The recent news that British forces have been involved in (illegal) airstrikes in Syria may have come as a surprise to some; but of course there is a broader context to this story.
Far from the highly sanitised reporting of the mainstream media, it has in recent days emerged that American policy-makers have drawn up detailed plans for an imminent invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Syria.
A policy paper recently put together by the rather infamous US foreign-policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution (which was crucially involved in drawing up the Neo-Con plans for the Iraq invasion) gives us enormous and immediate cause for concern. The paper is titled ‘Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country’. As Tony Cartalucci puts it in this Near Eastern Outlook piece, ‘The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America’s shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century‘.
In short, the US-sponsored plan to arm and fund a Middle-East-spanning proxy army of Al-Qaeda terrorists and extremist Islamists in order to bring down the last remaining secular Arab states has been a tremendous success; it has brought Iraq to despair, brought down Gaddafi’s Libya and put both Libya and Africa into chaos, and reduced Syria to rubble.
In Syria, however, the objective has been accomplished in a much messier, more drawn-out fashion, with four years of war, millions of refugees and over 200,000 deaths.
As Cartalucci notes, summarising the Brookings Institution document, ‘the United States now plans to use the resulting chaos to justify what it has sought since the beginning of the conflict when it became clear the Syrian government was not to capitulate or collapse – the establishment of buffer zones now called “safe zones” by Brookings. These zones once created, will include US armed forces on the ground, literally occupying seized Syrian territory cleared by proxies including Kurdish groups and bands of Al Qaeda fighters in the north, and foreign terrorist militias operating along the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south.’
This plan and its reference to “safe zones” isn’t something new, as you’ll see shortly. The objective is to occupy border areas of Syria with US special forces and to then justify a nationwide “no-fly-zone” if and when Syrian government forces attempt to retake these ‘safe zones’.
The presumption is made that if this territory is taken and US (and other) troops are assigned there, the legitimate Syrian Army will be too scared of attacking those areas, as Damascus would risk full retaliation from the US military; if Damascus does attempt interference, of course, the occupiers will have grounds for the no-fly zone. It is simple entrapment, as was carried out in Libya three-and-half years ago.
It would also be erroneous to think US, British and other ‘special forces’ haven’t already been involved in Syria, as there were reports of this right at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War in 2011.
Just at it was a known fact – though not openly admitted by any governments – that special forces were on the ground in Libya in 2011 too, guiding the rebel carnage. According to reporting from three years ago, in June 2012 SAS Special Operations Forces as well as agents of the UK’s MI6 were already operating in Syria. The Daily Star also reported at this time that other countries, including Turkey, France and “possibly” the USA were operating in Syria too. But a whistle-blower and high-ranking officer of the US Special Operations Forces stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, had already disclosed in late August 2011 that the US had deployed Special Forces along with other NATO-Member States special forces into Syria.
The officer stated that the US was actively preparing for war in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and that US Special Forces were on the ground in Syria, supervising and cooperating with armed fighters of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and a cohort of “other terrorist organizations”. The officer further stated that the training of foreign fighters and the entire “operation” was planned and executed along the guidelines of a Special Forces Training Circular for Foreign Fighters and agents called TC 18-01.
The same source is reported to have said that “safe havens” were to be set up around areas that were easily accessible and even within walking distance of the trouble spots. Among the trouble spots mentioned were Krak des Chevaliers, 25 miles west of Homs and close to the Lebanon border, Suwayda (near the border with Jordan) and Jisr al-Shughour near the Turkish border. These locations were all later identified by independent analysts as ‘corridors for infiltration’ by mercenaries, arms and logistics from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, into Syria.
This was how the war in Syria began – orchestrated from the outside by external manipulation, just as was the case in Libya.
The aforementioned document called ‘TC 18-01’ relates to something called The 2010 Unconventional Warfare Manual of the US Military. The document published by the US military lays out the strategies for infiltrating and destroying any sovereign nation of choice via ‘irregular’ means; in other words, via means other than traditional military invasion or war. “The intent of US Unconventional Warfare is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish US strategic objectives,” the document explains. ‘For the foreseeable future, US Forces will predominately engage in irregular warfare operations‘.
This manual, it is crucial to note, was published in 2010. The Libyan and the Syrian Civil Wars erupted in 2011.
Says the document; ‘Resistance and external forces conduct psychological preparation to unify populations against (the) established government… and prepare population to accept US support…’ There is absolutely no question for any intelligent observer that the Libyan and Syrian horrors (with their hundreds of thousands of deaths) were operations conducted, to the letter, in accordance with the Unconventional Warfare Manual of the US Military. The manual outlines US strategy for step-by-step subversion of a country by means including guerrilla warfare and ultimately regime change, utilising incitement and mobilisation of the populations against their governments and mass civil unrest.
What transpired in Libya and Syria matches the objectives and methods of this document 100%.
You can read the PDF here.
Note the special-forces source’s reference to “safe havens”; established zones in which armed rebels and insurgents can operate out of. This is perfectly echoed now in the Brookings Institution paper, which says the idea is to ‘establish reliable safe zones within Syria. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well.’
The Brookings’ paper continues, ‘Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces,’ the plan suggests, ‘he would be likely to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his military of one of its few advantages over ISIL.’
The Brookings paper essentially also admits, as Mr Cartolluci points out, what most of us have known for years: that the government of Syria is not engaged in a war against its own people and never was, but a war against the manufactured ‘Islamic State’.
Just as Gaddafi wasn’t engaged in a war against his own people either, but against Al-Qaeda, LIFG and Ansar al-Sharia.
These ‘outside forces’ casually alluded to – American, British, Saudi, Turkish, etc – have all of course already been directly involved in orchestrating and escalating the chaos in Syria from the very beginning; so it’s no surprise that these are the same nations being alluded to now too – they would simply be finishing the job they started in 2011, bringing the entire bloody affair to its intended conclusion.
Syria, we can fairly logically deduce, was ‘meant’ to fall to the terrorists as quickly as Libya did, with both nations having their states/governments in a state of complete collapse by the end of 2011. In Libya this worked only because NATO directly intervened with several months of ruthless bombing; in Syria, the Assad government and the Syrian Army was too strong to fall and it remains standing even three-and-a-half years later.
The architects of Syria’s destruction, fed up of waiting, would now logically want to make an end of the chaos by force; using the manufactured ‘bogeyman’ of ISIS/ISIL to do this makes perfect sense.
The ‘Islamic State’ or ‘Daesh’ is a multi-purpose monster created to service multiple Geo-political agendas. As the former FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds put it a year ago; “ISIS is what is the US media and the propaganda creators behind the media decided to create.”
Nor is this new paper the Brookings Institution’s first policy plan for Syria either (see PDF here); this has all been planned for a long time and the objective was always regime change. The Brookings Institution originally also described a scenario where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by establishing a “multi-front war” on Syria’s borders; ‘Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Assad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Assad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training…’
It would now be reasonable to suggest that the manufacturing of ISIS/ISIL and the establishment of their ‘caliphate’ was designed with this end in mind: to justify invasion of several Middle Eastern nations, with a view to carving up the region into new borders and ‘vassal states’. In effect, this would be a rewrite of what the Imperialist/Colonial powers did just under a hundred years ago when, after the First World War, they drew up the borders that created the nation-states that exist today.
A redrawing of the Middle-East map may have been the underlying agenda from the beginning: it would also be perfectly in keeping with the so-called Yinon Plan that allegedly originated in Israel – a plan to Balkanise the region into smaller, less powerful, states or mini-states along sectarian lines.
Getting back to the matter of the British airstrikes the revelation in recent days, that UK forces have been directly involved in airstrikes in Syria raises the question of whether ministers have misled the House of Commons, or more importantly, whether these airstrikes are in breach of the parliamentary resolution that the UK NOT take military action in Syria. It’s all smoke-and-mirrors of course; the original vote was to decide whether to take action against Assad and the Syrian government for daring to try to stop terrorists in their own land.
Wisely horrified by the mess and the mass deception that was British/NATO involvement in Libya under the exact same (false) pretexts, British Parliament justly voted against military action in Syria.
The airstrikes now are said to be against ISIS/ISIL in Syria, which in theory could be viewed as strikes indirectly aiding Assad and the government, and all the under the pretext of destroying ISIS/ISIL; stopping ISIS/ISIL, the story goes, cannot be done in just Iraq, but must also be done in Syria. There are two key points, however; (1) the ‘Islamic State’ came about through foreign (American, British, Saudi, Israeli, Qatari) orchestration in the first place, and (2) whereas our involvement in Iraq is at the invitation of the Iraqi government, we have received no such invitation from the government of Syria to begin operating inside that country.
Defense Secretary Michael Fallon’s highly questionable suggestion that “we’re fighting a new Battle of Britain” is simply propagandising for the sake of winning public support to ‘officially’ wage war on a nation that we have *already* unofficially been waging war on for almost four years.
The fact that news of these airstrikes went public wasn’t, despite what the government would have us believe, a case of ministers deciding to inform the people of what’s being done. In fact, if the human rights charity Reprieve hadn’t made a freedom of information request, this would never been public knowledge beyond a handful of politicians and military decision-makers. This was supposed to stay secret.
Meanwhile the deliberate fabrications and misinformation concerning Syria and the actions of the Assad government continue even now. For example, The Telegraph, in an article published in May and titled ‘Bashar al-Assad’s airmen laugh as they drop barrel bombs on fellow Syrians’; the paper cites, as its sole source, the Al-Jazeera news channel, and the bombing raids by British and American fighters aren’t even mentioned. More to the point, eagle-eyed reader Robert Stuart angrily wrote in to the newspaper, pointing out how the article had in fact ‘skilfully’ used stock footage from 2012 to aid its misinformation piece.
Nothing new in this, of course; this sort of news-media fakery in regard to Syria (and Libya before that) has been going on from the very start.
It is also worth asking whether these airstrikes are really targeting ISIS/ISIL at all.
There were already reports of US and British airstrikes in Iraq that were supposedly targeting ISIS/ISIL were in actual fact hitting anti-ISIS fighters and groups; as well as reports of aid being dropped into ISIS/ISIL territory. Reports meanwhile from Syria suggested US airstrikes sold as anti-ISIS operations were in fact targeting Syrian infrastructure (just as NATO bombing operations in Libya that were meant to be targeting government/military sites were also targeting the water-supply, hospitals and schools).
The recent air-strikes carried out by British forces in Syria are uncertain; we only have it on the government’s word that they were targeting ISIS/ISIL positions. But this same government didn’t even reveal air-strikes had been occurring until after they already were.
There have also been well-documented – though entirely unofficial – bombings of Syrian cities and Syrian government targets by both the US and Israel already, going back some time.
Tellingly, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was speaking at an Aspen Institute conference in June 2014 when he openly said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State in Syria.
In short, Syria – a nation that did nothing at all to provoke it – has been under attack, reduced to ruin, for the passed four years by various terrorist groups on the ground, all backed and funded from abroad, and by undeclared and illegal airstrikes from various governments; and it is now quite possibly on the brink of a full invasion to finish off the job.
The multi-pronged, four-year attack has been on the nation itself, on the populations, on the government and military, on the cultural fabric of the society, and even on the country’s rich historic/cultural heritage. After four years of President Assad and the Syrian government managing to hold on to Damascus, it seems likely that we are now entering the end-game of what was intended all along.
The simple fact also is that, just as these recent airstrikes have been conducted without any parliamentary debate, any other military actions against Syria can simply go ahead without any legal basis and there’s nothing you, I or any other objector can do about it.