Tunisia

[Lauren Johnson]

Obama's Regime-Change Policy in Syria

Robert Dreyfuss on August 13, 2012 - 11:47 AM ET

The Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA are making war plans for Syria. And they're pretty much announcing them.

Over the weekend, on a visit to Turkey, a NATO member, to meet with Syrian opposition leaders and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explicitly declared that Washington's policy toward Syria is now in what she called the "operational" phase. "We have been closely coordinating over the course of this conflict, but now we need to get into the real details of such operational planning," she said, adding: "Our intelligence services, our military have very important responsibilities and roles to play, so we are going to be setting up a working group to do exactly that."

Make no mistake: this is regime change by force. It's not exactly like Iraq, and it's not exactly like Libya (yet)but it's regime change by force anyway.

In her statement with Davutoglu, Clinton said that the United States is doing the following:

First, supporting the opposition and their efforts to end the violence and begin the transition to a free and democratic Syria without Assad. The United States continues to provide the opposition with communications equipment and other forms of non-lethal assistance and direct financial assistance. We are coordinating our efforts with others who are also providing various forms of support.

Of course, the United States is not supporting the opposition to "end the violence" but to intensify it.

Second, it isn't known exactly what aid is being provided to the opposition, but it's certain that when Clinton talks about "communications equipment and other forms of non-lethal assistance," she means sophisticated spy gear and probably intelligence about Syrian security forces.

And third, when she says that the United States is coordinating with those providing "providing various forms of support," that means with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar that are supplying increasingly sophisticated arms via Turkey.

In case you missed it, the New York Times reported on August 4 about feverish war plans in Washington, in coordination with Israel:

The State Department and Pentagon planning efforts became more systematic last month after hopes for an internationally brokered resolution faltered in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition in the United Nations Security Council. The planning is being closely coordinated with regional allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel, and it coincides with an expansion of overt and covert American and foreign assistance to Syria's increasingly potent rebel fighters.

The article added:

Other countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are providing weapons, assisted by a small number of officers from the Central Intelligence Agency who are vetting the fighters receiving them and working with State Department officials trying to unify the fighters with political leaders inside and outside the country. Last month, the Treasury Department granted a waiver to let a new American organization, the Syrian Support Group, raise money for the rebels despite the sanctions that prohibit most financial transactions in Syria.

To cover its tracks the United States is wildly exaggerating the role of Iran and Hezbollah, an

ally of Iran and Syria, in supporting the government in Damascus.

Alon Ben-Meir, writing in the Jerusalem Post, warnedwithout evidencethat Iran might intervene directly in Syria, using military force. In tandem, the US State and Treasury departments this week accused Hezbollah, Iran's ally, of "actively providing support to the Assad regime as it carries out its bloody campaign against the Syrian people," though the Wall Street Journal reported that Middle East analysts believe that the idea that Hezbollah is playing an important role in Syria is overstated.

And a no-fly zone? Safe zones for rebels protected by NATO? Bombing of Syria? Stay tuned.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169367/oba...licy-syria

[URL="http://www.thenation.com/blog/169388/regime-change-syria-part-ii"]

Regime Change in Syria: Part II[/URL]

Robert Dreyfuss on August 14, 2012 - 11:53 AM ET

On Syria, Pat Lang is asking the right questions. And unfortunately, writing for The Nation, Sharif Abdel Kouddous is missing the point.

Yesterday, I blogged about the Obama administration's regime-change-by-force campaign in Syria. (Not for the first time, as I've been writing.) The CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon are all involved, working with NATO's Turkey and the kleptocrats in Saudi Arabia to overthrow President Assad. Why? Not because they care about Assad (or the Syrian people, for that matter) but because they want to give Iran a black eye. It's all about Iran.

On his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, Langa former chief of intelligence for the Pentagon on Middle East affairsquestions the policy and legality of Obama's blatant interference in Syria.

Here's what he says:

Why is the State Department leading in the conduct of this war? Does this strange situation reflect a dvision of opinion withing [sic] the Executive Branch? Do Panetta, the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] and the CIA agree with what is being done or is HC [Hillary Clinton] leading the way because she and her allies among the neo-Wilsonians and neocons are the "pro" faction in such an argument?

What is [Obama's] actual position in this matter? Is he so pre-occupied with the election in November that he is no longer really in charge?

What is the US intelligence community [IC] telling the WH about the composition and nature of the Syrian rebel groups? On FNS today McCain told the world that [Al Qaeda] is increasingly present in Syria. He must have gotten that from the IC. What else is the IC saying about the rebels? … The Democrats should ask Clapper, Petraeus and Flynn the hard questions in open hearings.

What is the IC (particularly DIA) telling the WH about the actual course of the civil war in Syria? Has the message soaked in that the rebels are on the verge of defeat? If they lose in Aleppo, then their "sanctuaries" along the Turkish border will become vulnerable. Is that why there is now talk of a "no fly zone" over those parts of Syria. Will that be followed by a "no drive" zone? Such zones would require direct combat operations on the part of US and Turkish forces. Which US law would authorize that?

All good questions.

Meanwhile, Kouddous is writing on the ground from a town in Syria. His ground-truth reporting is good, but he doesn't exactly provide a birds'-eye view. Is the story in Syria really one of heroic rebel fighters against a regime of monsters, without international implications? How did the rebels transubstantiate from defenseless protesters (à la Iran's Green Movement in 2009), who were mowed down by the government's security forces, into an armed revolutionary force, if not for the outside assistance of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with the United States and NATO?

Kouddous quotes a Syrian fighter:

"The revolution became militarized," says Mohammed Abo Khattab, a 24-year-old media activist. "People that were unarmed at first decided to arm themselves. The regime made this happen."

Well, maybe the regime provoked it, but it was forces outside Syria who "made this happen." It's certainly true that early on, Assad did what Iran's leaders in 2009 were too smart to do, namely, gun down unarmed protesters. (Even Assad, in a recent interview, admitted that shooting down protesters in Deraa early in the conflict was a huge mistake, and it's at least open to question whether Assad himself have those early orders to fire on civilians, or whether it was local security-force hotheads.) But even then, there was a chance for a peaceful solution, and a big part of the reason it didn't happen is because Obama and Hillary Clinton started demanding Assad's head on a platter.

Back in 2009, Obama was right not to intervene in Iran or to egg on the Iranian Greens. Why did that change in Syria in 201112? Politics, maybe? Does the United States have the right to decide to force out of office anyone it doesn't like? Or only the ones that the Israel Lobby wants to get rid of, in an election year?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169388/reg...ia-part-ii