Monday, August 24, 2015

Why Australia Should NOT Send Fighter Aircraft Into Syria

Summary reasons:

* Whether a Western alliance recognizes the Assad government or not the country is still Syrian and there is no legal authority for our military to go there.

* The US goal of establishing "ISIS free" enclaves overlooks that the only effective occupying forces at the moment are jihadist and plans for secular occupation are non-existent.

* Without local government in these enclaves refugee populations will not return. They will remain as permanently conflicted war zone areas lacking civil authority or legal basis.

* The Syrian government is to be kept out of these "safe havens" even when fighting ISIS.

* The US-NATO and Arab allies have an overriding aim of defeating Assad and a history of supporting jihadists in that aim. These enclaves would likely actually provide protection to such forces.

* Iran, Hezbollah and Russia all have defence commitments to Syria and Australian forces could find themselves caught up in a wider and more complex conflict.

* Any military victory over Assad by the West will be jihadist one. Expect a genocide of a million Alawites to follow along with a permanently failed state like Libya and an even more powerful ISIS caliphate.

Going to Syria to defeat ISIS is just a slogan, devoid of any critical military or political thinking. And this is not even our initiative. The UK trotted out this proposal a month ago at US instigation and we have undoubtedly been asked to join in.

If Australia sends our fighter aircraft and on-ground military advisers we will be going all-in on a Syrian regime change exercise under the guise of defeating ISIS.

This US policy direction has been spelled out in detail by Michael E. O’Hanlon at the US think tank the Brookings Institute, in an article entitled "Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America's most hopeless war":

"The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces...Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL...The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones...The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded."

This is a program for the US occupation of Syria, an action with no basis under international law.

The Brookings Institute Plan to Liquidate Syria  :  Justin Raimondo

The West has been supporting jihadist forces in Syria.

In 2012 the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced a memo saying that US support for anti-Assad forces were a direct support for al Qaeda and other jihadist groups who could grow to be a regional threat.

Former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirmed recently on an al Jazeera interview that not only had he studied the DIA memo in 2012, but that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency Chief Says Rise of Islamic State Was “A Willful Decision”

The US has changed its Middle East stance on Islamic terrorists and is now quietly backing a leading jihadist group al Nusrah. 

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have overcome their differences over the Muslim Brotherhood. They met in early 2015 and backed jihadist militia groups al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham in a new military command called the Army of Conquest. And it was this group that captured the Syrian town of Idlib on March 24.

Charles Lister, a senior analyst at Brookings Institution Doha, blew the whistle on the key detail -- that US personnel in an 'operations room' control centre in Turkey had been 'facilitating' the Idlib success by the Army of Conquest.

This despite the fact that al Nusrah has rejected US overtures to distance itself from al Qaeda and has instead publicly affirmed its loyalty to them.

So there you have it. The US was previously bombing al Nusrah but now that it has been reconstituted as the Army of Conquest and given Turkish and Saudi blessing then the US is on board to help it defeat Assad.

There's still that pesky issue of the US providing direct military support to murderous jihadists allied to al Qaeda. Some truths are best concealed from the public for as long as possible I guess.

So why has the US chosen to support known jihadists allied to al Qaeda? 

Simple. Pres.Obama needs Turkish and Saudi backing to seal his nuclear deal with Iran. Support for al Nusrah and the Army of Conquest was the price to be paid.

Charles Lister, the analyst who broke the story of US military assistance to al Nusrah, is no lightweight terrorism commentator. He has numerous terrorism books and studies to his credit and headed up the London office of Jane's International Terrorism agency. For him to point to direct US involvement is extremely significant.


The Brookings Institute Plan to Liquidate Syria

Seymour Hersh (2007): US policy framework for ME regime change