War Party Rages Humanity Be Damned

The U.S. War Party's fatal combination of servitude to the military industrial complex and baseless rage expose it's embrace of diabolical dichotomy. Their war-lust is on full and constant display, rendering the small minority ignoring the bread and circuses of celebrity worship to rescue reality. The critical mind here is in a struggle far more difficult than David facing Goliath. There is no victory. Just saving one grain of reality from being flushed down the memory hole. This is so because serving an empire promises its stooges a surer path to power and prestige than those who seek a more peaceful world. In the former you function as a conscienceless cog in a corrupt machine whereas in the latter you struggle to remain....human.

For those who were either not born yet or remained blind and indifferent to the world in 2008, the U.S. was still mired in Iraq fighting the gravest threat to humanity, Al-Qaeda. In fact, General Petraeus referenced Al-Qaeda's reduced presence and influence as a critical metric demonstrating the success of the U.S. military occupation in Iraq. He testified to Congress that:

Since September (2007 when the Surge began-my italics), levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security. [1] 

He continued to assert that while Al-Qaeda sought to impose terror in Iraq their main objective was expanding their efforts worldwide:

Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction, and foreign fighters to Iraq. Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq’s challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports AQI. [2]

Petraeus' refrain in his Senate testimony was the scale and brutality of Al-Qaeda's terror alienated it from both Sunni and Shia in Iraq.

Now contrast the image of Al-Qaeda as a threat to civilization in 2008 to their potential value to the U.S. empire today, especially in Syria. Petraeus doesn't advocate forging an alliance with the entire Al-Nusra in Syria. Instead, he advocates driving a wedge between the true believers and the opportunists, the dedicated jihadists and those who jumped on its bandwagon seeing it as a tour de force:

“We should under no circumstances try to use or co-opt Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, as an organization against ISIL,” Petraeus said. “But some individual fighters, and perhaps some elements, within Nusra today have undoubtedly joined for opportunistic rather than ideological reasons: they saw Nusra as a strong horse, and they haven’t seen a credible alternative, as the moderate opposition has yet to be adequately resourced.”

Petraeus said the U.S. should try “splintering [Al Nusra’s] ranks by offering a credible alternative to those ‘reconcilable’ elements of those organizations.” [3]

Petraeus in his comment quoted above contributes to the current prevalent narrative that a moderate opposition exists awaiting to emerge from the shadow of ISIL and Al-Qaeda etc if only the U.S. empire would in an act of benevolence fund, support and arm them. Petraeus' humiliation felt from being exposed leaking classified secrets to a journalist/mistress etc didn't dull his impulses for propaganda. Petraeus comments here show little more than parsing of words.

The empire's word parsing continues by distinguishing moderates from various shades of jihadists. Patreus' certainly parses word meanings to construct another of his counter insurgency schemes. Meanwhile former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford claims imply that Al-Nusra are really nothing more than glorified front runners piggybacking on the success of those heretofore hidden moderates Ahrar al-Sham (Free Men of the Levant). Ford attempts to dispel any rumours that Al-Nusra were a decisive force in capturing the city of Idilb last March:

Probably the most important group fighting the Syrian regime now is Ahrar al-Sham (Free Men of the Levant), a Salafi group fighting mainly in the north but also in central and southern Syria. Contrary to Western reports suggesting that the al-Qa‘ida-linked Nusra Front led the battle to capture the northwestern Syrian provincial capital of Idlib last March, Ahrar had more fighters in the battle—a fact demonstrated by its predominance in the subsequent military oversight council established for Idlib. Ahrar is a key force on the battlefield, but Western media allots little space to describe it beyond saying it is “hard-line” or “jihadi.” [4]    

So Ahrar's dominance in a military council in Idilb demonstrates its preeminent position in the Syrian opposition. Thus, the media has overstated Al-quaeda's participation in the Syrian opposition preceding and during the attack of Idlib. By that logic, Clement Atlee unseating Churchill as Prime Minister implies the latter's influence on England's WWII involvement was negligible. Yes, I know this historical analogy is imperfect, but Ford's conclusion discounts the opposition's composition leading up to this pivotal action which signaled a shifting of the advantage to the Syrian opposition.

An al-Nusra source reported last March to al-Araby that they would provide 3,000 troops comprising a majority of the overall force that was preparing to attack Idlib in March 2015. Also, a Saudi source reported to Gareth Porter last May that:

A source in the Saudi royal family involved in defence and security matters confirmed for this article the existence of the new military coalition and the Saudi and Qatari assistance to it. The source said that the Army of Conquest is a temporary coalition in the Idlib region in which Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham represent 90 percent of the troops. [5]

The composition of the current Syrian opposition is important insofar as it clarifies both U.S. and Russia's intentions for their relative involvement in Syria. By comprehending the true composition of the Syrian opposition, we will learn whether Russia is either defending Assad's regime against jihadists or attacking moderate (i.e. non-jihadist) rebels.

Ambassador Robert Ford had stated inaccurately on August 04, 2011 the pacifistic nature of the Syrian opposition when claiming "the only weapon I saw was a slingshot." Ford stated this observation in response to Syrian television reporting of "armed gangs in Hama." Ford's claim though conflicts with Israel's Debka Intelligence news that reported:

[Syrian forces] are now running into heavy resistance: Awaiting them are anti-tank trapsand fortified barriers manned by protesters armed with heavy machine guns. [6]

This information reported by Debka about the nature of the Syrian opposition in 2011 warrants questioning Ford's current "assessment" that Al-Nusra is a negligible member of said opposition.


Petraeus' comments mostly summarize the War Party's view on the current conditions in Syria. This view prompts our asking one question that the mainstream media fail continually to address. U.S. views any cooperation with Russia an intolerable proposition if it may secure Assad's regime. The U.S. uncompromising position here appears more hypocritical given its willingness to consider cooperating with Al-Qaeda on a conditional basis as advised by Petraeus. Did Assad sponsor any terrorists crashing planes into the Twin Towers? Thus, we can infer that the U.S. war hawks view Assad maintaining power a worse outcome than any risks incurred from selectively working with potentially disgruntled Al-Nusra members. These are members who need some encouragement to ditch jihad in order to assist once again the indispensable nation in effecting regime change.

The U.S. war hawks' and Petraeus' Realpolitick here suggests that our fretting over al-Qaeda is so 2001-2011. But, one timeless threat that should keep us on High Alert, DEFCON 5 is that Cold War tandem of the USSR  oops Russia and their Red soul mate Cuba. The never opportunistic but always vigilant Ted Cruz has warned us of these two converging in Syria (as he states beginning at 21:00 into this video). This is their desperate attempt to rewrite the history of the Cold War.

This fear Cruz warns us of is materializing as we speak. Photos obtained by the most trustworthy sources show us the irrefutable proof that our worst fears are coming true:

This photo vindicates Cruz's claim that cynics would otherwise dismiss as his posturing for his U.S. Presidential campaign. This makes it official. Both Russia and Cuba are protecting Bashar al-Assad's regime, further enabling his barrel bombing, chlorine flinging, sarin gassing ways. Ok maybe the cynics have at least the slightest justification for their doubts of Cruz's claim here. But, the validity of this photo only suggests that Cruz may be wrong in degree but not in kind. Yeah right!!! Yes Cruz's hysterics are so ridiculous that his comments lend themselves instantly to satire. Cruz does state that we should fight ISIS rather than focus on regime change. Yet, he discourages the U.S. cooperating with Russia. In other words he equivocates. If the U.S. won't cooperate with Russia, does Cruz believe we should cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Platitudes aplenty, but no coherence.

The U.S. policy of regime change of which Syria is the current phase reveals the dangers of a world with one dominant power. In addition, this policy may answer at least one question: who is the most prolific sponsor of the worst terrorists? You will need to answer that question for yourself. Don't allow the War Party to answer it for you.

[1]. General David Petraeus. "Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq." April 08-09, 2008. file:///home/chronos/u-e236fd12276d23ff381587b347f8dc190887e2f3/Downloads/General%20Petraeus%20Testimony%20to%20Congress%208%20April%202008%20(1).pdf

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Harris, Shane and Nancy A. Youseff. "Petraeus: Use Al-Qaeda Fighters to Beat ISIS." The Daily Beast. August 31, 2015. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/petraeus-use-al-qaeda-fighters-to-beat-isis.html

[4]. Ford, Robert S. and Ali El Yassir. "Yes, Talk with Syria's Ahram al-Sham." Middle East Institute. July 15, 2015. http://www.mei.edu/content/at/yes-talk-syria%E2%80%99s-ahrar-al-sham

[5]. Porter, Gareth. "Obama's failure on Saudi-Qatari aid to al-Qaeda affiliate." Middle East Eye. May 23, 2015. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/obama-s-fail-saudi-qatari-aid-al-qaeda-affiliate-1176814251

[6]. Chossudovsky, Michel. "The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO's 'Humanitarian Wars.'" Sept 02, 2011. Global Resarch: Centre for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-al-qaeda-insurgency-in-syria-recruiting-jihadists-to-wage-nato-s-humanitarian-wars/26351