|
Libya’s Destruction – Based On “Exceptionalism”, Lies And Propaganda
In an op-ed in the New York Times the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin warns the people of the United States against further interventions:
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
Putin especially mentions Libya which he describes as now "divided into tribes and clans."
Libya today is worse than that. It has moved on into lawlessness and ruin. Only yesterday, a year after a U.S. ambassador was killed in Bengazi, the foreign ministry building there was attacked with a large bomb. The biggest concern for the "west" is of course the spice from Libya, which is no longer flowing.
The Libya intervention, like those many before it, was build on lies and propaganda. A new policy brief on the Libya intervention from the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School makes three points:
• The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.
• The Intervention Backfired. NATO's action magnified the conflict's duration about sixfold and its death toll at least sevenfold, while also exacerbating human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, Islamic radicalism, and weapons proliferation in Libya and its neighbors. If Libya was a "model intervention," then it was a model of failure.
• Three Lessons. First, beware rebel propaganda that seeks intervention by falsely crying genocide. Second, avoid intervening on humanitarian grounds in ways that reward rebels and thus endanger civilians, unless the state is already targeting noncombatants. Third, resist the tendency of humanitarian intervention to morph into regime change, which amplifies the risk to civilians.
Twelve years after 9/11 the U.S. is turning to a bit less interventionist policies. Obama's defeat over Syria in both houses of Congress and in the public opinion is a very welcome sign of that. But there is still this very American disease of exceptionalism which Putin is very right take on:
I would rather disagree with a case [President Obama] made on American exceptionalism, stating that United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
This assumed exceptionalims has very bad results. It is a costly illusion not only for the Libyan or Syrian people but, in the long run, also for the U.S. people themselves.
I am wondering if any one else has read this
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically,
that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows
that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and
injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know
this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully
informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is
commonly known as “plausible denial.”
We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we
addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003
U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking
Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he
was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon
we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of
those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from
which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer
you the same advice today.
Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and
injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident
was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical
weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers
working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a
pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps
even you.
We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our
former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for
those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that
goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who
has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA
eavesdropping on Americans.
Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?
That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in
Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-
page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some
unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”
This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government
Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political,
not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting
essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high
confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”
Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23,
2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British
intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that
President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that
would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the
word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on
July 20.
The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence,
prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around
the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the
“intelligence” on Syria.
The Intelligence
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East —
mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong
circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation
by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to
have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.
According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a
suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate
vicinity died; others were injured.
We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of
carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable
physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian
military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition
forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial
meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S.
intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya,
Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian
Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional
commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing
development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and
U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the
Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were
ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into
Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders
that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they
were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition
camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by
Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
Cui bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have
ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is
clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel
has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another
war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who
lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.
Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New
York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article,
titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued,
quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for
the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective,
seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers
or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t
want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul
general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”
We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that
deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to
ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and
Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel
calculates that it is.
That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role
in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military
impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.
Iran’s Role
Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation,
real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most
damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience
suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or
damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our
mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find
yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and
perhaps beyond, against Iran.
Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident,
and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the
Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has
claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United
States].”
Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of
entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word
to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.
Inevitable Retaliation
We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a
matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example,
terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what
happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-
up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an
article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering
the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
Posted by: Rodger | Sep 13 2013 3:47 utc | 35
|
