Without
Asking Congress, Obama Puts U.S. Troops on Syria Border This article was originally posted at The New American
US Deploying Military
Personnel to Syrian-Jordanian Border Video: Geopolitical analyst and photojournalist Nile Bowie brings up long-documented plans by the West to carve out "buffer zones" within Syria to further project power against Damascus, betraying the narrative that recent escalations are spontaneous
....
October 11, 2012 -
While the idea of a buffer zone is meant to look like a
knee-jerk reaction to recent escalations, in reality
this has been planned since at least March 2012, where
the idea was proposed by the corporate-financier funded
Brookings Institution in their "Middle East Memo #21" "Assessing
Options for Regime Change" where it stated
specifically (emphasis added): "An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: The
Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing
Options for Regime Change (.pdf),"
makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to
protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime
change.
....
Brookings continues by
describing how Turkey's aligning of vast amounts of
weapons and troops along its border in coordination with
Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, could help effect
violent regime change in Syria:
In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Foreign troops in Jordan,
including US troops, may be playing a role in providing
additional pressure south of Syria while Turkey attempts
to pressure Syria from the north. The idea is to stretch
out Syrian forces, relieving NATO-backed terrorists
operating within the country. Of course, while the
Western media claims these are merely troops helping
with "humanitarian" concerns, they are undoubtedly doing
all in their power to present Syria with a credible
threat to force Syria to divide its troops, while
attempting to stoke paranoia and panic in the minds of
Syrian officers and politicians the West hopes to lure
into defecting.
In response, Syria and its
allies must provide a mutually convincing deterrent
against this build-up and the threat it is meant to
generate. With the fact that the West is openly arming,
funding, and backing terrorists groups linked directly
to Al Qaeda, not only in Syria,
but in Libya, as well as their recent announcement
of the
delisting of terror group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK),
it would not be difficult for Syria's allies to build up
international support to send a monitoring group, only
upon Damascus' request, to address in reality the
humanitarian concerns on Syria's borders the West is
only feigning to address. The presence of this
monitoring group, which might include armed elements,
would raise the stakes for Western policy makers and
their proxies, and would discourage the influx of
weapons and foreign fighters that have been costing
Syrians their lives for over a year.
US policy openly states
that it would prefer "bleeding" Syria to death over the
long term, even if it could not succeed in exacting
regime change, thus betraying their narrative of
attempting to end a "humanitarian" crisis.
On pages 8 and 9, the US
Brookings Institution's "Middle East Memo #21" "Assessing
Options for Regime Change" it specifically states:
"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention." -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Clearly, the West's
"humanitarian concerns" are a poorly dressed pretext for
the absolute destruction of Syria through the
intentional prolonging of violence and its ravaging
effects for as long as possible. Clearly those
implicated in this conspiracy demonstrably being carried
out by the US, UK, France, NATO and its Persian Gulf
allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, should play no further
role in attempting to resolve violence in Syria they
admit to starting and seeking to indefinitely
perpetuate. This role should be granted instead to
a growing, multipolar effort being led by Russia,
Iran, and China.
The failure of
international law is now on full display in Syria. With
Western nations clearly dominating the United Nation's
agenda, and the supranational institutions that surround
it, overt criminal conspiracies have been allowed to
unfold not only without consequence, but without even
simple condemnation. The US in particular, through its
policy think-tank Brookings Institution, has put to
paper designs to perpetuate a humanitarian catastrophe
indefinitely - not to protect civilian life, but simply
to achieve a self-serving geopolitical objective - "to
keep a regional adversary weak." An alternative must be
found, one based on the unwavering primacy of national
sovereignty, not international law, where
extraterritorial transgressions like those committed by
the West toward Syria can never be justified nor
tolerated.
This article was originally posted at Land Destroyer Scroll down to add / read comments
|
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |