Without Asking Congress, Obama Puts U.S. Troops on Syria Border : Information Clearing House: ICH

Home

Without Asking Congress, Obama Puts U.S. Troops on Syria Border

By Alex Newman

October 14, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - The Obama administration has now publicly announced that it deployed U.S. troops near the Syrian border in neighboring Jordan without ever seeking congressional permission, supposedly in an effort to help the Jordanian government deal with refugees from Syria while ensuring that the civil war does not spill over into the broader region. Concerns about chemical and biological weapons falling into the “wrong hands” were also cited to justify the latest deployment, but some lawmakers are upset, warning that the U.S. is now even closer to overt military intervention in Syria.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at a NATO conference in Brussels, said the Obama administration had been cooperating closely with the government of Jordan's King Abdullah II. Apparently both sides are concerned that Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles could end up in the hands of al- Qaeda-linked Islamic extremists currently battling the secular Bashar al-Assad regime with support from the Western establishment and assorted Sunni dictatorships.

"We continue to be concerned about security at those sites," Panetta said after the NATO meeting of defense chiefs. "We want to ensure that security is maintained and we want to be very sure that those [weapons] do not fall into the wrong hands." The embattled Syrian dictatorship has reportedly tried to secure its stockpiles, but fears about them remain, especially in neighboring Turkey. "They are obviously concerned about the (weapons storage) sites as well," Panetta said about the Turkish government. "So we've worked with them to do what we can to monitor the situation."

Also part of the U.S. mission, according to officials from both countries, is supporting the Jordanian government. "We have a group of our forces there, working to help them build a headquarters and to ensure that we make the relationship between the United States and Jordan a strong one so we can deal with all of the possible consequences," Panetta explained after the summit. "We've also been working with them to try to develop their own military and operational capabilities in the event of any contingency there."

Numerous reports have suggested small teams of U.S. and Western government forces may already be operating in Syria. It remains unclear exactly how large the now acknowledged U.S. government presence along the Syria-Jordan border may be, but news reports citing officials claimed there were some 150 American Special Operations troops as well as so-called “trainers.” Also uncertain is where the Obama administration believes it found the lawful or constitutional authority to deploy U.S. troops to Jordan or Syria.

Some lawmakers, though, are outraged that the administration apparently thinks it can simply deploy American forces wherever it pleases without even obtaining permission from Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who blasted the decision, also warned that the lawless deployment means the U.S. government is now "immeasurably" closer to being directly and overtly involved in the long-running Syrian war.

"I can see in a moment how it happens: we're a few dozen miles from the Syrian border and all of a sudden we are within the reach of physical danger. All it takes is a single incident," Kucinich told U.S. News, adding that talk of weapons of mass destruction was an argument for trying to reduce the violence rather than intensify it. "Putting U.S. troops on that border draws the U.S. much closer to war in Syria, which is a nightmare already and can be more of a nightmare for our country."

According to Kucinich, who along with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has developed a reputation as one of the fiercest congressional critics of the bi-partisan war-mongering establishment, putting American troops on the border of a conflict area dramatically increases the potential for U.S. involvement. "There's a trail of causality here," he explained.

Despite the recent public announcements, however, American forces have been there for months. In fact, the Obama administration’s military scheming in Jordan related to the Syrian conflict has been underway since at least May. According to news reports, the U.S. government organized a massive “training exercise” with more than 10,000 troops from almost 20 countries in Jordan. American forces remained there after the exercise was finished.

“We have been working closely with our Jordanian partners on a variety of issues related to Syria for some time now,” Pentagon press secretary George Little was quoted as admitting by the New York Times, citing concerns about chemical and biological weapons. “As we’ve said before, we have been planning for various contingencies, both unilaterally and with our regional partners.”

Pointing to previously released “regime change” strategies for Syria developed by the U.S.-based Brookings Institution, analysts said the latest developments are actually part of a broader plan. Essentially, the positioning of American troops in Jordan along Syria’s southern border while Turkish troops and U.S. “intelligence” agencies focus on the northern border is meant to divert the Syrian military’s attention away from its opposition, allowing Western-backed Islamic extremists and rebel forces run wild within the nation.

Other analysts said that the public announcement of U.S. troops in Jordan could be interpreted by the Islamist government in Turkey, which is a member of NATO, as a sign that it should step up its role in supporting rebel groups. Turkish forces have already engaged in multiple cross-border skirmishes with Syrian troops, and observers worry the situation could spiral out of control quickly. Some experts say all-out war could even break out.

The Jordanian government, meanwhile, downplayed the presence of U.S. forces on its soil, claiming it was just an effort to protect citizens. "There are dangers involved, and we have to ensure the safety of our country and the well-being of our citizens," an unnamed “senior government official” told the Associated Press in the first public Jordanian confirmation of the deployment. "We are benefiting from the experience of our allies as we prepare for the worst scenarios."

Estimates suggest 100,000 or more Syrian refugees may already be in Jordan, and many more have fled to other neighboring countries as the conflict intensifies. For over a year and a half, Islamic terrorists seeking Sharia law and opposition forces long backed by the U.S. government have been waging war on the despotic but secular regime of Bashar al-Assad. And as the violence rages, more refugees are expected.

Minority groups and especially Christians, who found one of the region’s final refuges in Syria, have become among the main targets of rebel forces aside from government supporters. Tens of thousands have already poured across the borders seeking shelter, going to Lebanon, Iraq, and other nations.

Western governments and oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes are hoping to oust the Assad dictatorship using mostly proxies on the ground. If all goes as planned, the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated “Syrian National Council” — an umbrella organization with extensive links to the Bilderberg group and the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations — is expected to take over from the current despot. If not, a Brookings Institution report suggested it may be worthwhile for the U.S. government to just “bleed” the Syrian government and leave the nation in disarray.

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, however, have been killed in the crossfire. And the conflict threatens to spark a regional conflagration that could eventually directly involve Western governments, the Iranian regime, the Russian government, the communist Chinese dictatorship, and more. Despite Panetta’s pronouncements, how U.S. troops on the border fit into the picture remains unclear, for now at least, though observers are deeply suspicious.

During the lawless UN-approved war that destroyed Libya, which bears striking parallels to the current tragedy unfolding in Syria, the Obama administration told Congress that it would wage its war no matter what lawmakers thought about it. The Constitution, also disregarded, gives the war-making power to Congress, requiring a formal declaration of war before the president can invade foreign countries or overthrow governments.

Whether President Obama would overtly intervene militarily in the conflict remains to be seen — so far he has indicated publicly that his administration prefers to support rebel forces from a distance. However, as has been the case on numerous occasions throughout U.S. history, one minor incident could change all of that in an instant.

This article was originally posted at The New American

US Deploying Military Personnel to Syrian-Jordanian Border

Part of long-planned attempt to spur defections, divide and destroy Syria, as articulated in Brookings Institution's "Assessing Options for Regime Change."

By Tony Cartalucci

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

For Email Marketing you can trust

Support Information Clearing House

Search Information Clearing House

Please read our Comment Policy before posting -