Philip Giraldi : NATO vs. Syria

Debbie December 20, 2011 1

CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. 

 

by Philip Giraldi

Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Syria, if only because it threatens to become another undeclared war like Libya but much, much worse.

Calls for regime change have come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who several weeks ago predicted a civil war. That is indeed likely if the largely secular and nationalist regime of Bashar al-Assad falls, pitting Sunni against Shia against Alawite. Indigenous Christians will be caught in the meat grinder. Ironically, many of the Christians in Damascus are Iraqis who experienced the last round of liberation in their own country and had to flee for their lives.

Paving the way for US-Zionist supremacy over its traditional and emerging rivals.

NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy. Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davitoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so. The intervention would be based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya. Turkish sources suggest that intervention would start with creation of a buffer zone along the Turkish-Syrian border and then be expanded. Aleppo, Syria’s largest and most cosmopolitan city, would be the crown jewel targeted by liberation forces.

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council.

French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims. Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian Army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.

In the United States, many friends of Israel are on the Assad regime-change bandwagon, believing that a weakened Syria, divided by civil war, will present no threat to Tel Aviv. But they should think again, as these developments have a way of turning on their head. The best organized and funded opposition political movement in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Source: The American Conservative


Philip Giraldi is a former DIA and CIA officer, partner at Cannistraro Associates, Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defense Alliance, His “Deep Background” column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative and columnist at Antiwar.com. and currently Executive Director at Council for the National InterestMr. Giraldi was awarded an MA and PhD from the University of London in European History and holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honors from the University of Chicago. He speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.

Response to “NATO vs. Syria” 

  1. “The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims.”

    PG, it’s amazing that we have the ability to make body counts with great exactitude before we invade a country and then magically lose that ability once we have begun involvement in hostitlities against that country. The lead article in Sunday’s NY Times illustrates this ridiculous contradiction in the case of Libya. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/the-times-investigates-in-libya-conflicting-reports-of-civilian-casualties/?scp=4&sq=libya&st=cse (“By NATO’s telling during the war, and in statements since sorties ended on Oct. 31, the alliance-led operation was nearly flawless — a model air war that used high technology, meticulous planning and restraint to protect civilians from Colonel Qaddafi’s troops, which was the alliance’s mandate.
    “We have carried out this operation very carefully, without confirmed civilian casualties,” the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in November.” The article then goes on to document a large number of Libyan civilian casualties.)

    The other disturbing thing I heard on Sunday was on the Chris Mathews Show when he was doing a rundown on the year’s greatest events. In the category of foreign accomplishments, the usually sane and rational Chuck Todd, who is a pretty damn good political reporter imo, cited Obama’s decision to wage war on Libya. He made the preposterous claim that the U.S. was merely fulfilling its obligations under NATO to its “allies” Britain and France by backing their decision to wage war against Libya. He apparently is ignorant of the fact that the NATO treaty only obligates the U.S. to go to the aid of any NATO member which is attacked, that Libya had not attacked either of the old colonial powers Britain or France or any other NATO member, and that Obama entered the war against Libya without seeking Congressional athorization as specified in the Constitution. What a stunning display of ignorance by one of the top political reporters in Washington. No wonder the American public generally operates in a fog when it comes to foreign affairs.


Iran and The International Bureau of Double Standards

Terms of use violation or Censorship?

ED NOTE: This video was blocked by youtube. Check:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february152010/iran_video_al.php

 

 

 

 

One Comment »

  1. Cold Wind December 23, 2011 at 2:18 pm - Reply

    In this post NDAA period, where any American citizen is subject to arbitrary accusation and arrest, anything the US government says-about anything- must be considered ‘war propaganda’ and treated as pure lie. Ergo, whatever the Administration is saying about Syria is propaganda comprising the usual nonsense and lies to start yet another war.

Leave A Response »

Copy this code

and paste it here *