US ATTACK ON SYRIA: RATIONALE CRUMBLING

-

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

While Secretary of State John Kerry whipped world headlines into a moral frenzy against Syria this week, Obama played reticent despite preparing the globalists’ long-sought after attack and takedown of Syria. But the evidence just hasn’t appeared and support is crumbling. Worse, the military realities of forcing Assad into a corner with a massive US cruise missile and air assault almost guarantees he would unleash hundreds of conventional missiles on Israel. UK Prime Minister Cameron seriously underestimated the surge of opposition in Parliament to this fraudulent justification for war and the House of Commons has blocked British participation, so the US is going it alone.

Obama is bypassing Congress who is conveniently on summer break, but over 100 representatives are demanding a debate on the issue. American support for this attack is so low that government lackeys like NPR radio are resorting to outright lies to bolster the case for invasion. Yesterday, NPR’s chief foreign correspondent Mara Liasson wrenched the truth as she talked about how Obama got backed into a “box of his own making,” having set a “red line” about Syrian use of chemical weapons. She lied to the audience about how Syria had “used them before and Obama did nothing,” and “now they’ve used them again,” and he has to act. Neither is true, and she knows full well that UN investigators charged the rebels, not Syria, with use of chemical weapons earlier this year.

Without some kind of proof that Syria was behind the gas attack (and I’m sure they will try to manufacture something false), the US is quickly backtracking from the bluster and threats of Kerry and preparing to limit this first strike to a few surgical missile attacks to make a statement rather than start an all out war—but that is still coming. Mark my words.

PM Netanyahu of Israel has called up reserve forces, there is a significant US military buildup in Qatar and Russia is evacuating civilian advisors and diplomatic personnel from Syria. This is what the military order of battle looked like a couple of days ago before the US and Britain started backpedaling:

 An Order of Battle… was leaked to the Yediot Ahronot – the largest Israeli newspaper in Hebrew – this Monday. The paper’s headline read, “On the Way to Attack”. Translation: this is how Tel Aviv wants Obama and Cameron to attack Syria. Israel will be “leading from behind”. Air strikes by F-16s and British Tornados will come from military bases in Cyprus and Jordan. 384 Tomahawk missiles are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel and the US assume they know exactly where the Syrian chemical warehouses are located. There are at least 18 sites. The map lists 10. And most of these chemicals may have already been transferred somewhere else.

The US has already gone way too far down the propaganda path to back out now and not do something, but I predict it will be limited for several reasons:

1) Even one strike opens the door for more later without having to do as much outright lying and propagandizing as the first time. They can restart strikes any time after the first, and they will.

2) The US doesn’t want to be engaged in a full-scale war during the upcoming meeting with the G20 nations in Moscow where President Putin can use the bully pulpit to make an object lesson of US perfidy in making false charges against Syria on the gas attacks of civilians.

3) While technically, the US doesn’t have to wait until UN inspectors have finished to strike—they intend to avoid hitting Damascus civilian areas anyway—it would seriously undermine their globalist promotion of the UN as the final arbiter of such disputes.

4) If the US comes on too quick and too strong it would force Assad to the wall. If and when he perceives he’s going down (and the US exacerbates that by threatening to try him for human rights violations) he has nothing to lose by retaliating against US allies nearby in Jordan and Israel. Once Assad goes on the offensive this war will certainly spread to the entire region, including Hezbollah and even Iran which has a mutual assistance pact with Syria.

 “If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted too and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a license for attacking Israel,” said a Syrian army official in comments to Iran’s Fars News Agency. “We are rest assured that if Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbors,” [source: Infowars.com]

The following statement from the LA Times sounds like a ploy by the US to keep Assad from preparing to escalate the war—for now:

 U.S. officials said the goal of any alliance attack on Syria would be to degrade Assad’s military and deter it from further use of chemical weapons. They said they are not trying to topple Assad or change the balance of power in the civil war.

Glenn Beck is on the right side of the issue for opposing intervention, but he shows he doesn’t understand the Russian/Chinese threat when he concluded, “Don’t screw around with this. This is WWIII in the making.” Beck’s thinking parallels Sean Hannity’s predictions that intervention could lead the United States into World War III because Russia, Iran and China are all warning against intervention and we would end up going against all of them. But they don’t understand the full scope of this conspiracy.

Beck and Hannity confuse verbal protestations with actual threats of military intervention by Russia and China, but they are not the same. Despite what numerous armchair alarmists have been saying this conflict will NOT escalate into a world war. Those who make WWIII claims understand neither the globalist conspiracy nor the Russian and Chinese long term game plan. Russia and China are nowhere near ready to take on the West without a much larger blue water navy and Russia said as much this week when foreign minister Lavrov said, Russia isn’t going to war with anyone.”

In fact, that statement is a betrayal of all the feigned words of support Russia claims for beleaguered people suffering under US aggression. Russia could easily stop the US attacks if it simply put a few top-line Russian fighter squadrons at key Syrian airbases. They could dare the US or Israel to attack and it wouldn’t happen. The threat of facing on-par technology and the corresponding losses and repercussions would ensure no shots would be fired. Nothing like this has happened so forget about Russia standing up to the US at this time. They don’t intend to save Assad. In fact, the absence of any significant military presence by Russia amounts to a green light for the US to attack Syria.

I don’t consider the addition of a couple of armed Russian ships joining the Mediterranean fleet as a true effort at stopping US aggression. It’s a symbolic gesture. One anti-submarine ship and one guided missile cruiser aren’t a deterrence since they don’t have the weapons to shoot down US cruise missiles headed for Syria. I predict only putting men and machines directly in harm’s way within Syria at or near probable targets would be enough to deter US attacks.

In reality, this tactic of allowing the US to run roughshod over Middle Eastern countries actually furthers Russia’s long term tactic of allowing the US and NATO to fully develop their reputation as the bullies of the World because this, in turn, helps justify Russia and China in their long-planned nuclear attack on the West (still some 8-10 years away). My predicted timetable for WWIII based on Russian and Chinese readiness has not changed. I’ve always maintained that this regional Middle East war will NOT turn into WWIII.

 NATO is clearly complicit in this. The LA Times dutifully reported: The White House received an endorsement from the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the key Western military alliance. The statement didn’t commit NATO to joining any military operation, but gave its blessing for such an effort… After a meeting of the allaince’s policymaking arm, NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement in Brussels that reports of a chemical weapons attacks by Syria “cannot go unanswered. Those responsible must be held accountable.”

When is the attack coming? Even the Israelis, while preparing for the worst, realize there will be more skirmishes before the larger Middle East war erupts that their military and political leaders are getting ready to start. Here’s Haaretz:

 The Israel Defense Forces is very keen to alleviate the atmosphere of hysteria evident in the scenes of hundreds of citizens flocking to the gas mask distribution centers. The army is so concerned about this that it is even willing to pull out of the attic the phrase it most abhors. Despite the deep shadow cast by the Yom Kippur War, on the eve of its 40th anniversary, the IDF is explaining that there is only a low probability that Israel will be dragged into the approaching conflict between the United States and Syria. The probability is low, but preparedness is necessary: That is the reason the cabinet approved a list of steps for preparedness, in a special session held on Wednesday.

 The time frame for an American attack on Syria is becoming clear. It now depends on two developments, one of which precedes the planned bombing, and the second, which must take place after the attack. At this stage, it seems the United States will find it difficult to strike before the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors leave Syria. The U.S. administration would also like to end the affair before the international summits awaiting U.S. President Barack Obama in the middle of next week. Therefore, the probable time for the attack on Syria is some time between Thursday and Tuesday. There are two caveats to this assessment. The Assad regime will likely try to delay the inspectors’ departure – as an insurance policy – and there is always the possibility that Washington will agree to another last-minute diplomatic effort [doubtful].

I tend to agree with Paul Joseph Watson who wrote at Infowars.com:

 Despite an apparent softening in rhetoric as British Prime Minister David Cameron faces a parliamentary revolt over military intervention, in addition to reports that the intelligence against Assad’s regime is by no means a “slam dunk,” Israel Hayom reporter Amir Mizroch tweets that the attack will begin on Saturday immediately after UN inspectors have left the country. Inspectors had initially planned to leave on Sunday after concluding their investigation but their departure a day early has increased speculation that air strikes are imminent.

However, Britain suffered a setback in joining with the US when the Labor Party forced PM Cameron to delay any participation until after the UN reports its findings on the gas attack.

Justifying aggression: Sec. of State John Kerry played the role of US lackey this week in his speech to drum up support for attacking Syria. It was reminiscent of Colin Powell (who later felt “used” by Bush) when he gave the UN speech falsely laying out the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In Kerry’s speech the US stooped to new lows using every appeal to emotion and morality to justify this attack after being guilty of setting up Syria for the false gas attack. It deserves a review because the language was so disgusting and manipulated that I felt embarrassed to be an American.

Before any unthinking super-patriotic Republican tells me to “leave the country if you are so embarrassed,” may I remind them that I’m not the one distorting the truth and leading the nation down yet another false path to war—these leaders are. Let them leave. As Pepe Escobar wryly observed:

 Kerry’s “Powell moment” has gone viral – as in “deceived” Colin Powell in his infamous February 2003 UN presentation telling the world Saddam Hussein had tons of WMDs. Unlike Powell though, Kerry knows exactly what he’s doing.

 The White House promises a “revelation” from above this Thursday, “above” being the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Yet the heart of the matter is that the UN chemical inspectors have had no time to identify what sort of chemical weapon is involved in the Ghouta attack (sarin or something else); where it was manufactured; how it was delivered (possibly by DIY rockets); and last but not least, who did it. Thus the US government urgently needs to punish the transgressor – to hell with evidence – to maintain its ”credibility”.

And that’s exactly what Kerry was using feigned words to accomplish—to justify the big lie. First the “Moral Outrage”:

 “What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. [what obscenely defies any code of morality is when the US uses black operations to set up the rebels with home-brew chemical weapons which they launched from former government military sites the rebels now control and then blame the civilian deaths on Syria] By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable. [The fact that chemical weapons were used my be undeniable but he’s using that word to imply that it’s undeniably blamed on Syria.]

 I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling. So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts informed by conscience and guided by common sense.

Notice the sleight of hand use of words: “facts” grounded in “evidence informed by conscience and common sense.” Notice he didn’t say facts informed by factual evidence, but by the ethereal evidence of Kerry’s distorted “conscience and common sense.” How dare he distort conscience and give common sense a bad name—using them as tools of manipulation and propaganda! If he had any real facts he would have said, “facts informed by the following evidence,” of which he has none. Now, they may well manufacture that evidence, but so far all of their past attempts at blaming Syria for rebel gas attacks have failed to impress UN inspectors.

Foreign Policy Magazine said that Israeli intelligence intercepted phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense that indicate the Assad government did not know who was behind the chemical attack.

 Just hours after the attack reportedly occurred, high-ranking Syrian military officials contacted the commander of a chemical weapons unit to demand if he knew who was responsible for the incident.

But that’s not what Israel will tell the world—just the opposite. Here’s Pepe Escobar again:

 Let’s follow a track that is much more plausible than Washington’s official narrative. Israeli intelligence has leaked to a Kuwaiti newspaper that Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Benny Gantz handed over to his good pal US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey “documents and pictures” as evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability. Arguably, this will be the core of the White House “revelation” this Thursday.

 The evidence points to rockets launched from a “Syrian army post near Damascus” – which Finnish researcher Petri Krohn, currently conducting a meticulous investigation, conclusively placed as occupied by the “rebels” since June.

 Add to it the Defense Ministry in Baghdad, one month ago, dismantling an Al-Qaeda cell in Iraq that was planning to launch attacks in Iraq and “abroad,” as in Syria, using chemical weapons. According to Iraqi national security advisor Faleh al-Fayyadh, Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) would have free access to these chemicals.

 So here we have all the elements of a sophisticated false flag operation. Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis, mostly mercenaries, connected to al-Qaeda in Iraq, but with no connection with Syrian civilians, including women and children, use an area formerly occupied by the Syrian army to launch a chemical attack – perhaps using chlorine – under the cover of a Syrian offensive (admitted by the government). The offensive was codenamed “Operation City Shield.” Damascus had solid intel about scores of “rebels” trained by the CIA and the Saudis in Jordan converging to the area and planning a massive attack on the capital.

 Russia presented an 80-page report last month to the UN Security Council detailing serious evidence about the “rebels” being behind the March 19 attack in Khan al-Assal. That’s why the inspectors are in Syria now. So the Obama administration is lying when it insists that it’s “too late” for the inspectors to investigate the latest attack.

Back to John Kerry’s terribly false presentation:

 All strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria [that’s not the issue. The issue is who did it?]. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons [These particular weapons? No, we don’t know that at all]. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets [Yes, but these weren’t military grade rockets, most likely they were homemade as used by the rebels]. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. [Doesn’t mean they would use deadly gas to do the job. It’s not completely effective and it’s indiscriminate—not everyone in that neighborhood was a friend of the rebels.] And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses. [He purposefully keeps confusing reality of death with presumption of who caused the death—a very evil tactic].

 At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the UN investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. [Absolutely untrue. The Syrian regime is anxious to have UN inspectors investigate]. Their response should be immediate – immediate transparency, immediate access -not shelling. [It’s the rebels doing the shelling and the sniping at inspectors that keep them at bay, not the Syrian Army]. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the UN investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systematically destroying evidence.

That’s all because of rebel fighting and sniping that was going on. It’s the rebels who had every motive to keep things unstable so the inspectors were stymied and so that Kerry could turn this around and blame Syria. Diabolical. Infowars.com had the real story on how the US sabotaged the inspections:

 Eager to avoid a repeat that would completely derail the march to war, the White House in concert with Britain has repeatedly attempted to scupper the UN investigation or render it meaningless. In the latest example, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that “there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission,” a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely. It was announced today that inspectors had postponed their work until Wednesday for “safety” reasons.

 Back to Kerry: But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.

But there is a mistake: the guilty ones in the West who set up the rebels to create this evil gas attack will never be held accountable. Even the former UN investigations about prior gas attacks ended up blaming the rebels. But no one was held accountable for those acts. In fact, the US just kept shoveling weapons to them—and more chemical weapons. How’s that for hypocrisy?

As the case against Syria gets even more contrived, the British government reached new lows as it laid out its arguments Thursday for the legality of military intervention. As the LA Times noted, they did so “as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity.”

In other words, regardless of proof of who was responsible, “we’re justified in using lethal force against one side only, simply because there is a “humanitarian crisis” going on. Incredible reasoning!

 Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the aim of striking specific targets within Syria would be to deter President Bashar Assad’s regime from launching further chemical attacks and to alleviate human suffering.

So how is creating more civilian and military deaths to the non-guilty parties supposed to “alleviate human suffering?”

The targets: From a predicted use of more than 200 cruise missiles, government spokespersons now say that, “Any military operation would be confined solely to that objective [command and control] and to a limited amount of time, officials said.

In other words, just a few punitive strikes. Some Israeli leaders want chemical depots attacked (from Escobar’s previous article): Tel Aviv’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, as I reported earlier, badly wants Washington to attack Syria’s chemical weapons sites – regardless of possible, horrible, “collateral damage”, not to mention the possibility of al-Qaeda-linked jihadi outfits taking control of some of them.

However, the US would have real trouble explaining away a lot of civilian deaths from stray deadly gas, if they cause this next humanitarian crisis which they claim the attack is going to solve.

 With an estimated 50 storage sites, many situated in or near urban centers, any attempt to destroy or degrade the Assad government’s supply of poison gases and nerve agents would require a massive invasion of ground forces that no nation considered part of the emerging “coalition of the willing” would be likely to support. [That’s right. More ground invasion won’t be supported by the public]

 Even if U.S. and allied intelligence have precisely located some of the stores of sarin, mustard or VX gas, analysts say, the likelihood of a successful airstrike is slim because of Assad’s powerful air defenses and the risk of bombed chemical stores unleashing their deadly gases.

I don’t think they will attack anti-aircraft missile sites this go around either. Many of those were manned by Russian technicians—although I’m not certain these technicians are still there since Russia said it was pulling out most Russian personnel. Whether that referred only to diplomatic persons or military too, I don’t know.

Russia has sent Syria some anti-missile rockets that are capable of taking down cruise missiles. They probably aren’t first line equipment but it would be interesting to see if Assad has anything in his inventory capable of stopping at least some cruise missiles—which are difficult to hit because of their small size and low altitude flying. The US will probably carefully choose targets away from these missile interceptors to portray the illusion of US military invincibility. The US hasn’t gone up against a first rate opponent in all their previous wars of occupation, so Americans may be in for a shock when they do.

What about Syria’s Yakhont sea skimming supersonic missiles? Syria currently does not have the means to effectively target the missile beyond the horizon (which requires satellite surveillance), which means all the US has to do is keep their ships at a distance in the Western Mediterranean and launch cruise missiles from beyond Syrian view. Syria lacks maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and attack aircraft capable of carrying these advanced missiles beyond the coast.

Finally, it’s telling that former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has come out criticizing Obama for going forward to attack Syria without conclusive evidence. Here’s the guy who was the same kind of yes-man to George Bush as Chuck Hagel is to Obama, but plays like he would do differently. That’s typical of globalists who play both sides but are secretly in lock step.

Rumsfeld’s hypocrisy goes even deeper as William Lowther of the UK Daily Mail reveals:

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

Lastly, the disinformation outlet EU Times was at it again this week claiming that, “Putin orders massive strike against Saudi Arabia if the West attacks Syria.” Completely bogus.

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: