The truth at any cost lowers all other costs — curated by former US spy Robert David Steele.
US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video)
See Also:
Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghan Quagmire
With American and NATO combat troops scheduled to depart Afghanistan next year, the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan has become more important than ever. It is a complex and complicated nexus. Without doubt, Pakistan and its intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of the army (ISI), have more influence over the Taliban than any other country or intelligence service. It provides critical safe haven and sanctuary to the groups’ leadership, advice on military and diplomatic issues, and assistance with fund raising. But its influence is not complete, and whether it could persuade the Taliban to settle for a political settlement in Afghanistan, is unclear at best.
Pakistan’s Support for Survival and Revival of the Taliban
Continue reading “Bruce Reidel: Pakistan Beats USA 12 Years In a Row”
The Kosovo Precedent
Syria in the Crosshair
by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY, Counterpunch, 27 August 2013
http://www.counterpunch.org/
I found it truly scary to read that some high officials in the Obama Administration are so disconnected from reality that they consider the 1999 war in Kosovo to be a precedent for justifying limited cruise missile strikes in Syria.
The inestimable Diana Johnstone ably dissected the illegalities and subterfuges of the Kosovo adventure in numerous articles over the years — her latest being “US Uses Past Crimes to Legalize Future Ones” on 26 August in Counterpunch.
Today, I want to address the stupidity of the Kosovo precedent from a somewhat different angle.
Not only was the Kosovo adventure illegal, it was also a case study in the failure of US precision strike doctrine. One would think the Obama White House would be sensitive to this, because the reasons for the failure are again evident in the metastasizing targets lists governing the conduct of the drone wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
The “humanitarian” drumbeat for launching yet another Middle Eastern war against the Assad regime in Syria is increasing. Here are three reports that may help you think about the war question:
Attachment I, Syria crisis: US signals intent to take action against Assad regime (Guardian 26 August) lays out the case for attacking Syria as enunciated by Secretary of State John Kerry.
In Attachment II, US Set to Launch ‘Iraq, The Sequel', in Syria (Ron Paul Institute, 24 August), my friend Daniel McAdams lays out an argument against intervention.
Think about the points made in these opposing views. Decide which you agree most with.
Now read Attachment III, Gangs of Latakia: The Militiafication of the Assad Regime (Syria Comment Blog, 24 July).
Aron Lund describes the situation in Syria, with special attention to the evolving decentralization of Assad regime into a loose confederation of pro-regime militias, with overlapping but sometimes competing agendas. While most readers are probably familiar with the confused nature of the competing rebel militias, the militiaization of the Assad regime and what it means for his ability to control events (like the employment of chemical weapons)is not well understood and almost never discussed in the mainstream media.
Although I lean toward McAdams argument, I submit that it does not really matter, because if Lund’s analysis is half-way close to being correct, the rational case against intervention wins hands down, for one simple reason: Questions of war or peace should not be determined by the arrogance of ignorance.
Continue reading “Chuck Spinney: Blindly Against Syria, Another War”
Syrian Attack By US Within 48 Hours?
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
Readout Of Secret Talks Between Putin And Saudi Intelligence Chief
See Also (from 4th Media):
Lavrov Warns against NATO Military Action as UN Inspectors Were Targeted by Snipers
Iran Warns against Military Intervention in Syria
President Bashar al-Assad: “Syria Will Never Become a Western Puppet State”
26 August 2013
Syria: Update. UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said on Monday. “I just spoke to my Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament, Ms. Angela Kane, who is now in Damascus to oversee the investigation. The first day of investigation was carried out by Dr. Sellstrom and his team,” said Ban in a statement issued by his spokesperson.
“What I am told at this time is that their vehicle was attacked by an unknown sniper, but despite such very difficult circumstances, our team returned to Damascus and replaced their car and proceeded to a suburb of Damascus to carry on their investigation.”
According to the statement, during their first day of investigation, the UN experts “visited two hospitals,” “interviewed witnesses, survivors and doctors” and also “collected some samples” at the site of the latest alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in the suburbs of Damascus.
Special comment. The question whether Syria used some form of chemical weapons against the opposition has moved beyond the domain of intelligence judgment into the domain of forensic science. Stentorian statements about blame before the facts are adduced are imprudent except as political theater. Now is the time for proof, not for bombast. It is time for patience while science does its work.
Inferences of guilt derived from judgments about how Syrian leaders should behave if they wanted to prove they did not execute a chemical attack indulge the most basic and persistent reason for US intelligence analytical failures: mirror imaging, i.e., the notion that Syrian leaders would act the way Americans might act under similar circumstances. Arabs seldom behave the way Americans behave.
The initial burden of proving an accusation always is on the party that makes the accusation. In this instance it is the Syrian opposition, whose evidence to date in the public domain falls short of establishing a prime facie case that a weapon of mass destruction was used. Something happened, but what remains to be determined.
The mainstream press has insisted that the Syrian government must prove it did not execute a chemical attack. However, elementary evidence law courses all over the world teach that it is impossible to prove a negative. Everyone knows that! Somehow the mainstream press persists in getting this entirely wrong.
The open source evidence and Feedback from Brilliant, Genuine experts on chemical warfare and its effects reinforce the NightWatch judgment that Readers should retain healthy skepticism about what took place east of Damascus on 21 August and who was responsible.
Expert feedback asserts without qualification that neurotoxins, such as Sarin, are not evident, despite the bombastic allegations of the Syrian opposition on 26 August. Feedback from experts also indicates that crowd control agents would explain the symptoms, casualties and other evidence in the public domain.
Meanwhile, Syrian government forces are continuing operations to clear the eastern suburbs of Damascus with success.
25 August 2013
Syria: Update. International news outlets predict US missile attacks against Syria. The overwhelming consensus is that Syria used chemical weapons of some sort, but the evidence in the public domain that supports this judgment is weak.
The government in Damascus has agreed to allow the UN inspection team to visit the site. The mandate of the 20-person team is to determine whether chemical weapons were used in the latest incident as well as in three others. The mandate does not include an assignment of blame.
Comment: Doctors without Borders reported 3,500 patients were treated for symptoms of chemical exposure at their three hospitals, of whom 350 or so died. The humanitarian organization did not say whom they thought was responsible.
Afghanistan-Pakistan: President Karzai flew to Islamabad to hold meetings with the new government in Islamabad. Karzai is seeking Pakistani assistance in facilitating talks with the Afghan Taliban.
Comment: Karzai's instincts are accurate in focusing on Pakistan. Without Quetta and continuous Pakistani official protection, the Afghan Taliban leadership would have had no place from which to operate. Pakistan has placed no restrictions on Mullah Omar except to focus on undermining US and NATO operations in Afghanistan and leave Pakistan alone. Omar and the Pakistani government have both been faithful to the agreement.
President Karzai's visit is nearly a last ditch effort to get help from Pakistan by reaching out to the new government in Islamabad. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif cannot control the Pakistani Taliban and has made no policy statements about controlling the Afghan Taliban leaders. They have lived with impunity, comfort and freedom of movement and communications in Quetta since 2001. Nawaz Sharif has shown no inclination to change Pakistan's permissive policy towards the Afghan Taliban leaders.
A direct appeal to a new prime minister after years of frustration in dealing with the former government is worth a try. Nevertheless, the prospects for greater cooperation are vanishingly small. After 12 years, the conclusion is inescapable that Pakistani intelligence and security agencies never have had any intention of arresting or restraining Mullah Omar and his Quetta Shura advisers. They have enjoyed more and more effective protection than Osama bin Laden.
Thus, Pakistani policy has ensured that NATO forces would win every battle, but ultimately lose the war when the Afghan Taliban returned to power in Kabul. That is the only outcome that would guarantee that Afghanistan would remain pro-Pakistan in the larger strategic struggle between China with its proxies – Pakistan and the next Afghan government – and India, standing alone. Under any other outcome, Afghanistan would remain neutral or pro-India. Pakistan, including the Nawaz Sharif government, will not tolerate either other outcome.
