Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Sad Nuclear Anniversary

Brian CLOUGHLEY | 04.08.2015 | 00:00

On 1 September 1939 - the date of the beginning of the Second World War - the President of the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote to «the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty» saying that «The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centres of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenceless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity».
He was rightly appalled about the aerial slaughter of civilians and desired each country to which he addressed his appeal «to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents».
We are now marking the seventieth anniversary of the explosion of the atomic bombs that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and Nagasaki three days later, killing a total of over 100,000 «defenceless men, women, and children,» prompting the nuclear scientist Robert Oppenheimer to quote from the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu religious and philosophical text, that «Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds».
Development of the atomic bomb began in 1939 but went into high gear as the Manhattan Project three years later. What is intriguing is that President Roosevelt approved the programme on 9 October 1941, a full two months before the Japanese attacked America at Pearl Harbor killing 2,403 people — including civilians. The subsequent declaration of war by the US resulted in concentration on means of war-winning by any means, and resulted in development of the ultimate weapon.
Even before the atomic explosions it was apparent that the major nations involved in the Second World War had no qualms about inflicting devastation. The British considered that their «aim is, therefore, twofold: namely, to produce (i) destruction, and (ii) the fear of death» and to that end mercilessly bombed German cities. The rationale was that it was the Germans who started it and who in 1940-41 subjected London to a non-stop 60 days and nights of aerial bombardment that killed 30,000 people.
In a macabre game of explosive ping-pong the countries at war sought more and deadlier ways to wreak havoc on their opponents, and it would have been difficult to have found a citizen of any of these countries who would have failed to agree with the actions of their government. It was thus that Project Manhattan received its massive impetus, and in an amazing display of technical prowess and organisational proficiency its scientists designed and produced the Atom Bomb.
It was astonishing that President Roosevelt had not told his Vice-President, Harry Truman, one single thing about the bomb project which some well-informed people believed was a potentially catastrophic venture. The first bomb was tested on 16 July 1945 at Alamogordo in New Mexico and caused concern among the scientists who had been involved in its development, 70 of whom sent a letter to President Roosevelt pointing out that use of the atomic bomb would likely presage «an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale» and that «a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale».
Their letter wasn’t allowed to reach the President. He never knew of its existence, but in any event was convinced that the A-bomb was essential and had written to Oppenheimer, who had grave doubts about the military’s attitude to nuclear developments, that «whatever the enemy may be planning, American science will be equal to the challenge». The Bomb was going to be used, no matter the consequences, although the president who gave the order to drop the bombs in August 1945 was Harry Truman, who learned of the project’s existence on 13 April 1945, the day after Roosevelt died.
As recorded by Eric Schlosser in his edifying bookCommand and Control, there had been air attacks on Japan of staggering intensity in the months before the atom bombs were employed. On the night of 9 March 1945, for example, «American planes struck Tokyo with 2,000 tons of bombs containing napalm and jellied gasoline... Within hours the firestorm consumed one quarter of the city. It killed about 100,000 civilians... «Worse was yet to come because Truman icily warned that the Japanese «may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth».
There were not many large concentrations of Japanese that had not been subjected to firebombing, and choosing the ultimate victims was not easy. Kyoto was removed from the list of four targets because the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, pointed out that it was a major cultural centre of great importance to Japanese art and history — and Nagasaki was chosen instead. By such decisions are the fates of human beings decided. Countless thousands of Kyoto citizens were spared, but 39,000 in Nagasaki were condemned to death.
First came Hiroshima, where on 6 August «a firestorm engulfed the city» and 66,000 people were killed. Next on the target list was Kokura, and in yet another horrible twist of fate the city was covered in smoke and haze and the plane was diverted to Nagasaki where the second bomb, hideously named Fat Man, was dropped on 9 August.
The war against Japan then ended, but it should be remembered that between the destruction of the two cities there was a Charter was being approved, on 8 August in the German city of Nuremburg, signed by the victorious allies, that included guidelines for the forthcoming trial of German war criminals by the International Military Tribunal. In an alarming example of double standards, the judges were informed that «The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility... (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include... wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages». It did not include the words of President Roosevelt, that it was sickening to «undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities,» but made it clear that such attacks were against the laws of war.
The Nuremburg Charter guided the conviction of German war criminals, and it is hideous coincidence that it was signed at the very time when «Death, the destroyer of worlds» was thundering down on Japan in what Truman called «a rain of ruin from the air».
Which goes to show that justice is reserved for those who win wars.

mh17-pilots-corpse-more-on-the-cover-up

Einspruch gegen friedenspolitische Zwiespältigkeit zum 70. Jahrestag der US-Atombombenabwürfe


70. Jahrestage der Atombomben auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki Statt atomarem Nachrüsten ein Zeichen der Abrüstung setzen
Im gegenwärtig eskalierenden West-Ost-Konflikt agieren die Mächte wieder verstärkt mit ihren Atomwaffen*. Und von Deeskalation keine Spur: So führt die NATO Manöver mit Atomwaffen(-attrappen) bzw. atomwaffenfähigen Flugzeugen in Polen durch. Der Ausbau des US-Raketenschildes gegen eine russische nukleare Zweitschlagskapazität wird weiter voran getrieben. Zugleich bringen Moskauer Diplomaten das russische Atomwaffenpotenzial zur Sprache und Präsident Putin setzt Truppenteile, wie die Nordmeerflotte, in volle Einsatzbereitschaft und erweitert gegen den Raketenschild den Bestand an strategischen Trägersystemen.**
Immer noch sind ca. 1.800 Atomwaffen in höchster Alarmbereitschaft. Sie könnten binnen weniger Minuten zum Einsatz kommen und eine globale Katastrophe auslösen. Wir wissen heute, dass die Welt seit dem Ersteinsatz von Atomwaffen vor 70 Jahren mehrmals nur knapp einem nuklearen Inferno entkommen ist. Die Friedensbewegung warnt vor einer Entwicklung, die die Welt erneut unter das Damoklesschwert absichtlicher oder versehentlicher atomarer Zerstörung bringt.
Der Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag und die Kooperation für den Frieden solidarisieren sich mit allen nationalen und internationalen Aktionen und Kampagnen, die diese Jahrestage zum Anlass nehmen, um auf die Grundsatzforderungen hinzuweisen: Statt weiterer Rüstung und Modernisierung der Atomwaffen muss es einen Einstieg in ihre international verhandelte Verschrottung geben.
Um sich auf diesen Weg zu machen, stellen wir folgende Forderungen an die deutsche Bundesregierung:
  •   einen aktiven Beitrag zum „Miteinander reden“ der Konfliktparteien in Osteuropa (Ukraine, Russland, Baltikum u.a.) zu leisten, um damit die steigende Gefahr des Einsatzes von Atomwaffen herabzusetzen;
  •   den Abzug aller US-Atomwaffen aus Deutschland (am Standort Büchel) durchzusetzen und auf die „nukleare Teilhabe“ Deutschlands innerhalb der Nato zu verzichten;
  •   die Unterzeichnung des von der österreichischen Regierung entwickelten Plans für einen völkerrechtlich verbindlichen Vertrag, Atomwaffen zu verbieten („Humanitarian Pledge“), der bisher schon von 108 Regierungen unterstützt wird.
    Es bleibt dabei: Die Eliminierung der Atomwaffen ist ein unerlässlicher Beitrag zu einer Welt in Frieden!
    Es bleibt dabei: Nur eine Welt ohne Atomwaffen kann eine friedliche sein!
    Wir rufen friedensbewegte Menschen in Frankfurt auf, die Gedenktage der Atombomben- abwürfe auf die japanischen Städte Hiroshima und Nagasaki zum Anlass zu nehmen, ihre Ablehnung von Krieg und Rüstung sichtbar in die Öffentlichkeit zu tragen.
Hiroshima- und Nagasaki-Gedenken
am Donnerstag, den 6. August 2015 um 17:00 Uhr auf dem Römerberg

V.i.S.d.P.: Willi van Ooyen, Friedens- und Zukunftswerkstatt e. V. c/o Gewerkschaftshaus Frankfurt, Wilhelm.-Leuschner-Str. 69, 60329 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: 069 – 24249950, E-Mail: frieden-und-zukunft@t-online.de
page1image23848
Weitere Infos: www.frieden-und-zukunft.de
____

* Welche Mächte? Wieder Angreifer und potentielle Opfer auf eine Stufe geatellt.
** Darf Russland sich nicht gegen die die größten NATO-Manöver aller Zeiten an seiner Grenze wehren?
page1image24536

LUFTPOST Kaiserslautern/Ramstein - höchst wichtige Informationsquelle für Friedensarbeiter

luftpost-logo
Friedenspolitische Mitteilungen
aus der US-Militärregion Kaiserslautern/Ramstein
STARTSEITELuftpost 2004 - 2014

 2013f201220112010200920082007200620052004

 2015

12 Info-Tafeln zur US Air Base Ramstein
Kurzinfo über die Air Base Ramstein der U.S. Air Force 
Wir rufen mit auf zu der Kampagne: Stopp Ramstein: Kein Drohnenkrieg! "Von deutschem Boden darf nie wieder Krieg ausgehen"
Ehemalige US-Geheimdienstler fordern den Präsidenten Obama erneut auf, endlich die geheimdienstlichen Erkenntnisse über den Abschuss des Fluges MH-17 zu veröffentlichen. 
Ein Dokumentarfilm weist nach, dass die Story über die "serbischen Konzentrationslager in Bosnien" auf gefälschten Bildern beruhte.
Während in der Ostukraine immer wieder Kampfhandlungen aufflammen, spielen auf dem ukrainischen Truppenübungsplatz Jawirow an der polnisch-ukrainischen Grenze unter Führung der U.S. Army in Europa Soldaten aus 18 Staaten Krieg. 
Die U.S. Army in Europa hat in Moldawien ein Manöver durchgeführt, an dem auch Soldaten aus Moldawien und Georgien beteiligt waren, die beide nicht der NATO angehören. 
Der US-Autor Mike Whitney untersucht, warum die Obama-Regierung dem Atomabkommen mit dem Iran doch noch zugestimmt hat.

Kampagne Stopp Ramstein: Kein Drohnenkrieg!

„Von deutschem Boden darf nie wieder Krieg ausgehen.“

Aufruf

Der US-Militärstützpunkt Ramstein ist ein zentrales Drehkreuz für die Vorbereitung und Durchführung völkerrechtwidriger Angriffskriege. Die meisten tödlichen Einsätze US-amerikanischer Kampfdrohnen, u.a. in Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jemen, Syrien und Afrika, werden über die Satellitenrelaisstation auf der US-Air-Base Ramstein durchgeführt.
US-Drohnenpiloten auf verschiedensten Militärbasen nutzen Ramstein für die Steuerung der Killerdrohnen in weltweiten und illegalen Kriegseinsätzen. In Ramstein analysieren und aktualisieren ca. 650 MitarbeiterInnen ständig die Überwachungsdaten der vermeintlichen Zielpersonen und leiten ihre Daten dann weiter.
Die US-Regierung hat mittels Drohnen in Pakistan, Jemen und Somalia fast 5000 Menschen außergerichtlich getötet sowie über 13.000 im Afghanistan-Krieg. Ungezählte Opfer gab es durch US-Drohnen im Irak, in Syrien und in Libyen. Die große Mehrzahl der Opfer waren Unbeteiligte wie Frauen, Kinder und alte Menschen. Die Mordbefehle werden per Joystick über die Satelliten-Relaisstation in Ramstein an die jeweiligen Drohnen übermittelt. Ohne Ramstein würde der gesamte Drohnenkrieg auf unbestimmte Zeit empfindlich behindert.
Zugleich war Ramstein logistisch unverzichtbar für die Durchführung des brutalen US/NATO-Kriegs in Afghanistan und des US-Angriffskriegs in Irak. Gleiches gilt für drohende US-Interventionskriege, einschließlich an den Grenzen zu Russland.
Die Komponenten des US-Raketenabwehrschildes sind in verschiedenen NATO-Staaten stationiert, eine seiner Befehlszentralen ist in das AIRCOM, das Hauptquartier aller NATO-Luftwaffen, auf der US-Air Base Ramstein integriert.
Außergerichtliches Töten von BürgerInnen anderer Staaten auf deren Territorien verstößt nicht nur gegen die Menschenrechts-Charta der UNO und gegen das Völkerrecht, sondern auch – wenn das Verbrechen von deutschem Hoheitsgebiet ausgeht – gegen unser Grundgesetz. Das wollen wir nicht länger hinnehmen, weder das illegale Treiben der USA in Deutschland noch deren Völkerrechtsverbrechen von deutschem Boden aus, noch deren Unterstützung durch die Bundesregierung.
Wir fordern daher vom Deutschen Bundestag und von der Bundesregierung, den USA die Nutzung von Ramstein als Basis zur Drohnenkriegsführung zu verbieten und die Satelliten-Relaisstation zu schließen, zugleich selbst auf die Anschaffung von Kampfdrohnen für die Bundeswehr zu verzichten und die Einführung von Kampfrobotern im Militär zu ächten, sowie die illegalen Ausspähpraktiken der NSA in Zusammenarbeit mit dem BND, wofür Ramstein ein Kristallisationspunkt ist, zu beenden.
Ohne persönlichen Einsatz und demonstrative Aktionen kann die brandgefährliche Militärpolitik der Bundesregierung und die Kriegshandlungen der US/NATO nicht gestoppt werden.
Deswegen rufen wir im Rahmen einer längerfristigen und umfassenden Kampagne auf zur Demonstration und Kundgebung vor der Air Base Ramstein am 26.09.15 sowie zu einer großen öffentlichen Veranstaltung in Kaiserslautern am 25.09. und einem Auswertungs- und Zukunftstreffen am 26.09. abends.

ErstunterzeichnerInnen (Stand 30.07.15)(Organisations-Zugehörigkeiten dienen nur der Information)
Roland Blach (DFG-VK Baden-Württemberg); Reiner Braun (IALANA); Monique Broquard (NaturFreunde Saarland); Dr. Diether Dehm (MdB, Liedermacher, Schatzmeister der Europäischen Linkspartei); Dr. Sabine Farrouh (IPPNW); Leonore Fuger (Mahnwache Berlin); Wolfgang Gehrcke (MdB, DIE LINKE); Karin Gottlieb(Freidenkerverband Rheinland-Pfalz/Saarland); Toni Große (Friedensforum Erfurt, Friedenskreis Wanfried); Andreas Grünwald (Hamburger Forum für Völkerverständigung und weltweite Abrüstung); Klaus Hartmann(Deutscher Freidenker-Verband); Claudia Haydt (IMI); Klothilde Hinz (VVN/BdA Kreisvereinigung Bad Kreuznach); Inge Höger (MdB, DIE LINKE); Willi Hoffmeister (Ostermarsch Rhein Ruhr); Andrej Hunko (MdB, DIE LINKE); Matthias Jochheim (IPPNW); Peter Jüriens (Mahnwache Bochum, Friedenskreis Wanfried); Wolfgang Jung (LUFTPOST); Kristine Karch (No to War – No to NATO); Hans Georg Klee (OCCUPEACE München); Dr. Ansgar Klein (Aachener AG „Frieden jetzt!“); Helene Klein (Würselener Initiative für den Frieden); Anna Kowalke(Mahnwache Berlin); Bruno Kramm (Piratenpartei Berlin); Sabine Leidig (MdB, DIE LINKE); Ekkehard Lentz(Bremer Friedensforum); Ulrich Lenz (Jenny Marx Gesellschaft für politische Bildung e.V. Rheinland-Pfalz) Manfred Lotze (IPPNW); Pascal Luig (NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative – Verantwortung für Frieden und Zukunftsfähigkeit); Jürgen Lutterkordt (Bildung für Frieden e.V., RegenbogenTv, Friedenskreis Wanfried); Prof. Dr. Mohssen Massarrat (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Attac); Prof. Dr. Maria Mies (international bekannte Autorin, Ökofeministin, Friedensaktivistin); Dr. Amir Mortasawi (Arzt, Autor); Albrecht Müller (NachDenkSeiten); Michael Müller (NaturFreunde Deutschlands); Mike Nagler (Attac); Dr. Alexander Neu (MdB, DIE LINKE); Prinz Chaos II (Liedermacher); Doris Pumphrey (Antikriegsaktivistin); George Pumphrey (Antikriegsaktivist); Christiane Reymann (Autorin); Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf (Politikwissenschaftler, Friedensforscher); Rainer Rupp(Autor); Dr. Sabine Schiffer (Institut für Medienverantwortung); Torsten Schleip (DFG-VK Landesverband Ost); Pedram Shahyar (Redner Mahnwache); Fee Strieffler (Ramsteiner Appell); Tanja Tede (Heidelberg zieht in den Frieden); Hannelore Tölke (Landessprecherin DFG-VK NRW); Bernhard Trautvetter (GEW, Friedensaktivist); Alexander Ulrich (MdB, DIE LINKE); Kathrin Vogler (MdB, DIE LINKE); Peter Wahl (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Attac); Renate Wanie (Mitarbeiterin Werkstatt für Gewaltfreie Aktion); Gunda Weidmüller (AGORA Hamburg); Jens Wernicke (NachDenkSeiten); Lucas Wirl (NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative – Verantwortung für Frieden und Zukunftsfähigkeit)

HERE IS WHY WE DO HAVE TO SIDE WITH ANTI-IMPERIALIST FORCES:

Obama’s “Regime Change” Strategy: How US Allies Aid Al Qaeda in Syria


 2 
  0  0 

  7
Al-Qaeda militants kill 24 civilians near Ras al-Ain
The dirty secret about the Obama administration’s “regime change” strategy in Syria is that it amounts to a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front which is driving toward a possible victory with direct and indirect aid from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, as Daniel Lazare explains.
When the U.S. and Turkey announced on July 23 that they were joining forces to establish a “safe zone” in northern Syria, no one could quite figure out what they meant. With the White House denying that the deal required it to send in troops to seal the zone off or warplanes to patrol the skies, Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin wrote that the whole thing was misnomer: “In fact, there is really no ‘zone,’ and there is no plan to keep the area ‘safe.’”
Indeed, Rogin said, three “senior administration officials” had put together a conference call in order to assure reporters that there were no plans “for a safe zone, a no-fly zone, an air-exclusionary zone, a humanitarian buffer zone, or any other protected zone of any kind.” So if that wasn’t the plan, what on earth was it?
President and Mrs. Obama disembark from Air Force One at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh on Jan. 27, 2015, for a state visit to Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President and Mrs. Obama disembark from Air Force One at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh on Jan. 27, 2015, for a state visit to Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Now we know. The purpose of the non-zone zone that Turkey and the U.S. may or may not wish to establish is to give the former a free hand to bomb the Kurds and the latter an opportunity to engage in joint operations with Al Qaeda.
The proof? A front-page article in the Aug. 1 New York Times reporting that a U.S.-trained rebel unit, known as Division 30, which had been sent into Syria to combat ISIS, had come “under intense attack on Friday from a different hardline Islamist faction … the Nusra Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda.”
This is no big news in itself since the Syrian opposition’s myriad rebel factions, one more hardline than the next, are constantly battling one another for control of arms, territory, resources and personnel. But what was new was the fact that the trainees had been caught off guard.
As The Times’s Anne Bernard and Eric Schmitt reported: “American military trainers … did not anticipate an assault from the Nusra Front. In fact, officials said on Friday, they expected the Nusra Front to welcome Division 30 as an ally in its fight against the Islamic State. ‘This wasn’t supposed to happen like this,’ said one former senior American official.”
In other words, Defense Department officials expected Al Nusra to see Division 30 as friends and were perplexed when it didn’t. The Americans “had no known plans to fight the Nusra Front,” the Times went on, adding that, while “allied with Al Qaeda,” Nusra “is seen by many insurgents in Syria as preferable to the Islamic State, and it sometimes cooperates with other less radical groups against both the Islamic State and Syrian government forces.”
According to the London Independent, a “distraught” Division 30 commander whom it managed to catch up with in Turkey said that he and one of the captured trainees had actually met with an Al Nusra leader ten days earlier to work out a truce. “They said that if even one bullet reached them, they would attack us, but we assured them we were there only to fight Daesh [i.e. ISIS],” he said.
But even though Division 30 had kept its part of the bargain, Al Nusra was now beating the captured trainees and parading them in the hot afternoon sun with their shirts pulled over their heads while Al Nusra fighters accused them of “collaborat[ing] with the crusader coalition.”
So when the New York Times announced that the U.S.-Turkish plan “would create what officials from both countries are calling an Islamic State-free zone controlled by relatively moderate Syrian insurgents,” it’s now clear who those “moderates” are: Al Nusra. The zone would be safe for U.S.-trained forces, which numbered only around 60 fighters prior to last week’s attack, but it would be mainly safe for the much larger and more powerful Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.
Teaming Up with Al Qaeda?
The U.S. teaming up with Al Qaeda – how can this be? Although the press doesn’t like to talk about it, there in fact has hardly been a moment in recent history when the U.S. has not worked hand in glove with the most dangerous fundamentalist forces.
It goes all the way back to President Dwight Eisenhower who, as Ian Johnson noted in his excellent book, A Mosque in Munich (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010), was always eager “to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect” in his talks with Muslims leaders according to an internal White House memo and, when informed that jihad might be directed against Israel, replied that the Saudis had assured him that it would only be used against the Soviets.
More recently, President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski opted to put the Eisenhower Doctrine to the test by channeling money and arms to Afghan mujahedeen battling a Soviet-backed government in Kabul. The effort, which eventually – under President Ronald Reagan – morphed into a $20-billion-plus joint operation by the Saudis and CIA, no doubt contributed to the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Brzezinski’s top priority.
But it also destroyed Afghan society, paved the way for the Taliban takeover in 1996, gave rise to Al Qaeda, and, of course, led directly to the destruction of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.
The U.S. may have backed off thereafter, although it continued to maintain close relations with Saudi Arabia, which, according to Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “twentieth hijacker,” maintained close ties with Osama bin Laden right up to the eve of 9/11. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]
But by 2007, as Seymour Hersh argued not at all implausibly in The New Yorker, the Saudis had succeeded in convincing the Bush administration to concentrate on battling Shi‘ite forces instead. This meant not only lightening up on Al Qaeda, but cooperating with increasing militant Sunni groups in order to pursue the fight against Hezbollah and other such Shi’te forces.
The consequences have grown more and more evident ever since the Arab Spring caught up with the Assad family dictatorship in February 2011. Washington’s pro-Sunni orientation required that it ignore reports that the radical-Sunni Muslim Brotherhood was dominating the protests, which were taking on an ugly and bigoted anti-Shi‘ite and anti-Christian coloration as the Assads – who are of Shi‘ite origin but otherwise non-sectarian – struggled to maintain control.
When fighting broke out, the “re-direction,” as Hersh called it, also required that the U.S. steer money and aid to Sunni rebels and even that it rely on the Muslim Brotherhood, according to theTimes, to determine which groups were deserving and which were not.
In order to rein in the Shi‘ites, the U.S. thus threw its weight behind ultra-Sunni Saudi Arabia and its program of bloody sectarian warfare. As Vice President Joe Biden put it at Harvard’s Kennedy School last October, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states “were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
In August 2012, a Defense Intelligence Agency noted that Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and assorted Salafists were “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria”; that the Western powers, the gulf states, and the Turks were solidly behind the uprising; that Al Qaeda was seeking to use the revolt to unite all Sunnis in a general anti-Shi‘ite jihad; that the holy warriors were likely to establish “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,” and that “this is exactly what the supporting powers want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Although the consequences would be disastrous for Syria’s Christian, Druze and Alawite-Shi‘ite minorities, the U.S. went along and the mainstream press supplied the all-important cover-up.
A Non-Aggression Pact
The non-aggression pact that Defense Department thought it had hammered out with Al Nusra is the latest step in this strategy. While the Obama administration claims to be battling ISIS, its attitude toward the hyper-brutal group is more ambiguous than it lets on. The U.S. only raised the alarm when ISIS invaded Iraq in June 2014 and began threatening the American-backed government in Baghdad.
Before then, the U.S. was content to sit back and watch while ISIS made life miserable for Assad and the Baathists in Damascus. Turkey claims to oppose ISIS as well even though it has allowed Daesh to turn its 550-mile border with Syria into “an open highway for jihadists from around the world.”
After ISIS bombed a left-wing, pro-Kurdish rally in the border town of Suruç, killing 32 people and injuring more than a hundred, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to get tough. But instead of ISIS, he got tough with the Kurds, bombing targets in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey associated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) even though the PKK, along with its Syrian branch, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) is one of the few effective anti-ISIS forces in the field.
As Reuters observed, “Turkey’s assaults on the PKK have so far been much heavier than its strikes against Islamic State, fueling suspicions that its real agenda is keeping Kurdish political and territorial ambitions in check.”
Indeed, Erdogan’s agenda may be even more convoluted than that since striking out at the PKK may serve to undermine the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP), which, after an impressive 13-percent showing in June’s elections, poses a growing danger to his rule.
Further, Turkey and other U.S. allies in the region have packaged their attacks on the most effective anti-ISIS forces as indirect ways to undermine ISIS. Turkey offers the curious belief that the best way to defeat ISIS is by defeating the Kurds.
Similarly, Saudi Arabia claims the best way to defeat ISIS is by toppling Assad since his determination to remain in power is supposedly what fuels Sunni anger, which in turn fuels the growth of ISIS. This rationale holds that even though Assad’s Syrian Arab Army is one of the few bulwarks against an ISIS victory, defeating Assad is suppose to somehow spell doom for ISIS.
Another country that claims to want to see ISIS go down in flames is Israel, except that whenever it intervenes in the Syrian civil war, it ends up bombing Assad’s forces and their Shi’ite allies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iranian military advisers.
So, everyone claims to want to defeat ISIS, yet everyone bombs precisely those forces that are working to stop ISIS. Of course, the most convoluted agenda of all is that of the U.S. The Obama administration seems to believe that defeating ISIS is the top goal, except when it says that priority number one is overthrowing Assad.
As the Times blandly puts it with regard to units like Division 30: “The training [of Division 30 to combat ISIS] is often at cross-purposes with a covert C.I.A. training program for fighters battling Syrian security forces. Toppling Mr. Assad was the original goal of the Syrian revolt, before the Islamic State sprang from its most extreme Islamist wing.” (However, the actual history of ISIS is that it emerged from the Sunni resistance to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, originally calling itself “Al Qaeda in Iraq” before joining the war against Assad and taking the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” or simply the “Islamic State.”)
What’s the Priority?
Based on recent developments, one might ask: is toppling Assad yesterday’s top goal superseded by today’s top goal of defeating ISIS – or is it the other way around? Meanwhile, the U.S. policy is to bomb ISIS whenever possible except when it is engaged in battle with Syrian government forces, at which point the U.S. policy is to hold off.
Explained the Times’s Anne Bernard: “In Syria, a new awkwardness arises. Any airstrikes against Islamic State militants in and around Palmyra would probably benefit the forces of President Bashar al-Assad. So far, United States-led airstrikes in Syria have largely focused on areas far outside government control, to avoid the perception of aiding a leader whose ouster President Obama has called for.”
In other words, the U.S. bombs ISIS except when it might help the most potent force fighting ISIS. Washington is also at war with Al Nusra – sometimes. In early July, for instance, a U.S. air strike killed seven Al Nusra members in Idlib Province in northern Syria. But America’s neocons disapprove of such strikes because they may indirectly benefit Assad’s forces.
Neocons were gleeful when a Nusra-led coalition swept through Idlib in April with support from the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army, while the administration remained conspicuously silent about the large numbers of U.S.-made TOW missiles – almost certainly supplied by the Saudis – that provided Al Nusra with a critical edge. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda.”]
So the U.S. opposes Al Nusra except when it supports it. Indeed, just about every player in the Middle East is busy playing both sides of the fence, which is why ISIS and Al Qaeda are doing so well.
As Karl Sharro, a Lebanese architect turned political satirist, noted: “Obama is an astute strategist. His plan centers on supporting Kurdish factions as he also supports Turkey which is now attacking the Kurds while also supporting Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen which upsets Iran whom U.S. forces are collaborating with in fighting ISIS in Iraq as he simultaneously yields to pressure from allies to weaken Assad in Syria which complicates things further with Iran which he pacifies by signing the nuclear deal upsetting America’s traditional friend Israel whose anger is absorbed with shipments of advanced weapons escalating the arms race in the region.”
Exactly. It would all be quite funny if the consequences – 220,000 deaths in Syria, millions more displaced, plus widespread destruction in Yemen where nightly Saudi air raids are now in their sixth month – weren’t so tragic.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).