Assad: Syria Officially in State of War

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com 

Assad: "We live in a real state of war."

After over two decades of being in Western crosshairs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad declared to his new cabinet “We live in a real state of war from all angles.”  He couldn’t be more right as virtually the entire northern hemisphere in one way or another converges on this ancient plot of land in the eastern Mediterranean.

No doubt due to the Turkish warplane shot down last week Tukey has moved from passive facilitator of the foreign insurrection in Syria to active aggressor and is mobilizing its military for war.  On Tuesday the Times of Israel reported:

"Large numbers of Turkish troops — including at least 15 long-range artillery pieces and tanks – moved to the Syrian frontier from the eastern city of Diyarbakir. A video published by the Turkish Cihan News Agency showed Turkish tanks being transported by carrier trucks toward the frontier."

While the circumstances surrounding the downed fighter are hotly contested we must remember that truth is the first casualty of war.  Who did what and when is irrelevant.  To risk the peace of the entire region over one fighter jet shows the motives for war rest with NATO and its front line ally Turkey as they are obviously not in the interests of Syria or the embattled administration of al-Assad.

 

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that the “rules of engagement have changed” since the shoot-down and in caustic eloquence declared “As awe-inspiring as Turkey’s friendship is, Turkey’s wrath is equally awe-inspiring.”  Erdogan alludes to a friendship with Syria, however, it would be quite disingenuous to claim that friendship ended only after last week’s incident. 

Erdogan admonished Syrian authorities: “"Every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border and representing a security risk and danger will be assessed as a military threat and will be treated as a military target."  This is quite ironic since for over a year the Syrian National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, peppered with foreign back terrorists, have been using the safety of the Turkish border to coordinate and launch sorties into against the Assad regime.

This was of course the plan all along.  Considering Tukey’s  problem with the PKK and their own brutal crack down on Kurdish separatist “terrorists” they could not very well attack Syria for justly attempting to restore order.  As any fight begins with knocking the chip off the others shoulder Turkey has in effect placed it forcefully upon Syria.  How is that for friendship?  But why have they turned their back?

Two reasons come to mind.  The first is the US government and the rest of NATO has a long standing commitment to use the lowest cost means for its designs in the Middle East, which is to say, they prefer staying out of the fight choosing to directly fund and train terrorists or coordinate its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) proxy states to do so.  Turkey, after reviewing the deep bench of NATO backed secessionist militias including Al Qaeda affiliate Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) currently consulting the FSA, Iranian MEK trained in the Nevada desert, and among others their PKK antagonists with whom they've been fighting since the 80s, Ankara is more than willing to lend a helping hand to avoid any “uprisings” of their own.

The second (probably the most compelling) motive among the Turkish elite to aid the West is to become part of the neoliberal “New Middle East,” in other words, to be a good soldier in the New World Order.  Similar to jumping in a prospective gangster or taking a “young blood” out for his first drive by Syria is going to oust for the Anglo-European Empire their first Middle East dictator.  Rather than pursuing economic prospects with the BRICS as priority the new and improved US-Turkish relations may bring forward the carrot of an otherwise nonexistent US-Tukey free trade zone paved in the blood of one Syrian tyrant. 

The immediate feeling from new more brazen attacks on Assad's elite guards only miles away from the center of Damascus shows an increasingly emboldened rebellion and foreign insurgency.  Save a decisive effort on the part of Russia, China and or Iran Syria will increasingly bear all the hallmarks of Libya.  Assad's days appear numbered.  Whether Libya's dystopian post-revolution will resemble Syria's is almost assured. 

NATO's Ring of Fire: The Eastern Flank, China and the Indian "Linchpin"

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Chinese President Hu Jintao

China is a poor juggernaut by most standards, albeit with extraordinary bright spots.  China's rise has been steady since the days of Mao Zedong and if you ask around the developed world most will tell you they believe it's the top economic power reflecting a rising public image rather than a reality.  Americans, for instance, know nearly everything is "Made in China," but most could scarcely fathom the immensity of many of its cities.  In 18 years it is predicted that China will have over 221 cities boasting over 1 million residents.

China is no doubt standing tall these days and looking forward to the day when it, by objective standards, reclaims its historical role as the largest economy in the world.  One of the most ancient cultures on Earth, China is ready to take a position of leadership once again and if not globally, at the very least, within the region.

It's "near peer", the United States, currently enjoying the largest and most advanced economy on Earth with commensurate hegemony, is no doubt watching these developments with much caution and anxiety.

This is a layout of just some of the players involved in the Sino-Russian
containment zone NATO and the U.S. are attempting to install.
The real containment sphere, as it were, is 4-dimensional
 incorporating land, sea, air, space, and the internet.

Eastern Flank, South China Sea

China for one understands the U.S.’s “Global Force for Good” – as the Navy’s advertisement heralds - has held dominion over the Pacific since the end of World War II.  The Chinese Navy has also recently recognized the Obama administration’s focus on the Pacific and away from over a decade in the Middle East.

The Taiwan Straight crisis of 1996, during the Clinton administration, provided China with an impetus for investing in “anti-access, area denial” technologies.  China has since been rapidly developing its own indigenous warfare technologies to ebb American hegemony in the area and secure what it believes are traditional Chinese claims on its peripheries believed to be rich in natural resources.

To that effect China has recently tested a wide range of cutting edge armaments.  The most startling development is referred to as the “Carrier Killer” – the DF-21D – designed to arc into the stratosphere and explode onto the deck of a U.S. carrier.  China has also retrofitted and sea trialed a retired Russian aircraft carrier, debuted its first stealth fighter last August and overall has increased its military expenditures substantially.

Since 2002 China’s submarine fleet, according to the Rand Corporation, has increased from eight to 29.  In 2006 these submarines became so quiet that one was able to surface amidst a small fleet of U.S. subs hitherto undetected, causing quite a stir.  In the darkest of suspicions some have speculated whether the missile seen off the coast of Los Angeles in 2010 was an in-your-face example of this deep threat.

It was recently reported China announced how it would go to war against the U.S. fleet should it feel the need to do so.  By firing multiple missiles at the same time, no doubt deploying the Carrier Killer (when it’s ready), China would prevent U.S. aircraft carriers and their fighter jets from being able to penetrate Chinese territory.

In response, the U.S. Navy is developing long-range carrier drones in the hopes of eventually providing a fleet of pilotless bombers.  The U.S. military and NASA in a partial realization of that goal just test flew the Phantom Eye – “a ginormous, hydrogen powered uber-drone” able to stay in the air for 4 days at an altitude of 65,000 feet.  It is not deployable from an aircraft carrier yet, but you get the picture.

Outside of direct U.S. confrontation the South China Sea is seeing an arms race reminiscent of the Cold War.  It is clear China’s ravenous appetite for natural resources is whetting an appetite for military grade technology.  Defense industries’ top arms dealers are hurrying to meat the demand as the nations of Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore among others were all courted recently in at an international arms expo:

Eastern Flank, The South Pacific

In the final analysis of the Eastern flank surrounding China and Russia, it is important to note that as China’s brown water navy evolves into a long range blue water force U.S. “mutual defense” treaties with the Philippines, Japan and Taiwan will overlap.  But the U.S. is no longer the only player in the region, NATO has just gone global and has expanded into the Pacific, signing a partnership deal with New Zealand.

With thousands of U.S. Marines now being stationed in Australia, its Navy looking forward to access at Port Darwin in the north and more Aussie troop commitments Sec. Gen. Rassmussen’s words weigh heavy on the region.  “Australia and New Zealand may be far away geographically, but they are very close to us in terms of values and commitment. Together, we will discuss how we can come even closer together.”  As the Pacific becomes more crowded the opportunity for butting heads grows by leaps and bounds.

The Indian “Linchpin”

Last weekend Tim Roemer, former ambassador to India, opined in the Washington Post about the improving ties with the largest democracy on the planet – India.  However, rather than elucidate his audience on the economic opportunities first he detailed the U.S. tactical relationship just three paragraphs in.

“Security cooperation has never been better.  The United States and India share unprecedented amounts of highly sensitive intelligence and have started a homeland security dialogue; the United States has joined in more combined defense exercises with India than with any other ally.  Defense sales are at record levels.  We also have historic new collaboration on nuclear nonproliferation issues.” (emphasis supplied)

To be sure, this part of the world is swarming with American Special Forces, in fact, they are in five South Asian countries: Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and India.  The Pentagon says it is “working closely” with India’s elite units, preparing them for showdowns with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan based militant group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks with ties to the ubiquitous and ever resilient forever enemy – Al-Qaeda.  As NATO nations withdraw troops Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta welcomes a larger role for India in Afghanistan.

As this article was being finished Leon Panetta literally took the words right off the title and affirmed everything we suspected.  While virtually all available geography available is covered in the Pacific Rim the most populous nation with nearly the largest economy outside China remains at an arm’s distance.  It is Panetta’s goal to change that vowing today to expand defense ties with India in order to safeguard the “crossroads” of the global economy.

“For this relationship to truly provide security for this region and for the world, we will need to deepen our defense and security cooperation. This is why I have come to India,” Mr. Panetta told an audience at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses.  While analysts see India preferring some prudent breathing room Panetta sees that the relationship “can and should become more strategic, more practical, and more collaborative.”

Considering China has claimed, at least for now, its own strategic keystone in the partnership with Pakistan and the deep port of Gwadar India might be a little more receptive to U.S. overtures.  According to Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policu Research in New Delhi:

"China is trying to undercut the U.S.'s numerous interests in Pakistan…Gwadar was the linchpin of [the] 'string of pearls' strategy and the latest news adds to that.  India faces a unique challenge that no other country does.  Its two nuclear armed neighbors are closely aligned and are stepping up joint military programs. India will have to step up its deterrent capabilities."

As we have outlined the first chain islands nearest to China, with few exceptions, are within the U.S. envelope, however, the subcontinent is essential to full containment.  Panetta said the new U.S. strategy sought to ““expand [U.S.] military partnerships and [U.S.] presence in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia…Defense cooperation with India is a linchpin in this strategy.”

It surely is.  Expect India to be in the news more and more.

NATO's Ring of Fire: The Western Flank and Russia

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

When it comes to the growth of domestic government it may be arguable that administrations of either Democrat or Republicans pursue different agendas, albeit usually revolving around the prevailing social issues of the day.  When it comes to foreign affairs, however, there is a seamless continuity of agenda aimed at maintaining and growing – American hegemony.

In foreign affairs at-large this American influence leads an Anglo-European coalition through its military arm – NATO.  It should be clear, however, that when NATO acts it is invariably at the behest of U.S. interests as it “contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO’s budget.  In FY2010 that contribution totaled $117.8 million…But that factors only direct payments, not deployments of personnel,” reported CBS News last year.  U.S. equity in NATO has been concentrated even more as European member nations’ contributions shrank by $45 billion over the past two years due to fiscal turmoil.

Nevertheless, NATO and its 28 member countries flexed their collective muscle last month during their summit in Chicago.  NATO announced its first step toward implementation of a ballistic missile shield, to be deployed in four phases by about 2020, sending clear signals to those not in the Club – namely China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – that amid growing security threats NATO is ready to counter any potential aggressor.  According to a statement released by NATO leaders:

"We have declared an interim ballistic missile defence capability as an initial step to establish NATO’s missile defence system, which will protect all NATO European territories, populations and forces against the increasing threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles…”

Given the current threat of asymmetrical warfare from non-state actors it seems as though conventional confrontations may not be a thing of the past.

This is a layout of just some of the players involved in the Sino-Russian
containment zone NATO and the U.S. are attempting to install.
The real containment sphere, as it were, is 4-dimensional incorporating
land, sea, air, space, and the internet.

Western Flank, Europe

The U.S. and NATO now have bases and/or military operations in former Soviet spheres of influence: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia are among those little known.  Moscow, understandably rejects the idea that the NATO missile shield in this area is merely for Iran.  Russia offered to operate the missile shield jointly with NATO, but was dismissed by the alliance revealing the ruse for what it is.  NATO’s secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen called Russian “concerns groundless.”

Before NATO leaders met last month Russia threatened to strike the NATO missile shield should progress continue.  Despite the threats, NATO’s deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference last month the shield is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are "too fast and too sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept.  If this is true, NATO countries will be even more vulnerable as Russia recently tested a new ICBM, which according to the Russian military improves its ability to overcome current or future missile defense systems.

Western Flank, The Middle East

It has been the plan since 1991, soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, to have the U.S. infiltrate – diplomatically or otherwise – its former client states right up to the Russian motherland.  The plan, referred to more appropriately as a “foreign policy coup,” was revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark to an audience in California in 2007.  He claims Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense, told him that the U.S. has 5-10 years to "clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

In 2001, the timetable was given an extension after the attacks of 9/11.  While visiting the Pentagon, a classified strategy was revealed to Gen. Clark that the U.S. planed to dismantle and replace the governments of seven nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.  Other than Iran of course, five of the seven governments have already been deposed.

Somalia remains in the throws; corrupt, occupied by a coalition of African armies, fending off fundamentalist factions and offering little more than 21^st century pirates.  Lebanon was coaxed into uprising in 2006 through a sophisticated “color revolution” strategy piloted successfully by the likes of the U.S. government funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a sort of social CIA.

And Syria as we have documented in detail is in the midst of a dangerous foreign backed insurgency focused on delegitimizing the Syrian government in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Should Syria fall, Russia will lose its only direct ports of access to the Mediterranean – Tartus and Latakia.  As late as 2007 it was revealed the Russians were to re-establish a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean through access to these new ports.  Needless to say, this alarmed many in Washington and Tel Aviv.

A brief by Stratfor.com, a private U.S. intelligence firm, offered this analysis:

“A Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast could allow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's regime to better inoculate itself against a potential attack by the US or Israel ... The Russians would be offering an attractive insurance policy."

Recognizing western efforts to deny Russia this access reveals that the Syrian “civil war” is really a microcosm – or if its allowed to succeed, a prelude – of World War III.  There are no less than seven countries involved in the hostilities in one way or the other and because of it Russia has recently buttressed the Assad government and Russian strategic interests with new attack helicopters, weapons and advisors.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon, least to say, have not welcomed the move.

Western Flank, Central Eurasia

The U.S. and NATO now have bases and/or military operations Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan among other Central Asian states including Georgia where U.S. forces are training their military.  While all these young, recently emancipated countries, are ostensibly democratic there has been evidence of rampant corruption, rigged elections and ethnic strife as can be expected from a region carved up quite arbitrarily.

The U.S. has nonetheless embraced whatever system these post-Communist orphans have come up with as long as they didn’t run back to a resurgent Russian Empire.  Afghanistan might also be included as one of these former Soviet states, but of course only for a brief period as the USSR was rebuffed and sent packing after its botched invasion during the 1980s.

The U.S. and NATO have been in Afghanistan for over ten years now.  Detractors scratch their heads and wonder why the U.S. would be sucked into another Vietnam, mired in scandal and setbacks.  Some call it a quagmire, however, a sober assessment might conclude we were never intended to leave.  Afghanistan, amidst this vast containment strategy is an ideal outpost.  It sits atop trillions of dollars of mineral reserves, a crossroads for oil essential oil pipelines and offers a perfect peak into Russia and China.

Since NATO hasn’t been the best houseguest, killing hundreds of civilians and military personnel in the most aggressive drone war to date, Pakistan is no longer willing to serve as a NATO supply conduit.  NATO and the U.S. military will now use a “reverse transit” through three former Soviet satellites (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan) to ship military equipment out of Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan altogether.  The move is purportedly six times more expensive.  Whether this is a bonafide exit route or merely a way of creating better partnerships closer to Russia remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Pakistan serves a similar role to China as Syria serves Russia – naval access.  While many are talking about Syria few are talking about the fact the Pentagon admits the U.S. is at war in Pakistan.  While the cover story is of course the favored fiction – Al-Qaeda reigns in Pakistan – groups, which are funded by staunch pro U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and UAE, the ultimate goal is denial of access as much as it is in Syria.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the Port of Gwadar, in coastal Balochistan region of Pakistan, is scheduled to be the latest in China’s “’String of Pearls’ wherein China has also funded construction or upgrades of ports in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar,” a stratagem aimed at strengthening economic ties, securing access to crucial resources and projecting force into the Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf and the African Continent.

As the U.S. exits (at least publicly) its relationship with Pakistan, China is taking over.  In addition to the Port of Gwadar China sees the Iran-Pakistan pipeline, the Turkmentistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline as vital to its economic health.  To this end China has delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter jets, a unspecified number of 4,400 ton frigates, submariner training and possibly China’s more advanced FC-20, also known as the J10, but details are thin.  In the final analysis Balochistan has been and will continue to be the victim (like Syria) of subversion, destabilization and political sabotage, "a nexus," writes Eric Draitser at Stop Imperialism, "the point at which diametrically opposing strategic interests converge."  These are the typical tools of the realist school of geopolitics.

Part II will cover the South China Sea, the South Pacific and India, the Asian linchpin.

Syria’s Srebrenica Blamed on Iranian Special Forces

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Iran's Quds Force

The massacre in Srebrenica was the last best piece of propaganda of the 20th century.  Syria’s Houla massacre, if swallowed whole, will produce the same deceit.

In 1995, after the Dayton Peace Accords were signed in Ohio, purportedly 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) were massacred during a summer in Srebrenica.  It was referred to as the worst mass murder since World War II and the blame was quickly laid at the feet of the usual suspects – Serbian forces.  The result was NATO’s aerial bombardment and the invasion of 60,000 troops under United Nations command.

The Bosnian invasion was predicated on the idea that Srebrenica was a result of “ethnic cleansing” the endgame of course to stymie if not eradicate the Bosniak bloodline.  The only problem was women and children were evidently put on buses and allowed to flee.  When the graves were exhumed and the bodies examined mostly men of fighting age were found.  It took over a decade for the Hague to exonerate Serbia in the action and place it squarely on a Croat, but by 2007 the damage was irreparable in more ways than one.  So goes the fog of war and propaganda.

Syria over the Memorial Day weekend suffered a microcosm of that massacre when 108 civilians (32 children under 10-years-old) in Hula, outside Homs, were summarily dispatched without mercy.  Initial reports suspected the Syrian army, if not, the Alawite Shabiha militia, loyal to the Assad regime.  A Syrian investigation, however, found the culprits to be an 800-man death squad.

Thus far the trial of the Houla Massacre has taken place in the court of public opinion, which has been severely biased in favor of the opposition since the beginning of the Arab Spring, imbued with democratic legitimacy.   In reality the Free Syrian Army (FSA) based from behind NATO lines in Turkey and under the direction of the Syrian National Council (SNC) is supplemented by a dubious international coalition of Islamic fundamentalists from all over the Middle East.

Rather than merely appealing for democratic reforms this sordid sum has created an environment of rampant sectarian violence not scene since Iraq in 2007.  Unfortunately like in Afghanistan and Iraq the grand irony is that the West’s “crusade” as it is often referred to has actually displaced hundreds of thousands of Christians.  According to French Bishop Philip Tournyol Clos:

“…the picture for us is utter desolation: the church of Mar Elian is half destroyed and that of Our Lady of Peace is still occupied by the rebels. Christian homes are severely damaged due to the fighting and completely emptied of their inhabitants, who fled without taking anything. The area of Hamidieh is still shelter to armed groups independent of each other, heavily armed and bankrolled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. All Christians (138,000) have fled to Damascus and Lebanon, while others took refuge in the surrounding countryside.”

Continuing…

“the enemies of Syria have enlisted some of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to destroy the brotherly relations that traditionally existed between Muslims and Christians: Yet, to date,they are not able to: they have provoked a contrary reaction and the two communities are more united than before. The Syrian soldiers in fact, continue to face foreign fighters, mercenaries Libyans, Lebanese militants from the Gulf, Afghans, Turks”

This heartfelt testimony reflects what we have known for the better part of a year, that the “protestors” and “activists” in Syria are very much part of a larger proxy war which pulls support from a vast cross section of the NATO-Sunni alliance.  Funding of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood has been in the pipeline since at least 2007 when it was reported in the New Yorker that Israel and the US were funneling support through Saudi Arabia so as not to compromise the “credibility” of the ostensibly “Islamic” movement.  A similar tactic was utilized through Pakistan in creation of Al’ Qaeda in 1980s during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (we all know how that worked out).  As members of the Muslim Brotherhood are now honored guests at the White House, one must wonder if “credibility” is any longer an issue.

To continue with the Srebrenica analogy, while there has been no peace accord as there was in Bosnia former UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has been attempting to monitor a ceasefire (part of his six point plan) as he did in Rwanda and Bosnia, which has by all accounts demonstrably failed as it did twice before.  To be sure, as the Washington Post’s distorted, but still revealing op-ed detailed, wherever Kofi goes killings follow.

The common narrative parroted throughout the MSM (here and here) is that these UN monitors are naively providing “cover” for the Assad regime’s reprisals and add credibility to the Syrian government under the idea that diplomatic solutions are being ardently pursued.  Given what we know about the composition of the insurgency, however, it is much more likely the opposite is true.  UN monitors legitimize the conflict itself as a wholly indigenous uprising that requires diplomacy and time rather than expose it for what it is – a foreign invasion aimed at dismantling a key ally of Iran and Russia.

Srebrenica “claimed 8,000 lives”, however, it later turned out those numbers were grossly exaggerated (more like 700) and the motive – ethnic cleansing – proved tenuous at best.  In reality it was another horror of war propagandized as the international version of a hate crime – a crime against humanity – ostensibly far worse and deserving of invasion.  In Houla, while the scene has changed the goal is very much the same: demonize a vulnerable target government, intervene with force and with overwhelming humanitarian legitimacy post-haste.

The massacre, however, retains all the hallmarks of a shake and bake propaganda piece: the group was nearly 1/3 children, the fatalities purportedly as a result of “tank shells” and while many victims were in fact “mutilated and killed by knives.”  Indeed, the footage was “released by the rebels” for Western consumption, that much is undeniable.   Thing is, the Syrian army doesn’t enjoy a monopoly on that type of ordinance since the FSA has been reported to have captured Syrian army tanks as well as receiving even more tanks from defectors.

What was true in Srebrenica (see the Srebrenica fact sheet) is most likely true in Houla, both parties are were responsible for the death and destruction rather than one fail swoop of merciless destruction at the hands of an all-powerful Assad hell bent on crushing the moral of his people and their wishes for democracy.

Tempered with the aforementioned facts, the understandable and demonstrable desire of the media to sensationalize the events, geopolitical interests and the thin evidence (lies of satellite photos showing pro Assad forces “at the time of the attack” were in fact a day old, testimony of defected “air force officer” with “super human” hearing and sight, and testimony from a child in shock and impressionable) an objective analysis may come forth.  Until that time beware the sirens call.

What is Qud’s Force Doing in Syria, Re-balancing or Massacring?

It has been reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Ismail Qa’ani, second-in-command of Iranian Special Forces – Quds Force – has been training Assad’s soldiers since before the Syrian uprising.  This from the International Business Times:

“The Quds, named for the Farsi word for Jerusalem, are Iran’s special forces unit — in American equivalents, a mix between black-ops and the CIA. As the Revolutionary Guard’s external force, the Quds support and facilitate Islamic movements in other nations on Teheran’s behalf, movements that allegedly include terrorist organizations.”

OMG, so like terrorist organizations like NATO backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) or Nevada trained MEK both listed on the US State Department’s “Don’t Feed the Terrorists” list, those types of terrorists?  Looks like two can play at this game.

The state department attempted to connect the dots for us in the wake of the Houla massacre neglecting to brief us on the opposition’s questionable allegiances and design.  Its spokesperson, according to IBT:

"Victoria Nuland said that the Shabiha militia, accused of carrying out the Houla massacre, has been modeled after Iran’s paramilitary Basij force, suggesting that the Iranian military could have trained the Syrian civilian soldiers."

This could be true, but it doesn’t explain the inconsistencies and gaps in the favored fiction of Houla, rather it supplies a red hearing.

In reality the official narrative is fraying.  The IEDs, reports of wahabbists, displaced Christians and clandestine support are piling upon a delicate ruse.  The idea that the opposition’s “demonstrators” and “activists” are a homogenous, indigenous and innocuous bunch of freedom loving non-state actors has been so undermined that Sec. of State Hillary Clinton revealed the true mastermind behind the Houla massacre claiming in Copenhagen that Quds “are coaching the Syrian military … helping them set up these sectarian militias.” She effectively, in one line, used up her lifetime supply of irony.

It is evident, according to defectors, the Quds Force was needed because Syria’s Army wasn’t up to task in crucial engagements with the foreign backed FSA and its fundamentalist friends.  Hm, odd.  In the end, the Syrian government (backed by Iran, Russia and China) faces a foreign backed insurgency (under the aegis of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Turkey, NATO). We are in effect seeing World War III in a fishbowl, perhaps a peak into the future and its only going to get uglier from here.

NATO Summit in the Rearview: The Big and Expensive Non-Event

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

The NATO summit held in Chicago, Illinois has been hailed as a success by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and President Barack Obama.  But has America’s police state erased its 1968 “police riot” or did administration media shills merely apply white out?

The lack of incidence was a testament to, among many things, the continued abdication by the American left of their traditional anti-war stance, having since 2008, been demonstrably inoculated by the Obama presidency.  Those who did make it to the protest, an estimated 3,000 souls marching last Friday, were reported to be representing over 100 groups of international origin or part of the Occupy movement at large.

The relative peace enjoyed by the City of Chicago during the protests was also likely due to the last minute decision to move the G8 conference to Camp David.  Had the G8 simultaneously occupied Chicago beside its military arm – NATO – the affair may have been more, well – lively.

In order to secure the City of Chicago the summit was declared a “National Special Security Event” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and according to reports it sure felt special.  Pepe Escobar of Asia Times opined:

"It’s lockdown time – complete with Iraq-style concrete barriers; battalions sporting upgraded riot gear; “extraction teams” to snatch and grab pinpointed protesters in a “low intensity conflict” environment; and an Orwellian guest star, the LRAD (long-range acoustic device) – a sound cannon bound to “ensure a consistent message is delivered to large crowds”, according to the Chicago Police Department."

Not only was there extensive drilling, planning and canvassing prior to the event NATO appropriately established its patented no-fly zone over Chicago lest an Occupy ultra-light plane a la Mad Max or some crazed anarchist decided to drop any airborne presents.

The scene once again reminded the nation that any U.S. city can transform instantly into highly controlled environment where safety is subordinated to any and all other concerns.  As Bernard Harcourt of the London Guardian reports, “The NATO summit will come and go, but Mayor Emanuel has authorized a ‘new normal’ of militarized social control in Chicago.”

Eight-foot tall, anti-scale security fencing went up all over that perimeter and downtown, including Grant Park; and the Chicago police – as well as myriad other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the US secret service – were out in force on riot-geared horses, bikes, and patrols – batons at the ready. Philadelphia Police Department is sending over reinforcements to help out; Chicago has also asked for recruits from police departments in Milwaukee and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC. Meanwhile, F-16 warplanes “screamed through the skies as part of a pre-summit defense exercise” and helicopters hovered incessantly.

Orchestrating the massive symphony of security from an “undisclosed location” were over 40 federal agencies.

On the ground tactics were also utilized, namely herding protestors in order to “tire them out” and utilizing layered maneuvers with bike or foot patrols passively monitoring protests while heavily armored contingents awaited out of sight.

The most startling of all the strategies used to diminish the possibility of making an international scene was classic gumshoe investigative work – no, not really.

Chicago Police didn’t mob down protestors like they did in 1968 they just pre-emptively raided and arrested “selected protesters considered dangerous.”  It later turned out that the “NATO 3” who were officially charged with terrorism were in fact patsies set up once again by informants under the employ of the U.S. Government’s Terror Factory.  The evidence purportedly discovered has since been claimed to have been “planted” by law enforcement.

In the final analysis the NATO summit was a microcosm.  The U.S. government displayed an overwhelming force posture replete with bells and whistles, its respective agencies and the city spent more than was needed, it trumped up terrorism to malign forces it perceived as a threat, the entire affair received little media coverage and an anemic anti-war movement since the rise of Barack Obama failed to attract any meaningful attention.  Don’t they get it?  Nobody finds “eat the rich” or Robin Hood tax programs newsworthy.  It was a non-event just as the state had hopped it would be.

Perhaps the summit was a non-event precisely because it wasn’t important.  Not one person in Chicago and relatively few in the media drew attention to the fact this “international event” was in fact quite parochial.  NATO is a powerful minority in the world.  The grand military alliance, which represents a crumbling western economic bloc, based on the G8, and comprising 28 other countries is being challenged.

Notice that Vladamir Putin, an ostensible member of the G8 didn’t attend Camp David.  Many of the G8 members have in fact been outpaced economically by the BRICS.  China is obviously bigger than everyone save the U.S.  Brazil is bigger than Canada, Italy and the U.K., according to the IMF.  India is larger than Brazil…

Under this lens is it not understandable that creating a missile ring in defense of Europe might be viewed as just another expensive entitlement program as we have discussed before?  Vladamir Putin seems to understand what it’s meant to delineate and where the missiles are pointing - so do the Chinese.  With the rise of new nations and severe debt crisis riddling western democracies the world is in the throws of an obvious re balancing act, what will emerge is unknown, perhaps a tripolar world?

Where and when do Russia and China have their say?
When and where will a tripolar world assert itself?

The global military industrial entitlement complex is merely another type welfare program similar to domestic liabilities crippling Greece and other nations.  The wildly expensive missile defense shield around Europe furthers the analogy of the microcosm mentioned above.  According to Harcourt:

"...this police state serves, in reality, as our new welfare state. The security mania represents our truly unique way of stimulating the economy, of employing piece labor, of creating government jobs and subsidized contracts. Just think of the amount of overtime pay that we are disbursing with all this policing. Instead of investing in schools and education, in job training, or in re-entry programs, this is how we invest in our future. And we never think of it as government welfare because it falls in that sacred space of security…"