Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US needs boots on the ground to ‘occupy & govern’ Syrian territories – Air Force secretary

RT | November 11, 2015

Washington needs “boots on the ground” in Syria in addition to its air campaign against ISIS, which is not fruitful despite some progress. US Air Force secretary has admitted that “ground forces” is a must in order to “occupy” and “govern” parts of Syria.

In her comments, Secretary Deborah Lee James stressed the importance of the US-led air campaign, but admitted that airstrikes need to be backed by ground forces.

“Air power is extremely important. It can do a lot but it can’t do everything,” James said, just two days after Secretary of Defense Ash Carter supported President Obama’s “willingness to do more” in terms of US troops on Syrian ground.

“Ultimately it cannot occupy territory and very importantly it cannot govern territory,” James told reporters at the Dubai Airshow. “This is where we need to have boots on the ground. We do need to have ground forces in this campaign.”

When it comes to support, the US should assist the “Iraqi army, the Free Syrians and the Kurds” in the fight against Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL), James said.

Joined at the news conference by the head of Air Force’s Central Command, Lt. Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, the civilian chief of the US Air Force also said that the US sought to speed up the resupply of munitions used by its allies in campaigns against IS militants in Syria and Iraq.

“That’s a key message that I’m going to be taking back to Washington, and it’s one that we are working pretty hard,” she told reporters, stressing that the Air Force is committed to a quicker process of approving foreign military sales.

“We need to redouble our efforts and get the message delivered back home that it is important to give much more quick consideration if at all possible,” she said.

Last week, Secretary Carter said that the US needed “much more than airstrikes” to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria.

“I don’t think it’s enough. I think we’re looking to do more. But the fundamental strategy in Iraq and Syria for dealing with ISIL and dealing a lasting defeat to ISIL is to identify then train, equip, and enable local forces that can keep the peace,” Carter said.

On October 30 the White House announced that it is planning to send up no “more than 50 troops” [special forces] to advise “moderate opposition” in Syria on the ground.

The White House spokesman Josh Earnest stressed that “these forces do not have a combat mission” while telling the reporters that the US has shown “a desire to intensify those elements of our strategy that have shown the most promise.”

According to a report from Lebanon’s satellite television channel, Al Mayadeen, American military advisors already arrived in Syria last week and started training “moderate rebels” near the city of Salma, located in the western province of Latakia.

The recent development contradicts President Obama’s 2013 promise not to put any “American boots on the ground in Syria” while also bringing up the issues concerning the previous failures of the US train and equip program.

The Pentagon gave up on the training part of the project in October, after senior Obama administration officials admitted that the US had only trained a handful of fighters, despite the program’s $500 million budget.

In September, it was revealed that one group of trainees had surrendered one quarter of their US-supplied weapons, ammunition, and vehicles in exchange for safe passage through territory held by another rebel group affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

The rebel training program’s $500 million budget in 2015 was in addition to the $42 million the Pentagon had already spent in 2014 to set it up.

November 10, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s S-300 for Iran: What Got Washington So Scared?

Sputnik – 10.11.2015

The Russian-made S-300 missile defense systems in Iran will prevent the US from exerting political pressure on Tehran and will strengthen Russia’s positions in the region, especially at a time when Moscow is leading a successful counterterrorism campaign in Syria, TV Channel Zvezda reported.

The United States fully understands that “Russian and Chinese weapons in the Middle East dramatically alter the balance of power in the region and beyond,” the media outlet quoted Ruslan Pukhov, who heads the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, as saying.

The S-300, believed to be one of the best missile defense systems in the world, has already demonstrated what it is capable of –not in military, but rather political terms.

For instance, the S-300 served as a potent deterrent in Syria in 2012, the media outlet stated. Three years ago Washington decided not to strike Damascus-led forces among other things because the Syrian Army had a number of these surface-to-air missile batteries in service. The Americans, according to Zvezda, did not want to see the S-300 in action.

American experts say that S-300 systems in Iran will ultimately create a no-fly zone for the F-16s and F/A-18s over the country, the media outlet noted. The B-2s and F-22s are capable of operating in areas guarded by the S-300 for a limited amount of time since the Russian-made missile defense system can easily change its location within hours.

“This missile defense system could deny access to the airspace over the Persian Gulf. … It could almost completely neutralize Turkey’s military capabilities. Israel and Saudi Arabia will automatically lose their air supremacy and will be unable to carry out airstrikes in the region as well as some parts of Syria,” he noted.

Moscow and Tehran signed an $800-million deal for the delivery of five S-300 missile systems in 2007. In 2011, Iran sued Russia in the Geneva Arbitration Court after Moscow suspended the contract in 2010, citing a UN Security Council resolution that placed an arms embargo on Tehran.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lifted the S-300 delivery ban in April 2015, shortly after the P5+1 group of international negotiators and Iran reached a framework nuclear agreement to remove all economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for its pledge to ensure that all nuclear research in the country will be for peaceful purposes.

November 10, 2015 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Arab Allies Have No Wish to Support Washington’s ‘Game’ in Syria

Sputnik – 10.11.2015

Arab nations, who initially took part in the US-led airstrikes against ISIL, have grown wary of Washington’s scheming in the Middle East and have switched their efforts to tackle what they perceive as real threats, military expert Vladimir Prohvatilov told Radio Sputnik.

“Many know perfectly well that the US is not really interested in defeating ISIL. Washington’s true aim is to create a zone of controlled chaos in the Middle East to deal with geopolitical and geo-economic issues. America’s task is to spark a bloody conflict and drag others into it,” the analyst asserted.

Washington’s plans for the Middle East, according to Prohvatilov, prompted Canada’s newly elected prime minister to pull out of the anti-ISIL bombing campaign. Delivering on this promise would mean that Justin Trudeau does not view the operation led by the US as beneficial for Canada.

This stance is not exclusive to Ottawa, the expert maintains. Many Arab countries which nominally take part in the US-led efforts share this position.

“People [in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar] are used to high living standards and do not want to take part in a war. The Saudi Army is essentially manned by Pakistani mercenaries. Saudi nationals have no wish to fight,” he asserted.

Washington’s Arab allies have switched their attention to Yemen and see tackling the Houthis as a priority.

“Riyadh views the Houthis as a threat since they are capable of calling to arms as many as 200,000 seasoned fighters. The same goes for Jordan and Qatar. They perceive Yemen as a real threat while ISIL is a subtle game engineered by the US,” Prohvatilov noted.

Washington’s stance towards Moscow’s counterterrorism efforts in Syria is also a part of this game.

“The Americans want the Russians either to stop the campaign (so that Washington could accuse Moscow of a military defeat or cowardice) or to expand it so that Russia would bear all the cost” of a major military engagement, he added.

November 10, 2015 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If the Sinai crash was terrorism, its timing was perfect for the West

By Dan Glazebrook | RT | November 7, 2015

A sketch by the late lamented US comedian Bill Hicks involved a US general at a press conference. “‘Iraq has incredible weapons. Incredible,’ the general said. ‘How do you know that?’ he was asked. “Oh, well, uh – we looked at the receipt.’”

In the aftermath of the Russian airplane crash in Egypt last week, Britain in particular has been quick to claim that the crash was the result of a “terrorist bomb,” presumably planted by Islamic State (previously ISIS/ISIL). So what is it that makes Cameron so sure that the terrorist group created by his Syria policy has the necessary training, equipment and wherewithal to carry out that attack? Did he look at the receipt?

What is clear is that if the plane was brought down by a bomb, and that bomb was planted by ISIS, it marks a major development for the group.

According to Raffaello Pantucci, of the Royal United Services Institute, an attack of this kind by ISIS would “herald an unseen level of sophistication in their bomb-making, as well as the ability to smuggle a device on board.”

But as well as a new technical feat, such an attack would represent an alarming change in tactics. The Times argued: “If the plane crash did turn out to be the work of an Islamic State affiliate in Sinai, it would mark a significant departure for the jihadist group, which had yet to launch a large-scale attack against civilians.”

So, if the plane was indeed brought down by an ISIS-in-Sinai bomb, either the group have suddenly been blessed with some amazing new technology, or they have suddenly decided to change tactics to mass killings of civilians. If the latter, isn’t it a little odd that, after more than a year of Western airstrikes apparently targeting them, ISIS have failed to launch such an attack against Western civilians – yet are able to respond within weeks to a campaign of Russian airstrikes which, according to the West, are not even aimed at them?

Either way, the crash couldn’t have been timed more perfectly from the point of view of Western geopolitics. After four years of setbacks, the West’s Syrian “regime change” (that euphemism for wholesale state destruction) operation now faces the prospect of imminent total defeat courtesy of Russia’s intervention. And options for how to salvage that operation are very limited indeed.

Full scale occupation is a non-starter; following Iraq and Afghanistan, both the US and British armies are now officially incapable of mounting such ventures. The Libya option – supporting death squads on the ground with NATO air cover – has always come up against Russian opposition, but has now been effectively rendered impossible. And relying on anti-government death squads alone is simply very unlikely to succeed, however many TOWs and manpads are feverishly thrown into the fire; after all, there are only so many terrorists and mercenaries who can be shipped in, and, as Mike Whitney put it, the world may have already reached “peak terrorist.”

Forcing Russia out – and turning US and British airpower openly and decisively against the Syrian state – has thus become a key objective for Western planners. But how to do it? What would turn Russians against the intervention? The Times wrote: “So far the war in Syria has been quite popular…. [but] if it turns out that the war prompts terrorists to wreak vengeance on ordinary Russians by secreting explosives on planes, that gung-ho attitude could change.” Or at least, that is presumably what the Times hopes.

And downing the plane on Egyptian soil just before Sisi’s first state visit to Britain?

Egypt is at a historical crossroads. Having moved from the socialist camp into the West’s “orbit” during the Sadat era in the 1970s, Egypt’s leadership has become ever less willing to be dictated to by Washington and London: a process that began in the latter part of Mubarak’s rule, and has continued under Sisi. Along with Russia, Egypt has played a leading “spoiler role,” as Sukant Chandan puts it, in the West’s regime change operation in Syria – and has not been forgiven for it.

In addition, Mubarak’s government had been dragging its feet on the privatization and “structural adjustment” demanded by the IMF: and tourism was and is a major source of income helping to reduce the country’s dependence on the international banksters. But since last Saturday, all that is now in the balance; as the Financial Times commented, suspicions that the crash was caused by a bomb “are likely to prove disastrous to the country’s struggling tourism industry.”

Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond agreed. “Of course, this will have a huge negative impact on Egypt,” he announced matter-of-factly, following Britain’s decision to stop British flights to Egypt – seemingly without an ounce of regret. The likely massive loss of tourist income will force the Egyptians to go back to the IMF, who will, of course, demand their pound of flesh in the form of mass privatizations and “austerity.”

But it is not only Egypt’s economic dependency on the West that will be deepened by the crash – Britain, in particular, appears to be using the crash as leverage to re-insinuate itself into Egypt’s military and security apparatus. Firstly, British officials have been taking every opportunity to humiliate Egypt, trying to convince the world that Egypt is perilously unstable, and that only by outsourcing security to the West can it be safe again. When Sisi arrived in the country this week, noted the Times, “Britain openly contradicted the Egyptian leader and suggested that he was not in full control of the Sinai peninsula,” whilst an Egyptian official “commented that the dispatch of six officials to check the security arrangements at Sharm el-Sheikh airport was ‘like treating us as children.’”

Finally, of course, the British government has not missed the opportunity to use the tragedy to push for deeper British involvement in Syria. Michael Fallon, Britain’s Defence Secretary, has been spending the last two days explaining how the case for bombing Syria would be strengthened if it were proven the plane was brought down by ISIS. Quite how more deeply insinuating one of the death squads’ leading state backers into Syria would somehow reduce the power of the death squads is, of course, not explained; such is the nature of imperialism.

In a world, then, where Western power is in steep decline, terrorism is fast becoming one of the last few viable options for extending its hegemony and undermining the rising power of the global South. If this attack does turn out to have been conducted by ISIS, how kind it will have been of them to take it upon themselves to act as the vanguard of Western imperial interests. And how obliging of the hundreds of Western agents in the organization not to do anything to stop them.

Dan Glazebrook is a freelance political writer who has written for RT, Counterpunch, Z magazine, the Morning Star, the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent and Middle East Eye, amongst others. His first book “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis” was published by Liberation Media in October 2013. It featured a collection of articles written from 2009 onwards examining the links between economic collapse, the rise of the BRICS, war on Libya and Syria and ‘austerity’. He is currently researching a book on US-British use of sectarian death squads against independent states and movements from Northern Ireland and Central America in the 1970s and 80s to the Middle East and Africa today.

November 9, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘US not interested in defeating ISIS’

By Sharmine Narwani | RT | November 9, 2015

The US is not interested in defeating ISIS but would want to control its movements to create a geopolitical balance on the ground and provide the US-led coalition with leverage at the Vienna talks, said Middle East geopolitics analyst Sharmine Narwani.

RT: There are more than 60 countries in the coalition fighting against Islamic State. How hard is it for the US to keep them all united?

Sharmine Narwani: I think the US is playing loose with international law. To start off with, this coalition is illegitimate. The reason to have signed up 60 countries is more to create some kind of cover, some kind of legitimacy for these illegal operations in Syria. The main struggle is probably with the key Arab members of the coalition who were the starting members of the coalition – five Persian Gulf countries and Jordan included – because they have quite disparate objectives from the US.

RT: How many countries in the coalition are actually contributing to its goals?

SN: That is a very interesting point, because even though there are 60 countries listed in the coalition, there are only 11 who have contributed in Syria. There are two groups: like I mentioned, the Arab states – I call them the Sunni states, because they provide some kind of Arab Sunni legitimacy for the Americans; the other states are the UK, the US and France – three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Canada and Australia.

What is interesting about this is – of those five Western countries it is only Canada that stepped in relatively early, when things kicked off last year. It was the US mainly with the Arab States, and the UK, France and Australia have only come in the last three months, as well as Turkey, who is a new entrant in this coalition of 11, not 60.

RT: It’s been more than a year since the US-led bombing campaign started. Why has the coalition failed to prevent ISIS from seizing new territory?

SN: Again, interesting that Turkey is a new entrant in this coalition of 11 bombing Syria. It only came on board around I think two months ago, in August, when it launched strikes against ISIL. Now, about a month ago we, after Turkey launched its airstrikes, we’re looking at still only about three airstrikes against ISIL – the rest were against Kurdish targets. So Turkey is an example of another Sunni state in this coalition of 11 that has disparate objectives from the US. So Turkey’s interest may be on the Kurdish issue, but for instance, in the other Arab Sunni states – their interests diverge from the Americans, because they are interested in regime change in Syria, whereas the Americans have taken a back seat on that in recent months. So it is very, very hard to keep this coalition together, because there are no common objectives among its 11 partners.

RT: What are the reasons, do you think the coalition is breaking apart? How can the coalition increase the efficiency of its actions?

SN: I see the coalition breaking apart or being redundant for two reasons. One is the lack of common objectives among the 11 actors participating in the coalition, but the other is more in line with military strategy in fighting any war or conflict, anywhere. We’ve heard this over and over again in the Syrian conflict – you need a coordination of air force and ground power. The US-led coalition does not have this. Part of the reason it doesn’t have this is because it entered Syrian air space and violated international law in doing so against the wishes of the Syrian government. So it cannot coordinate with the Syrian government who leads the ground activities, whether it is the Syrian army or various Syrian militias that are pro-government; or Hezbollah – a non-state actor from Lebanon; or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their advisory capacity. The Russians of course do enjoy that relationship, so their airstrikes are not only both valid and legal, but also useful – a coordinated effort to target ISIL and other terrorist organizations.

RT: Do you think the US doesn’t have real intentions to fight ISIS, and that is the main reason of instability of its coalition?

SN: Absolutely. The US-led coalition has failed in attaining goals to defeat ISIS, not just because it cannot lead a coordinated military effort in air, land and sea in Syria, or because it lacks legality, or because the member states of the coalition have diverging interests. But I think the US interest as well has to be called into question. I mean: does the US want to defeat ISIS? I would argue very strongly based on what we’ve seen in the last year that the US is not interested in defeating ISIS. The US is interested in perhaps controlling ISIS’ movements, so that it helps to create a geopolitical balance on the ground that will provide the US government and its allies with leverage at the negotiating table. So they don’t want ISIS to take over all of Syria [because] that poses threats to allies in the region. They don’t want ISIS and other terrorist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others, and the various coalitions they have formed to lose ground, because at the end of the day the only pressure they are going to be able to apply on the Syrian government and its allies is what is happening on the ground. And they need something; they need advantage on the ground that they can take with them to the negotiating table in Vienna.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University.  You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani

READ MORE: ‘US-led coalition disjointed in fighting ISIS as some members have own plans’ – Iraq’s ex-PM

November 9, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘US-led coalition disjointed in fighting ISIS as some members have own plans’ – Iraq’s ex-PM

RT | November 8, 2015

The US-led coalition has been “unbelievably” inefficient in fighting the terror group Islamic State, possibly because some members have their plans for the terrorists, Iraq’s former PM told RT.

Nouri al-Maliki, who stepped down as the head of the Iraqi government last year and remains a vice-president, believes that Iraq was targeted by a “regional conspiracy” and is at risk of breaking up. He also said inviting Russia to target Islamic State targets in Iraq could play a positive part in the debacle.

Describing the effort of the international coalition led by the US to cripple ISIS fighters in Iraq, Maliki said it was “inefficient”.

“It’s unbelievable and unacceptable that more than 60 nations comprising this coalition that have the most modern aircraft and weapons at their disposal have been conducting their campaign in Iraq for 14 months and IS still remains in the country,” he told RT’s Arabic-language sister-channel Rusiya Al-Yaum.

Maliki cited the loss of the city of Ramadi and the major oil refining center Baiji to ISIS, both of which happened after the coalition started bombing the terrorists, as proof that not enough is being done by the coalition.

“Some members of the coalition have their own strategies that account for ISIS either continuing to exist or being destroyed. They also consider what would happen after ISIS’s destruction. I believe they are indecisive, trying to calculate what happens. What will be the situation in Iraq, in the region, will the map look the same? Or maybe ISIS is a key instrument for changing the situation in Iraq and the region?” he asked.

Maliki says Russia helped Iraq in the aftermath of the fall of Mosul to the Islamic State by providing weapons and may help more by expanding to Iraq its bombing campaign in Syria. He said the Russian effort had proven to be efficient.

“The Russian involvement in Syria and the intensive bombings have stopped the offensive of many terrorist groups. This involvement hurt the terrorists a lot and inspired the Syrian troops. Russia’s actions also stunned the international coalition. In just days and weeks Russia delivered strikes against major terrorist positions in Syria. And where is the international coalition of more than 60 nations that had achieved nothing in 14 months in Iraq?” he said.

Maliki said the Iraq government is dragging its feet on inviting Russia, partially due to pressure from the US.

“If somebody has a strong position in the region and then another nation starts using its capabilities the former party is naturally concerned. It was believed that Russia’s presence in the region was over. But now Russia has a comeback to fight terrorism alongside Iraq and Syria. And a situation where decision, which could be previously taken unilaterally, should now be taken in partnership, causes concern,” Maliki said.

November 8, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Victoria Nuland’s Capitol Hill Comedy of Errors

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | November 7, 2015

Wednesday’s hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee was a comedy of errors, starting with the loaded title: “US Policy After Russia’s Escalation in Syria.” The hearing featured two Assistant Secretaries of State as witnesses, Victoria “cookies” Nuland, in charge of European and Eurasian Affairs, and Anne Patterson with Near Eastern Affairs duty at State.

Starting with the title, yes, “escalation.” Apparently four years of active US regime change policy in Syria is not “escalation.” Four years violating Syria’s sovereignty with a CIA covert war on its soil is not “escalation.” Billions spent training “moderate” rebels who rush to join al-Qaeda at first opportunity is not “escalation.” A year of US bombing sorties over Syria in violation of US law and international law is not “escalation.” Failed “regime change” policy in Syria producing millions of refugees is not “escalation.” And now, a presidential decision to place the US military into a country that has neither attacked nor threatened the US is not “escalation.”

No, a Russian entry in the conflict in response to a request from the legal and sovereign Syrian government, which in a month has crippled jihadists from al-Nusra to ISIS, is considered by the US to be “escalation.” Doing effectively in a month what the US has claimed to be doing for a year is considered “escalation.” We recall President George W. Bush’s famous, “you’re either with us or you are against us.” But with Nuland, Russia is against us even when it is with us…

Why? Because in addition to attacks on ISIS east of the zone controlled by the Syrian government, the Russians have also done damage to US-backed (and al-Qaeda affiliated) rebels north of Syrian government controlled territory leading to Syria’s second city, Aleppo, and then on to the Turkish border — an area that might otherwise be known as the jihadist superhighway.

Russia taking out ISIS and the other extremist groups in Syria — including those backed by the US —  is not tolerable to Nuland, a member of the neocon Kagan family. For Nuland and the Kagans, war is great for business. Her husband Robert Kagan is at Brookings, from where he regularly writes in the Washington Post that we need to increase military spending. His wife steers US policy toward her husband’s goals. Brother-in-law and sister-in-law Fred and Kimberly are at neocon American Enterprise Institute and Institute for the Study of War, respectively, where they do their part for the family business: pushing hate and war across the globe.

In her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week, Nuland did a remarkable turnaround. With the Russian entry into the fight against jihadists in Syria, Nuland suddenly became concerned with refugees, “collateral damage,” economic cost of intervention, human suffering, and more. Not a word about these for the past year as US bombs flew. No, she is only concerned with these things if they come about as a result of Russian airstrikes.

While polls show solid support even among American citizens for Russian attacks on Islamic extremists, Victoria Nuland told Congress this week that:

Russia is paying a steep price to its reputation in the fight against terror.

Such an assertion doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Victoria Nuland does offer Russia some hope for redemption, however. Russia could choose the path of “positive cooperation,” Nuland told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but it would require that Russia:

… urgently work with us, our Allies and UN envoy Steffan De Mistura to turn the statement of principles that Secretary Kerry, FM Lavrov, and 17 other ministers and institutions released in Vienna last Friday into a true ceasefire, and a parallel 3 political transition process that hastens the day that Asad’s bloody tenure comes to an end.

In other words, after four years of failed active US regime change policy Russia can finally be constructive in the process if it signs on to the very same policy that has failed for four years. Russia can be constructive if it adopts the US view that it has the right to decide who gets to rule foreign countries. Russia can win by adopting the losing US policy.

Is it any wonder US diplomacy has become a laughingstock?

November 7, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Turkish plans to attack Islamic State excuse for hitting Kurds

RT | November 6, 2015

Ankara is worried about possible Kurdish-American collaboration after the backing the Kurds got from Moscow, says Dr. Jamal Wakim, Professor of History and International Relations at Lebanese University.

Turkey says it will carry out a military operation against ISIS in the near future, without specifying when.

RT: Turkey’s already carrying out air strikes. What kind of military operation does it have in mind now?

Dr. Jamal Wakim: Well, I believe that Turkey’s declaration that it intends to launch a military operation against ISIL is a mere cover up for its real intention to wage a war against the Kurds. It is on the Kurds and against the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] militants. Especially that Turkey is worried now; mainly Erdogan is worried about the prospects of Kurdish-American collaboration after the backing that the Kurds got from Moscow.

In this case the Kurds of Turkey, who are spread over 40 percent of Eastern Anatolia, will be in a better position to pressure for getting their own rights within Turkey on the one hand, and maybe they can push for autonomy or even independence as they claimed in the past four decades. So that is why I believe that the real intention is to wage a war against the Kurds and marginalize them at the time when the Kurds are getting support from both the US and Russia at the same time.

RT: Turkey has been using its air strikes to take out Kurdish targets. Is fighting ISIL just a pretext?

Dr. JW: In the past two years the main support that ISIL got was from Turkey. Mainly there were media reports in the West about logistical support, about using Turkish airports – ISIL militants would go to Turkish airports and then go by land to Northern Syria and Iraq. When Turkey declared that it was launching attacks on ISIL, actually its main attacks were on the Kurds of Northern Syria.

There were even media reports that said that ISIL served the purpose of Turkey to clear out the Kurds from Northern Syria, especially in the case of Kobani at one point, and to target the Christian population that is considered as hostile to Turkish influence in Northern Syria. That is why I don’t believe that the intention of Turkey is really to fight ISIL.

November 7, 2015 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Infamous Video of an Aircraft Exploding in Air at High Altitude and the “Big Chutzpah” Construct

By Doug E. Steil | Aletho News | November 7, 2015

Only a day after the Russian Metrojet airliner Flight 9268 went down, killing 224 people, a short video went onto the Internet on YouTube, purporting to show the explosion of the Airbus 321-200 aircraft in mid-air, at roughly 30 thousand feet elevation. This video was immediately ridiculed because the group claiming responsibility for bringing down the airliner, ISIS, which was said to have presented the video as proof, did not have the sophisticated military capacity, according to intelligence analysts, to shoot down any aircraft at such an altitude. Yet the video did not show a missile approaching the jet, nor did the group claim to have shot it down in such a manner. It simply showed an explosive burst, consistent with a bomb being detonated, and heavy black smoke trailing the aircraft as it subsequently descended.

Even though a civilian style aircraft, with two engines mounted below its wings, can be discerned, and no such video had previously been seen — nor were there reports of any civilian aircraft with such features having exploded in mid-air during daytime — the video was denounced as a fake (computer generated imagery) nonetheless, perhaps because the video quality was poor or not sufficiently specific, which was suspiciously indicative of an attempt to obfuscate any confirmatory information.

A dose of skepticism is certainly legitimate when being presented with such videos, which may be intended to convey false political propaganda. However, since no compelling proof of the imagery not possibly showing what was claimed has yet been presented, the authenticity cannot be completely discounted. Indeed, this question is currently a point of discussion on some technical forums. What appears to be the case is that the shaky nature of both embedded videos — a second version appears at 20 seconds in the 32 second video — both came from two mobile phone camera recordings that were taken of a screen playback of the explosion. It has also been suggested that the imagery was actually shot from another aircraft following the fateful jet from farther below. Though this was likely the case, it would not necessarily invalidate the claimed authenticity of this particular jet being shown.

It should be noted that a professional quality video recording, filmed through a heavy zoom lens mounted upon a camera on a stationary tripod, would provide investigators with sufficient information to calculate a small circle on the ground from where the shots were most probably taken, which would likely not be in the interest of the perpetrators or co-conspirators. If, for the sake of argument, one presumes the authenticity of what was being filmed, then the most interesting and compelling proof of a desire to obfuscate and mislead comes from the obvious image reversal, which is particularly evident during the first second. The sky to the left of the screen is bright whereas, in stark contrast, it is dark on the right side, though exactly the opposite should be the case because the jet was then flying northward at a track of 340° in the morning, shortly after sunrise.

The ground track in the eastern portion of the Sinai peninsula during the final minutes of flight was exactly parallel to and 40 km away from the border between Israel and Egypt. The mid-air explosion occurred west of the highest mountain in the Negev Desert (Har Raman, 1035 meters), not hard to make out on a topographic map of the area. The impulse of the explosion and its aerodynamic effects then changed the heading of the aircraft by more then 15°. When viewing the video through a mirror to correct the image reversal, one sees that the vantage point of the camera is behind, below, and to the right (east) of the aircraft’s flight path. When one accepts the notion that the incident was filmed from another aircraft, pursuing the Airbus in roughly the same direction, then one must logically conclude that the video was taken from within — or just slightly outside of — Israeli airspace, likely by a surveillance drone, operating in the southern region, north of Eilat. One would expect Israeli surveillance drones to operate here on a regular basis because this region, at the northernmost part in the Gulf of Aqaba, is strategically important; the borders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt nearly converge here.

While the notion of a military drone operating near this particular region on a Saturday morning may not be unusual, what certainly should raise some questions is that the Russian Metrojet aircraft — assuming, as before, that the video is not a fake but authentic — would have been pursued and filmed (surveillance operations would be more interested in what happens on the ground rather than pursuing a civilian airliner emitting its tracking data by beacon and not posing a potential threat). Even more worthy of question or inquiry is that these modified (second-hand) video versions of the on-board explosion and descent of the aircraft would be loaded onto the Internet the next day, allegedly by the ISIS terrorist group, which has been publicly exposed to be in an alliance with Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia in the Syrian battleground.

While the concept of the “Big Lie” is based on the idea that (nearly) everyone will believe a major fabrication that is completely untrue because these heavily conditioned people couldn’t possibly imagine that their government would dare lie to them so blatantly about something so important, viewers of the video may have been subjected to the opposite phenomenon, namely “Big Chutzpah”, the raw truth presented right in your face in such a brazen way that (nearly) everyone will still refuse to believe it because these people cannot possibly imagine that the Israeli government would dare to actually do something like that.

November 7, 2015 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Israel Bombing Syrian Military to Benefit ISIS Near Lebanon?

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | November 2, 2015

The neoconservative Washington Free Beacon is reporting that the Israeli air force has attacked a Syrian government-controlled missile base near Syria’s border with Lebanon. The Beacon cites a pro-rebel website that claims:

Israeli planes breached Lebanese and Syrian airspace and bombed the Syrian regime’s 155th Brigade [base] in the Qutayfa area, destroying a number of missile warehouses.

If the report is accurate it would suggest that Israel is attacking military facilities of the Syrian government to the benefit of ISIS and the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria, at least according to the latest battle map released by the Institute for the Study of War (when coordinated with a Google map search for Qutayfah, Syria).

Israel has routinely violated Syrian airspace to bomb Syrian territory and uses any stray rocket fire into Israel-occupied Golan Heights as a pretext to hit Syrian government positions inside the country.

Recently Israel has been forced to back down from its routine flights over Syrian airspace by the arrival of Russian fighters, and after at least one Israeli close call with sophisticated Russian fighter jets a hotline was reportedly set up for the two countries to avoid any clashes in the area.

Though these reports of Israel hitting Syrian government assets to the benefit of ISIS in the area should be taken with a grain of salt, if true this would mark yet another very volatile variable in an already very complicated and dangerous part of the world. If the Russians are busy bombing ISIS and al-Nusra positions in the area north of Damascus toward Aleppo, how will Moscow take to Tel Aviv making it difficult for Syrian ground forces to take advantage on the ground of their operations in the air?

November 7, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Supplying ISIS with Aircraft Downing Weapons

By Stephen Lendman | November 7, 2015

On November 4, the Wall Street Journal headlined “US, Allies to Boost Aid to Syria Rebels” – aka ISIS and other takfiri terrorists, US proxy foot soldiers, imperial death squads, no so-called “moderates” among them.

The Journal stopped short of explaining it, instead saying “(s)hipments of arms (and) supplies are aimed at pressuring Assad while countering Russia (and) Iran.”

Longstanding US plans call for regime change in Syria, eliminating its independent government, replacing it with one Washington and Israel control, raping the country, balkanizing it, and exploiting its people – at the same time, creating endless violence, instability and chaos like what’s happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and virtually everywhere America shows up, the greatest menace to peace in world history.

According to the Journal, increased weapons shipments to anti-Assad elements aim to “challenge the intervention of Russia and Iran on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, US officials and their counterparts (from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States) in the region said.

Obama declared proxy war on Russia after pledging to avoid it. He’s playing with fire. Putin is determined to eliminate the scourge of terrorism in Syria, and by implication perhaps regionally and beyond. That puts him on a collision course with Washington, wanting its proxy death squads protected and used destructively.

The more heavily armed ISIS and other takfiris become, the harder Russian aircraft will likely target them. Expect the battle to liberate Syria to continue for as long as it takes to achieve.

According to the Journal, “(i)n the past month of intensifying Russian airstrikes, the CIA and its partners have increased the flow of military supplies to rebels in northern Syria, including of US-made TOW antitank missiles, these officials said.”

“Those supplies will continue to increase in coming weeks, replenishing stocks depleted by the regime’s expanded military offensive. An Obama administration official said the military pressure is needed to push Mr. Assad from power.”

Shoulder-launched, man-portable, surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) defense systems (Manpads) are being supplied. “Those weapons could help target regime aircraft… and could also help keep Russian air power at bay,” said the Journal, citing unnamed US officials.

Manpads are relatively inexpensive, easy to operate and able to down low-flying aircraft. Helicopters are most vulnerable. So are fixed-wing planes during takeoffs, landings, and when operating at low altitudes.

Military aircraft systems alert pilots when missiles target them. Countermeasures to avoid being struck include evasive action, infrared flares and lasers.

Russian planes are safe at high altitudes. Special precautions are taken to protect them during takeoffs and landings.

So far, Putin outwitted Obama in Syria, effectively challenging his dirty game. He’s determined to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and keep it from spreading, especially to Central Asia and Russia.

He supports Syrian sovereignty, strongly against letting outside powers determine its fate, for its own citizens alone to decide, free from foreign interference.

On September 30, the die was cast when he intervened, a righteous mission fully in accord with international law – polar opposite US aggression throughout the region and beyond.

Obama didn’t wage war on Syria to quit. Putin didn’t intervene responsibly to back off in the face of US pressure, threats and anti-Russian propaganda. Expect him to stay the course with plenty of effective military muscle – impressive enough to make Pentagon commanders leery about challenging him.

A proxy state of war between America and Russia now exists – a hugely dangerous situation, risking possible direct confrontation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.

Expect Putin to go all-out to avoid it. Put nothing past neocon lunatics in Washington – willing to risk destroying planet earth to own it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

November 7, 2015 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Failed Syrian rebel training program cost US taxpayers $2 million per fighter – report

RT | November 6, 2015

Newly acquired documents show the Pentagon spent nearly $400 million, or $2 million per fighter, on its failed train-and-equip program, according to USA Today. The Pentagon claims the actual cost was $30,000 per trainee.

USA Today reported the train-and-equip program was abandoned after the department had already spent $384 million on it. “Of the 180 Syrians vetted, trained and equipped, 145 fighters [remained] in the program,” the report stated. Of those 145 fighters, 95 were in Syria.

When asked to comment on the findings, the Pentagon disputed that it had spent $2 million per fighter, saying the actual cost was far lower – $30,000 per trainee. They added that the “vast majority” of the funds had gone to buying weapons, equipment, and ammunition, of which some is still in storage.

“Our investment in the Syria train and equip program should not be viewed purely in fiscal terms,” Navy Commander Elissa Smith told the news outlet in an email. Smith said some of those trained fighters had been calling in air strikes, and that ammunition designated for trainees had been given to other forces fighting the Islamic State instead.

According to the documents outlining the program’s $501 billion budget, $204 million was supposed to be spent on ammunition, $77 million on weapons, $62 million on mobility, $47 million on services, $46 million on construction, $40 million on strategic lift/shipping, $13 million on equipment, $6 million on communications, and $6 million on facilities and maintenance.

The program was intended to graduate 3,000 trained and equipped New Syrian Forces fighters in 2015, and 5,000 annually afterwards, to combat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). However, President Barack Obama abandoned the program earlier this fall.

In documents and interviews, USA Today was able to confirm that two of the four training camps designed for the program never hosted even a single recruit.

In September, it was revealed that one group of trainees had surrendered one quarter of their US-supplied weapons, ammunition, and vehicles in exchange for safe passage through territory held by another rebel group, considered to be extremist.

While the training has stopped, the US will continue to give equipment and weapons to the leaders of ‘vetted’ groups of rebels who are already fighting IS “so that over time they continue to re-claim territory,” Smith told USA Today.

The rebel training program’s $500 million budget was in addition to the $42 million the Pentagon had already spent in 2014 to set it up.

The findings come as the Obama administration announced it was set to deploy up to 50 US special operations troops in northern Syria to assist in the fight against IS. It marked the first time the administration openly said it would send ground forces into Syria.

The Associated Press reported the White House has put no timetable on how long the American forces will stay in Syria, although Obama has previously said he expects the campaign against IS to last beyond his presidency.

Obama inherited two military conflicts and will hand off a third to his successor. He recently announced plans to maintain a troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2015.

In July, the National Priorities Project, a non-profit, non-partisan federal budget research group, reported that America’s war in Afghanistan has cost taxpayers roughly $4 million an hour. Their research found more than $700 billion has been spent on the war since the George W. Bush administration authorized the invasion in 2001, including more than $35 billion in fiscal year 2015.

The initial budget for the Afghan war was over $20 billion for 2001/02. The budget dropped to $14 billion over the next two years as spending shifted to the war in Iraq. Expenditures on the Afghan war took a back seat to Iraq war spending before ballooning to more than $100 billion in 2010, when the cost of the Iraq war began to decline. Spending in Afghanistan continued to top $100 billion annually until 2013, when it began falling by increments of $10 billion, finally reaching its current budget of $35 billion.

November 6, 2015 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »