A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[David Guyatt]

Is Mercouris right in suggesting that a faction in the US wants to bring the Kerry - Lavrov peace agreement to an end, and that last evenings US aircraft strike on the Syrian army was a means of scuttling it? I think he may well be correct in his analysis.

Washington does the unthinkable, kills Syrian troops and helps ISIS

ALEXANDER MERCOURIS6 hours ago 5 209
U.S. air strikes on Syrian army positions at Deir Ezzor looks like the U.S. is warning Russia, as the Lavrov - Kerry agreement unravels.

• 6
• Share on Facebook
  
• Twitter
  

News of the US air strikes on the Syrian military positions near the besieged eastern Syrian city of Deir Ezzor comes as Russian criticism of the US failure to abide by the terms of last Sunday's Lavrov Kerry agreement is intensifying.
The first point to make about this attack is that though the US immediately backed off after receiving a Russian warning, the US claim that the attack was a mistake stretches credulity to breaking point.
The US says the situation in Syria is complicated, which is true, and says that this is the reason for the attack, which it insists was a mistake. The key point however is that though the situation may be complicated in other parts of Syria, it is not complicated in Deir Ezzor at all.
There are only two parties fighting each other in this part of Syria: the Syrian army and ISIS. Other Jihadi groups in this part of Syria have either been driven out by ISIS or have been absorbed by ISIS, which is the only military force fighting the Syrian army in this area.
It is just possible that the US confused Syrian troops with ISIS troops, and attacked them by mistake in this area. However given the comprehensive surveillance means the US has at its disposal, that hardly seems likely.
Besides it is not clear why the US is carrying out air strikes against ISIS in the area of Deir Ezzor at all, when the only force which is fighting ISIS in this area is not any one of the US's allies or supposed allies but the Syrian army.
As it happens, the Russians and the Syrians say the attack was made near a Syrian air force base which ISIS was attacking, enabling ISIS to capture a defence line near the base. If so, it is all but inconceivable the US didn't know this, and didn't know who it was attacking.
The second point to make about this attack is that it appears to have been followed almost immediately by an ISIS attack on the Syrian troops who were targeted by the air strike.
On the face of it that makes it look like a US military air strike carried out to provide air support to an attack on the Syrian army carried out by ISIS troops.
Though that would be shocking if it were true, it is not the first time that there has been an air attack by US led coalition aircraft on Syrian troops fighting ISIS in this area. Exactly the same thing happened in this same area on 6th December 2015.
On that occasion the Russians did not disclose the nationality of the aircraft that attacked the Syrian army positions near Deir Ezzor on 6th December 2015, though they made it fairly clear that they knew who they were. They did however say that the aircraft belonged to the US led coalition. The US denied carrying out the strike, and claimed that the Russians had carried out the strike by mistake themselves.
On this latest occasion the Russians have publicly identified the attacking aircraft as American. It seems four aircraft were involved: two F16s and two A10s. Moreover the US on this occasion has admitted carrying out the strike.
What is going on?
It is very difficult to see this as anything else other than as an intended warning by the US to the Russians. The events of the last few days leading up to the strike show why such a warning might have been given.
In the last few days, and in the last few hours especially, the Russians have been stepping up their criticism that the US is not abiding by the terms of the Lavrov Kerry agreement that was reached on 9th September 2016.
The Russian military has publicly complained that only the Syrian army is abiding by the cessation of hostilities that was agreed by Lavrov and Kerry last Sunday. RT reports a senior Russian General Staff official, Viktor Poznikhir, saying the following at a briefing in Moscow.

"After five days of the ceasefire, it has to be noted that only the Russian and Syrian sides have been fully implementing their commitments. On its own initiative, Russia prolonged the cessation of hostilities for 48 hours, and yesterday it was extended for another 72 hours. The US and the so-called moderate groups under their control didn't fulfil a single commitment undertaken in the framework of the Geneva arrangements. The main priority of the Russian-American agreements of September was the division of territories controlled by IS (Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Jabhat al-Nusra, and the areas controlled by the moderate opposition,' as well the separation of the moderate opposition' from Jabhat al-Nusra. [Such a division is essential for the implementation of the ceasefire in Syria because] without it, the hands of the government forces are tied. They can't fight the terrorists without knowing which of them joined the truce and who didn't.
[Numerous Russian appeals to the American side remain unanswered, which] raises doubts over the US's ability to influence opposition groups under their control and their willingness to further ensure the implementation of the Geneva agreements. Russia is making every possible effort to hold off government troops from the use of force in return [to opposition attacks]. If the US does not implement the necessary measures to fulfill their obligations under the September 9 agreements, the responsibility for the failure of the ceasefire will be solely America's.
Tensions are rising in Syria, especially in the provinces of Aleppo and Hama, where opposition groups are using the cessation of hostilities to regroup forces, refill their stocks of ammunition and weapons and are preparing an offensive in order to capture new territories. In the past 24 hours, the number of attacks has increased drastically. The positions of government troops, the people's militia, and civilians were fired at on 55 occasions".

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Lavrov and Kerry spoke on the telephone on Saturday to discuss the deteriorating situation. Putin himself then added to the growing sense of crisis by weighing in. In answer to journalists' questions at the CIS Council of Heads of State in Bishkek he is reported by Russia's Presidential website to have said

"We agreed that Jabhat al-Nusra and others of their ilk have to be separated and it has been shown where they are and where these so-called "healthy" forces are. What do we see now? We see no separation of terrorists from this "healthy" part of the opposition, instead we see these terrorists making attempts to regroup, replace one set of signboards with another, replace one name with another and preserve their military potential. This is what we see."
(note the use of quotation marks qualifying the word "healthy" is in the original text published by Russia's Presidential website and was presumably authorised by Putin himself)

However the single thing that may have infuriated the US most is that the Russians have been publicly supporting the mounting demands from around the world including from some of the US's allies like France to have the full text of the Lavrov Kerry agreement published.
During his press conference in Bishkek Putin not only confirmed that it was the US that had insisted that the text of the agreement be kept secret, but also dropped heavy hints as to why this might be so

"Our US partners have always stood for openness and transparency. There is nothing surprising for me that in this case they proceed from their postulate. I can tell you why: this has to do with the difficulties that the United States is facing on the Syrian track. The difficulty is that they can in no way separate the so-called "healthy" part of the opposition from the semi-criminal and terrorist elements.
In my opinion, this is dictated by the desire to preserve the military potential in the fight against the lawful government of President Assad. However, this is a slippery slope; we have often spoken about this. Our US partners seem to be again falling into the same trap they have fallen into so many times. This is a dangerous scenario."

It is very easy to see how the US might construe comments like this as a threat by the Russians to publish the Lavrov Kerry agreement unless the US complies with it.
What may have made the US particularly angry is that on Friday the Russians attempted to use a joint US Russian presentation at the UN Security Council as a device to get the text of the agreement published. The US flatly rejected this, and the presentation and joint discussion that had been scheduled to take place at the UN Security Council had to be called off.
Behind the US refusal to publish the text of the agreement is doubtless US embarrassment that the agreement effectively requires the evacuation of Jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo.
It is universally accepted by all objective observers of the Syrian conflict that the Jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo belong either to Jabhat Al-Nusra or to groups closely affiliated with it. the Lavrov Kerry agreement, which requires that Syrian opposition fighters separate themselves from Jabhat Al-Nusra, whom the agreement brands terrorists, is therefore tantamount to US agreement that the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters occupying eastern Aleppo withdraw from the city. It is very likely the Lavrov Kerry agreement or one of its annexes or protocols spells this out.
Since that is tantamount to an agreement that eastern Aleppo be surrendered to the Syrian government, it is not surprising the US is reacting fiercely to demands the text of the agreement be made public.
This is probably what is behind the air strike in Deir Eizzor. It looks like a threat to the Russians by the US or at any rate by the hardliners in Washington that any move by Moscow to blame the US for the failure of the agreement or to publish its terms will result in an immediate escalation of US military action on behalf of the Jihadis in eastern Syria. That this means aligning the US with ISIS as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova is rightly pointing out is a price that some people in Washington seem prepared to pay.
As of the time of writing the US is desperately rowing back. It seems the US underestimated the strength of the Russian reaction to the Deir Ezzor attack, and did not anticipate that the Russians would complain about it to the UN Security Council, which is what the Russians have done.
Since the attack the Russians are saying that the ceasefire now hangs by a thread. Even before the attack there were reports of Syrian troops returning apparently with Russian agreement to their previous positions on Aleppo's Castello road.
The US of course knows that with the Jihadi offensive on south west Aleppo defeated, and with the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo surrounded, the result of the collapse of the ceasefire would be the eventual defeat of the Jihadi force in eastern Aleppo. It was this knowledge which caused the US to agree to the Lavrov Kerry agreement in the first place.
The US action in Deir Ezzor however shows how unreconciled to this reality powerful sections of the US bureaucracy including especially Ashton Carter's Pentagon are. It seems that there are some people in Washington who are prepared to go to almost any lengths to undermine the Lavrov Kerry agreement in order to avoid surrendering eastern Aleppo and so as to prevent what many in Washington obviously see as the ultimate humiliation of a joint military campaign with the Russians against ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra.
The prospects for the Lavrov Kerry agreement depend on the realists in Washington facing down the hardliners. Despite the apologies and regrets currently pouring out of Washington, after the attack on Deir Ezzor the prospects for them succeeding don't look good.

Source

[Magda Hassan]

U.S., Russia clinch Syria deal, aim for truce from Monday

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideas...SKCN11F0HC

Washington does the unthinkable, kills Syrian troops and helps ISIS

Is Mercouris right in suggesting that a faction in the US wants to bring the Kerry - Lavrov peace agreement to an end, and that last evenings US aircraft strike on the Syrian army was a means of scuttling it? I think he may well be correct in his analysis.

U.S. air strikes on Syrian army positions at Deir Ezzor looks like the U.S. is warning Russia, as the Lavrov - Kerry agreement unravels.

Source

Sure does looks like it.
Can't be the Russians. They're too busy hacking DNC servers and poisoning Hilary. Apparently.

[Lauren Johnson]

David, here is my response to Mercouris' article I posted on FB:

I find this article to be a word salad. We have to remember the hawks in DC are Obama appointees including the SecDef. Remember that Obama fired Chuck Hagel in place of Ashton Carter. Therefore, Obama is in fact a quietly very hawkish president.

Therefore, I would have to be arguing that Obama is undermining himself in ordering these airstrikes, wouldn't I? In fact, no. The Kerry-Lavrov negotiations provide diplomatic cover for both Russia and the US. Russia is either engineering a prolonged exit for Assad, or some kind of stasis in which Syria carved up between Israel and Turkey with Assad getting what's left over -- which won't be much.

One more thing, note how as soon as the Syrian Air Force was grounded, both Israel and the US go on the attack, while the "moderates" are resupplied and repositioned. And this comes after Aleppo's supply lines were finally cut. Ooops. Time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- again.

BTW, I think you need to regain your cynicism. You're buying Obama's magic show, which is really stage managed by the NWO masterminds. IMO. I will change my mind once the RF fires of a few S-400's, which are now nothing more than hi-tech sundials.

[David Guyatt]

David, here is my response to Mercouris' article I posted on FB:

I find this article to be a word salad. We have to remember the hawks in DC are Obama appointees including the SecDef. Remember that Obama fired Chuck Hagel in place of Ashton Carter. Therefore, Obama is in fact a quietly very hawkish president.

Therefore, I would have to be arguing that Obama is undermining himself in ordering these airstrikes, wouldn't I? In fact, no. The Kerry-Lavrov negotiations provide diplomatic cover for both Russia and the US. Russia is either engineering a prolonged exit for Assad, or some kind of stasis in which Syria carved up between Israel and Turkey with Assad getting what's left over -- which won't be much.

One more thing, note how as soon as the Syrian Air Force was grounded, both Israel and the US go on the attack, while the "moderates" are resupplied and repositioned. And this comes after Aleppo's supply lines were finally cut. Ooops. Time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- again.

BTW, I think you need to regain your cynicism. You're buying Obama's magic show, which is really stage managed by the NWO masterminds. IMO. I will change my mind once the RF fires of a few S-400's, which are now nothing more than hi-tech sundials.

My response on FB also. However, let be be slightly more nuanced here.

I agree with you about Ash Carter - a horrible bloke. However, it seems fairly clear to me that Obama had to chose a SecDef who the Pentagon Chiefs would work with, and that why he selected Carter. Obviously, this view is based on reading the tea leaves a little, but Hagel wasn't favoured inside the E ring (HERE). I also suspect this meant he wasn't favoured by the neocons either. Obama choosing Hagel in the first place tells us something about Obama's philosophy, I think --- he would like to be the traditional democrat, but can't be. The forces arrayed against him are just too powerful.

On Obama-Putin I keep thinking back to 2014 and the evening when NATO aircraft were to be unleashed on Assad's Syria because of the Ghouta sarin gas attack - which we now know was a false flag run by Turkey (and almost certainly with the sanction of neocon elements in the US -- ditto the Russian fighter shoot down the following year). Putin understood Obama's domestic problems, as he also faces not too dissimilar factions that are pro-American. Consequently, he proposed to Obama an avenue that would avoid what the neocons wanted, namely war, with the idea of dismantling of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons and Obama grabbed it. The French president was furious when he got a call "minutes" - before he was to give the green light to French aircraft to begin attacking Syria - from Obama telling him to halt. If Obama was the aggressive neocon you believe him to be, it would've been easy for him to ignore and obfuscate that Russian plan and proceed with Assad's regime change. But he didn't proceed, he agreed with Putin.

This event informed me a few things. Firstly that Obama was not, is not, entirely the neocon warmonger he's made out to be. Secondly, and drawing from No. 1, that his presidency is and was domestically precarious because he faced powerful forces who repeatedly have worked to undermine his policies. Thirdly that to get elected he had to agree to follow foreign policy dictated by people like Brzezinski and the neocons. That was the devil's choice he faced and accepted. Not least, I remember a few years ago, Obama telling friends that he feared for his live and that this made him step carefully in regard to policy making.

When we take this all into account it shows, for me anyway, a president who is weak. In fact, I would argue that the US has a marked tendency towards conservatism and right-wing politics, which is why the neocons are so powerful in Washington. WE can say the same for the defence and intelligence industry that also have a death-grip on Washington. Hence liberal minded democrats have to neuter themselves if they want to get elected. And this is where I find it hard to like Obama. Getting into office was far more important to him than following his political philosophy. He went for the ego-kick. Fuck him for that.

What we see today is a democratic party that has sold its soul for office and the rewards that accompany that position. It is now more war loving than the Republicans. We in the UK have already had a dose of that with Tony Blair and "New" Labour which was more Thatcherite than Thatcher herself. As was/is the Liberal Party. In other words three choices of party to vote for that more or less offer the same damn thing. In other words no choice at all --- amounting to a democratic void.

Btw, I've only been thinking in terms of foreign affairs.

[David Guyatt]

Further to the foregoing an article today in the Off Guardian that more or less sums up my perspective.

Syria Bombing Exposes Cracks in American Facade

by Kit

Yesterday, the USA committed what is essentially an act of waragainst the legitimate government of Syria. The official position is that, due to a breakdown in communication (or possibly bad intelligence), the US Air Force with Australian support bombed SAA men and vehicles resulting in the deaths of at least 60 Syrian soldiers.
The Russian's are, understandably, incensed. Accusing the Americans of "assisting ISIS" and describing it as an "intentional provocation", all of which ties into a speech Putin gave yesterday, in which he questioned American commitment to the deal.
But why did this attack happen? Assuming it wasn't just straight incompetence, which is always a possibility when dealing with an American military far more concerned with being expensive than efficient, what was the motivation? Why has the Obama administration worked for weeks to get this deal together, only for the USAF to bomb Syrian soldiers days into the ceasefire? Why has Kerry spent hours carefully negotiating with Sergei Lavrov, only for Samantha Power to immediately launch into abusive and hysterical language the moment any even minor conflict occurs?
The only logical position to take is that, for some reason, some parts of the American political or military establishment are trying to scupper the ceasefire before it can take hold. To smother peace in its cradle.
This is just the latest in a long line of evidence that suggests, tempting and easy as it is to see American power as monolithic, there are factions at work within the heart of the Empire. It has been suggested, many times, that any cracks in Washington run along party political or institutional lines. Democrats vs. Republicans. The FBI vs. the CIA. It has been mooted that Edward Snowden is a CIA agent out to discredit the NSA. I doubt any breaks run along such neatly defined borders. But we can say there are at least two different groups, with different agendas, ideologies and even realities. For now we shall call them the Realists, and the Lunatics.
The Realists are largely Old School diplomats, or veterans of the Cold War. Think Henry Kissinger, who loudly and publicly decried the US's approach in Ukraine, and even attacked the government's motives in the news (Kissinger has been a proponent of increased Russian-American cooperation since heading the Track II program). Think Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few voices of reason on Syria during Obama's "red line" nonsense. John Kerry, likewise, obviously comes from this same school. Not decent or moral people by any means, but diplomats and pragmatists. Disdaining violence and chaos, not out of empathy, but as waste of time and resources that reflects badly on their skill as politicians. They deal in realpolitik, and can be counted on to always serve their own best interest and at least having some semblance of a notion of veridical reality.
The Lunatics are comparatively new on this stage, spiritual successors to the old-guard Neo-cons, they have been weened on stories of American exceptionalism and see themselves as morally, intellectually and emotionally superior. They believe they can simply create reality through their words, and cannot be shaken from this belief no matter how much the world refuses to shape itself around their certitudes. Look at Samantha Power. Or Victoria Nuland. Or Robert Kagan. They are dangerous because, no matter what, they believe in the moral rectitude of their actions. They cannot see their actions from an outside perspective, or appreciate the position of their supposed "adversary". They are dangerous because they refuse to deal with the real world. They are black and white creatures in a grey universe.

Watch the following video.

<font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Open Sans">

This is the perfect example of what we are talking about, here we have an emotional, irrational ideologue arguing with a pragmatic psychopath. A Lunatic versus a Realist. When Carl Bernstein, yes the Carl Bernstein, argues that "we should morally isolate Russia", he is confronted with a pragmatist asking him "How?". It's a question he never tries to answer.
Interestingly, in this video you hear the first references to "isolating" Russia a theme that was heavily used by pundits all across the MSM just a couple of years later, during the Ukraine crisis. Ukraine was obviously a neocon plan to try and weaken Russia, in response to Russia's checking of their war in Syria, and was equally obviously never going to work. Again, when Brzezinski asks how they intend to "isolate" Russia from China or the rest of their partners and allies, he receives no answer based in any kind of reality.
The plan to "isolate" Russia (both morally and strategically) failed…but this has never been acknowledged. Instead, pundits politicians and their proxies, both above and below the line, in the press have simply declared Russia to be "isolated" and "a pariah state". Regardless of the conflict with reality.
This goes hand-in-hand with Karl Rove's famous claim that, as an Empire, when America acts it "creates reality". There are people within the corridors of American power who genuinely believe that this is literally true. That they can shape the world alone, with no checks or balances or compromises. That they have the controls of the game, and everyone is just an NPC awaiting their input. They don't see that they can push Russia into starting WWIII, because they don't credit that anyone can take any action without their say-so. It is why so many of their plans fall apart. It is why Syria and Ukraine are in chaos.
Once you factor in that there are different teams pushing for different agendas in Washington, the world begins to make more sense. That's why the US is currently supporting the Kurds, the Turks and ISIS in Syria..despite the fact they are all (notionally) in conflict with each other. It's why they go to all the trouble of breaking Ukraine into pieces, but then stop short of arming their Nazi proxies. It's why Obama can be instructed to lay down a "red line", but told to stand-down when Assad crosses that line.
American foreign policy is a speeding car with two people fighting over the steering wheel, shooting off in a direction neither intends. The combat between these factions plays out across different battlefields. You can see it through the "leaks" that materialise that discredit and expose one another. Through deals that are made and then broken, and lines that then crossed with no consequences. Through the splintering, confused narratives that surround who is to blame and why for terrorist attacks (see the Boston bombing). And, of course, through Presidential elections.
Hillary Clinton is the war party candidate she has made that clear. Whether that is through actual idealist commitment to "the cause", or just compulsive and destructive self-interest is unclear, and frankly irrelevant. She is the new face of lunatic neo-con foreign policy. It's highly likely that her Secretary of State will be Victoria Nuland, perhaps the craziest of the crazies, and her campaign has made it clear they will "tougher" on Syria, and maybe even attack Iran.
These are insane positions. Aside from the very real threat of global incineration, America were unable to win a war in either Iraq or Afghanistan the idea that same military would be able to take on Iran, and win, is laughable.
That is, in part, why this Presidential election has been so fractious and unpredictable. This isn't like 2000 or 2008, when all the insiders were on the same page and the election was a formality. This time there is genuine indecision.
On the one hand you have Clinton, a decades-old Washington insider, with enough money and clout (and probably blackmail material) that she can launch herself into the race without the total approval of the intelligence and political infrastructure. Then on the other side Donald Trump, an unknown, a wild-card. Possibly he never intended or expected to be able to win, but then found is campaign being fueled by Washington insiders who dread the possibility of a Clinton-run America.
The leaks and polls and scandals bouncing back-and-forth across the surface betray the roiling movement beneath. No-one is exactly sure who "their guy" is. No one knows, definitively, which candidate will be easiest to control and the least dangerous.
And so we come full circle, to America's bombing of the Syrian Arab Army, and the scuppering of the ceasefire.
The Realists have been working, frantically, to get an agreement done in Syria. John Kerry, one of the most prominent realists, is desperate to get a deal done soon. Why? Because there's an election in November, and that faces us with the very real possibility of a psychotic (and possibly brain-damaged) Hillary Clinton taking over the White House with a team of crazy idealogues at her back. Obama et al know that if they leave Clinton even the tiniest sliver of a possibility of starting a war in Syria…she will take it. They need to stabilise the situation before she comes to power.
Likewise, Hillary's backers from the Lunatic side realise how much harder it will be to start their war, if there have been any clear signs that negotiations might work. They need to undermine any ceasefire, and preferably before the election so that all the blame can be pinned on the previous administration.
The car is weaving all over road.

Source

[David Guyatt]

Also relevant here is Engdahl's new piece on the gas wars:

Russia Trumps USA Energy War in Mideast
By F. William engdahl
17 September 2016
In a fundamental sense the entirety of the five-year-long war over Syria, as well as the entire Arab Spring from Libya to Egypt to Iraq has been about control of hydrocarbon resourcesoil and natural gas and of potential hydrocarbon pipelines to the promising markets of the European Union. Dick Cheney's 2001 War on Terror was primarily about providing the excuse for a direct US military takeover of the vast oil fields of Iraq and other key Middle East countries. Washington's War on Syria has been less a war for control of oil. Rather, it's about who controls whose natural gas flows via which pipelines through which borders to the vast EU gas market. At this point it looks more and more as if Russia's geopolitical and geo-economic strategy is trumping (no Donald pun intended) Washington's very troubled game in the region. Turkey is apparently deciding to become a key ally in this Russian energy trump.
At the beginning of September Turkey's Minister of Energy, Berat Albayrak met the CEO of Gazprom Alexei Miller in Istanbul for talks about reviving Russia's mammoth Turkish Stream natural gas pipeline from Russia, under the Black Sea to and through Turkey to the border of EU member country, Greece.
The progress on the Russian-Turkish gas pipeline came to an abrupt halt as relations between Moscow and Istanbul broke following the Turkish downing of a Russian jet over Syrian territory.
Following the September 1 Istanbul talks, one week later Berat Albayrak's energy ministry issued the first permits for the start of the project. Gazprom issued the statement, "Accords were reached at the meeting to complete the issue of all required permits for initiation of the Turkish Stream project implementation as soon as possible. Commercial negotiations on conditions of Russian gas supplies to Turkey will continue." Turkish Stream will involve construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey along the bottom of the Black Sea where 660 kilometers of pipeline will be laid in the old South Stream corridor, which was cancelled in December 2014, and 250 kilometers will be laid in a new corridor towards the European part of Turkey.
For the first time, in a further indication of Turkey's seriousness about the Russian gas pipeline deal, President ErdoÄŸan has proposed Turkey make substantial financial concessions to Russia, including paying for half of the pipeline's construction.
It's worth noting that Beret Albayrak's father-in-law happens to be Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the man the CIA and their Cemaat networks of Fethullah Gülen within the Turkish military tried this past July to topple in a failed coup d'etat, presumably precisely because Erdogan had decided to dump his pro-NATO Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu this May and attempt a rapprochement with Putin's Russia. That 180 degree pivot away from NATO towards re-establishing ties with Russia was the trigger for the failed coup attempt against Erdoğan by networks loyal to Gülen and the CIA. At the center of Washington's alarm was reportedly their assessment that Erdoğan would make a revival of the Turkish Stream when he met with Putin in St. Petersburg on August 9.
Now the fact that the frozen Gazprom Turkish Stream project is not only back in discussion, but also advancing concretely under the direct eye of ErdoÄŸan's son-in-law suggests that, despite appearances of cutting a deal with Washington on Syria and the Syrian Kurds after the August 24 emergency talks of US Vice President, Joe Biden, ErdoÄŸan is very serious about developing strategic ties with Russia.
Biden, who plays the role in the Obama Administration similar to that which Dick Cheney played for George W. Bush, was rushed to Ankara in a frantic bid to keep Turkey in NATO, even at the expense of Washington's long-term Kurdistan separate state strategy. Now Turkey, with the clear assent of Moscow, has apparently prevented a Kurd separate enclave on Turkey's border that threatened to link in the future with the Turkish Kurds. Clearly there is a god deal of behind-the-scene horse trading between Moscow and Ankara over strategic issues essential to both. Natural gas flows are at the center.
With the advance of the Turkish Stream project, Turkey and Russia are now positioned to trump repeated efforts of Washington and their NATO allies to force Russia and Gazprom out of the EU and open the door for US control of the huge EU natural gas market.
The first step in the US effort to break links between Russia and Western Europe was Washington's February, 2014 coup d' etat in Ukraine, referred to by Stratfor's George Friedman as the "most blatant coup in US history." In an interview with Moscow's Kommersant paper that he perhaps today regrets, Friedman, then a Pentagon and CIA consultant, openly admitted that the geopolitical aim of the entire US-led Maidan Square Color Revolution was not at all to force "democracy" on Ukraine, but rather to block growing ties between Germany and Putin's Russia.
As Friedman noted, "the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources." And gas pipeline wars are at the center of that US effort to block Russia economic links in the EU.

Pipeline War Phase One

In December 2014, some nine months after Washington's coup in Kiev, Vladimir Putin went to Ankara to meet with ErdoÄŸan.
Following those Ankara talks, Putin announced cancellation of Russia's major South Stream gas pipeline project that would have brought Russian gas also under the Black Sea from Russia, avoiding the war-torn Ukraine, to land in Bulgaria, and from there sending Gazprom gas through most of South Eastern Europe and Italy. In his statement Putin cited the refusal of the Bulgarian government to go ahead. Enormous pressure from Washington through Brussels' EU Commission had forced Bulgaria to back out.
At that point it appeared that Washington had scored a major victory in the gas pipeline wars. It wasn't to be so easy.
Instead of South Stream, Russia's Putin announced at the December, 2014 meeting with Erdoğan, that the two would join forces to build what was called Turkish Stream. Using much of the planning and route of South Stream but landing instead of on the Bulgarian coast, on the Turkish Black Sea coast, the new gas pipeline would cross Turkey to the border of Greece. There it would be responsibility of gas-deficient EU states to build their own pipelines to purchase the Russian gas via Turkey. Russia's President Putin proposed to develop the Turkish Stream pipeline initially as four parallel pipelines of 16bn m³/year each that would go across the Black Sea from Russia to a landfall at Kiyikoy, on the coast of Turkey's European province of Thrace. The project has now been reduced to a still considerable two lines carrying a total 31.5bn m³/yr.
The rupture of ties between Erdogan and Russia's Putin following the shooting in Syrian airspace of a Russian jet on November 24, 2015 appeared to leave Washington in the Catbird Seat in relation to control of EU natural gas flows. The only step remaining would be to be certain Washington and her allies also controlled the available non-Russian natural gas reserves that would feed the growing EU gas market. Here we find the true agenda behind Washington's five-year-long war for regime change in Damascus, a war with terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al Nusra Front-Al Qaeda in Syria financed largely by money from Qatar.

The Syrian Gas Pipeline War

Russia's decision to enter the Syrian war on the call of Syrian President Bashar al Assad on September 30, 2015 is also strategically and geopolitically tied to the entire issue of the future supplies of European Union natural gas. This is a carefully-obscured background to what is one of the longest and most bitter proxy wars in history. As some foolish US and UK geopolitical circles see it, who controls the future natural gas flows of the EU has ultimate control over the EU, at least to a major extent.
The 28 member countries of the European Union today are the world's largest natural gas import market. The domestic supply sources in the UK and Holland sectors of the North Sea are rapidly declining. Further, Norway's offshore natural gas reserves are in dramatic decline and the state has apparently decided to not invest in more costly production projects but to focus on renewable energy.
Only 35% of the European Union's gas demand is met by domestic production, with the rest imported mainly from Russia (40%), Norway (30%), Algeria (13%) and 8% from Qatar. By 2025, the EU is expected to be importing over 80% of its natural gas. This control over the future EU natural gas market is where the "prize" as Dick Cheney called it in his now infamous 1999 London Institute of Petroleum speech, ultimately lies. The only significant import sources of stable supplies of natural gas to meet EU demand over coming decades aside from Russia are Qatar and Iran, with US LNG from shale gas a far distant prospect at current low prices.
By 2009 it became clear to some geopolitical Washington strategists that Qatar could play a strategic role in pushing Russia out of the EU natural gas game and put a US-controlled supplier, Qatar, in the dominant role.
In 2009 Qatar Proposed to Assad a gas pipeline to the EU through Syria and Turkey. Instead he backed an Iran pipeline together with Iraq and Iran
In 2009 Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa went to Damascus to propose to Bashar al Assad construction of a new natural gas pipeline across Syria and into Turkey aimed at the huge EU gas market. Qatari natural gas came from its part of the world's largest gas field in the Qatari territorial waters of the Persian Gulf.
In July, 2011 Assad along with the leaders of Iran and Iraq announced they were planning an alternative to the Qatar-Syria-Turkey EU gas pipeline bringing natural gas from South Pars, the Iranian side of the same giant field as Qatar
The new Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon gas pipeline would be a direct competitor to not only the Qatar-Turkey pipeline but to Washington's ill-fated Nabucco gas pipeline intending to use Azeri gas fields controlled by US and UK oil majors. In rejecting the Qatar offer in 2009 Bashar al Assad stated his reason was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
Instead, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria that would potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field. In July 2012 Assad signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iraq and Iran. That was the precise point when the US gave the green light to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to back regime change in Damascusmad pipeline geopolitics.
It remains to be seen of the latest Russia-Turkey accord on Turkish Stream includes definitive Turkish shift in backing anti-Assad terror groups inside Syria from across the Turkish border. If so, it would deal a devastating defeat to not only Qatar and the hapless Saudi monarchy. It could potentially reopen the door for a Russia-backed Iran gas pipeline via Iraq and Syria and now Turkey to the EU.
Will that in turn make Moscow the winner on the global gas pipeline wars? Or will it merely be the trigger for a new round of Washington wars over energy pipelines at a time when the world is moving away from oil and gas?
The Turkish paper, Hurriyet in a review of the latest Russia-Turkey gas negotiations remarks, "Turkish-Russian relations are warming again following the plane crisis that stopped the world's largest energy investments." They warn that the US and the EU may try to do everything possible to block implementation of not just the Turkish Stream pipeline, but also construction by Russia of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey. The newspaper says the West would likely do so through "support of terrorist organizations and warmongering. Isn't the statement We will bring peace and democracy to the Middle East' simply a guise for oil wars'?" they ask. It seems they know the answer.

Source

PS, Qatar is de facto Exxon, I understand.

[Paul Rigby]

From Ron Kokinda's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/ron.kokinda.1/p...8490057839

Obama Targets Russia-Turkey Alliance

Sept. 19, 2016 (EIRNS) -- Turkey considers the U.S. bombing of Syrian government forces and the alliance fighting Islamic State (ISIL) as also an attack on Turkey, and by implication, an attack on the emerging Turkish-Russian alliance. {Hurriyet} editor-in-chief Murat Yetkin, writing under the title, "Obama Pushes U.S. into Bigger Problems in Syria," questions the claims by the U.S. command that they made a "mistake" in bombing Syrian troops while ISIL forces were attacking them.

"Is it possible that world's biggest military power, the U.S., with the most superior military satellites, U-2s and other spy planes, plus their field intelligence supported by local collaborators, the People's Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian branch of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) ... could make such a mistake and hit the Syrian army supported by Russia `believing' they were ISIL?" U.S support for the YPG, Yetkin wirtes, is support for the PKK which is carrying out a deadly insurgency against Turkey.

He then points to the fact that the U.S. is now attacking the Free Syrian Army, who are supported by Turkey, through a "demarbling' campaign ... started by the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) in order to disintegrate the Free Syria Army (FSA)," even though it was also originally supported by the Obama administration. "Demarbling," according to sources cited by Yetkin, refers to the U.S. attempt to "convince some Arab groups (`marbled' into rebel units which also contain jihadists [other than] ISIL or al-Nusra) to leave the FSA, which was actually trained and equipped in Turkey with the cooperation of the CIA."

Yetkins says this is to protect the Syrian Kurdish YPG. But, he writes, "Obama is not very happy with the FSA." Yetkin adds that Obama's support for the YPG "contradicts Obama's policy to support the territorial integrity of Syria when it comes out of this civil war [sic]; a Kurdish state carved out of Syria might trigger a chain reaction in the region, which could change Iran's position as well and turn into a bigger problem for the next U.S. administration, whether it is Clinton's or Trump's.... If Obama, having only a few months left in office, continues that, it would push the U.S., as well as other countries and peoples in the region, into bigger problems in Syria."

Ibrahim Karagül, editor-in-chief of the very pro-government {Yeni Safak}, goes one step further and writes under the headline, "Before the Syrian War Turns into a World War...," warning that the U.S attack on Syrian forces not only showed that the U.S. was supporting Daesh; it could have led to a conflict with Russian forces. "What is happening is not a Syrian civil war. It is not a regime issue. It is no longer a matter of democracy and freedom. It is the fight of pro-Atlantic and Asian powers. Syrian organizations have become the figurines of this great clash, regardless of which side they are on."

As for Turkey, Karagul compares the situation to the Crimean War. "The Crimea war that took place between 1853 and 1856 [was] an Ottoman-Russo war. The U.K. and France sided with the Ottoman Empire and the Russians were kept away from the Mediterranean. But this is the war in which the Ottomans were taken hostage. The Crimea war and Ottomans turned into `Europe's internal problem' and [were] taken under tutelage. The process in the Syrian issue aimed at setting Turkey and Russia against one another is very similar to [that] one. Turkey, which is struggling to get out of tutelage, would probably be made to clash with Russia, wearing out both countries; the U.S. and Europe might back Turkey, but in the end Turkey would be taken under tutelage once again."

To prevent this, he writes, Turkey must continue to support the territorial integrity of Syria, but also Iraq: "Turkey must rebuild its ties with Baghdad as much as it defends the integrity of Iraq. It should stand close to the center power in Iraq rather than the power islands within Iraq.... Baghdad-Ankara ties must be strengthened by resetting all plans."

This is new and could be a signal that Turkey is preparing for an overture to Baghdad, which would mean Turkey joining the Russia-Iraq-Iran alliance.

[Paul Rigby]

Pentagon Leads Opposition to Russia-US Deal on Syria

ANDREI AKULOV, 17 September 2016

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/20...syria.html

Evidently, there is no unity among U.S. top officials on the just-concluded pact with Russia on Syria.

In fact, the deal implicitly recognizes US acceptance of Russia's role as a key political and military actor in Syria, as well as a battlefield ally. The planned establishment of a Joint Implementation Center with the participation of the representatives of the military and special forces of both countries will serve as a de facto acknowledgement that the United States considers Russia a key player in Syria and that it stands ready to cooperate despite the rivalry between the two countries in Europe and elsewhere. There is a reason to believe that the Obama's administration was influenced by the improving ratings of Donald Trump, who promised the voters to swiftly come to an agreement with Russia on Syria.

The intelligence and security community led by the Defense Department, is openly opposing the agreement, and raising questions over whether the US military brass is prepared to abide by the deal. Even the White House has expressed reservations.

The only agency that is solidly behind the proposal is the National Security Council, an interagency body staffed in the White House that has its own problems with the Defense and State Departments.

The New York Times reported that «The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly target terrorist groups».

«I'm not going to tell you I trust them», Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrington, the head of United States Air Force Central Command, told reporters.

«There is a trust deficit with the Russians», Gen. Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command which runs US operations in Syria said at a conference in Washington hosted by the Institute for the Study of War.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said at a news conference, «I think we have some reasons to be skeptical that the Russians are able or are willing to implement the arrangement consistent with the way it's been described».

In a rather meek response, State Secretary John Kerry defended the deal in his interview with National Public Radio on September 14, insisting that administration is adamant in its desire to implement the agreement.

He «thinks» the Pentagon is prepared to abide by an agreement approved by the US president! There is obviously something wrong with the way the U.S. government agencies function if the State Secretary is not sure (he just «thinks so») the decision of the president will be carried out by military brass.

The divisions are really ominous as they are pitting U.S. military commanders on active duty against the political leadership of the country to challenge the civilian control of the military. It puts into question the very credibility of the United States government.

It's not the military only. In June, 51 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

It was an open challenge to put into doubt the administration's authority and competence.

Donald Trump has good reasons to call for cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in Syria. The United States is running out of options. The synchronization of efforts between the two main players united by the need to counter a common enemy is the only way out of the situation. Only Russia and the U.S. have enough leverage to influence pertinent players.

Russia is an active participant of the Geneva peace process. It cooperates with Iran and the factions it supports, Jordan and the Syrian government led by President Assad who leads an army that is serving as a backstop to any further expansion of jihadist elements in Damascus, Homs, Hama and the coast. Moscow's mediation is the way to make Iran, which is actively involved in the conflict, a part of the peace building process. Moscow enjoys good working relationship with Turkey and the Kurds. It holds constant talks with the U.S. leading its own coalition. The problem of Syria cannot be solved without it. The U.S. efforts to tackle the problem without Russia have not resulted in any progress whatsoever. The coordination of efforts (if not cooperation) is the only way to go, there is no alternative to it.

The Pentagon's approach is reflexive Cold War-era thinking. The prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough outweigh any concerns of the U.S. military related to the need to share intelligence with Russia. After all, the two countries have a history of cooperating against terrorists and data sharing. Even pursuing different goals, they have managed to de-conflict their military activities in Syria

With all the problems to divide the two leading world powers, the Russia-U.S. agreement on Syria marks a major turning point in Russian foreign policy in 2015. If the agreement succeeds, Russia and the U.S. would form a new military alliance focused on Islamic State and Al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups, cooperation seemingly unthinkable amid the tensions of late. The implementation of the agreement will become a diplomatic legacy of President Obama and State Secretary John Kerry- something both of them will be proud of and remembered for.

[Paul Rigby]

Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

20.09.2016

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/20...efire.html

There are several sound reasons for concluding that the US-led air strike on the Syrian army base near Deir Ezzor last weekend was a deliberate act of murderous sabotage. One compelling reason is that the Pentagon and CIA knew they had to act in order to kill the ceasefire plan worked out by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The compulsion to wreck the already shaky truce was due to the unbearable exposure that the ceasefire plan was shedding on American systematic involvement in the terrorist proxy war on Syria.

Not only that, but the tentative ceasefire was also exposing the elements within the US government responsible for driving the war effort. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter the head of the Pentagon reportedly fought tooth and nail with Obama's top diplomat John Kerry while the latter was trying to finalize the ceasefire plan with Russia's Lavrov on the previous weekend of September 9 in Geneva.

While Sergey Lavrov and media reporters were reportedly kept waiting several hours for Kerry to finally emerge to sign off on the deal, the American foreign secretary was delayed by intense haggling in conference calls with Carter and other military chiefs back in Washington. Even days before Kerry's diplomatic shuttle to Geneva, Carter was disparaging any prospective deal with Russia on a Syrian ceasefire.

It is well documented that both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been running clandestine programs for arming and training anti-government militants in Syria since the outset of the war in March 2011. Officially, Washington claims to be only supporting «moderate, vetted opposition». However, on occasion, Western media reports allude to the deeper sinister connections between the US military and terrorist groups when it has been reported that American weaponry «accidentally» finds its way into the hands of extremist jihadist networks.

This pretense by the US and its other NATO and Arab allies of supporting «moderate rebels» and of having no involvement with recognized terror groups like Al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS) was being exposed by the latest ceasefire.

It is conceivable that the diplomatic corps of the Obama administration, including President Barack Obama and his foreign emissary John Kerry, may be benighted about the full extent of America's dirty war in Syria and its systematic connections to the terrorist brigades. Perhaps, this Obama flank is gullible and venal enough to believe in Washington's propaganda of a dichotomy between «moderate rebels» and «terrorists».

Thus, when Kerry announced the ceasefire plan with Lavrov in Geneva on September 9, the American diplomat's calls for the US-backed «moderate rebels» to separate themselves from the terror groups may have been made out a naive notion that such a distinction might exist. How else could we explain such a futile public appeal?

Not so, though, the Pentagon and CIA. The covert warmongers in the Pentagon and at Langley know the vile truth all along. That is, that all the militant groups in Syria are integrated into a terrorist front, albeit with a plethora of different names and seeming differences in commitment to al Qaeda Wahhabi ideology. The masters of war know that Washington is a sponsor of this terrorist front, along with its NATO and Arab allies.

Anyone with an informed knowledge about the origins of Al Qaeda from CIA authorship in Afghanistan during the 1980s would not be surprised in the slightest by such a systematic American role in the Syrian conflict.

This perspective reasonably explains why Carter. and the US military generally, were making conspicuous objections to Kerry's ceasefire plan with Russia. They knew the ceasefire was not only infeasible because of the systematic links between the US and the terror groups, but also that a failing ceasefire would furthermore expose these systematic connections, and create wider public awareness about American complicity in the Syrian war.

And, as it transpired, the apprehensions of the Pentagon and the CIA terrorist handlers were indeed founded. Within days of the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire being implemented on September 12, the following was undeniable: there was no separation of «moderates» and «terrorists». All militant groups were continuing to violate the nominal truce in the northern battleground city of Aleppo and in other locations across Syria.

The US and Western media then began venting about the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally not delivering on giving humanitarian aid access to insurgent-held areas of eastern Aleppo. But that rhetorical gaming could not disguise the fact that the ceasefire was being breached by all the militant groups, which made it impossible for humanitarian aid convoys to enter Aleppo. Another factor played down by the Western media was that the Turkish government refused to coordinate with the Syrian authorities in the routing of UN truck convoys from the Turkish border into Aleppo. Given Turkey's past documented involvement in using «humanitarian aid» as a cover for supplying weapons to insurgents, the vigilance demanded by Damascus is understandable.

The floundering ceasefire was thereby providing a withering world exposure of American terrorist complicity in Syria. The US lie about backing «moderates» as opposed to «terrorists» was being shown once and for all to be a cynical delusion. Evidently, US claims of supporting a «legitimate» opposition were seen for what they are an utter sham. That leads to an even more damning conclusion that the US government is a sponsor of a terrorist proxy army in Syria for its criminal objective of regime change in that country. In theory at least, this disclosure warrants legal prosecution of Washington and its allies for the commission of war crimes against the state of Syria.

Given the grave stakes for American international standing that the ceasefire was endangering, it is reasonable to posit that a decision was taken by the Pentagon to sabotage. Hence, on September 17, American, British and Australian warplanes struck the Syrian Arab Army elite forces' base near Deir Ezzor, in eastern Syria, killing over 60 personnel and wounding nearly 100 more.

The US, Britain and Australia have since claimed that it was an accident, and that their aircraft were intending to attack Daesh militants in the area. The US-led coalition claims it will carry out an investigation into the air strike. As with many times before, such as when the US devastated a hospital in Afghanistan's Kunduz killing more than 30 people last year, we can expect a cover-up.

Briefly, a few factors for doubting the US coalition's claim of an accident are: why did the Daesh militants reportedly launch an offensive operation on the Syrian army base less than 10 minutes after it was struck by F-16s and A-10s? That suggests coordination between the coalition air forces and the terrorists on the ground.

Secondly, it defies credibility that sophisticated air power and surveillance could mistake an army base and adjacent air field containing hundreds of troops for ragtag guerrilla units.

Thirdly, as Russian military sources point out, the US coalition had previously not been active in that area over the past two years of flying operations. The Syrian army was known to be recently waging an effective campaign against Daesh around Deir Ezzor. That suggests that the US air power was being deployed to defend the terrorist units, as the Syrian and Russian governments were quick to claim after the US-led air strike on Deir Ezzor. That is consistent with the broader analysis of why and how the entire Syrian war has been fomented by Washington for regime change.

But perhaps the most telling factor in concluding that the US and its allies carried out the massacre at Deir Ezzor deliberately is the foregoing argument that the Pentagon and CIA war planners knew that the flawed ceasefire was exposing their terror tentacles in Syria. And certainly, if any US-Russian joint anti-Daesh operations were to take place as envisaged by the Kerry-Lavrov plan, then the charade would definitely be blown apart.

In that case, only one thing had to be done as a matter of necessity. The unwieldy, discomfiting ceasefire had to be killed off. And so the Pentagon decided to make a «mistake» at Deir Ezzor a «mistake» that has gutted any minimal trust between the US and Russia, unleashing recriminations and a surge in ceasefire violations.

The American and Western media respond in the usual servile way to aid the cover-up. The massacre at Deir Ezzor is being largely ignored as a news story, with much more prominence given to a relatively minor bombing incident in New York City on the same weekend in which no-one was killed. Or, when reported on, the US media in particular have automatically accepted without question that the air strike was an accident. CNN also dismissed out of hand Syrian government claims of it being proof of American collusion with terrorists as «absurd». A claim that would otherwise seem fairly logical.

The New York Times had this gloss to paint over the air strike:

«The United States' accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief».

The American so-called newspaper-of-record then adds:

«The United States had thought that if a deal to ease hostilities in Syria, struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva nine days ago, fell apart, it would reveal Russia's duplicity in the war, in which Moscow has supported the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad».

How ironic. According to The New York Times, the Americans anticipated that the ceasefire deal would reveal «Russia's duplicity in the war». Maybe, they calculated that Russia and Syria would not abide by the cessation, which they very much did during the first week, showing discipline and commitment to finding a peaceful settlement.

Far from revealing Russia's «duplicity», it is Washington that emerged as the culprit, as the Pentagon and CIA had feared all along because of their deep complicity with the terrorist proxies.

Killing the Syrian ceasefire was like the necessity to extinguish a spotlight that had suddenly come on and begun exposing the putrefaction and bloodied hands in America's dirty war.

[Paul Rigby]

Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal?

Mike Whitney

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/20/r...fire-deal/

"Everything suggests that the attack…… was deliberately committed by forces inside the US government hostile to the ceasefire….Claims that US fighters were unaware of who they were bombing are simply not credible, and are flatly contradicted by other accounts in the media…"

Alex Lantier, World Socialist Web Site

A rift between the Pentagon and the White House turned into open rebellion on Saturday when two US F-16s and two A-10 warplanes bombed Syrian Arab Army (SAA) positions at Deir al-Zor killing at least 62 Syrian regulars and wounding 100 others. The US has officially taken responsibility for the incident which it called a "mistake", but the timing of the massacre has increased speculation that the attack was a desperate, eleventh-hour attempt to derail the fragile ceasefire and avoid parts of the implementation agreement that Pentagon leaders publicly opposed. Many analysts now wonder whether the attacks are an indication that the neocon-strewn DOD is actively engaged in sabotaging President Obama's Syria policy, a claim that implies that the Pentagon is led by anti-democratic rebels who reject the Constitutional authority of the civilian leadership. Saturday's bloodletting strongly suggests that a mutiny is brewing at the War Department.

The chasm that's emerged between the Pentagon warhawks and the more conciliatory members of the Obama administration has drawn criticism from leading media outlets in the US (The New York Times) to high-ranking members in the Russian cabinet. On Saturday, at an emergency press conference at the United Nations, Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin referred to the apparent power struggle that is taking place in Washington with these blunt comments:

"The big question that has to be asked is Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the White House or the Pentagon?' …Because we have heard comments from the Pentagon which fly in the face of comments we have heard from Obama and Kerry…"

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bID01gIEIOY See10:15 second)

Churkin is not the only one who has noticed the gap between Obama and his generals. A recent article in the New York Times also highlighted the divisions which appear to be widening as the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate. Here's an excerpt from the New York Times:

(SECDEF Ash) "Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the (ceasefire) agreement … Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort. On Tuesday at the Pentagon, officials would not even agree that if a cessation of violence in Syria held for seven days the initial part of the deal the Defense Department would put in place its part of the agreement on the eighth day…

"I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command, told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to say that we're going to jump right into it." ("Details of Syria Pact Widen Rift Between John Kerry and Pentagon", New York Times)

Think about that for a minute: Lt. General Harrigian appears to be saying that he may not follow an order from the Commander in Chief if it's not to his liking. When exactly did military leaders start to believe that orders are optional or that the DOD had a role to play in policymaking? Here's more from the NYT:

"The divide between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Carter reflects the inherent conflict in Mr. Obama's Syria policy. The president has come under increased fire politically for his refusal to intervene more forcefully in the five-year civil war, which the United Nations says has killed more than 400,000 people, displaced more than six million and led to a refugee crisis in Europe. But keeping large numbers of American ground forces out of Syria has also created space for Russia to assume a greater role there, both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table…..

The result is that at a time when the United States and Russia are at their most combative posture since the end of the Cold War, the American military is suddenly being told that it may, in a week, have to start sharing intelligence with one of its biggest adversaries to jointly target Islamic State and Nusra Front forces in Syria.

"I remain skeptical about anything to do with the Russians," Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, who recently stepped down as NATO's supreme allied commander, said Monday in an interview. "There are a lot of concerns about putting out there where our folks are." (New York Times)

So warhawk Supremo, Ash Carter, and his Russophobe colleagues want to intensify the conflict, expand America's military footprint in Syria, and confront Russia directly. They don't approve of the President's policy, so they're doing everything they can to torpedo the ceasefire deal. But why now, after all, the ceasefire began five days ago? If Carter and Co. saw the cessation of hostilities as such a threat , why didn't they act before?

There's a simple explanation for that. The real danger was not the ceasefire per se, but the parts of the agreement that required the US military to work collaboratively with the Russian Airforce to defeat terrorist organizations operating in Syria, namely al Nusra and ISIS. This is the part of the deal the Pentagon openly opposed, and this is the part of the deal that was set to be implemented on Monday, September 19, less than 48 hours after the attacks on Saturday. Now the future of the accord is greatly in doubt which is precisely what Carter and his generals wanted. Here's a little more background from Churkin's comments on Saturday:

"It was quite significant and not accidental that it (the attack) happened just two days before the Russian-American arrangements were supposed to come into full force….

The purpose of the joint implementation group, is to enable expanded coordination between the US and Russia. The participants are to work together to defeat al Nusra and Daesh within the context of strengthening the cessation of hostilities and in support of the political transition process outlined in UNSC 2254. These were very important arrangements whichin our viewcould really be a game changer and greatly assist our efforts to defeat al Nusra and ISIL while also creating better conditions for the political process…..

The implementation day was set for the Sept 19, so if the US wanted to attack ISIS or al Nusra, they could have waited two days and coordinated those attacks together and been sure they were striking the right people…One can only conclude that the airstrike was conducted in order to derail the operation of the Joint Implementation Group and actually prevent it from being set in motion." (Watch the entire video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bID01gIEIOY)

The reason Moscow sees the "expanded coordination between the US and Russia" as a "game changer" is because neither Putin nor his advisors believe the war can be won militarily. That's why Putin reduced Russia's military presence in Syria in December. He wanted to reduce tensions and create opportunities for negotiations. Moscow realizes that there will never be a settlement to the conflict unless the major participants agree to a political solution. That's why Putin is doing everything in his power to draw the US into an arrangement where Moscow and Washington share security responsibilities. That is the goal of the ceasefire, to create a situation where both superpowers are on the same team, involved in the same process, and working towards the same goal.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon warhawks and their allies in the US political establishment and the intelligence community, will have none of it. The objectives of the hawks, the liberal interventionists and the neocons are the same as they have been from the very beginning. They want to topple Assad, splinter Syria into multiple parts, install a US-puppet in Damascus, control critical pipelines corridors from Qatar to Turkey, and inflict a humiliating defeat on Russia. For this group, any entanglement or cooperation with Russia only undermines their ultimate objective of escalating the conflict, strengthening their grip on the Middle East, and rolling back Russian influence.

This is what makes the unprecedented attack on Syrian Army positions so suspicious; it's because it looks like a last-ditch effort by a desperate Pentagon rebels to terminate the ceasefire and prevent Washington from partnering with Moscow in the fight against militant extremism. As to whether the attacks were "intentional" or not; military analyst Pat Lang posted this illuminating tidbit on his website Sic Semper Tyrannis on Saturday:

"The SAA (Syrian Arab Army) has been occupying these positions for six months or so. Presumably US imagery and SIGINT analysts have been looking at them all that time and producing map overlays that show who is where in detail. These documents would be widely available especially to air units and their targeteers. US coalition led air has not struck previously in the Deir al-Zor area."

So, yes, the attacks might have been a "mistake", but the chances of that are extremely slim. The more probable explanation is that the orders for the attack came from the highest levels of the senior command, probably Ash Carter himself, whose determination to derail the Obama-Putin ceasefire agreement may have been the impetus for the savage bloodbath that took place in Deir al-Zor on Saturday.

It's impossible to overstate the significance of the clash between the DOD and the White House. Resistance to Obama's Syria policy has suddenly escalated into open rebellion between dissenting members of the military hierarchy and the elected representatives of the people. The tragic bombing in Deir al-Zor is probably just the first skirmish in this new war. We expect there will be more confrontations in the days to come.