According to this superb article by Patrick Cockburn, we are to expect new or increased american military intervention in the Middle East, particularly in Syria:
„…a report by the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) in Washington that recommends that the destruction of Isis should no longer be the overriding objective of the US in Syria, but that equal priority should be given to taking military action against President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Army.“
This apparently requires „A new pro-US armed opposition would be built up to fight Assad, Isis, al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda clones“.
Now take a closer look:
The Syrian Army (and allies), Isis, Al-Nusra and her Al Qaeda sisters such as Ahrar al Sham and co. have a combined man power of around 200.000 men. The loyalist factions posses both airforce and air defense. All parties together in total field thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, rocket launchers, artillery pieces and other short and mid range explosive weapons. Most important than all of this: All of the parties have 5 years of experience in irregular warfare, mastering the use of tunnels and tunnel bombs, DIY weapons, IEDs etc.
And now, a hitherto non-existent new army is going to rise in their midst and fight them all. No matter how much support the US airforce and even any special ground forces were to contribute this adventure is doomed to fail.
If you doubt this, I may refer to Afghanistan:
There the Americans/Nato had a major well-armed and -trained ally (15-20k men of the Northern Alliance), heavy ground presence (tens of thousands of Nato soldiers), an Afghan president representing the ethnic majority of the country (Pushtuns), no relevant sectarian element (broad majority of Afghans are Sunnis; Shia Hazaras very small group that was never in power), an enemy with little history of holding power (Taliban were in power just since 5 years when the Americans attacked in 2011).
15 years later the Afghan army built by Nato is hardly capable to defend against the Taliban without the help of the US airforce. The government has never regained full control of remote areas of the country and of the Pushtun heartland. The Taliban regularly stage attacks in the middle of Kabul inflicting casualties in Afghan and international troops.
Hillary and her „think tanks“ won´t care about all this. Instead she will elaborate that Syria is not Afghanistan, that the situation and the conditions are „totally different“…
„Merhej and Dayoub were the first of eighty-eight soldiers killed throughout Syria in the first month of this conflict“
Did you know this? That 88 Syrian soldiers were killed in that very early phase of the Syrian civil war?
5 years ago the Syrian „uprising“ or „revolution“ started in the city of Deraa. It is not much that we really know about the details and the dynamics that triggered the deadly cycle of cause and effects which – not long later – climaxed into a spirale of violence that now enters it´s sixth year.
The western mainstream media and along with it the media of it´s Gulf Arab allies – especially the state-owned channels Al Arabiyya and Al Jazeera – knew the „facts“ from the beginning:
– Unarmed people demonstrated peacefully for democracy
– The state security forces responded with lethal force without a real reason
While it is true that security forces in Deraa strongly overreacted to youths spraying anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school by torturing some of them and insulting their parents when they protested against the treatment of their kids, this narrative which exclusively displays the opposition perspective of the events leaves other, less pleasant facts untouched.
Though the uncomfortable facts undermining the romantic myth of the „peaceful revolution“ are still widely un(der)reported by most western news outlets, other more independent sources have revealed them:
„But there were signs from the very start that armed groups were involved…A Syrian television crew, working for the government, produced a tape showing men with pistols and Kalashnikovs in a Deraa demonstration in the very early days of the “rising”.“
„According to several different opposition sources, up to 60 Syrian security forces were killed that day in a massacre that has been hidden by both the Syrian government and residents of Daraa.
One Daraa native explains: “At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed.”
Beyond that, the details are sketchy. Nizar Nayouf, a longtime Syria dissident and blogger who wrote about the killings, says the massacre took place in the final week of March 2011.“
Here is another case of early violence against the Syrian army which western media either denied or attributed to the army itself. This article, however, debunks the media lie and clearly identifies armed opposition as the perpetrators:
„According to the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, the combined death toll for Syrian government forces was 2,569 by March 2012, the first year of the conflict. At that time, the UN’s total casualty count for all victims of political violence in Syria was 5,000.“
So, 50% of the casualties were soldiers of the army. Do you still believe that the „opposition“ was unarmed and peaceful? Considering this enormous death toll of the Syrian army, do you still believe that they „overreacted“?
No country likes to have the media of hostile western countries on its soil, especially after Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 blatantly showed how media deliberately misreported events, concealed „unfavorable“ facts and exaggerated/overemphasized other facts. The Syrian government had no interest in exposing weakness and revealing the degree of it´s loss of control in some cities. Western and Arab media and governments simply declared all reporting by Syrian and pro-Syrian sources „propaganda“ and treated every claim by Syrian „activists“ as undisputed truth.
Whenever army soldiers were killed, Al Jazeera and co. had an „activist“ on the phone line explaining that the Sunni soldiers were executed by Alawite officers because they refused to shoot at unarmed civilians or because they wanted to defect. This myth, often cited by anti-Syrian mass media was so ridiculous that even Rami Abdulrahman from the frequently quoted pro-rebel Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR) commented it as follows: „“This game of saying the army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this because it is propaganda.”“
Especially in the first year of the civil war, the primary source of western news channels, the activists, were quick declaring every person killed by the Syrian army as „civilian“. This was exposed as a lie by – no joke! – Al Jazeeras own reporter Nir Rosen: „Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.“
One of the best-known and most cited „activists“ was Danny Abu Dayyem. Watch this video that exposes him and embarasses CNN:
Another „prominent“ Activist and primary source for Al Jazeera was Khaled Abu Saleh, who was also exposed as a liar and forger of news:
So, for many months the fairy tale was perpetuated of a population enduring it´s governments unlimited and unjustified violence peacefully and patiently until one day it had enough and decided to „defend“ itself. Some went so far to claim that this allegedly nonviolent phase of the „revolution“ lasted almost one year. This is a brazen lie. In a single incident in early June 2011 – note that this is less than three months after Deraa – some 120 soldiers and police were killed in the city of Jisr al Shughur.
This is what Syria expert Joshua Landis tells about the massacre: „There is little evidence of wide-scale mutiny of Syrian soldiers. No solid evidence that they shot at each other, and some evidence that the young men of Jisr set a trap for Syrian soldiers with simple weapons and dynamite…The Syrian government then published tapped phone calls of activists in Jisr that it collected on the eve of the initial combat. If they can be taken at face value, the activists establish a plan to send all the women and children of the city to Turkey. They were instructed to tell foreigners that Syrian military personnel shot each other. When enlisted men refused to shoot on unarmed demonstrators, their Alawi officers mowed them down – that was the story to be told to the Western press.“:
Despite persistent media claims that the Syrian forces were acting with „irresponsible“ or „disproportional“ brutality, video clips like the following from Douma near Damascus (not later than March 2012) show a different picture: The soldiers carry no weapons, they are throwing stones back at the demonstrators:
This video from Homs (not later than 2012) is even more unmasking for the „unarmed opposition“ as it shows armed „civilians“ firing at unarmed riot police:
One thing is crystal clear: Syrias „uprising“ was armed and violent from its very first days. No doubt, many innocent people were killed by the security forces, but to claim that the violence was one-sided, that the protesters were unarmed and entirely peaceful, that police and army had no reason to resort to violence means ignoring the bitter truth of the not so romantic beginnings of what became a full scale armed insurrection.
Was soll eigentliche dieser ganze Unsinn um angeblich „moderate Rebellen“ in Syrien?
– 80% dieser „moderaten Rebellen“ tragen Bärte, die man zurecht und eindeutig mit Salafisten assoziiert
– Ihre ganzen Battaillone haben eindeutig islami(sti)sche Namen
– Sie beleidigen ihre Gegner (Syrische Armee, Hizbollah) mit religiösen Diffamierungen (Ungläubige, Apostate…)
Wer sollen denn diese „moderaten“ sein?
Die in Idlib kämpfende grösste und stärkste Rebellen-Dachorganisation ist „Jaish al Fath“ (bedeutet „Armee der Eroberung“ und das Wort „Fath“ ist eine „Hommage“ auf die frühislamischen Eroberungszüge der Muslime gegen die römischen Christen) beinhaltet als grösste Untergruppierungen zwei Gruppen, die als salafistisch und lokale „Ableger“ der Al Qaida gelten:
– Nusra Front
– Ahrar al Sham
Auch ein weiteres Mitglied, die „Jund al Aqsa“ gilt als Al Qaeda nah:
„The Long War Journal has previously identified Jund al Aqsa as an al Qaeda front, based on the biographies of its leadership, the group’s propaganda, and its close working relationship with the Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. “
Weitere Mitglieder der Jaish al Fath sind tschetschenische, uighurische, türkische, uzbekische und marrokanische Verbände, die Selbstmordattentäter und Kindersoldaten einsetzen:
Die Russen bombardieren hauptsächlich die Jaish al Fath, aber was soll denn an ihr „moderat“ sein?
„The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), an Uighur jihadist group that is affiliated with al Qaeda and operates in Central and South Asia, has published photos showing its fighters engaging in combat with Syrian government forces in Hama and Latakia provinces. “
This is another excellent article by Patrick Cockburn proving that Russia indeed is hitting ISIS:
There are, however, some further remarks of interest:
„Prominent among those congratulating President Erdogan is the Army of Conquest (Jaysh al Fateh), which captured much of Idlib province earlier in the year and 90 per cent of whose fighters reportedly come from al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.“
=> So, the most successful non-IS rebel faction consists to 90% of Al Qaeda affiliates and yet you hear western media and politicians seriously complaining that Russia – when targeting the „army of conquest“ – is attacking the „moderate rebels“?
And these „moderates“ do not even try to hide their true color and malicious intentions:
„Mr Gurcan cites a well-informed Turkish authority saying many of these Syrian opposition “groups are trying to sign non-hostility pacts with Isis” – pacts that say they will not fight Isis unless attacked by them. Governments pretending to distinguish between “moderate opposition” and Isis in Syria should keep this in mind.“
In another instance western media launched a smear campaign against Russia distributing and repeating unverified rebel claims accusing Russia of systematically and frequently bombing hospitals.
This is the truth:
Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross both denied these bombings:
The third highly interesting recent case of misinformation was when western media (Reuters) changed news which could prove negative for the „reputation“ of western backed rebels and as a side effect could refute earlier claims like „Only the Syrian Army could have used chemical weapons“:
Just look, how „rebels“ was changed to „fighters“ within a day by the same news outlet.
BBC on July 17th, 2015:
„Yemen’s southern province of Aden has been „liberated“ from Houthi rebel forces, the country’s exiled vice-president has declared.“
„The Saudi leadership is feeling triumphant over today’s announcement of what it calls „the liberation of Aden“. “
BBC on October 6th, 2015:
„Jihadist militants have reportedly been seen on the streets of Aden since southern militiamen backed by coalition forces drove the Houthis out of the city“
More interesting and shocking is the fact that BBC changed this report later. In the original version which I saved the text was this:
„Residents have complained that the city has descended into chaos and lawlessness, with jihadist militants affiliated to al-Qaeda and Islamic State seen on the streets. “
It´s a mystery why BBC chose to omit the complaint of the residents. Probably it does not fit well into the farce of the liberated happy city.
When confronted with the fact that there is no relevant moderate rebel faction going by the name of „Free Syrian Army“, still some people disagree pointing to the so called „Southern Front“ as a supposed success model of a secular/liberal force fighting against the Syrian government.
The more interesting then to zoom deeper into the Southern Front:
„The simultaneous claims of success indicate that the Southern Front’s fighters likely participated in the battle alongside the jihadists, even though the FSA’s southern alliance has repeatedly rejected cooperation with Al Nusrah.“
„Just days after Al Reis’ [Southern Front commander] public rejection of any cooperation with al Qaeda’s arm in Syria, Ahrar al Sham, Al Nusrah and their allies in the region announced the creation of a southern wing of Jaysh al Fateh (“Army of Conquest”).“
„Some FSA groups rejected cooperation with “Jaysh al Fateh in the South,” but others reportedly joined it. Adding to the battlefield confusion, the Southern Front apparently fought alongside Ahrar al Sham just days before publicly rejecting any collaboration with Al Nusrah (Ahrar’s closest ally in Syria)“
„According to a recent account, FSA groups operating under its umbrella are peeling off and joining Ahrar al Sham.“
So much about the Southern Front being a reliable „moderate“ rebel faction and so much about it´s leaders credibility when they claim they will not cooperate with Jabhat al Nusra, Al Qaedas Syrian branch.