What war on terrorism?
The US versus Syria 2013 and 2014.
The Red Line and the Rat Line lives on.
In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress.
In August 2013, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons.
Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia.
The information provided in The Red Line and the Ratline - Seymour Hersch on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels is highly relevant regarding the recent decision to escalate US aggression against Syria.
Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya?
What Hersh reveals is that Obama was forced to call off his planned massive attack on Syria on Sept. 2, 2013, due to the fact that evidence existed that the chemical weapons attacks in Syria were not carried out by the Syrian government, but rather by the Syrian opposition (which was supported by the US in collaboration with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Britain’s MI6.)
Russia obtained samples of chemical materials used in Syria and provided them to Porton Down, the British defense laboratory in Wiltshire, which concluded that the gas used in the August 21 attack in Syria did not match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal.
The Porton Down report was provided to the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, which already knew that Obama’s public claims were wrong.
On June 20, analysts for the U.S Defense Intelligence Agency issued a five page report which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell. The paper said that Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk. In May more than ten members of the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with two kilograms of sarin.
Moreover, according to Hersh a person with close knowledge of the UN’s activity in Syria investigating the chemical attacks there told him that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack on March 19, 2013.
In late August a senior official in the CIA sent a message: "It was not the result of the current regime. UK & US know this."
The Joint Chiefs who had been tasked by Obama to prepare a massive attack on Syria to begin on Sept. 2 went to Obama and told him that the attack would be ”an unjustified act of aggression.” As Hersh reports: “It was the joint chiefs who led Obama to change course.”
Hersch's article and the LarouchePac article at the links below are a must read for anyone interested in the escalation of US intervention in the Middle East, including the renewed declaration by President Obama that "Assad must go" - indicating that in addition to the alleged goal of eliminating ISIS / ISIL - the power behind the US administration that wanted the US to attack Syria in 2013, has prevailed in 2014, even though the covert operations by the US and other parties have unlikely changed.
According to Hersh the chemical attacks in Syria by the opposition were a false flag operation to be blamed on the Syrian government, intended to give the false impression that Syria had crossed Obama’s Red Line so that the US would have justification to officially militarily intervene in Syria against the Assad regime.
Hersh portrays this operation as being run by Turkey’s Erdogan to force Obama’s hand.
However, a corresponding article in LarouchePAC says that "...this pre-planned false-flag operation was not run solely by Turkey’s Erdogan, but involved U.S. intelligence under Obama’s direction."
The Obama Rat Line is what the CIA calls the operation run by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and U.S. to run guns to the Syrian opposition, which includes al-Qaeda.
The choice of the term “Rat Line” is revealing, because the CIA under Alan Dulles and James Angleton previously ran a rat line after World War II to help Nazi war criminals escape.
This rat line, according to Hersh was authorized in early 2012 and was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the al-Qaeda opposition.
The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law which requires that eight ranking members of congress be briefed on covert operations by classifying the mission as a liaison operation.
Hersh reports that:
“Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going.”
”Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels.”
(Note: much of this post is extracted from the LarouchePAC summary of Hersch's article).
Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya?
The answer lies in the likely clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the so-called red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous. The Joint Chiefs of Staff prevailed in 2013.
Clearly the war-mongers have prevailed in 2014, despite the likelihood that the underlying circumstances revealed in 2013 have unlikely changed.
The US administration (regardless of the Party it allegedly represents) has been manipulated by powers behind the throne for decades - likely a mix of elite corporations and the elite of the military-industrial-surveillance complex.
For some war is a great opportunity.
For most war represents
death, destruction, debt and despair.
While ambition for power, control and money are likely the prime drivers of all wars, it is naive to exclude the economic power and influence of religion in some wars - especially in the Middle East.
ISIS / ISIL has declared itself a Sunni Islamic group - and claims to adhere to the extreme form of Sunni Islam - Wahhabism.
Less than 15% of the world's Muslims are Shiite or Shia. Most Muslims are Sunni.
Saudi Arabia - 95% Sunni (mainly Wahhabism)
Egypt - 90% Sunni
Jordan - 92% Sunni
Qatar - 86% Sunni
Turkey - 85% Sunni
UAE 78% Sunni
Compare this with:
Iran - 90% Shia
Bahrain - 70% Shia
Iraq - 63% Shia
Do you think this could explain the efforts by some Islamic US "allies" to seek support from the US to act against Iran and Iraq?
Turkey is worth a particular mention seeing as the Rat Line goes through it.
Turkey was the seat of the Ottoman Empire. It was a Sunni Islamic sultanate and later a caliphate. (Ring any bells?)
Then there is Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is the dominant and state sponsored form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism", and for causing disunity in the Muslim community by labeling non-Wahhabi Muslims as apostates (takfir) thus paving the way for their bloodshed. Beheadings are a common official form of execution in Saudi Arabia. (Does this sound familiar?)
Covert collaboration would certainly explain how ISIS / ISIL has been so successful at eluding the Iraq and Syrian government forces and the mighty US.
Then there is the Zionist plan for Greater Israel - i.e. potentially clashing Sunni versus Zionist ambitions for expanding empires.
Needless to say, it would suit Middle Eastern countries to have the US and its allies go into further massive debt, engaging in wars in the Middle East to further their imperialistic causes - while they continue to fuel the fire of war with covert support for the terrorists they are nominally fighting.
US foreign policy is NOT acting in the interest of the US public. It is acting against its interests. It increases the risk to national security as a consequence of potential acts of retaliation. It increases the risk of serious injuries and death of soldiers fighting other countries wars. It is destructive, not productive and is driving up monumental national debt.
There is no benefit to the citizens of the US or it's allies to pay taxes and offer up sons and daughters to be killed in the interest of the variable ambitions of a power elite that want control over the Middle East and it's resources.
But there are powerful war mongers pushing for the US to engage in endless wars.
Who are they? Why are they doing it?
The war on terror is largely a misnomer. It is a war that utilises terrorism, that is being used to attack: constitutional and human rights; and which attacks democratic governance (representative of, and in the interest of the people), while favouring plutocracy (representative of, and in the interest of the elite).
The US and some of it's allies have been, and continue to support terrorists. It makes a mockery of the hypocritical "War on Terror."
Western powers must stop supporting Islamic and other terrorists - in any way.
For more on the willing link between major powers and terrorists, see:
Foreign Policy and Defense journalist, Robert Dreyfus’ book:
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam
Historian, Mark Curtis book:
Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam
Investigative Journalist James Risen’s book:
Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War
Jounalist Tom Engelhardt’s book:
Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World