Americans have been told that 150 troops have been sent to Jordan to help with refugee problems from Syria.
Britain is doing the same. A hundred and fifty can be “150” or it can be 800, two countries can be a dozen.
Combine this with the Turkish moves, forcing down a Syrian airliner flying out of Russia, handcuffing and abusing passengers, bizarre tales of imaginary electronics, a brazen confrontation, not just with Syria but Russia, a major and quite relentless nuclear power, and the desperation of the failures to crush Syria according to a long-established timetable become clear.
Intelligence agencies analyze patterns, making up a mosaic that reveals intentions. Our mosaic includes recent claims by the US that Iraq is now the home for a massive new Al-Qaeda force, one made up entirely of former Ba’athists that had been in the pay of the US.
Our source on this is the fleet’s then chief political officer and former presidential advisor Gwyneth Todd, who was, last year, subject to a kidnap/assassination attempt by US government personnel.
Ms. Todd is living in Australia, married to a Defense official, the mother of three. Silencing her, for some reason, had become a priority.
Adding to the “witches brew” of plots against Syria is the corridor Israel has established across Jordan and Iraq to supply their new airbase at Mosul in Iraq’s Kurdish region.
Now the Israeli papers report a “massive air defense exercise” involving the United States, with naval forces to be stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Our first serious question is the troops in Jordan. There is no rationale for the US, Britain and other NATO powers to use Special Operations forces to provide “humanitarian services” to refugees. The United Nations does this as do other NGO’s and, of course, the government of Jordan, which has funds available by agreement, from Saudi Arabia.
The troops, minimally, are involved in intelligence gathering, interviewing refugees, but, additionally, are establishing a foothold for a larger potential force in the immediate future.
Similarly, the current and unsubstantiated misrepresentation of sectarian strife in Iraq, is hardly proof of a “massive” Al-Qaeda cell planning attacks on the United States, as expressed by extremist elements in the American press, more honestly, much of the American press.
We have two uses of the term “massive” as though it had some magic meaning, as though it were a justification for military action.
One problem has been the consistency within the Obama administration, in assuring Iran that no attack will be made until every imaginable diplomatic means is exhausted.
However, Syria has no such blanket protection and, moreover, Secretary of State Clinton has been particularly belligerent in her recent pronouncements.
We seem to be seeing a repetition of recent events in Libya. There has been continual discussion of “buffer zones” and “safety corridors” or rumors of deals to split Syria up or force a “regime change” though no legal authority for any involvement in Syria has been established.
The most recent meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran was particularly clear, 120 nations selected Iran as the movement’s president, representing a majority of the member states of the United Nations.
The ability of the five permanent member states, the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China to veto any military action or authorize it, to support any sanction, was clearly recognized as undemocratic and a relic of both the Cold War and 19th Century colonialism, a disease that seems to be re-infecting the world.
The additional issue, of course, is the use of unauthorized and unrestricted unilateral sanctions, actions that clearly qualify as acts of war in accordance with international law, acts that, in a democratic United Nations, should, in fact, bring about a vote of the General Assembly which, by all that is reasonable, require “reverse sanctions” on the aggressor nations.
An examination of the intended impact of sanctions is directly parallel to the blockade of Europe used by the Allied powers against Germany. The intent, normally part of a combined operation of unrestricted bombing of cities, as with Dresden in 1945, represents a strategic program of unlimited warfare against a civilian population, disease and starvation the desired result.
The targets are clear. Syria is to fall, followed by Lebanon, then the renewal of operations in Iraq and a program of selected destabilization of Iran by nations that, frankly, lack both the will and ability to fight a sustained ground war in Iran.
The intent is clear, mischief, intimidation and enslavement in all cases, the model in place currently in Afghanistan, or intended to be in place anyway.
One might ask, why would a nation being so soundly defeated in an adjacent country want to repeat the same disaster multiplied by ten?
The new schedule is clear, based on the “informed” belief that the American election will be rigged for Romney and his friends in organized crime to win and immediately authorize military action which will, very possibly, end in a world war.
Wilder and more conspiratorial “polls” come out every day; the control of the press is so obvious as to be laughable.
The Libyan attack, one clearly orchestrated from Tel Aviv, one intended to be used by the Romney camp to attack the Obama presidency is, as planned, the primary foreign policy issue.
No American president could live a day telling the truth, “Israel did it.”
Intelligence agencies have been backdating phony reports to invent imaginary Al-Qaeda cells operating for years in Libya, a nation that was the bulwark of the Bush-Blair rendition program.
The new wars will be chasing imaginary Al-Qaeda from Syria to Iraq to Iran and from Yemen to Somalia to Mali and Niger to Nigeria and Cameroon and then to Uganda and Kenya.
The plans are on the drawing board though nobody has told Al-Qaeda yet.