Tag Archives: US Arming Al Qaeda

US “Easing Into” War with Syria Using ISIS Boogeyman

By Tony Cartalucci
February 21, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

USS455342The US is a few “accidental” airstrikes away from total war with SyriaThe US is reportedly working with Turkey to provide militants inside of Syria with radios to call in US airstrikes to help in their “fight against ISIS.” Despite the obvious reality that these militants are in fact fighting alongside ISIS and are primarily fighting the Syrian Arab Army, and that such airstrikes are inevitably going to be called in on Syrian, not ISIS targets, the US is nonetheless attempting to assure the world this is not the case.

The London Telegraph declared in its article, “Moderate Syrian rebels ‘to be given power to call in US air strikes’,” that:

The US is planning to train some 5000 Syrian fighters a year under the plan as part of an effort to strengthen the fractured rebel movement against the government of President Bashar al-Assad and extremist groups. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the initial training would focus on helping rebels hold ground and resist fighters allied with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

The Telegraph would also report:

Four to six-man units will be equipped with rugged Toyota Hilux vehicles, GPS and radios so they can identify targets for airstrikes.

Even in the Telegraph’s article, it is clear that this plan will inevitably be aimed at the Syrian government and its troops, the only secular force in the region fighting Al Qaeda and its spin-off, ISIS.

What “Moderate Rebels?” 

The Telegraph reports that the US and Turkey are to train and equip “moderate Syrian rebels” to call in US airstrikes. In reality, by the West’s own admission, the very last of NATO’s so-called “moderate” fronts have long since been folded into groups operating directly under Al Qaeda’s banner.

To highlight the absurdity of this recent plan proposed by the US and NATO-member Turkey, the Telegraph itself has reported in an earlier article titled, “Syrian rebels armed and trained by US surrender to al-Qaeda,” that:

Two of the main rebel groups receiving weapons from the United States to fight both the regime and jihadist groups in Syria have surrendered to al-Qaeda.

The US and its allies were relying on Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionary Front to become part of a ground force that would attack the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

For the last six months the Hazm movement, and the SRF through them, had been receiving heavy weapons from the US-led coalition, including GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles.

But on Saturday night Harakat Hazm surrendered military bases and weapons supplies to Jabhat al-Nusra, when the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria stormed villages they controlled in northern Idlib province.

Clearly, there are no “moderates” to speak of, and for those following the Syrian conflict from the beginning, it is clear that armed militancy sprung up from networks of Muslim Brotherhood extremists, funded and organized years before the so-called “Arab Spring” by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for the explicit purpose of creating a regional sectarian-driven conflagration to effect regime change in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

Indeed, Al Qaeda’s (and ISIS’) current presence in Iraq and Syria, and their leading role in the fight against the Iranian-leaning government’s of Damascus, Baghdad, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, are the present-day manifestation of a Western criminal conspiracy exposed as early as 2007. Revealed by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

140913-isis-militants-01_36eca3bf7c518cd8481745e9fb3f66ddAs early as June of last year, it was reported that ISIS would be used as a means to incrementally draw in US forces in preparation for a direct military intervention aimed at Damascus itself. Unable to trigger the conflict using the canard of “WMDs,” ISIS has provided a series of increasingly more horrific provocations to help gather backing behind direct US military intervention in Syria.

The extremists groups portended by Hersh’s 2007 report are undeniably the vanguard of Western-backed attempts to topple the government of Syria, undermine Iran, and draw in Lebanon’s Hezbollah. It appears that the West is willing to go as far as fighting directly alongside literal terrorists they have used for over a decade as a pretext to invade and occupy the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan lives.

USAF Becomes the Islamic State Air Force  

Clearly then, if all the “moderate rebels” the US claims are in Syria have in fact long-ago pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, then US airstrikes called in by these militants will essentially be airstrikes called in by Al Qaeda against the only legitimate forces in the region actually fighting terrorism.

The creation of ISIS, just like during the US occupation of Iraq where Al Qaeda created the “Islamic State of Iraq” to maintain plausible deniability, is simply an attempt to build distance between the Al Qaeda terrorists the US is directly arming and will soon be providing air cover for, and the overt atrocities being carried out by these very same terrorists.

While ISIS is currently being touted by the US as the pretext upon which this recent move is predicated, the reality is instead that America and its allies are simply “easing into” a direct military confrontation with the Syrian Arab Army.

As US airstrikes begin hitting Syrian positions, it is likely that eventually Syria or its allies will retaliate and provoke a wider and more direct campaign against Damascus itself. Should Syria and its allies resist striking back, the US is likely to manufacture a provocation anyway.

Barring Syria and its allies’ ability to provide sufficient deterrence against the beginning of this latest, most dangerous, and most desperate yet leg of America’s war on Syria, and should Syrian defenses be incapable of staving off a Libyan-style NATO operation that has left that nation entirely in the hands of ISIS, expect to see yet another nation handed directly over to extremists – intentionally – for the sole purpose of continuing this proxy crusade next into Lebanon and Iran, then into southern Russia and western China.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

U.S. Agrees To Serve As Al Qaeda’s Air Force

Why Are We Backing the Bad Guys?

By WashingtonsBlog
February 18, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

ObamaRepublican and Democratic Congressmen have warned that the U.S. shouldn’t be “Al Qaeda’s Air Force” in Syria. And see this and this.

In reality, there aren’t any moderate rebels in Syria (and see this, this and this).   Virtually all of the arms – and humanitarian aid – end up in the hands of the most brutal Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists.  Even the CIA warned Obama that arming rebels likely wouldn’t work.

And yet the U.S. government has now decided to allow Syrian rebels to call in airstrikes from U.S. B-1B bombers. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

The U.S. has decided to provide pickup trucks equipped with machine guns and radios for calling in U.S. airstrikes to some moderate Syrian rebels, defense officials said.

***

The plan comes as the U.S. prepares to start training moderate rebels, who are waging a two-front fight against the extremists and the Syrian regime.

***

A team of four to six rebels will each be given a Toyota Hi-Lux pickup, outfitted with a machine gun, communications gear and Global Positioning System trackers enabling them to call in airstrikes. The fighters will also be given mortars, but the administration hasn’t decided to provide the teams with more sophisticated antitank weapons.

***

Officials say the moderate forces will never outnumber Islamic State extremists or regime forces. Reflecting that, the Pentagon believes the moderate forces must have superior training as well as support from U.S. warplanes.

***

U.S. officials also don’t know whether American planes will be able to provide air support if the moderate forces it trains get in a fight not with Islamic State, but with forces loyal to the Syrian president.

Because the U.S. isn’t at war with Syria, U.S. military lawyers are wrestling with whether U.S. warplanes would have legal authorization to strike Mr. Assad’s forces, even to support a U.S.-trained rebel force.

***

The planes would drop 500- and 2,000-pound guided bombs, a typical load for the B-1s that have operated in Afghanistan as well as Syria.

Is the U.S. turning into Al Qaeda’s air force?   It’s obvious that the U.S. has long tried to overthrow the Syrian government.

Sadly, America has truly switched sides in the war on terror.

 

 

Calls Grow to Reject AUMF That Permits ‘Waging War All Over World’

‘The devastating and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that when we give military authority to the executive, it should not be a blank check,’ says Congressional Progressive Caucus

By Deirdre Fulton
February 14, 2015
Common Dreams

 

While Congress is debating the particulars, "nobody is actually saying, right now, there should not be a military component—despite what we've learned form the years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone wars in Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere...the air war in Libya," says analyst Phyllis Bennis. (Photo: Dandelion Salad/flickr/cc)

While Congress is debating the particulars, “nobody is actually saying, right now, there should not be a military component—despite what we’ve learned form the years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone wars in Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere…the air war in Libya,” says analyst Phyllis Bennis. (Photo: Dandelion Salad/flickr/cc)

 

Opposition to President Barack Obama’s request to authorize another endless war in the Middle East continues to build, with progressives charging that the draft resolution is far too broad and anti-war activists mobilizing to defeat the measure.

As Common Dreams has reported, the proposed authorization for use of military force (AUMF) While Congress is debating the particulars, “nobody is actually saying, right now, there should not be a military component—despite what we’ve learned form the years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone wars in Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere…the air war in Libya,” says analyst Phyllis Bennis. (Photo: Dandelion Salad/flickr/cc)) gives approval for open-ended and geographically limitless military operations. Its vague wording leaves the door open to use of ground troops, which the administration has previously vowed to avoid, and does nothing to repeal the sweeping 2001 AUMF, which is still being used to justify ongoing military actions in various regions around the world.

“This Resolution sets a dangerous precedent,” said Francis Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. “Up until the 2001 AUMF, all War Powers Resolutions had been adopted with respect to a State, not alleged terrorist organizations that can operate anywhere in the world as defined by the President.”

But “[t]his Resolution continues in that dangerous path, basically substituting ISIS for al-Qaeda and continuing to wage a global war on terrorism,” Boyle continued. “So if Obama cannot plausibly invoke the 2001 Resolution because there is no connection to 9/11 as required therein, he will simply invoke this Resolution. Between the two resolutions you can have the U.S. government waging war all over the world.”

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which has repeatedly called for a debate on the use of force against the Islamic State, or ISIS, released a statement detailing their opposition on Friday.

“The devastating and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that when we give military authority to the executive, it should not be a blank check,” said CPC co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and CPC Peace and Security Task Force chair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). “Prolonged military action requires robust debate and authorization from Congress, so we are glad that President Obama has presented a proposal. One of Congress’s most important roles is to declare war, and an AUMF is a declaration of war.”

They continued:

Unfortunately, the authorization proposed by the president this week is too broad. In order to ensure meaningful limits on executive branch authority, an AUMF should at a minimum contain a clear objective and geographical limitations. It should also include an enforceable ban on the deployment of ground troops with exception for only the most limited of operations, unambiguous language, and a repeal of the 2001 AUMF.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one of the only U.S. senators to have offered a firm position on the AUMF.

“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East,” he said Wednesday. “I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), meanwhile, said she was still undecided on the matter.

In a vague statement to The Hill, Warren waffled: “I am deeply concerned by the rise of ISIS, and I support a strong, coordinated response—but I also believe it is critical for those nations in the region that are most immediately affected by the rise of ISIS to play a leading role in this fight, and I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East.”

Some on the right claim the AUMF is too restrictive. “The president has tied his own hands and wants to tie his hands even further with the authorization that he sent up here,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters on Thursday.

Several members of Congress applauded the fact that the debate was taking place in the first place.

But on MSNBC on Thursday evening, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies said that while minute details are now being scrutinized, the big picture issues are getting lost.

She argued: “Nobody is actually saying, right now, there should not be a military component—despite what we’ve learned form the years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone wars in Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere…the air war in Libya. They all failed. They’re not going to win this time. You cannot bomb extremism. You can bomb people—some extremists—and kill them, but that doesn’t wipe out the problem. It just means that it spreads.”

Which is why Congress should get rid of the 2001 AUMF completely and reject outright the proposal currently on the table, said Paul Findley, former member of Congress from Illinois for 22 years and a principal author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed during the Vietnam War era and designed to limit the president’s power to wage war without Congressional approval.

“If I were still in Congress I would oppose any resolution that authorizes further involvement there,” Findley stated. “Our forces have been killing Muslims by the tens of thousands for the past decade in the misleading label of anti-terrorism. Bombing kills innocent people whose friends are furious over these killings.”

Obama’s request “has greater potential for trouble than the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 that I voted for, only after getting Republican Leader Gerald Ford’s assurance that it was not the equivalent of a declaration of war [on Vietnam],” he said, adding: “The current war over religion in the Middle East could make the Vietnam War look like a Sunday School picnic.”

Reagan, Iran and the Descent into Darkness

By Gordon Duff
February 9, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

R5646322Last week, the government of Pakistan presented proof to US Secretary of State John Kerry that America was financing ISIS operations. Account numbers were given, tracing back to conservative political donors and shady financial groups aligned with PJ Media, the Jamestown Foundation and a number of former military flag officers, several of whom regularly appear on Fox News and Alex Jones, the same names that popped up as planning the Benghazi attack.

The organization isn’t a new one, the basis for the Islamic State come from the Reagan presidency, the banking mechanisms used during Iran Contra when 123 Reagan appointees were convicted of crimes from Treason to Obstruction of Justice. ISIS is also a descendant of Gladio, the “stay behind” terror worldwide terror network controlled by Freemasons responsible for attacks across Europe and Latin America for over 3 decades.

Reagan’s real goal was taking down two enemies, the Soviets and Iran. His personal war on Iran, both economic and military nearly sent him to prison were he not able to prove he was mentally unfit for office while serving as president, as evidence in his testimony at the Iran Contra hearings.

Terror Funding Origins

The financial network used to back the terror organizations, Gladio, Al Qaeda and their current incarnations along with dozens of contrived “national fronts began with the moves against world banking.

In the US it began with the deregulation of “thrifts,” locally owned Savings and Loans quickly bankrupted through fraud, a move led by the Bush family and Senator John McCain but set up by the Reagan Treasury Department. 1.5 trillion US dollars were stolen from these financial organizations with only Charles Keating, close friend of Senator John McCain, and 40 low level operatives to go to prison.

McCain escaped prison and suffered only minor rebukes for his part in the Keating scandals.

Reagan’s domestic agenda rocked America, destroying unions, sent millions of skilled jobs overseas, ran up trillions in debt and destroyed America’s middle class. Reagan’s restructuring of the US economy eliminated over 5 million skilled labor and management jobs and millions of American families were set adrift, living in automobiles, sleeping under bridges and in makeshift “communities” much as during the Great Depression.

The closing of mental hospitals send nearly 500,000 patients into communities unprepared to deal with the influx. When you combined this population with the burgeoning “crack cocaine” epidemic begun by the Reagan White House operatives and CIA, America had become a festering hell hole.

The response was to begin a massive campaign of building prisons and a restructuring of the legal system with longer sentences for drug offenses and life imprisonment for petty crimes making America the most imprisoned society in the world. Reagan did this.

With cutbacks in aid to education, the typical American home became multi-generational and home ownership was no longer considered the “norm” for an American family.

Many remember iconic issues, one in particular when school lunch programs needed to be cut to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Rules were changed to change dietary requirements and condiments such as catsup and mustard were allowed to replace fresh vegetables and salads.

What wasn’t mentioned is that orange juice was replaced by colored water with corn sweetener and carcinogenic food coloring. Food safety became a thing of the past as a massive influx of undocumented workers from Mexico were allowed to enter the US, part of Reagan’s plan to kill labor unions. They took over food processing jobs first, particularly slaughterhouse and meat packing jobs. E.coli outbreaks began sweeping the nation.

More Progress

Dangerous untested pharmaceuticals were released, killing thousands, industrial pollution of water and air was legalized and workplace safety measures were overturned. Reagan was a champion of “big agriculture,” and GMO became a national cause.

Thousands of other examples of government cruelty and corruption were buried beneath the trials and hearings over drug running and fraud.

Defenders of the Reagan government have blinders on and very short memories. Lauding the destruction of the Soviet Union, it was really America that died under Reagan. Paul Craig Roberts, champion of America’s right, speaks glowingly of Reagan.

He cites “liberals” as criticizing Reagan’s divisive policies and “trickle down” economics. I worked for the Carter administration and stayed on when Reagan took office.

The CIA and Organized Crime

A parallel version of the CIA was set up under Lt. Colonel Oliver North and members of the Bush family, and ratlines were created from the cocaine centers of Colombia, through Noriega’s Panama to the secret landing fields in Costa Rica and ending in America’s cities.

An epidemic of crack cocaine, aimed at America’s African-American population, as reported by Gary Webb and Mike Ruppert, financed Reagan initiatives, done in partnership with Israel, key Saudi figures and American organized crime.

Wanted members of the drug cartels bought up luxury condominiums in Miami and openly used CIA safehouses for meetings. CIA personnel were quietly “made aware” that things had changed, that a new administration had come to power and that drug cartels had become the close allies of the administration in Washington. Anyone that objected was threatened or worse.

Drug running was the “go to” solution for any black money shortfall during Reagan’s rule. Increasingly, financial institutions beginning with the breakaway Mormon communities of the South West, all “Red States” today. A “marriage” was consummated, tying these states, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and regions of Texas to the drug cartel run regions of Mexico. Over the next 3 decades, county by county, town by town, state by state, drug cartels took control of government operations and financial institutions, eventually controlling several US Senators, state governors, prosecutors, sheriffs and countless judges. Those who failed to play along were killed.

Middle East Policy

I55533333Reagan represented an end to efforts to seek justice for the Palestinian people and stability in the Middle East. Reagan’s real focus was on Iraq and their war against Iran, a keystone to his foreign policy.

The Reagan administration’s goal was control of not just narcotics but world oil markets. The aftermath of the 1973 war had shown the power oil pricing had on the world economy. Oil could be used as a tool of war as much as any army and Reagan’s economic advisors pushed for seizure of Iran’s oil field as a lynchpin to that policy. To do that, Iran had to be destroyed. From Wikipedia:

“Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, “the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose.”

To think America would go to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction given to Iraq by the United States is no secret. From the 1970s onward, the partnership between Israel, South Africa and Libya, fostered by the Reagan CIA, would develop and test, in Angola and elsewhere, new biological and chemical weapons later to be used by Saddam against Iran.

The Reagan administration, in order to facilitate the destruction of Iran, made it possible to supply Iraq with anything imaginable.

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was “upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list. I was not consulted,” Haig is said to have complained.

The Intel Partnership

What Wikipedia fails to tell of the 1983 Teicher/Rumsfeld meeting with Aziz in Baghdad is that they were sent there by the Israeli government, not America. Teicher presented a letter from Shamir to Saddam which was refused by Tarik Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Minister.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

Wikipedia also fails to mention the “ratline” for not just poison gas but biological agents as well, the German companies represented by Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush’s older brother, Prescott, nominally an “insurance executive,” in reality the largest arms trader in the world, and their role in arming Saddam against Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.”

Conclusion

Torturing history is perhaps one of the greatest failings of our era. The abuses of wartime propaganda or the ideological struggles of the Cold War now permeate every aspect of our lives, creating a mythological unreality sustained only through considerable effort. It has gone far beyond repeating past mistakes but has become an organic movement of contrived entropy fueled through systematic denialism.

The Reagan era in the United States is cited for a reason. An actor was elected president, someone who played president and in some ways did so better than anyone in the past, with tremendous success, were reality a “play.”

Political theatricality had always been with us. However, it was once assumed that ideology and men of conscience would engage in meaningful conflicts, guns or ideas, but moving, once believed inexorably, toward human advancement. This is a failed hypothesis.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

Imperialist hypocrisy over ISIS execution

By Barry Grey
February 5, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The release of a video showing the immolation of captured Jordanian pilot First Lt. Moaz al-Kasabeh by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been followed by a wave of hypocritical moralizing, combined with threats of more violence, from the imperialist powers and their regional allies.

The killing of al-Kasabeh, which apparently took place in early January, not long after the fighter jet he was piloting crashed in Syria, has evoked revulsion among ordinary people around the world. It is a reflection of the backward and reactionary character of ISIS.

However, this act did not occur in a political vacuum. Both ISIS and the disaster unfolding in Iraq and Syria are the direct products of the criminal policies of the governments that now proclaim their moral indignation.

The imperialist leaders, beginning with US President Barack Obama, see the latest ISIS atrocity as an opportunity to bombard the public with lurid details and fear-mongering propaganda in an attempt to overcome antiwar sentiment. As with last month’s Charlie Hebdo killings, Tuesday’s execution will be used to justify an expansion of the current war in the Middle East in the name of fighting the “war on terror.”

Recent days have seen a barrage of statements from US politicians and current and retired military and intelligence officials demanding the introduction of thousands more US ground troops into Iraq and an escalation of the campaign to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, including calls for the establishment of no-fly zones in that country.

On Tuesday, Obama denounced “the viciousness and barbarity” of ISIS and added, “This organization appears only interested in death and destruction.” Secretary of State John Kerry said the execution of Kasabeh “reminds of all of the evil of this enemy.”

What colossal hypocrisy! Obama speaks as the head of a state that has brought “death and destruction” on a mass scale, deploying the most advanced and lethal weapons against virtually defenseless populations in an effort to grab control of the Middle East’s vast energy reserves.

In Iraq, the US “shock and awe” invasion and occupation toppled the secularist Saddam Hussein and installed a sectarian Shiite puppet regime that carried out mass killings of Sunnis, triggering a sectarian war that continues to this day.

Washington systematically destroyed one of the most advanced societies in the Middle East, employing criminal methods captured by names such as Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

The United States has been waging war against the country—economic or military—for 25 years, since the imposition of crippling sanctions in 1990 and the first Gulf War of 1991, with a pause of less than three years between 2011 and 2014. The 13 years of sanctions, punctuated by bombing attacks, from 1990 to 2003 killed more than 1 million Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children.

Serious estimates of the number of Iraqis who died as a result of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of the country range from several hundred thousand to over 1 million. As of 2007, it was estimated that 2 million Iraqis had fled their homeland and another 1.9 million had been reduced to the status of displaced persons within their own country. That amounts to 15 percent of the country’s population.

The United States destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage system, crippled its power plants, decimated its health care system, and virtually destroyed its educational system. Between 1990 and 2005, Iraq recorded a 150 percent increase in the rate of infant deaths. By the fourth year of the US occupation, less than a third of the population had access to clean drinking water and just 19 percent had a functioning sewage system. The result was rampant diarrhea, typhoid and hepatitis. Half of the country’s children suffered from malnutrition.

There is no precedent for this systematic destruction of an entire society through violence and criminality since Hitler’s armies ravaged Europe in the Second World War.

It is out of this devastation that ISIS emerged. It is a creation of US imperialism both in the general sense that that Al Qaeda in Iraq, the forerunner of ISIS, arose on the ruins of Iraqi society at the hands of the United States, and in the more specific sense of direct American backing for it and other jihadist groups.

The US strategy for dominating the Middle East has involved the financing, arming and training of Islamist forces targeting secular regimes—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria—considered to be obstacles to the American corporate-financial elite’s pursuit of global hegemony.

In Syria, the US directly armed and trained ISIS fighters, establishing a CIA base in Jordan for that purpose. Its regional allies in the war for regime change against Assad, including the Saudi and Qatari monarchies, lavishly funded ISIS and other Al Qaeda-linked groups, such as Al Nusra. As long as ISIS was targeting Assad, Obama had nothing to say about the group’s sectarian killings and other atrocities against Shiites.

Only when ISIS moved into western and northern Iraq and threatened US interests in Iraq and the wider region did the Obama administration proclaim its “evil” nature and launch an illegal war in both Iraq and Syria to check its advance.

Over the past several months, the actions of ISIS—in particular, the various videotaped executions—have served as well-timed justifications for the US and its allies to expand their involvement in a renewed war in the Middle East. As always, the moral hypocrisy of imperialism is the precursor to even greater crimes to come.

 

Myth and Reality of the US War against ISIL

By Salman Rafi Sheikh
January 29, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

S342343A lot of official statements, media reports and analysis about the US led war against ISIL are coming out these days for public consumption, glorifying the ‘success’ of the US airstrikes in defeating and pushing back the ‘enemy.’ The narrative of ‘success’ has been systematically built on the ruins of the badly exposed US-trained and funded Iraqi army. Even if this narrative is taken on its face value, it turns out that it was the US itself who precipitated the emergence of ISIL. The US made ISIL the formidable military force that it is today, precisely by turning over billions of dollars of equipment to a corrupt and incompetent Iraqi army that has now collapsed and turned over much of its weaponry to the jihadist terrorists. However, notwithstanding the narrative being built through the media, it is a well-known fact that ISIL has not been or is being pushed back.

On the other hand, counter-narrative reports have contended that ISIL now controls large swathes of Syrian territory—in fact, much larger than it was holding in the recent past. The US airstrikes, on the contrary, are not only turning out to be futile against ISIL, but also being used to bomb Syrian areas, as also the Syrian army to weaken Assad’s regime. Even the US’ prime ally in region—Israel—is keen on taking full advantage of the situation, using it as a pretext to strike its arch enemy, Hezbollah in Syria. In a recent Israeli strike, at least 12 members of Hezbollah and Iran’s revolutionary guards were killed. If the US’ fight is against ISIL, why her allies are killing the enemies of the ‘enemy’ of the US?

Apart from the fact that the US-led military effort is aimed at “dismantling” the “Islamic State” as a threat to the stability of the Middle East and to US security, no independent military or counter-terrorism analyst believes that the military force that is being applied in Iraq and Syria has even the slightest chance of achieving that objective, partly due to the US’ covert alliance with ISIL and partly due to the fact that the US does not have support of any ally who can take control of the territory when it is actually freed from ISIL—hence, no war and no defeat of any ‘enemy’ whatsoever.

According to some reports coming out, the US diplomats freely acknowledged that the airstrikes that the Obama administration is carrying out will not defeat ISIL terrorists, nor does the US, Obama administration, intend to go too deep in this war because of domestic political concerns. However, it does feel the need to turn this anti-ISIL, anti-terrorism, operation into a war so that Obama administration can sell it to its key political constituencies. As the reported sequences of events shows, Obama administration gradually changed its discourse on ISIL issue, turning away from calling it a “counterterrorism operation” to a full-fledged war in the Middle East. The discourse of war, especially in the context of public mood in the West against the fast spreading radicalism, turns out to be a potential political tactic rather than a mere strategic decision.

It is not to suggest that this decision does not have external dimensions. As a matter of fact, it has been a long cherished dream of the US to have unilateral control over the Middle East since at least 1990s. The fallout of the Iraq war did not allow the US to keep its military on long-term, if not permanent, basis in the ME. The US’ withdrawal from Iraq, emergence of ISIS/ISIL, failure of the Iraqi army against ISIL and now the US’ airstrikes all form a coherent sequence of stages of the geo-political “game” the US has been playing in the Middle East since the first gulf war—a “game” that saw further intensification after 9/11 and now is being played in a number of countries that happen to be either on the energy transportation route or are themselves rich in resources. The US’ “occupation strategy” involves a cycle of invading a country of interest, turning it into a chaotic mess and then using the chaos as “a justification” for longer military presence in that country, says an American political commentator and peace activist Brian Becker.

The myth of the “effectiveness” airstrikes against ISIL now stands fully exploded since ISIL now controls much larger Syrian territory than it controlled before US’ bombardment commenced. To begin with, the most immediate objective that the US wanted to achieve was protecting the American strategic investment in Iraq by relieving the so-called jihadist pressure on Baghdad and pushing the ‘divisive’ Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, out of office. To the extent that prospective strikes in Syria were discussed, their narrow aim was defined in terms of what arrangement would better secure the US’ otherwise “lost-self” position in the Middle East. Nothing but extended and extensive chaos could enable the US to re-engage militarily in the Middle East.

That the US has been very selective becomes evident from the fact that the US’ strategy against ISIL in Iraq and ISIL in Syria has been markedly different. If we look at the entire scenario a bit more closely, it becomes evident that ISIL has been directly instrumental in giving that opportunity to the US she had been trying to get since at least 2012: an entry into Syrian “civil war.” These attacks by the US, with their implied ‘promise’ of close air support for non-jihadist fighters assailed by ISIL, have brought the US perilously close to full and formal entry into the Syrian “civil war.” Apart from ISIL, the US’ regional allies have also been instrumental in facilitating this entry. For instance, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s offer to send Turkish troops into Syria if the US would, in return, directly attack the Assad regime—and Ankara’s wrangling with the US over access to Turkish air bases—has not only added to the sustained pressure coming from the Gulf allies, but has also exposed the underlying Syria centric agenda of the US and the Western ‘concerns’ about the rapid emergence of ISIL.

Notwithstanding that the US does aim to dismantle Assad’s regime in Syria, this is by far the only objective the US aims to materialize. Further militarization, for instance, of the Middle East is another critical target the US has to achieve through the current crisis. As a matter of fact, the US has already started to beef up its military presence in the region. Not only did the US ramp up its already considerable economic and military aid to Jordan, for instance, but also went on to deploy, in 2014, 6,000 soldiers to Jordan for a supposedly “large-scale exercise.” While the notion of “large scale exercise” may have been given for public consumption, the reality is far from it; and, the undeniable reality is the US’ quest for unchallenged supremacy over the flow of energy resources from the Middle East to the rest of the world, including Europe, and to deny its real enemies any real opportunity to challenge that hegemony. The wars being fought since last three decades have not and will not establish peace; for, they were and are designed to create chaos and instability.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

US “Fighting”Terror Group with Fictional Leaders

By Tony Cartalucci
January 29, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

ISIL, Al-Qaeda compete for supremacy in global terrorismUS claims to be waging war against “Islamic State” whose various “al-Baghdadi” leaders do not exist.  In 2007, the New York Times revealed that long-vilified “Islamic State” leader Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi did not exist, and that the creation of this fictional character was a ruse to obfuscate the role of foreigners in the creation and perpetuation of “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” 


Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.
In an article titled, “Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says,” the NYT reports that:

The NYT would also reveal the purpose of the deception:

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization. 

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

The admission by US military leaders, reported in the NYT, reveals that the so-called “Islamic State” was nothing more than an appendage of Al Qaeda – with Al Qaeda itself directly armed, funded, and backed by stalwart US allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Despite the NYT and the Pentagon’s admissions, the entire ruse has continued, on an exponential scale.

US Intentionally Raised and Unleashed Al Qaeda Upon Iraq and Syria 

Al Qaeda’s current presence in Iraq and Syria, and their leading role in the fight against the Iranian-leaning government’s of Damascus and Baghdad, are the present-day manifestation of a Western criminal conspiracy exposed as early as 2007.  Revealed by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article,  “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

While the NYT attempted to shift blame to sponsors in “Pakistan” in 2007, the paper itself, along with many others across the West’s vast media monopolies, have since then admitted that America’s closest allies in the Middle East are behind Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, not “Pakistan.”Hersh would go on to document in his 9-page report, the West and its regional partners intentional engineering of a devastating, regional sectarian bloodbath.

The Daily Beast would report in an article literally titled, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” that:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region.

Unfortunately for the spin doctors at the Daily Beast, the fact that this “threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war,” has already been revealed as a joint enterprise not only among Persian Gulf autocracies, but in fact, led by the United States itself, means that Al Qaeda’s expansion in Syria and Iraq, is the verbatim manifestation of the conspiracy warned about by Hersh in 2007.

Baghdadi Ruse Not Only to Hide “Foreign” role, but to Hide US-Saudi Involvement

Today, another “al-Baghdadi” allegedly leads the “Islamic State.” His existence and leadership role is also unconfirmed and the likelihood that Al Qaeda’s “Baghdadi ruse” is simply being repeated, amid feigned and complicit ignorance by the Pentagon, is all but confirmed.  Not only does the “Islamic State’s” leader appear to be entirely fictional, but so is ISIS itself. It is nothing more than the rebranding of Al Qaeda, working seamlessly with other Western and Persian Gulf-backed militant fronts including Al Nusra, for the explicit goal of overthrowing the government of Syria and using the despoiled nation as a staging ground for a similar proxy war to be waged upon Iran.

The United States, bombing a fictional terrorist organization led by a non-existent, fictional character, is at the very heart of the ruse described by the NYT in 2007, a ruse that continues to present day. The goal is not to eliminate ISIS, but to use the fictional front as a pretext to further intervene on behalf of real militant extremists forming the core of the joint US-NATO-Saudi proxy front for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Damascus.

Attempts to portray ISIS as an “indigenous” movement sprung from the Iraqi and Syrian deserts, is to obfuscate the fact that Al Qaeda is currently harbored by NATO in nearby Turkey, and the summation of its support, fighters, weapons, and cash flows from NATO territory, not “seized oilfields” in Syria or from amongst local populations.

This reality comes into sharper focus considering other recent reports that so-called “ISIS” territory has in fact, doubled in the wake of US airstrikes, not shrunk. Fox News reports in their article, “ISIS control of Syria reportedly expands since start of US-led airstrikes,” that:

The Islamic State terror group reportedly has increased the amount of territory they control in Syria as the U.S.-led bombing campaign approaches its four-month anniversary.

The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. government and independent assessments, say that the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, has control of a large swath of northeastern Syria and is creeping toward key cities in the country’s west, including Aleppo, a center of the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

At face value, it would seem as if US policy has failed utterly, if in fact its goal was to truly neutralize ISIS. But with ISIS a fictional creation led by non-existent leaders, and the stated goal of the US being the overthrow of the Syrian government, the doubling of territory held by Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda’s approach to cities like Aleppo on the brink of being liberated by Syrian troops, it is clear that America’s presence in Syria – not to mention in neighboring Iraq – is to support, not stop these terrorist forces.

Recognizing the West’s role in Syria as unprecedented, deplorable, genocidal state-sponsorship of terrorism, and treating the terrorist fronts operating in and along Syria’s borders as a foreign incursion, may allow Syria and its allies to reveal current military operations as a massive counter-terrorism effort, not a “civil war,” and allowing for more open support for the government in Damascus to ensure this effort succeeds.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Crisis talks in London over Islamic State

By Paul Mitchell
January 23, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry joined 20 of the 60 or so “coalition” states in London on Thursday in crisis talks over the offensive by the Sunni militants of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

ISIS controls most of eastern Syria and western Iraq.

It was the first time the US-led coalition had met since the Paris attacks by gunmen affiliated with al Qaeda on the magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket.

Participating in the UK/US-hosted talks were Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Press releases said they were there to discuss how to support Iraqi and Kurdish armed forces, cut ISIS financing, counter its propaganda and provide humanitarian assistance.

Kerry said, “The purpose of coming here is to bring everybody’s best advice, everybody’s thoughts about where there may be weaknesses, everybody’s thoughts about things we can do better, put that together, improve our own performance and operations, and lay down the strategy for the days ahead.”

He made clear what he meant when boasting that some 2,000 coalition air strikes had halted or reversed the momentum of the jihadist group, reclaimed some 700 square kilometres and killed half its leadership since August, adding that Iraqi forces would be getting lots of M16 rifles “very, very shortly.”

“We need to move ahead on every single front, militarily, but also through law enforcement, through intelligence sharing, by attacking the root causes so that terrorist appeals fall flat and foreign recruits are no longer enticed to go to a place and wreak havoc on it,” Kerry added.

Kerry’s remarks followed the State of the Union address January 20 by President Barack Obama, who insisted air strikes were effective. “In Iraq and Syria, American leadership—including our military power—is stopping ISIL’s (IS) advance,” Obama said. “Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.”

UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said progress against ISIS was slow, but the coalition was determined to defeat it. “This isn’t going to be done in three months or six months. It’s going to take a year, two years to push ISIL back out of Iraq but we are doing the things that need to be done in order to turn the tide,” Hammond asserted.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi warned that his country’s military capability was suffering from low oil prices and pleaded with the conference to provide more weapons and training. Baghdad has criticised Washington for not doing “enough” to destroy ISIS.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron told Abadi that he was ready to help rebuild the Iraqi military so they could carry out a sustained ground offensive against ISIS, but stopped short of making any new commitments.

“The threat from extremist terror you face in Iraq is also a threat we face here in the United Kingdom,” he said. “We will do everything we can to help stop foreign fighters coming to your country and creating the mayhem we see today.”

European police agency Europol estimates up to 5,000 European Union citizens have joined ISIS.

On January 16, Cameron met with Obama to discuss the escalation of military operations by the two countries in the Middle East, further NATO provocations against Russia and, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, greater domestic repression in the name of the “war on terror.” Cameron wanted Obama’s cooperation in putting “pressure” on US Internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter to work more closely with UK intelligence agencies. He has pledged to implement a “snoopers’ charter” Communications Bill, giving the British intelligence agencies greater powers to access encrypted communications.

The London meeting took place a day after Kurdish forces in northern Iraq said they had cleared ISIS from nearly 500 square kilometres of territory and broken a key supply line to Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul, which ISIS seized in June 2104. Reports earlier this month in the American press suggested that the US troops sent to Iraq by Obama are on the verge of entering direct combat with ISIS.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that an Iraqi counteroffensive to retake Mosul “will be the centrepiece” of the US-led military efforts for early 2015. WSJ also revealed that the total of US and allied “trainers and advisers” deployed in Iraq has reached 5,000, considerably higher than the figures usually cited for this effort.

Over the last period, ISIS has scored a number of propaganda successes, which many analysts see as a big factor in its recruitment of thousands of international volunteers. One shows captured Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasaesbeh—ISIS claimed it had downed his plane using a heat-seeking missile—describing the way the US lays down operations against ISIS. “There are American bases in Qatar where the missions are planned, targets are decided, and assignments are distributed,” Kasaesbeh tells the interviewer, adding, “They draw out the missions for every participating country a day before. The participating parties are informed of their assignments by 4 o’clock the next day. The Americans use aerial snipers, satellites, spies, and drones taking off from Gulf countries to determine and study targets. We are given aerial maps and pictures of the targets.”

Captured British journalist John Cantlie has appeared in several IS propaganda videos apparently railing against the growth of “dollar-linked fiat currencies” and promoting ISIS plans to bring in a new currency based on a return to some sort of gold standard.

German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, the first western journalist granted access to ISIS after spending time in Mosul, declared, “ISIS is much stronger than we think here.”

He described how it is supported by “an almost ecstatic enthusiasm that I have never encountered in any war zone” and is implementing “social welfare” and a “school system.” Todenhofer concludes that ISIS cannot be overcome by Western intervention or air strikes.

On January 19, the US Central Command was forced to take down its Twitter feed after a group declaring its sympathy with ISIS hacked the Command’s social media accounts, just as Obama was delivering a speech on cyber security, and replaced its logos with an image of a hooded fighter and the words “CyberCaliphate” and “I love you ISIS”.

ISIS’s growth is the responsibility of the US, which has consciously promoted fratricidal sectarian warfare in order to overthrow the Baathist party of former president Saddam Hussein and prepare new efforts to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. These conditions enabled Al Qaeda and ISIS—neither of which existed in Iraq before the US-led invasion—to gain a foothold in the country.

Like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the latest war in Iraq and Syria is a predatory intervention aimed at securing imperialist domination over the resource-rich and geo-strategic Middle East. Its purpose is to stabilise the deeply unpopular US-backed regime in Iraq and effect regime change in Syria. That is the real agenda behind the London talks.

ARMS TO AL-QAEDA: U.S. Generals Admit Washington Has Backed Islamic Militants in Syria

By 21st Century Wire
January 22, 2015
21st Century Wire, January 21, 2015

 

If true, this latest dossier produced by Dr. Jerome Corsi validates a number of our past reports on this subject published here at 21WIRE.

In addition to al Qaeda, AQIM, and AQAP, this story also connects the CIA and all relevant political players, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, directly to ISIS, or the ‘Islamic State’, currently terrorizing Iraq and Syria. The CIA worked through a series of ‘cut-outs’ based in Qatar and in other locations in the Middle East (see full report below).

If you believe all of the pre-packaged government and corporate media propaganda, then you might think that ISIS is just another evil, grassroots Salafist militant movement, one with no connections at all to foreign intelligence agencies like the CIA, Britain’s MI6, Turkish (NATO) intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Israeli intelligence, or Pakistan’s ISI.

Well, you might just be wrong…

1-Benghazi-Obama-Clinton
PARTNERS IN CRIME: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke at the funeral of Chris Stevens and others who perished at Benghazi.

Dr Jerome Corsi
WND


NEW YORK – The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi concluded in its interim report.

In WND interviews, several members of the commission have disclosed their finding that the mission of Christopher Stevens, prior to the fall of Gadhafi and during Stevens’ time as U.S. ambassador, was the management of a secret gun-running program operated out of the Benghazi compound.

The Obama administration’s gun-running project in Libya, much like the “fast and furious” program under Eric Holder’s Justice Department, operated without seeking or obtaining authorization by Congress.


WND reported Monday
that in exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission, it is clear that while the CCB is still enthusiastic to work with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and hopeful that Boehner is serious about the investigation, various members of the CCB, speaking on their own behalf and not as spokesmen for the commission, are expressing concerns, wanting to make sure the Gowdy investigation is not compromised by elements within the GOP.

The Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi’s interim report, in a paragraph titled “Changing sides in the War on Terror,” alleges “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion.”

The report asserted the jihadist agenda of AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.

“The rebels made no secret of their Al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports,” the interim report said. “And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress Al Qaeda.”

The report concluded: “The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

1-Benghazi-Stevens
Christopher Stevens: ’1st U.S. envoy to al-Qaida’

In the WND interviews, several members of the citizens’ commission, speaking for themselves, not for the commission, added important background to the interim report’s conclusion.

“In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels,’ which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s very first envoy to al-Qaida,” explained Clare Lopez, a member of the commission who served as a career operations officer with the CIA and current is vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

“At that time, Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-related militia in Libya,” Lopez continued. “The weapons were produced at factories in Eastern Europe and shipped to a logistics hub in Qatar. The weapons were financed by the UAE and delivered via Qatar mostly on ships, with some possibly on airplanes, for delivery to Benghazi. The weapons were small arms, including Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and lots of ammunition.”

Lopez further explained that during the period of time when Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-affiliated militia in Libya, he was living in the facility that was later designated the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi.

“This was about weapons going into Libya, and Stevens is coordinating with Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, other al-Qaida-affiliated militia leaders and leaders of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood that directed the rebellion against Qadhafi as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said. “Many of the individual members of the al-Qaida-related militias, including the LIFG, and the groups that would later become Ansar Al-Sharia, were Muslim Brotherhood members first.”

According to the interim report, as detailed by Lopez, a delegation from the UAE traveled to Libya after the fall of Gadhafi to collect payment for the weapons the UAE had financed and that Qatar had delivered to the Transitional National Council in Libya during the war.

“The UAE delegation was seeking $1 billion it claimed was owed,” the interim report noted. “During their visit to Tripoli, the UAE officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.”

According to information discovered during the UAE visit to Tripoli, when Jalil learned that Maj. Gen. Abdel Fatah Younis, Gadhafi’s former minister of the interior before his late February 2011 defection to the rebel forces, had found out about the weapons diversion and the $500 million payment from Gadhafi, Jalil ordered Abu Salim Abu Khattala, leader of the Abu Obeida Bin al-Jarrah brigade to kill Younis.

“Abu Khattala, later identified as a Ansar al- Shariah commander who participated in the 11 September 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, accepted the orders and directed the killing of Gen. Younis in July 2011,” the interim report noted.

Abu Khattala is currently in custody in New York awaiting trial under a Department of Justice-sealed indictment, after U.S. Delta Force special operations personnel captured him over the weekend of June 14-15, 2014, in a covert mission in Libya. Abu Khattala’s brigade merged into Ansar al-Shariah in 2012, and he was positively identified to the FBI in a cell phone photo from the scene of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The language of the interim report made clear why the sequence of events is important.

“The key significance of this episode is the demonstration of a military chain-of-command relationship between the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the TNC and the Al Qaeda-affiliated militia (Ansar al-Shariah) that has been named responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” the interim Rreport concluded.

“What we have here is the Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the revolution giving a kill order to a Muslim militia affiliated with al-Qaida, which then carried it out,” Lopez summarized. “This chain-of-command link is important even though it has not yet received enough attention in the media.

A big ‘oh no’ moment

“After Gadhafi is deposed and Stevens was appointed U.S. ambassador to Libya, the flow of weapons reverses,” Lopez noted. “Now Stevens has the job of overseeing the shipment of arms from Libya to Syria to arm the rebels fighting Assad, some of whom ultimately become al-Nusra in Syria and some become ISIS.”

Lopez distinguished that “al-Nusra in Syria still claims allegiance to al-Qaida, while ISIS has broken away from al-Qaida, not because ISIS is too violent, but out of insubordination, after Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, wanted to run his own show inside Syria as well as Iraq, thereby disobeying orders from al-Qaida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”

She noted that in this period of time, after the fall of Gadhafi and before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound, Stevens was working with Turkey to ship weapons out of Libya into Syria for the use of the rebels fighting Assad.

According to the authors of the bestselling book “13 Hours,” on Sept. 11, 2012, before the attack on the Benghazi compound started, Stevens had dinner with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Stevens reportedly escorted the Turkish diplomat outside the main gate of the Benghazi compound to say good-bye to Akin at approximately 7:40 p.m. local time, before he returned to Villa C to retire for the evening.

Kevin Shipp, a former CIA counterintelligence expert who worked on the seventh floor at Langley as protective staff to then-CIA Director William Casey, again speaking for himself in his interview with WND, agreed with Lopez that the gun-running operation Stevens managed is a secret the Obama White House and Clinton State Department have sought to suppress from the public.

“The shocking part, maybe even a violation of international law that the Obama administration has been terrified to have fully revealed, is that Stevens as part of his duties as a State Department employee was assisting in the shipment of arms first into Libya for the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, with the weapons shipped subsequently out of Libya into Syria for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels fighting Assad,” Shipp told WND.

“Very possibly, these gun-running activities could be looked at even as treasonable offenses,” he said.

Shipp further noted that in gun-running operations in which the CIA wants deniability, the CIA generally involves a third party.

“The way the CIA works is through a ‘cut-out,’ in that you get Qatar to transport the weapons and you facilitate the transport. So now the third party is to blame,” he explained.

“Qatar probably would have been able to pull this off without any attribution to the CIA if the Benghazi attack had not happened. The attack basically shed the light on this operation the White House, the State Department and the CIA were trying to keep quiet,” he said.

“The attack on Benghazi was a big ‘oh no’ moment.”

READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files

“The ISIS Leader Does Not Exist”: The US Military’s Stunning Conspiracy Theory Emerges From The Archives

By Tyler Durden
January 20, 2015
Zero Hedge

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Alleged ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Having noted that voter angst has been riled, propagandized, and fear-mongered to the point at which the most pressing priority for Congress is to ‘fix’ terrorism, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that we discover – deep down in the archives – that giving the public someone to ‘hate’ as opposed to something may have been an entire fiction. As The New York Times exposed in 2007Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, the titular head of the Islamic State, according to Brigadier General Kevin Bergner – the chief American military spokesman at the time – never existed (and was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima).

Via The New York Times (2007),

For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.

On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

The evidence for the American assertions, Bergner announced at a news briefing, was provided by an Iraqi insurgent: Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, who was said to have been captured by American forces in Mosul on July 4.

According to Bergner, Mashadani is the most senior Iraqi operative in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. He got his start in the Ansar al-Sunna insurgent group before joining Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia more than two years ago, and became the group’s “media emir” for all of Iraq. Bergner said that Mashadani was also an intermediary between Masri in Iraq and bin Laden and Zawahiri, whom the Americans assert support and guide their Iraqi affiliate.

“Mashadani confirms that al-Masri and the foreign leaders with whom he surrounds himself, not Iraqis, made the operational decisions” for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Bergner said.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a Middle East expert, said that experts had long wondered whether Baghdadi actually existed. “There has been a question mark about this,” he said.

Nonetheless, Riedel suggested that the disclosures made Wednesday might not be the final word on Baghdadi and the leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Even Mashadani’s assertions,Riedel said, might be a cover story to protect a leader who does in fact exist.

“First, they say we have killed him,” Riedel said, referring to the statements by some Iraqi government officials. “Then we heard him after his death and now they are saying he never existed. That suggests that our intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq is not what we want it to be.”

American military spokesmen insist they have gotten to the truth on Baghdadi.Mashadani, they say, provided his account because he resented the role of foreign leaders in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They say he has not repudiated the organization.

Read more here…

Ironman 3 anyone?

*  *  *

So he was a ghost back then…. is he a ghost again, a propaganda test-tube baby designed purely to put a face on ISIS and the biggest bogeyman of the current global anti-terrorist mania, so necessary to boost global QE in lieu of a world war (for now)?

It’s certainly easier for an average joe to ‘hate’ a demonic leader than an amorphous ‘thing’ called ‘Radical Islam’ – just ask President Obama.