U.S. threatens Syria war escalation

Scan page 8

When a June 16 New York Times front-page article blared, “51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria,” I could almost hear the war drums beating at the U.S. State Department and White House. These “midlevel diplomats,” with varying U.S. government Syria assignments over the years, “urged the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of Presi­ dent Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.” Both the U.S. government and its diplomats charge that Russia’s “violations” consist in targeting U.S.-backed and funded terrorist groups aimed at overthrowing the Assad government. Heaven of heavens! Unlike the U.S. government and its reactionary allies in the region, and NATO, neither the Russians nor the Syrian government distinguish between U.S.-organized and fostered terror­ ists like the Al Qaida-affiliated Al Nusra Front and ISIS. The latter group and its offshoots are funded and/or abet­ ted by one or another U.S. imperialist ally in the region, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other Gulf monarchies as well as NATO, while the U.S., not too se­ cretly these days as we shall see below, turns a blind eye to the Nusra Front, whose forces freely intermingle with and regularly collaborate with U.S.-armed groups aimed at Assad’s removal.

The “51” called for a “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.” This “judicious” U.S. air war, essentially a “no fly zone,” would signal a direct confrontation with the Russians, who presumably would be given the option to have their aircraft “stand off” or be shot down.

In September 2015, Russia accepted the Syrian gov­ ernment’s request to intervene against the ISIS and the Nusra Front/Al Qaida terrorist attacks, not to mention against the attacks of the 1400 armed militias organized by the Saudis, Qataris and their allies, and the tens of thousands of armed jihadi fighters that joined the effort as they freely filtered though Turkish borders with Turkish government aid and approval (see The New York Times editorial of June 29, 2016). The fact that Al Nusra is for­ mally on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations is ignored when its terror is directed against the Syrian government. While these diplomats employ the polite language of their trade, few would deny that their recommended “hard-nosed” and “stand off “ use of “air weapons” sig­ nals nothing less than a potential military confrontation with Russia, an existential confrontation that may not ex­ clude a nuclear war.

With the commencement of Russia’s bombing of any and all terrorist groups in Syria, there has been no “dip­ lomatic” agreement of just who is to be bombed, or bet­ ter, which terrorist organizations are to be bombed. The “51” memo argues that unless a U.S. air war is contem­ plated, “Mr. Assad will feel no pressure to negotiate with the moderate opposition or other factions fighting him.” Note the delicate reference to “other factions,” that is, as we will see below, Saudi and U.S.-armed factions hired to do imperialism’s bidding.

What began in Syria in 2011 with mass peaceful pro­ tests against the neoliberal austerity measures imposed by the capitalist Bashar al-Assad government, undoubt­ edly and initially a promising and welcome component of the Arab Spring mobilizations that challenged the status quo in the region, rapidly devolved into a U.S. and al­ lied imperialist war aimed at “regime change” American style. The Assad government’s firing on peaceful demon­ strators proved to be the perfect pretext to accomplish in 8 SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 2016 Syria what the U.S./NATO “humanitarian” and “regime change” war did in Libya. That one-year onslaught lev­ eled the Libyan nation’s infrastructure and murdered ten of thousands.

While The Times argued in its June 16 article that “there is little evidence that the Obama administration has plans to change course” and that it “has emphasized the mili­ tary campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad,” the opposite has been the case. The very next day a Times headline read that “[Secretary of State] John Kerry Is Said to Side With Diplomats’ Criti­ cal Memo on Syria.”

With the Russia intervention a year ago, along with the Iranian militias and Hezbollah fighters, U.S. imperial­ ism’s fortunes in Syria have been significantly dimin­ ished. Large swaths of the country, including important cities previously under ISIS or Al Qaida control, have been retaken by Syrian government forces. It is in this context that the “51” memo can best be understood. Classified CIA reports reveal U.S war aims The corporate media-promoted fiction that the central U.S. military target in Syria is ISIS, and not a U.S.-im­ posed regime change to remove Assad, is belied by the facts. A June 26 New York Times article entitled “C.I.A. Arms for Syrian Rebels Supplied Black Market, Officials Say” asserts: “The theft of only a small portion of the U.S. weapons bound for Syria and stolen by corrupt Jor­ danian officials highlights “… the messy, unplanned con­ sequences of programs to arm and train rebels—the kind of programs the C.I.A. and Pentagon have conducted for decades—even after the Obama administration had hoped to keep the training program in Jordan under tight control.”

The Times continues, “The United States and Saudi Ara­ bia are the biggest contributors [in Syria], with the Sau­ dis contributing both weapons and large sums of money, and with C.I.A. paramilitary operatives taking the lead in training the rebels to use Kalashnikovs, mortars, antitank guided missiles and other weapons.”

And further, “The existence of the program is classi­ fied as are all details about its budget. American officials say that the C.I.A. has trained thousands of rebels in the past three years, and that the fighters made substantial advances on the battlefield against Syrian government forces until Russian military forces—launched last year in support of Mr. Assad—compelled them to retreat.” And again, “The training program is based in Jordan because of the country’s proximity to the Syrian battle­ fields. From the beginning, the C.I.A. and the Arab intel­ ligence agencies relied on Jordanian security services to transport the weapons, many bought in bulk in the Bal­ kans and elsewhere around Eastern Europe.” The Times continues, “The program is separate from one that the Pentagon set up to train rebels to combat Is­ lamic State fighters, rather than the Syrian military. That program was shut down after it managed to train only a handful of Syrian rebels.” Indeed, the figure is estimated at five rebels! The remainder of these U.S.-trained antiISIS fighters literally turned over their U.S. weapons to ISIS and/or to groups fighting Assad. Others just quit. Further exploding the myth that “Syrian moderates” were leading the fight against Assad, The Times reveals that “President Obama authorized the covert arming program in April 2013, after more than a year of debate inside the administration about the wisdom of using the C.I.A. to train rebels trying to oust Mr. Assad.” And finally, “The decision was made in part to try to gain control of a chaotic situation in which Arab coun­ tries were funneling arms into Syria for various rebel groups with little coordination. The Qataris had paid to of Kalashnikovs and millions of rounds of ammunition it had bought, sometimes with the C.I.A.’s help. By late 2013, the C.I.A. was working di­ rectly with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other nations to arm and train small groups of rebels and send them across the border into Syria.”

I couldn’t help but note the hypocrisy of these “51” dip­ lomats concluding their recommendation for an air war against the Assad government by asserting, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.” Could it be that these “moral” diplomats were unaware that almost from day one of the Syrian events, the deadly hands of U.S. imperi­ alism and its allies were revved up to prepare for Assad’s removal?

Indeed, six months earlier, a Jan. 23, 2016, Times ar­ ticle entitled, “U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels” essentially reported the same information, but with regard to Saudi Arabia, stating, “When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a will­ ing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” “Since then,” the article continues, “the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrange­ ment for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, cur­ rent and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.” And finally we are informed that “The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Ara­ bia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahe­ deen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.” To fuel the drive to increase U.S. and allied imperial­ ist intervention in Syria, we are once again witness to a demonization campaign, this time directed at President Assad, who is charged by the “51,” and a host of other imperialist warmongers, of violating all the so-called cease-fire agreements negotiated in February, including denying food shipments to “starving people” in Darya— a suburb outside of Damascus—and of bombing U.S.-backed rebels who are supposedly fighting ISIS. Head­ lines screamed in late June that Assad had promised to retake “every inch” of his country from his invading foes. Dare we assert that the imperialist-occupied portions of Syria—at one point some 50 percent or more of the country—represent a fundamental violation of the right of oppressed nations to self-determination? Here we are reminded of the rueful refrain of antiwar activists during the period when 500,000 U.S. troops for 10 years rained death and destruction on Vietnam, murdering four mil­ lion people, mostly civilians. “We must teach the Viet­ namese not to invade the land they were born in!” We must teach Assad to never say that he is intent on retaking Syria from the imperialist invaders! We must bomb that nation to smithereens until the Assad govern­ ment agrees to the imperialist propositions laid out by the U.S.-constituted and Saudi-led coalition of every im­ perialist backed force—almost all external to Syria—31 groups to date, that seek a piece of Syria!

Dare we comment on the alleged starvation of the peo­ ple in cities previously taken over by U.S.-backed terror­ ist groups and today surrounded by Assad’s forces? Do these include the “rebel”-controlled Damascus suburbs from which U.S. and Saudi-backed terrorists had been daily lobbing bombs and rockets into Damascus? Should we side with ISIS forces who have been expelled from Palmyra and are now fleeing? Or the similar forces in the northern city of Aleppo? Should we lend credibility to confirmed reports that the “cease fire” had been used by U.S.-backed “rebels” to re-arm themselves? On this latter point, the evidence affirms Assad’s position. A more accurate version of what is happening in the previously “rebel-controlled” Aleppo appeared in the Feb. 18 Boston Globe as an opinion piece by Brown Uni­ versity researcher Stephen Kinzer, who wrote: “Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why. “For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: ‘Don’t send your children to (continued on page 9, in “To the Masses!”)