The Truth Behind the Coming Regime Change in Syria
After
meeting again to decide Syria's fate, the Arab League again decided to
extend its "monitoring mission" in Syria. However, some Arab League
nations under U.S. diplomatic control are clamoring for blood. These
countries — virtual sock puppets of U.S. foreign policy — want to
declare the Arab League monitoring mission "a failure,” so that military
intervention — in the form of a no fly zone — can be used for regime
change.
The United States appears to be using a strategy in Syria that
it has perfected over the years, having succeeded most recently in
Libya: arming small paramilitary groups loyal to U.S. interests that
claim to speak for the native population; these militants then attack
the targeted government the U.S. would like to see overthrown —
including terrorist bombings — and when the attacked government defends
itself, the U.S. cries "genocide" or "mass murder,” while calling for
foreign military intervention.
This is the strategy that the U.S. is using to channel the Arab
Spring into the bloody dead end of foreign military intervention.
For example, the U.S. media and government are fanatically
giving the impression that, in Syria, the native population would like
foreign militarily intervention to overthrow their authoritarian
president, Bashar Assad. But facts are stubborn things.
After spinning these lies, The New York Times was forced to
admit, in several articles, that there have been massive rallies in
Syria in support of the Syrian government. These rallies are larger than
any pro-government demonstration that the U.S. government could hope to
organize for itself. The New York Times reports:
"The turnout [at least tens of thousands — see picture in link]
in Sabaa Bahrat Square in Damascus, the [Syrian] capital, once again
underlined the degree of backing that Mr. Assad and his leadership still
enjoy among many Syrians, nearly seven months into the popular
uprising. That support is especially pronounced in cities like Damascus
and Aleppo, the country’s two largest." (January 13, 2012).
The New York Times is forced to admit that the two largest
cities — in a small country — support the government (or at least oppose
foreign military intervention).
This was further confirmed by a poll funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, preformed by the Doha Debates:
"According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha
Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not
wanting him to resign." (January 2, 2012).
If people in Syria do not want foreign intervention — a likely
reason that so many attended pro-Assad demonstrations — what about the
so-called Free Syrian Army, which the United States has given immense
credibility to and which claims to speak for the Syrian people?
The Free Syrian Army — like its Libyan counterpart — appears to
be yet another Made-in-the-USA militant group, by route of its ally
Turkey, a fact alluded to by the pro U.S.-establishment magazine,
Foreign Affairs:
"Why does the Syrian [government] military not rocket their
[Free Syrian Army] position or launch a large-scale assault? The FSA
fighters are positioned about a mile from the Turkish border, near
enough to escape across if the situation turned dire."
The article also quotes a Free Syrian Army member who states:
"Every [Free Syrian Army] group in Turkey has its own job," Sayeed said.
"[The Turks] gave us our freedom to move." (December 8, 2011).
The article also mentions that the Free Syrian Army is calling
for a "no fly zone" over certain regions of Syria, which would destroy
the Syrian government military; the possible starting locations of this
no fly zone are on the Syrian borders of either Turkey, Jordan, or Iraq —
all three are either strong U.S. allies or client states.
A “no fly zone” is the new euphemism that means the U.S. and its
European military junior partners in NATO will intervene to use their
advanced fighter jets to destroy the Syrian military, as happened in
Libya. In Libya the no fly zone evolved into a “no drive zone” and
eventually a “no survival” zone for anything resembling the Syrian
military — or anybody who armed himself in defense of the Libyan
government.
As in Syria, Libya's largest city, Tripoli, never had large
anti-government demonstrations. The anti-Libyan government, pro-U.S.
paramilitary group that attacked Libyan forces was so tiny that it took
months to take power after 10,000 NATO bombing sorties (bombing
missions) that destroyed large portions of Libya's infrastructure, as
documented by the independent Human Rights Investigations.
It's totally unimaginable that any large section of Syrian
society would invite a NATO-backed no fly zone, i.e. war, into
Syria. The examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are too glaring for
any Middle Eastern nation not to notice. For the Free Syrian Army to
demand a NATO invasion of Syria is enough to label the FSA a U.S. puppet
group striving for political power, deserving to be condemned.
This strategy of using a proxy army to undermine an anti-U.S.
government has a grisly past. This strategy is celebrated in the book
Charlie Wilson's War, which tells the true story of the U.S. government
sending weapons and cash to Islamic extremists to wage a terrorist
campaign against the Afghan government, which was an ally of the Soviet
Union at the time. The attacks eventually led to the Afghan government
asking for Soviet military re-enforcements, whose presence in
Afghanistan created a degree of popular support for the extremists who
eventually became known as the Taliban.
The same scenario also played itself out in Kosovo, where the
tiny, U.S.-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began a terrorist
campaign against the government of Yugoslavia, intending to separate
Kosovo into an independent nation. When the Yugoslav government
attempted to defend itself from the KLA — while imitating its violent
tactics — the U.S. and other western governments labeled it genocide,
and invaded Yugoslavia, calling it a "humanitarian invasion.” To this
day the U.S. is one of few nations that recognizes Kosovo as an
independent nation while Kosovo faithfully serves the interests of the
United States.
The same proxy war strategy — by the U.S. and other European
powers — played a crucial role in numerous wars throughout Africa, which
culminated in the massive Congo War that killed over five million
people, as French journalist Gerard Prunier describes in his book,
Africa's World War.
In Syria history is repeating itself, and some non-U.S. allies are very aware of it. The New York Times reports:
"[Russia's
Foreign Minister] said that foreign governments [the U.S., Turkey,
etc.] were arming ‘militants and extremists’ in Syria."
The Foreign minister also gave an accurate description of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran:
Mr. Lavrov offered a similarly grave message about the
possibility of a military strike against Iran, which he said would be a
“catastrophe.” He said sanctions now being proposed against Tehran were
“intended to have a smothering effect on the Iranian economy and the
Iranian population, probably in the hopes of provoking discontent.”
(January 19, 2012).
Most ominously, the Russian Foreign Minister said that U.S.
foreign policy in Syria and Iran could lead to a "very big war,” i.e., a
war that becomes regional or even international in scope, as other
powers intervene to uphold their interests in the region.
Russia has offered a way to avoid war in Syria and is pursuing
it through the UN Security Council; it is the same path being pursued by
the pro-U.S. government in Yemen: maintaining the current government in
power until elections are called. Unfortunately, Yemen is an ally of
the U.S. and Syria is not — the U.S. and its allies are blocking the
same approach in Syria in order to pursue war.
The Syrian government opposition bloc inside of Syria, the
National Coordination Committee, opposes foreign military
intervention. A leader of the NCC is Hassan Abdul Azim, who wisely
states;
“We refuse on principle any type of military foreign
intervention because it threatens the freedom of our country,” (January
19, 2012).
This is very likely the prevailing opinion inside of Syria,
since the threat of no fly zones will result in the same mass bombings
experienced by the citizens of Tripoli in Libya. The fake Syrian
opposition outside of the country, The Syrian National Council, is yet
another U.S. puppet — now allied with the Free Syrian Army — begging for
a military invasion of Syria in order to "liberate" it. Of course the
western media tells only the perspective of the pro-U.S. Syrian National
Council.
The U.S. has proven on multiple occasions that military
solutions solve nothing, having torn asunder the social fabric of
Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. The working people of Syria and Iran
do not desire "help" from the U.S. government and its allies to prevent
bloodshed. The working people of these countries could liberate
themselves from their authoritarian governments, as did the Tunisians
and Egyptians, which is precisely the point: the U.S. is intervening
militarily to re-gain control over a region that slipped out of its
hands during the Arab Spring. This military approach serves to push the
working people of the targeted country into the hands of their
government while creating a humanitarian catastrophe for the invaded
nation. The working people of the United States have no interest in
aggressive war and have a responsibility to learn about U.S. government
propaganda so that they can demand its end in the streets.
Notes:
