Geopolitics and Foreign Policy … english and italian
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
The Iranian legislature in a statement issued on Tuesday condemned the beheading of 21 Coptic Egyptians by the ISIL terrorists in Libya, but stressed that those states which have created and supported the terrorist group should account for its crimes as well.
The statement issued by the cleric members of the parliament, deplored the brutal killing of the Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya by the ISIL, and said, “Now, the US and western governments and the regional sheikhdoms (Persian Gulf Arab states) which have created and strengthened the killer group should account for such a genocide.”
“We insist the international human rights organizations to launch investigation with regard to those governments which have played a role in the creation of these terrorists to take proper action against them,” it added.
The statement underlined that the killing of three Muslim students in the US, Christian workers in Libya, Sunni Muslims in…
View original 284 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
US Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain has said that the United States has been training young Syrians in order to topple President Bashar al-Assad.
Criticizing President Barack Obama’s war strategy against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria, Republican Senator McCain said Obama’s request for a war powers authorization is convoluted.
“In his proposal, he left out Bashar Assad, which is really amazing in that we are training young Syrians to go in and fight against Bashar Assad,” McCain said in an interview with NBC news channel on Sunday.
*Full transcript at http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-february-15-2015-n306696
“It’s really kind of convoluted and I’d say call it an uncertain trumpet,” he added.
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services also noted that Obama “hasn’t come forward with a plan or a strategy for us to have success.”
In a draft resolution to Congress on Wednesday, Obama formally asked Congress to authorize…
View original 258 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
(Halahednews/Zeinab Essa, 16/2/2015) ~ Hizbullah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Monday a speech commemorating the Resistance Leader Martyrs, in which he tackled various internal and regional titles.
As His Eminence thanked the people who abided his calls not to shoot in air, white and yellow balloons were launched in the air from the al-Qaem complex in Dahyieh at the beginning of the speech.
Sayyed Nasrallah strongly condemned Daesh’s crime against the Egyptian workers in Libya, which cannot be tolerated by any religion. “We extend our condolences to the Egyptian people and the Coptic Church and this crime has affected both Islam and Christianity.”
On the anniversary, the Resistance Leader explained that “we commemorate and talk about this anniversary and the martyrs’ jihad for us and to draw lessons and to teach the sons, grandsons and future generations, not for the martyrs. We celebrate this…
View original 2,063 more words
By Felicity Arbuthnot ~ UN Observer 31 August 2007
“The earth’s trees have become tears of heaven’s cheeks…. The flower that tempted the wind to carry its perfume, died yesterday.” Ali Ahmad Said, Victims of a Map, Saqi Books *
When the Mongol hordes invaded what is now Iraq, Gengis Khan is: “ …said to have declared: ‘all cities must be razed, so that the world may once again become a great steppe, in which Mongol mothers will suckle free and happy children.’” **
This was the twelfth century “war on terror” and it is not delusional to witness what has happened to Iraq since March 2003: the destruction of an entire civil society, history, records, education, health, life, to draw the parallels. “We fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here” is the Capitol Hill mantra, regarding a society with no weapons of mass destruction, unable even to board a ‘plane from Iraq, during the thirteen year pre-invasion embargo. A people, the majority of which, just prayed their baby would be born whole and healthy and survive to adulthood, in a country where medicines, surgical equipment and therapeutic aids were vetoed by the US and UK – and where hyper-inflation was such that many families ate in rotation, one giving up food for a day, so the others would have a little more.
A thousand years before the Mongol invasion, the region had developed a “sophisticated civilisation” with “innovations in literature, science, art and civil engineering … gardens, irrigation systems, libraries; ornate palaces flourished. With the Mongol onslaught, all were ‘comprehensively looted’, the region depopulated. Men, women and children were butchered, not alone by the Mongols, but by willing and unwilling collaborators they brought with them: ‘..whole cities lay in ruins.’ Those not slaughtered fled a reign of terror, where culture and creativity had previously dominated.” How history repeats.
The latest slaughter for whom the occupiers are responsible (as occupying forces, all be it illegally, the American and British forces are responsible for the safety of and provision of essential services to the population) is that of at least five hundred Yazidis, in the north west Sinjar region, on 14th August. Four truck bombs left three settlements “looking as if a nuclear explosion” had occurred. At least fifteen hundred are estimated to have been injured, according to Dr Said Hakki of the Iraqi Red Crescent – and history has again repeated itself.
Previous attacks against the Yazidis were under another ruthless invasion, that of the Ottomans, when they were subjected to twenty major massacres, between 1640 and 1910. “Liberated” Iraq, whose, health services, education and infrastructure, until the embargo, were the envy of the region and where safety was pretty well guaranteed – the absolute exception being if opposition politics were indulged in – has, at every level, been returned by America and Britain’s hordes, backwards to Mesopotamian history’s darkest eras.
Washington’s knee jerk reaction to the Yazidi bloodbath was, of course, to blame “Al Qaeda”, then to state that: “Extremists continue to show to what lengths they will go to stop Iraq from becoming a stable and secure country.” Then, of course, that they would “track down those responsible”. Is there intelligent life anywhere by the Potomac? They were “suicide bombers”. Thus dead.
It would be interesting, to know though, how the US army knew within minutes that “two tons of explosives” were involved.
Indisputable is that truck bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, beheadings, kidnappings, the daily toll of bodies found bound and terribly tortured and dumped in the great biblical rivers, in streets, the Sunni-Shia “divide”, all came in with the US-UK invasion and the murderous militias they brought with them.
Why the gentle, pastoral Yazidis? This ancient sect, whose beliefs are drawn from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Mandeanism, of whom there are believed to be only 750,000 worldwide, have their largest population in the Sinjar highlands in Iraq’s northern Nineveh Province, a little west of Mosul and the remains of the equally ancient town Tel Afar, decimated, Falluja-like, in a pre “surge” “pacification”.
This previously religiously and ethnically mixed region is a microcosm of pre-invasion Iraq, known for its welcome and peaceful co-existence. The prophet Jonah is believed buried in the great Mosque which overlooks Mosul, whilst Saint Matthew is believed buried in the Christian Monastery, on the top of Mount Maqloub, nearby. Both were places of pilgrimage and wonder, for Muslim and Christian alike.
The place of pilgrimage for Yazidis worldwide, in late August, is the shrine at Lalish, nearby, of Sheikh Adi (died 1162) believed to be the reincarnation of their deity Malak Ta’us: The Peacock Angel. “
The Yazidis have throughout history, been often wrongly interpreted as “Devil worshippers. Their belief in fact should be a lesson to all: no soul is beyond hope. Malak Ta’us WAS the Devil, who REPENTED. After he fell from grace, he filled seven urns of tears, over seven thousand years, tears that were used to extinguish the fires of hell; thus, this great grief in repentance, the Yazidis believe, erased the concept of hell, and embraced belief that all humanity is redeemable. Malak Ta’us became the Peacock Angel.
God is revered by Yazidis as the Creator of all and having achieved this wondrous task, is no longer an active force. He entrusted the world to seven angels, of whom the archangel was the redeemed Malak Ta’us.
Yazidis believe that good and evil both exist in the mind and spirit of human beings. It depends on the humans, themselves, as to which they choose. Thus, their devotion to Malek Ta’us is integral, since it was he who was given the same choice between good and evil by God, and ultimately, searingly, repented and chose the good.
Malek Ta’us has been described as: “a sort of fire wall between an imperfect world and the perfection of the Supreme Being”. (Isya Joseph, Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yazidis, 1919.) Yazidis believe that periodically their seven holy beings are reincarnated in human form, as Sheikh Adi, so love your neighbour; you never know who he may be.
Mohammed is regarded as a Prophet but Jesus Christ too, was an angel in human form. Yazidis are born into and marry within their sect and there is no converting, in or out. Other beliefs are that the first Yazidi was born of Adam alone and that there was a great flood, long before Noah and his ark. Yazidis, as Samaritans and/or Druze are “a little island of diversity in a world increasingly homogenised by globalisation”.
The annual August, six day pilgrimage is a joyous religious festival involving music, dancing, special dishes, decoration of eggs, bathing in the rivers below their villages and the hanging of hundreds of oil lamps around the tomb of Sheikh Adi and those of the other Saints – seven in all. Prayers are made twice a day, facing the sun. Earth, air, fire and water are so sacred that spitting on or in to them is taboo. Also taboo is the eating of pork, fish, cockerel, gazelle, cauliflower, lettuce, pumpkin and the wearing of blue, the latter possibly because the Peacock Angel is depicted in vibrant blue, so to wear his colours could be sacrilegious.
August, according to a report on the US Department of Defence website (27th July) was also the month, that, according to Colonel Stephen Twitty, US troops were planning to virtually hand over the administration of the region to the Iraqis, so relatively safe had it become. Twitty, Commander of the 1st Calvary Division’s 4th Brigade commended the “very mature provincial government’”; the handover would be based on the “security situation”. Such a handover would also include the vast Kirkuk oil field, the region’s abundant natural gas – and uranium deposits. US ceding of power now, is clearly out of the question. Further, when the British leave Basra, as they seem set to do, the American forces are set to move in to “protect supply routes”. Since there are nearly two hundred thousand private security personnel in Iraq who could do that, it has to be wondered whether it is to protect the Basra oil terminal and the other vast oilfield, Rumailah, for Uncle Sam (or Uncle George and his pals.) When the US army invaded, they named their forward operating bases after oil companies.
A question which arises, however, is how many “suicide bombings” are “false flag” operations? In Afghanistan, in ten years of war with the Soviet Union, they were unheard of, as in Iraq’s previous invasion by the British. For anyone who cares to look, there are many reports of Iraqis being stopped at check points, being told to take documents to police or army station, coming out to find their vehicle driving differently and on investigation finding an explosive device in it. How many simply drove on …?
A recent incident was recounted by an Iraqi, working with the US, who was sent on a mission. He could not find the address and when there was no signal on his phone, he left his car and crossed the street, hoping for better reception. As he stopped to dial, his car exploded. And here is the report of the Basra incident of September 2005: “Today in Basra, Southern Iraq, two members of the British SAS (Special Ops) were caught, ‘in flagrante’ as it were, dressed in full ‘Arab garb’, driving a car full of explosives and shooting and killing two official Iraqi policemen.” The British army demolished a police station in order to release them. Strange way of conducting the “war on terror” when the terrorists had been rightly arrested. And don’t forget the destruction just over the border from Basra, in Iran, of which the Iranian government spokesman said: “This bomb had a British accent.”
Kayla Williams records her time as an “intelligence officer” in northern Iraq, with the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division between 2003 and 2004 in the Yazidis region. She reports that the Yazidis were considered “devil worshippers” by local Muslims, but in spite of visiting them, learned little of their religion; she thought it was ancient and concerned with angels. She described a temple as: “a small rock building with objects dangling from the ceiling”, thus seemingly did not ask what they represented. No doubt she reported the locals’ feelings back at the mess table at base.
Here’s hoping they did not have the same kind of religious fervour as those who prayed before the decimation of Fallujah when told by their chaplain that the Devil lived there and they were going to find him. Between “Crusades”, God and oil, strange things happen. The locals, of course, had coexisted with their neighbours since the Ottomans left. The Yazidi survivors from the attack were treated in their hospitals. Coincidentally in 1993 the New York Times headed an article on the Yazidis: “The Sect May be Dying, but Satan is still alive and well”.
Meanwhile, the traumatised Yazidis are reported by doctors as removing their relatives from hospitals, so frightened are they that they will be even less safe in larger towns. Three hundred “badly broken” relatives were removed from Sinjar hospital, according to one doctor.
There will be no joyful pilgrimage celebrations this August. Whole families were wiped out in the attacks. One man, Abu Saeed, said he had lost fifty one members of his immediate and extended family. Ironically, during the 1915-1916 Ottoman (Turkish) massacre in Anatolia, of the mainly Christian Armenians, the Yazedis courageously sheltered many, risking and losing their lives in the Ottoman occupied Iraq. Now, they, like almost every Iraqi, feel they have no place to hide. Ironically under Saddam, as with all religions, they were donated money for restoration and refurbishment of their religious buildings, the government even donated for an entire new temple. It is the “New Iraq” which has brought terror to their doors.
Freya Stark (Baghdad Sketches, 1937) describes a region I found entirely unchanged: “…the valley (at festival time) filled all night with moving lights among the trees … we walked down in the mountain solitude, peopled only with the sound of water and the voices of the birds .. we looked across to the hills of Bavian, mauve and blue .. and all over it lay sunlight, shining impartially on all temples of mankind.”
An abiding memory of the Yazidis is standing on the flat roof of one of their temples, its great obelisk in the centre, reaching heavenward. “Look behind you, Madam”, said the priest. I turned and just across the narrow sun dappled street, in the small hamlet, was a Catholic church, next to a mosque – and just visible round the corner, a synagogue. Could peaceful co-existence ever be more evocatively illustrated?
The last fifty three blood soaked months in Iraq are squarely the responsibility of the American and British forces and their dwindling allies, or is that responsibility something even more sinister?
Ali Ahmed Said http://www.geocities.com/hhilmy_ma
** From Sumer to Saddam, Geoff Simons, Macmillan, 1994 http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Sumer-Saddam-Geoff-Simons/dp/1403917701
Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards.
She was also senior researcher for John Pilger’s award-winning documentary, “Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq”.
and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of “Baghdad” in the “Great Cities” series, for World Almanac Books (2006.) http://www.amazon.com/Baghdad-Great-Cities-World-Nikki/dp/0836850491/sr=1-5/qid=1171018142/ref=sr_1_5/105-9176229-7042804?ie=UTF8&s=books
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western Military Alliance ~ By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
First published by GR on June 14, 2014.
President Barack Obama has initiated a series of US bombing raids in Iraq allegedly directed towards the rebel army of the Islamic State (IS).
The Islamic State terrorists are portrayed as an enemy of America and the Western world. Amply documented, the Islamic State is a creation of Western intelligence, supported by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad and financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
We are dealing with a diabolical military agenda whereby the United States is targeting a rebel army which is directly funded by the US and its allies. The incursion into Iraq of the Islamic State rebels in late June was part of a carefully planned intelligence operation.
The rebels of the Islamic state, formerly known as the ISIS, were covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel to wage a terrorist insurgency against the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad. The atrocities committed in Iraq are similar to those committed in Syria. The sponsors of IS including Barack Obama have blood on their hands.
The killings of innocent civilians by the Islamic state terrorists create a pretext and the justification for US military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Lest we forget, the rebels who committed these atrocities and who are a target of US military action are supported by the United States.
The bombing raids ordered by Obama are not intended to eliminate the terrorists. Quite the opposite, the US is targeting the civilian population as well as the Iraqi resistance movement.
The endgame is to destabilize Iraq as a nation state and trigger its partition into three separate entities.
August 9, 2014
* * *
The creation of the US sponsored Islamist Caliphate has been announced. The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Cham (ISIS) has been replaced by the Islamic State (IS). The Islamic State is not an independent political entity. It is a construct of US intelligence.
The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in Iraq as a “civil war” opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.
(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))
The conflict is casually described as “sectarian warfare” between Radical Sunni and Shia without addressing “who is behind the various factions”. What is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April 2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various “opposition” terror brigades.
The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.
Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham –which is fighting Iraqi government forces– is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly by US-NATO.
The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with advanced weapons systems and then “let them fight”.
US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn, corroborated by reports on Syria’s insurgency, Western special forces and mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.
US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London’s Daily Express “They had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”
“through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf and in close liaison with Washington.
Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in transforming Iraq into an open territory.
Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is confrontation between Shia and Sunni.
America’s military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a “sovereign Iraq”.
An internal “civil war” between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS rebels.
The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding policy of the US and its allies. (See map of Middle East below)
“Supporting both Sides”
The “War on Terrorism” consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the pretext to intervene.
ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US intelligence agenda.
In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these terrorists are the “foot soldiers” of the Western military alliance.
Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of the major objectives of US-NATO.
The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.
More broadly, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) encompasses a consistent and diabolical logic: both sides –namely the terrorists and the government– are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.
While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure of “supporting both sides” with a view to engineering sectarian conflict has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence) prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).
The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO support.
The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly military terms.
On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) allegedly (according to press reports) captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, with a population of over one million people. While these developments were “unexpected” according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.
While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, “the capture” of Mosul, did not hinge upon ISIS’s military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.
There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass defections.
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)
The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency intimating that they are largely Sunni:
Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over” the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and historical ties. (Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2014)
The report is misleading. The senior commanders were largely hardline Shiite. The defections occurred de facto when the command structure collapsed and senior (Shiite) military commanders left the city.
What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private security companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq’s regular armed forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).
Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center, US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the ground assigned to the Iraqi Army in Mosul and Western special forces attached to the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on contract to US-NATO.
Yaser Al-Khodor/Courtesy Reuters
In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few skirmishes, no fighting took place.
Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army –trained by the US military with advanced weapons systems at their disposal– could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.
The forces that had been in Mosul have fled — some of which abandoned their uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/
A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels takes over a city of more than one million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000 strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat, the rebels would have been decimated.
Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of Mosul? Who gave them the “green light”
Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?
Source: The Economist
Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without “a single shot being fired”.
Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army divisions “had left the city”. Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts to abandon his command?
(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen. Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on September 4, 2011
US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen. It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.
The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.
In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.
What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile, the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel) have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)
UPDATE [June 17, 2014]
Since the completion of this article, information has emerged on the central role played by the Sunni Tribes and sections of the former Baathist movement (including the military) in taking control of Mosul and other cities. The control of Mosul is in the hands of several Sunni opposition groups and the ISIS.
While these forces — which constitute an important component of the resistance movement directed against the al-Maliki government– are firmly opposed to ISIS, a de facto “relationship” has nonetheless emerged between the ISIS and the Sunni resistance movement.
The fact that the US is firmly behind ISIS does not seem to be a matter of concern to the Tribal Council:
Sheikh Zaydan al Jabiri, leader of the political wing of the Tribal Revolutionary Council, told Sky News his organisation viewed ISIS as dangerous terrorists, and that it was capable of taking them on.
“Even this blessed revolution that has taken place in Mosul, there may be jihadist movements involved in it, but the revolution represents all the Iraqi people – it has been brought about by the Sunni tribes, and some baathist elements, it certainly does not belong to ISIS,” he said.
But Mr Jabiri, [based in Amman]… also made a clear threat that without Western help, the tribes and ISIS may be forced to combine efforts targeting their shared enemy – the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. (Sky News, emphasis added)
An exiled leader of the Iraqi resistance movement calling for “Western help” from the aggressor nation? From the above statement, one has the distinct impression that the Tribal Revolutionary Council has been co-opted and/or infiltrated.
Moreover, in a bitter irony, within sectors of the Sunni resistance movement, US-NATO which supports both the Al Maliki government and the ISIS terrorists– is no longer considered the main aggressor nation.
The Sunni resistance movement broadly considers Iran, which is providing military assistance to the al-Maliki government as well as special forces- as the aggressor alongside the US.
In turn, it would appear that Washington is creating conditions for sucking Iran more deeply into the conflict, under the pretext of joining hands in fighting ISIS terrorism. During talks in Vienna on June 16, US and Iranian officials agreed “to work together to halt ISIS’s momentum—though with no military coordination, the White House stressed”.(WSJ, June 16, 2014)
In chorus The US media applauds: “The US and Iran have a mutual interest in stemming the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)” (Christian Science Monitor, June 13 2014). An absurd proposition knowing that the ISIS is a creature of US intelligence, financed by the Western military alliance, with Western special forces in its ranks.
Is a regional conflict involving Iran in the making?
Tehran is using the ISIS pretext as an “opportunity” to intervene in Iraq: Iran’s intelligence is fully aware that ISIS is a terrorist proxy controlled by the CIA.
There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover, Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli supported insurgency in March 2011.
The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence. It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing the al-Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding policy of the US and its allies.
The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support within the Sunni population directed against the al-Maliki government
Through its covert support of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, Washington is overseeing the demise of its own proxy regime in Baghdad. The issue, however, is not “regime change”, nor is the “replacement” of the al-Maliki regime contemplated.
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the elimination of Iraq as a country.
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)
Originally posted on Ian Bach:
It is in fighting shape. The problem was its senior leadership. And again, it’s what happens when the United States disengages. If you look at it from former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s perspective, with Iraq’s history of military coups, his own coming of age as a member of a sectarian and persecuted political party, you are going to see an enemy behind every bush.
When he chose his commanders, he didn’t choose them on the basis of their leadership capability or their battlefield experience. It was loyalty. Could he be absolutely certain that they would never turn against him?
[Maliki] put individuals with no command ability [and who] were not a threat to him into command positions—when you look at what happened in June, it wasn’t the rank and file that broke first, it was the leadership. Division commanders suddenly decided they needed to be in Baghdad before they ever engaged with
View original 76 more words
Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:
February 14, 2015
Poroshenko to speak on phone with Merkel, Obama on Saturday
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has said that on Saturday evening on the eve of the entry into force of the ceasefire in line with the Minsk agreements he intends to make phone calls to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Barack Obama.
During the transfer of military equipment to the Ukrainian border guards in Kyiv on Saturday, Poroshenko said that at 17.00 he will talk on the phone with Merkel, and at 1900 with Obama.
February 14, 2015
Saakashvili to advise Poroshenko on reforms
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has set up an International Advisory Council for Reform led by the former Georgian president and his advisor, Mikheil Saakashvili.
“To form the International Advisory Council for Reform as an advisory agency under the President of Ukraine, whose main objective is to offer proposals and…
View original 101 more words
Originally posted on Today In Gaza:
Hemaya Center for Human Rights
Hemaya Center for Human Rights is deeply concerned about the events leading to the resignation of Professor William Schabas as Chair of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict, and his replacement by Ms Mary McGowan Davis.
We consider that best practice requires that potential conflicts of interest are explored PRIOR to appointment to such inquiries, and we are most concerned that this appears not to have been the case in regard to Professor Schabas. We remain concerned that it has also not been the case re Ms McGowan Davis, given her hasty appointment.
View original 409 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
US President Barack Obama says a Washington-led coalition fighting against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria is on the offensive and that he might use US special forces to eliminate the ISIL leadership.
Obama made the remarks at a press conference in the White House on Wednesday, hours after he asked Congress to authorize a three-year war against ISIL “and associated forces.”
“Make no mistake, this is a difficult mission and it will remain difficult for some time,” Obama said. “But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive and ISIL is going to lose.”
He also said that the United States “should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.”
Obama also said the draft resolution, submitted to Congress, does not call for the deployment of US combat troops…
View original 509 more words
“The Pre-emptive strike” is the term which most political and military analysts used to describe the campaign which the Syrian Army and its allies has launched against the terrorist groups in southern country.
Being pre-emptive, the Syrian military campaign is launched to foil all the terrorist plots devised by the takfiri groups which are directly supported by the Zionist entity, the West and a number of Arab countries.
What are the main targets of the Syrian military campaign?
Position of Damascus
As the Zionist-Western-takfiri aggression against Syria was escalated, the deployment of the terrorist groups in the South formed a terrorist triangle with three vertices: Daraa, Quneitra and Damascus.
Controlling the capital, Damascus, has always topped the agenda of the militant groups, so they deployed their troops in its southern countryside to launch their attacks against it, depending on the logistic and military support from Quneitra and Daraa.
The battlefield achievements, contrived by the Syrian army in Damascus countryside, highlighted the necessity of securing the provinces which lie in the vicinity of the capital.
Quneitra: Multi-dimensional encounter
The Zionist entity has embraced the field movement of the terrorist group of al-Nusra Front in Quneitra since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, providing its militants with medical, logistic and military services.
The Zionist close link to the terrorists aimed at establishing a “security belt” to guard the Zionist occupying existence on the Golan Heights and to deter the possible perils posed by the Syrian army and its allies in the area.
The military response of the axis of resistance to the Zionist assault in Quneitra mainly targeted that terrorist belt, preventing the Israeli army and al-Nusra terrorists from establishing their stronghold in the area which will be the base of expanding the terrorist activities to reach many other towns and villages.
The Israeli concern and confusion after the Syrian rapid achievementsand the vast collapse of the terrorist groups was reflected in the urgent request of its envoy to the UN to redeploy its troops, UNDOF, on the Golan Heights.
After the major success of the Syrian army in the South, the Zionist entity has prepare for the emergence of resistance in the Golan Heights or to refer again to Kissinger rules, set in 1972, that stipulate the separation of troops, according to al-Mayadeen TV channel.
It is worth noting that 47 soldiers from the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) had been abducted by Nusra terrorists in the Golan Heights area under the Israeli supervisor before they were later released as a result of a deal which provided the terrorist group with over 25 million dollars.
Jordan’s role in Daraa
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem stated that Jordan is playing a central role in training and arming the terrorist groups in Daraa, stressing that Amman mixes between fighting ISIL and supporting other terrorist groups.
Jordan has been providing the terrorist groups with a safe haven, complicating the Syrian army’s mission to eradicate them. In 2013, the terrorist groups in Daraa, provided with Jordanian military support, launched a fierce attack against the Syrian army’s posts in eastern Ghouta in Damascus.
The Syrian army progress in Daraa will prevent the terrorist groups, including Nusra and the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) from benefiting from the Jordanian military and logistic support to implement their plans in the province and in other areas.
The Syrian army, backed by its allies, has showed to possess all the military, logistic and human abilities to defeat the terrorist groups across the country, and the ongoing campaign in the South proves this fact.
Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:
February 11, 2015
U.S. congress prepares bill on providing $1 bln to arm Ukraine
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress have prepared a bill on the provision of $1 billion in lethal defensive aid to Ukraine.
The proposed bill envisages the provision of training, equipment and lethal defensive weapons to the security forces of Ukraine through September 30, 2017.
Member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith told reporters: “It seems Russia has decided to go back to the Cold War.”
In his words, the introduction of economic sanctions has not changed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans.
TASS – Donbas is being economically and socially suffocated simultaneously with being militarily suppressed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.
“The Minsk agreements say it is necessary to restore economic ties between Donbas and the rest of Ukraine. Instead of this, we witness that Donbas is being cut from the hryvnia zone, and control regime is being established on the roads from Donbas to other parts of the country,” he added.
“In such conditions, for self-defense forces to surrender its border with Russia means to refuse Russian humanitarian aid, to allow [the Ukrainian forces] to surround them. The actions probably should be consistent. It is necessary, at first, to establish the truce, withdraw heavy weaponry, launch a political process, including on the issue of municipal elections in every town in the south-east of Ukraine in coordination with Kiev, on the issue of political process in a much broader sense, like it was outlined in the Geneva statement and Minsk agreements,” Lavrov said.
“Among urgent issues are restoring economic relations between the territories on both sides of the disengagement line, renewing [social] payments, banking services, returning to the hryvnia zone,” he added. “When all this is done, the issue of borders will be solved a lot easier,” Lavrov said.
The agreement on the monitoring of the border sections controlled by the militias of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) should be made with Donetsk and Luhansk representatives, Russian foreign minister went on to say.
“I cannot imagine that Luhansk and Donetsk representatives would agree to make the border control issue the main point of the agreements and a precondition for all the rest. However, we see that such an attempt has been made by the Ukrainian government representatives,” he said.
Progress achieved in preparations for Minsk summit
Certain progress has been achieved in preparations for the Normandy Summit (of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) in Minsk, Sergey Lavrov admitted.
“The Russian president will take part in today’s meeting,” Lavrov confirmed. “From the very moment the idea began to be worked on we have been saying that we would like to hold this summit when there is the understanding it will be prepared and experts have agreed all necessary issues.”
“Of course, the leaders will have a final say,” Lavrov added. “Experts keep working and there has been noticeable progress.”
He avoided getting into the details of the negotiating process.
“I believe it would be not be very appropriate in relation to the summit participants and those who have been making preparations for it,” he explained.
Earlier, the Kremlin’s press-service said Russian President Vladimir Putin was going to Minsk on a visit for Normandy Format talks.
The other negotiators (leaders of Germany, France and Ukraine) have confirmed their participation in the forthcoming meeting.
Exclusive: The neocons’ war-and-more-war bandwagon is loaded up again and rolling downhill as “everyone who matters” in Washington is talking up sending sophisticated weapons to Kiev to escalate Ukraine’s civil war, but some “realists,” an endangered species in U.S. foreign policy, dissent, notes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
In recent years, Official Washington – the politicians, the think tanks and the major news media – has been dominated by neoconservatives and their sidekicks, the “liberal interventionists,” with the old-school “realists” who favor a more measured use of American power largely marginalized. But finally, on the dangerous issue of Ukraine, some are speaking up.
Two of the few remaining “realists” with some access to elite opinion circles, Stephen M. Wald and John J. Mearsheimer, have written articles opposing the new hot idea in Washington to arm the Kiev regime so it can more efficiently kill ethnic Russians battling to expand their territory in eastern Ukraine.
As classic “realists,” these two academics do not argue so much the moral issue of whether the eastern Ukrainians should be slaughtered in the Kiev regime’s determination to crush all resistance to its authority or whether the U.S. support for last year’s overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych was justified. Instead, they focus on whether arming the Kiev regime makes sense for U.S. interests.
But what is most remarkable about the two articles – one in Foreign Policy and the other in the New York Times opinion section – is that they deviate from the relentless pro-escalation “group think” that has dominated the U.S. policy debate, across the board, on Ukraine. It’s almost shocking to encounter two foreign policy experts who aren’t on the latest rush-to-war bandwagon.
Granted, their arguments are relatively narrow, focusing on the likely consequences of shipping weapons to the unstable Kiev regime, but still – such skepticism about the conventional wisdom is almost heretical these days.
In Foreign Policy, Wald notes that despite the emerging consensus to ship arms to Ukraine, “few experts think this bankrupt and divided country is a vital strategic interest and no one is talking about sending U.S. troops to fight on Kiev’s behalf. So the question is: does sending Ukraine a bunch of advanced weaponry make sense? The answer is no.”
Wald contends that many of the prominent Washington figures advocating weapons shipments have been wrong before about the results of expanding NATO eastwards in the 1990s, predicting that the move would not threaten Russia and contribute to enduring peace in Europe.
“That prediction is now in tatters, alas, but these experts are now doubling down to defend a policy that was questionable from the beginning and clearly taken much too far,” Wald wrote. “As the critics warned it would, open-ended NATO expansion has done more to poison relations with Russia than any other single Western policy.”
Wald also notes that the arm-Kiev advocates were misinterpreting Russia’s posture regarding Ukraine and thus were applying a “deterrence model” to a “spiral model” situation, i.e., that Russia was not the expansive and aggressive power that Germany was in the 1930s but rather a cornered and weakened ex-superpower fearful of what it views as encroachment against its dwindling sphere of influence.
In the case of an emerging power like Nazi Germany, deterrence would be the strategy to block its expansion, but a declining power like Russia believes that it is the one on the defensive and thus its reaction to an aggressive military response would be to increase its paranoia and thus create a spiral toward a worsening conflict and greater hostility, not toward a peaceful solution.
“When insecurity is the taproot of a state’s revisionist actions, making threats just makes the situation worse,” Wald wrote. “When the ‘spiral model’ applies, the proper response is a diplomatic process of accommodation and appeasement (yes, appeasement) to allay the insecure state’s concerns.
“Such efforts do not require giving an opponent everything it might want or removing every one of its worries, but it does require a serious effort to address the insecurities that are motivating the other side’s objectionable behavior.”
But the problem with Wald’s prescription is that it goes against the “group think” of Official Washington, which “knows” that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the new Hitler instigating the Ukraine crisis as part of some master plan to conquer much of eastern Europe and build a new Russian empire.
Though that scenario lacks any evidentiary support – and goes against the facts of the Ukraine crisis which was actually instigated by the European Union and neocons in the Obama administration – it is a storyline that nearly every important person in Washington believes. Which is what makes Wald’s accurate assessment so startling.
Wald describes the dominant view as: “Vladimir Putin is a relentless aggressor who is trying to recreate something akin to the old Soviet empire, and thus not confronting him over Ukraine will lead him to take aggressive actions elsewhere. The only thing to do, therefore, is increase the costs until Russia backs down and leaves Ukraine free to pursue its own foreign policy. …
“In addition to bolstering deterrence, in short, giving arms to Kiev is intended to coerce Moscow into doing what we want. Yet the evidence in this case suggests the spiral model is far more applicable. Russia is not an ambitious rising power like Nazi Germany or contemporary China; it is an aging, depopulating, and declining great power trying to cling to whatever international influence it still possesses and preserve a modest sphere of influence near its borders, so that stronger states — and especially the United States — cannot take advantage of its growing vulnerabilities.
“Putin & Co. are also genuinely worried about America’s efforts to promote ‘regime change’ around the world — including Ukraine — a policy that could eventually threaten their own positions. It is lingering fear, rather than relentless ambition, that underpins Russia’s response in Ukraine.
“Moreover, the Ukraine crisis did not begin with a bold Russian move or even a series of illegitimate Russian demands; it began when the United States and European Union tried to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and into the West’s sphere of influence. That objective may be desirable in the abstract, but Moscow made it abundantly clear it would fight this process tooth and nail.
“U.S. leaders blithely ignored these warnings — which clearly stemmed from Russian insecurity rather than territorial greed — and not surprisingly they have been blindsided by Moscow’s reaction. The failure of U.S. diplomats to anticipate Putin’s heavy-handed response was an act of remarkable diplomatic incompetence, and one can only wonder why the individuals who helped produce this train wreck still have their jobs.”
Safety in Numbers
But the reason that people like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, who helped plot the overthrow of the Yanukovych government a year ago, is that they represent the neocon/liberal-interventionist dominance of Official Washington. That’s also why key media advocates for the Iraq War, like the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt and the New York Times’ Thomas L. Friedman, still have their jobs; they ran with the powerful herd and are proof that there really is safety in numbers.
Citing the “spiral model,” Wald warns that the current popular idea of arming the Kiev forces “will only make things worse. It certainly will not enable Ukraine to defeat the far stronger Russian army; it will simply intensify the conflict and add to the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
“Nor is arming Ukraine likely to convince Putin to cave in and give Washington what it wants. Ukraine is historically linked to Russia, they are right next door to each other, Russian intelligence has long-standing links inside Ukraine’s own security institutions, and Russia is far stronger militarily. Even massive arms shipments from the United States won’t tip the balance in Kiev’s favor, and Moscow can always escalate if the fighting turns against the rebels, as it did last summer.”
Wald also saw danger signs around Washington’s take-it-or-leave-it style of negotiating, rather than trying to reach a solution that would work for both sides. He wrote:
“Instead of engaging in genuine bargaining, American officials tend to tell others what to do and then ramp up the pressure if they do not comply. Today, those who want to arm Ukraine are demanding that Russia cease all of its activities in Ukraine, withdraw from Crimea, and let Ukraine join the EU and/or NATO if it wants and if it meets the membership requirements. In other words, they expect Moscow to abandon its own interests in Ukraine, full stop.”
Though the facts and logic rest with Wald’s argument, he is confronting one of the most single-minded “group thinks” in modern U.S. history, even more unquestioning than the certainty of 2002-2003 that Iraq possessed WMDs and was about to share them with al-Qaeda.
A Second Voice
Similarly, Mearsheimer warns that the idea of shipping advanced weaponry to Ukraine “would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest. …
“Because the balance of power decisively favors Moscow, Washington would have to send large amounts of equipment for Ukraine’s army to have a fighting chance. But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. …
“Proponents of arming Ukraine have a second line of argument. The key to success, they maintain, is not to defeat Russia militarily, but to raise the costs of fighting to the point where Mr. Putin will cave. The pain will supposedly compel Moscow to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and allow it to join the European Union and NATO and become an ally of the West.
“This coercive strategy is also unlikely to work, no matter how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their country’s core strategic interests are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.
“Great powers react harshly when distant rivals project military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country on their border an ally. This is why the United States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance headed by another great power.
“Russia is no exception in this regard. Thus Mr. Putin has not budged in the face of sanctions and is unlikely to make meaningful concessions if the costs of the fighting in Ukraine increase. … The possibility that Mr. Putin might end up making nuclear threats may seem remote, but if the goal of arming Ukraine is to drive up the costs of Russian interference and eventually put Moscow in an acute situation, it cannot be ruled out. If Western pressure succeeded and Mr. Putin felt desperate, he would have a powerful incentive to try to rescue the situation by rattling the nuclear saber.”
In other words, the dominant neocon-to-liberal-hawk axis of Washington is pushing the United States into a dangerous confrontation that could easily be avoided if traditional diplomacy were allowed to work – and the reasonable interests of the various parties were taken into account.
While the outer-limit endgame of the Ukraine crisis could be the ultimate endgame of nuclear war, the core issue in dispute is remarkably pedestrian – the pace of Ukraine increasing its economic ties to the EU while maintaining many of its traditional business ties to Russia.
This disagreement should have been resolved fairly easily within the political structure of Ukraine’s constitutional process. In November 2013, President Yanukovych – after learning that the cost of abruptly cutting ties to Russia would be a staggering $160 billion – asked for more time to work on the problem.
But, amid mass protests by western Ukrainians against Yanukovych’s decision, Nuland and other U.S. neocons saw an opportunity for another “regime change” – and some neocons, like National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, hoped that Ukraine could be the route toward ousting Russia’s Putin, who had offended the neocons by opposing their “regime change” strategies for Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.”]
After the coup ousting Yanukovych last Feb. 22, ethnic Russians in southern and eastern Ukraine resisted the new right-wing regime in Kiev, which was backed by neo-Nazi militias. Crimea’s leaders and voters opted for secession from the Ukrainian madhouse and Putin agreed to take the strategic peninsula back into Russia.
Ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine also rose up and were targeted by the Kiev regime for an “anti-terrorist operation,” which involved shelling their cities and unleashing brutal neo-Nazi brigades to go door-to-door killing suspected separatists. Conservative estimates of the death toll – primarily among ethnic Russians – now exceed 5,000 and some estimates are many times that number.
But Official Washington views the conflict almost entirely through the neocon prism of “Russian aggression” and “everyone who matters” is now intent on escalating the bloodshed by upgrading the lethality of Kiev’s arsenal. That’s why it’s startling to hear a couple of rare and “realist” voices of dissent.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative.
Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:
U.S. Department of Defense
February 9, 2015
Unity Will Prevent New Age of Disorder, NATO Chief Says
By Jim Garamone
[Perhaps Stoltenberg meant to employ the verbs create, spread or maintain for “prevent.”]
WASHINGTON: Solidarity is needed to prevent a new age of disorder, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said yesterday in Munich.
“History is not written in advance,” the secretary general said at the annual Munich Security Conference. “We can prevent an age of disorder if we have the will. We can keep the international order that has served us so well if we stand up for its rules and if we stand up for each other.”
Last year marked a turning point for European security and the global order, he said. In Europe, Russia annexed Crimea and is seeking to destabilize Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking to intimidate the Baltic republics, Poland, Romania and Georgia.
View original 282 more words
The Syrian foreign minister says his country will reject the deployment of foreign troops on its soil for battling the ISIL Takfiri militants.
Walid al-Muallem said on Monday that Damascus does not need and will not tolerate any presence of foreign ground troops on its territory.
“We will not permit anyone to violate our national sovereignty by intervening to fight ISIL,” Muallem said during a joint press conference with his Belarusian counterpart, Vladimir Makei, in Damascus.
Muallem added that Syrian troops are “honorably” undertaking the task of fighting the Takfiris.
Press reports over the past few days suggest that the US-led coalition against ISIL, which has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorist group, may decide to intensify its fight against the group.
This comes as ISIL released a video last week purportedly showing the brutal killing of the Jordanian pilot, Maaz al-Kassasbeh. The move led to harsh statements by various governments, with the most notable of them Jordan which, according to some reports, is mulling a ground operation against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
Muallem said Jordan had failed to respond to Syria’s recent request for coordination in the campaign against ISIL.
“So far, there is no coordination between Syria and Jordan in the fight against terrorism,” he said.
Jordan is a member of the international coalition against ISIL. However, Damascus has been insisting that Amman has been one of the main supporters of the Takfiri groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
When one of your air force pilots is brutally burned to death by savages you helped to train and foster, it’s hard to keep a straight face when consoling the family of the poor aviator. But, that is exactly what this Lilliputian monarch is all about. He was even seen with the pilot’s father, managing to produce a tear of anguish as he bussed the old man in the traditional Arab manner on both grizzled cheeks. Most touching. Some witnesses swore they could detect a subtle snicker as the king moved away from the grieving parent.
From the day the unrest in Der’ah started, ‘Abdullah II was training agents provocateurs on Jordanian soil with the assistance of Robert Ford whose own plan to rock Syria was already in full blossom. This king, a toad-like blunt instrument of the same Western World and World Zionism which insure his longevity on the throne of a country so ineptly cobbled together by the British as a consolation prize to the cuckolded Hashemites that it reeks of Chad, Somalia or Mali, makes no secret of the fact he is ready to hire on as a chamberlain for any visiting English fusspot. He chastises the Zionists for anti-Islamic acts in Jerusalem, but, arrests anyone who actually goes out into the street to enunciate exactly the same grievance. He smiles benignly at the cameras, while – all the while – the screams of detainees at the General Security HQ outside Amman infuse the air with hair-raising horror, no different than those same sounds his father enjoyed so much during the days of Muhammad Rasool Kaylaani.
He has instructed his representatives to deny any role for Jordan in assisting the terrorists. In doing this, he has entrapped his own ministers in a web-work of deceit so convoluted it smacks of an Ealing Comedy. How many times have we delighted in seeing and listening to Jordanian politicians speak into the camera to say that “Jordan is neutral” or “Jordan will not play a role in the crisis in Syria”. But the best is: “Jordan cherishes the brotherly relations between our two countries”. It’s camp at its best. Tasteless, yet, pungent with the aroma of sewer humor. Some of us have suffered left inguinal hernias as we laughed ourselves silly listening to these Jordanians denying any relationship to the terrorists who are murdering innocent Syrians on a daily basis with so many coming in from Al-Mafraq, Al-Ramtha or Al-Zarqaa`.
Read in Full Here:
Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:
From Kangaroo (1923)
But in England, during the later years of the war, a true and deadly fear of the criminal living spirit which arose in all the stay-at-home bullies who governed the country during those years. From 1916 to 1919 a wave of criminal lust rose and possessed England, there was a reign of terror, under a set of indecent bullies like Bottomley of John Bull and other bottom-dog members of the House of Commons…
The terrible, terrible war, made so fearful because in every country practically every man lost his head, and lost his own centrality, his own manly isolation in his own integrity, which alone keeps life real. Practically every man being caught away from himself, as in some…
View original 164 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
It was inevitable. As calls increased by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and NATO military commander General Philip Breedlove, among others, for lethal military equipment to be shipped by the United States to the putschist regime of Ukraine, a flurry of Ukrainian cargo transports landing at military supply airports in the United States and Europe hearkened back to the days when non-descript transports plied the world’s air routes clandestinely and simultaneously delivering weapons to Iran and Nicaraguan rebel forces.
In a repeat of the Central Intelligence Agency’s globe hopping weapons transport cargo planes of the Iran-Contra scandal era and the more recent Libyan rebel supply caper to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi, a Ukrainian Antonov AN-124 (tail number UR-82072) heavy lifter military transport plane, denoted as an «International Cargo Transport» and belonging to the…
View original 2,518 more words
TEHRAN (FNA)- Ukraine’s President Pyotr Poroshenko has lost the monopoly for taking decisions on use of force, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
“The problem is the Ukrainian president has lost the monopoly for use of force,” the minister said, Itar-Tass reported. “Now there are battalions, which are paid much better than the regular armed forces.”
“From the regular armed forces people are running to those battalions, which carry various names, like Azov, including those led by clear ultra nationalists.”
Besides, Moscow is aware of the US realistic actions in Ukraine, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
“The US has announced it was a broker in transit of power in Ukraine. But we know perfectly well how it was, who discussed on the phone persons to be in future Ukrainian government, who were at Maidan, and what happens now,” Lavrov said. “There have not been our military or experts.”
“We want the people of Ukraine to restore its unity on the basis of national dialogue,” the minister said.