US Policymakers Urging 'Regime Change' in Syria While Pentagon Pilots Are Accused of Aiding ISIS
June 10, 2015
Robert Parry / Consortium News & FARS News Agency & Global Research
Commentary: If sanity ruled our foreign policy, US diplomats would be pushing for power-sharing between Syria's secular government and whatever rational people remain in the opposition. Instead, Americans are being led toward the brink of another Middle East war, guided by neocons and liberal hawks set on "regime change" -- even if that means victory for Sunni terrorists. Meanwhile US pilots stand accused of bombing "friendly" troops and supplying ISIS fighters with food and weapons.
Sleepwalking to Another Mideast Disaster
Robert Parry / Consortium News
(June 4, 2015) -- If sanity ruled US foreign policy, American diplomats would be pushing frantically for serious power-sharing negotiations between Syria's secular government and whatever rational people remain in the opposition -- and then hope that the combination could turn back the military advances of the Islamic State and/or Al-Qaeda's Nusra Front.
But sanity doesn't rule. Instead, the ever-influential neocons and their liberal-hawk allies can't get beyond the idea of a US military campaign to destroy President Bashar al-Assad's army and force "regime change" -- even if the almost certain outcome would be the black flag of Islamic nihilism flying over Damascus.
As much as one may criticize the neocons for their reckless scheming, you can't call them fickle. Once they come up with an idea -- no matter how hare-brained -- they stick with it. Syrian "regime change" has been near the top of their to-do list since the mid-1990s and they aren't about to let it go now. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
That's one reason why -- if you read recent New York Times stories by correspondent Anne Barnard -- no matter how they start, they will wind their way to a conclusion that President Barack Obama must bomb Assad's forces, somehow conflating Assad's secular government with the success of the fundamentalist Islamic State.
On Wednesday, Barnard published, on the front page, fact-free allegations that Assad was in cahoots with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in its offensive near Aleppo, thus suggesting that both Assad's forces and the Islamic State deserved to be targets of US bombing attacks inside Syria. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT's New Propaganda on Syria."]
On Thursday, Barnard was back on the front page co-authoring an analysis favorably citing the views of political analyst Ibrahim Hamidi, arguing that the only way to blunt the political appeal of the Islamic State is to take "more forceful international action against the Syrian president" -- code words for "regime change."
But Barnard lamented, "Mr. Assad remains in power, backed by Iran and the militant group Hezbollah . . . . That, Mr. Hamidi and other analysts said, has left some Sunnis willing to tolerate the Islamic State in areas where they lack another defender . . . . By attacking ISIS in Syria while doing nothing to stop Mr. Assad from bombing Sunni areas that have rebelled, he added, the United States-led campaign was driving some Syrians into the Islamic State camp."
In other words, if one follows Barnard's logic, the United States should expand its military strikes inside Syria to include attacks on the Syrian government's forces, even though they have been the primary obstacle to the conquest of Syria by Al-Qaeda's Nusra Front and/or Al-Qaeda's spinoff, the Islamic State. (Another unprofessional thing about Barnard's articles is that they don't bother to seek out what the Syrian government thinks or to get the regime's response to accusations.)
On Aug. 30, 2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to have proof that the Syrian government was behind a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21. But that evidence failed to materialize and was later discredited. [State Department photo]
The Sarin Story
So, "regime change" remains the neocon prescription for Syria, one that was almost fulfilled in summer 2013 after a mysterious sarin gas attack on Aug. 21, 2013, outside Damascus -- that the US government and mainstream media rushed to blame on Assad, although some US intelligence analysts suspected early on that it was a provocation by rebel extremists.
According to intelligence sources, that suspicion of a rebel "false-flag" operation has gained more credence inside the US intelligence community although the Director of National Intelligence refuses to provide an update beyond the sketchy "government assessment" that was issued nine days after the incident, blaming Assad's forces but presenting no verifiable evidence.
Because DNI James Clapper has balked at refining or correcting the initial rush to judgment, senior US officials and the mainstream media have been spared the embarrassment of having to retract their initial claims -- and they also are free to continue accusing Assad. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Fact-Resistant Group Think on Syria."]
Yet, the DNI's refusal to update the nine-days-after-the-attack white paper undermines any hope of getting serious about power-sharing negotiations between Assad and his "moderate" opponents. It may be fun to repeat accusations about Assad "gassing his own people," a reprise of a favorite line used against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, but it leaves little space for talks.
There has been a similar problem in the DNI's stubbornness about revealing what the US intelligence community has learned about the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down over eastern Ukraine killing 298 people on July 17, 2014. DNI Clapper released a hasty report five days after the tragedy, citing mostly "social media" and pointing the blame at ethnic Russian rebels and the Russian government.
Though I'm told that U.S intelligence analysts have vastly expanded their understanding of what happened and who was responsible, the Obama administration has refused to release the information, letting stand the public perception that Russian President Vladimir Putin was somehow at fault.
That, in turn, has limited Putin's willingness to cooperate fully with Obama on strategies for reining in hard-charging crises in the Middle East and elsewhere. [See Consortiumnews.com's "US Intel Stands Pat on MH-17 Shoot-down."]
From the Russian perspective, Putin feels he is being falsely accused of mass murder even as Obama seeks his help on Syria, Iran and other hotspots. As US president, Obama could order the US intelligence community to declassify what it has learned about both incidents, the 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria and the 2014 MH-17 shoot-down in eastern Ukraine, but he won't.
Instead, the Obama administration has used these propaganda clubs to continue pounding on Assad and Putin -- and Obama's team shows no willingness to put down the clubs even if they were fashioned from premature or wrongheaded analyses. While Obama withholds the facts, the neocons and liberal hawks are leading the American people to the cliffs of two potentially catastrophic wars in Syria and Ukraine.
Though Obama claims that his administration is committed to "transparency," the reality is that it has been one of the most opaque in American history, made much worse by his unprecedented prosecution of national security whistleblowers.
Even in the propaganda-crazy days of the Reagan administration, I found it easier to consult with intelligence analysts than I do now. While those Reagan-era analysts might have had orders to spin me, they also would give up some valuable insights in the process. Today, there is much more fear among analysts that they might stray an inch too far and get prosecuted.
The danger from Obama's elitist -- and manipulative -- attitude toward information is that it eviscerates the American people's fundamental right to know what is going on in the world and thus denies them a meaningful say in matters of war or peace.
This problem is made worse by a mainstream US news media that marches in lockstep with neoconservatives and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks, narrowing the permitted policy options and guiding an enfeebled public to a preordained conclusion -- as New York Times correspondent Anne Barnard has done over the past two days.
In the case of Syria, the only "acceptable" approach is the reckless idea that the US government must militarily damage the principal force -- the Syrian army -- that is holding back the rising tide of Sunni terrorism and then must take its chances on what comes next.
[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "The Day After Damascus Falls" and "Holes in the Neocons' Syrian Story."]
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
US-led Coalition "Against ISIS":
Warplanes "Mistakenly" Strike Iraqi
Army Bases in Fallujah, Kill Iraqi Soldiers
FARS News Agency & Global Research
(June 7, 2015) -- The US-led coalition warplanes hit the bases of Iraqi army's Hezbollah battalions in Fallujah in Anbar province, killing 6 soldiers and injuring 8 others. In early May, the anti-ISIL coalition forces struck the position of Iraq's popular forces near Baghdad, killing a number of volunteer forces.
The US-led coalition warplanes hit an arms production workshop of the popular forces near the Iraqi capital, destroying the workshop and its ammunition completely. Two members of Iraq's popular forces were killed in the attack.
The US has repeatedly struck the popular forces' positions in different parts of Iraq. On March 29, the US fighter jets struck the positions of Iraq's popular forces during their fierce clashes with ISIL terrorists near Tikrit, injuring a number of fighters. The US and coalition forces conducted eight airstrikes near Tikrit, but they hit the popular forces' positions instead of ISIL.
In February, an Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that the US airplanes still continue to airdrop weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists.
"The US planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places," Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA. He noted that eyewitnesses in Al-Havijeh of Kirkuk province had witnessed the US airplanes dropping several suspicious parcels for ISIL terrorists in the province.
"Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of Al-Khas in Diyala and they carried the Takfiri terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIL control," Al-Jaberi said.
Meantime, Head of Iraqi Parliament's National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIL coalition's planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL in Salahuddin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces.
In January, al-Zameli underlined that the coalition is the main cause of ISIL's survival in Iraq. "There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition's military aid to ISIL terrorists through air (dropped cargoes)," he told FNA at the time.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.