Intervention in Syria: Just Waiting for an Excuse

I believe that the conditions are now set to "justify" US/NATO intervention in Syria should Bashar al-Assad cross a "red line."

1. The United States has formally recognized the Syrian opposition coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people."  France, Britain, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al) have also formally recognized the rebel coalition.  (VOA)  That makes the Assad regime illegitimate.  Does that somehow make us justified to protect this "legitimate" Syrian government from attack by Assad's regime?
2. The United States has designated the Al Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group, as a terrorist organization.  The Al Nusra Front is claimed to be an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  (HotAir, The Investigative Project)  As described in my piece "Al Qaeda: Tip of the Brotherhood's Spear," the existence of this group in Syria obliges the United States to become involved in the conflict to prevent its arch-enemy, Al Qaeda, from taking over the government or obtaining WMDs.  This means US support for the non-al-Qaeda rebels.
3. There have been multiple reports that the forces of the Assad regime are preparing to employ chemical weapons (e.g. sarin nerve agent) against the rebels.  This has been identified as a "red line" that would trigger US/NATO intervention should it be crossed. (Reuters)
4. Syria has reportedly fired SCUD missiles against rebels within the borders of Syria (from Damascus to the north, close to Turkey). (CNN)  Should they stray into Turkey, or carry chemical weapons, that will "justify" intervention.  Patriot missile systems have been deployed to Turkey that have the capability to shoot down many types of surface-to-surface missiles like the SCUD.  (Foreign Policy)

Again I ask: why is no American leader opposing our march to war in Syria?

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Syria: Why is no one opposing our march to war?

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" --George Washington's Farewell Address 

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none." --Thomas Jefferson

Why is no one in America standing up and saying "no" to US involvement in the Syrian war?  It now seems to be a foregone conclusion that our military will be involved...not question of "if," but "when."

Is Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens a proper justification for our military to become involved?  What threat are they to the security of our nation and our people?  Have the Syrians attacked us?

Do we not understand that the Syrian port of Tartus is the only one that the Russian military has use of in the Mediterranean Sea?  Do we not understand that the ouster of the Shia Bashar al-Assad in Syria will be a significant blow to Shia Iran's security?  Perhaps it is because of these very reasons that we believe it advantageous to encourage civil war in Syria, and then get directly involved when a conveniently placed "red line" is crossed.

Are we to think that the Russians and Iranians will not avenge the loss of Syria?  And what about the jihadis in Syria who we are aiding?  Just like the mujahideen in Afghanistan and Libya, they will turn right around and attack us.  You're delusional if you believe this will not happen.

Yes, our military still has the power to undertake wars in other nations (it is debatable for how much longer), but just because we can does not mean we should.  Being on the verge of economic collapse, we need to husband our military resources instead of squandering them on questionable adventures in the Middle East.  Yet here we are moving Patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and determining that it will take 75,000 US soldiers to secure Syria's chemical weapons.

What benefits will are nation really get from involvement in Syria?  Or will it instead benefit King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, who seeks to lessen the power of his arch-rival Shia Iran?  Or Erdogan in Turkey who is reasserting Turkish dominance in the region?   Or the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni Caliphate in general?

Why is no American leader standing up and saying "no" to this steady march to war?

America and its allies are playing with fire in Syria, and we are all about to get burned.  We need to back off and have nothing to do with that mess--chemical weapons or not.  We are not justified to start killing Syrians and our involvement is not worth one single American life, bomb, or dollar.

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Hagmann: The hidden real truth about Benghazi

The Mosaic of lies, deceits and state-sponsored terrorism:

Link to article: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/50586

By Doug Hagmann  Friday, October 26, 2012 Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago . The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.

A mosaic of lies

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon.  Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups.  If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?

A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Keep reading (article continues)...