‘Commander In Chief’ act, Obama is supposedly re-inventing himself as a ‘Hawk’. Not remarkable, however, when you consider that “degrading and destroying” a bloodthirsty band of brutal killers has a great deal more public appeal and perceived legitimacy than fighting on the side of the same organization that brought the World Trade Center down.