Seymour Hersh has an important
piece up at the
London Review of Books implicating Turkey in the August 2013 sarin gas incident that
almost triggered a US attack on Syria.
I
wonder how much traction it will get.
Specifically, will it get more traction than the recent clandestine
Youtube release of the
confab between the Turkish foreign minister and the spooks concerning the
mechanics of manufacturing a false flag operation in northern Syria to justify
a Turkish incursion?
In response the
Turkish government banned Youtube, a ban that has attracted considerably less
attention than its ban on Twitter.
Hersh states that Turkey, as a NATO member, gets special
treatment that other Muslim states do not:
Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey’s meddling
in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. ‘I asked my colleagues if there was
any way to stop Erdoğan’s continued support for the rebels, especially now that
it’s going so wrong,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The answer
was: “We’re screwed.” We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdoğan,
but Turkey is a special case. They’re a Nato ally. The Turks don’t trust the
West. They can’t live with us if we take any active role against Turkish
interests. If we went public with what we know about Erdoğan’s role with the
gas, it’d be disastrous. The Turks would say: “We hate you for telling us what
we can and can’t do.”’
The story is highly significant in that it gives the
imprimatur of Hersh’s insider sources to what was widely bruited by Bernard at Moon
of Alabama, myself, and some other commentators, namely that the sarin gas incident
was a
false flag operation intended to stampede the US into an Assad-destroying attack.
A couple quibbles.
Hersh reports the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the attack
because the intel was weak. Are the JCS
really so bogus-intel averse after Iraq?
The Syria operation, after all, was envisioned as an airpower exercise with
no boots on the ground that would presumably weaken if not depose Assad while
yielding few if any US casualties. And
there’s plenty of war crimes allegations to justify R2P, get Assad to The
Hague, and tie up any “good war” loose ends even if the US turned out to be “heroes
in error” and thumped Assad on the basis of incorrect intelligence.
The real reason that President Obama has shrunk from taking “all
means necessary” to implode the Syrian regime and instead reconciled himself to
years of murderous equivocation has yet to be told. Given the Syrian catastrophe of 150,000
deaths, millions of refugees, and the destruction of Syria’s cities and economy,
I hope he doesn’t think he’s holding off for humanitarian reasons.
Second, the sarin gas false flag is presented as strictly a
Turkish show. I had hypothesized that
Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar was behind the attack. I wonder if Hersh’s account is complete, not
just because I hate to be wrong, but also because it doesn’t make sense that
Turkey would execute a murderously risky stunt like this without Saudi
foreknowledge and backup.
Given the Turkish dithering over minor false flag exploits revealed
in the Youtube audio (like manufacturing a threat to the tomb of a progenitor
of the Ottoman empire, Shah Suleyman, which is inside Syria but claimed as
sovereign territory by Turkey and protected by Turkish special forces), I tend
to think that Saudi Arabia may have been on hand to provide Turkey with a
little backbone for the sarin attack.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey are Sunni frenemies, divided about
democratically tinged political Islam, support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt,
and Erdogan’s addiction to playing footsie with Iran; but they still share a
desire to destroy the Assad regime. In
2013 the Saudis under Prince Bandar were pursuing a hyper-aggressive strategy
in Syria (remember, Bandar allegedly raised the specter of Chechen
attacks against the Sochi Olympics if Putin persisted in his Assad-supporting
ways), and the KSA was all-in on a US attack against Assad for crossing the chemical
weapons red line. If Turkey indeed executed
the false-flag attack and Saudi Arabia instantaneously called for a US attack on Syria in retaliation, this would imply an admittedly rare but not unexpected area
of cooperation between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Hersh’s story links the sarin false flag attack to Erdogan’s
frustration that the US had cut off the “rat line” running arms from Libya
through Turkey and into Syria after the Benghazi assault, thereby giving the
advantage to Assad and driving Erdogan to consider how to get US power to
bear.
Again, I wonder if the
Turkey’s support for the Syrian insurrection (2000 truckloads of materiel,
according to the Youtube release) really relied on a CIA/MI6-managed flow of
Libyan weapons.
Prince Bandar
bragged that he had arranged a large shipment of
arms for the insurgents from Croatia, and perhaps Saudi Arabia would have been
ready to make up whatever shortfall emerged after the “rat line” was cut.
So maybe Hersh’s sources are shielding Saudi Arabia by
leaking half the story, the Turkish half, and hanging Erdogan out to dry. In other words, in the passage above
substitute “Saudi Arabia” for “Turkey” and you might have a more
persuasive picture of the Muslim power that the US security establishment doesn’t want to
embarrass.
I might point out also that Erdogan was
responsible
for an attempt to procure a Chinese missile defense system (the announcement
was made just after the Syria attack fell apart, perhaps as an expression of
Turkish pique), a decision that infuriated NATO and apparently caused it to
encourage extensive opposition to the deal within Turkey’s defense
establishment.
So maybe the decision was
made to give Erdogan a comeuppance by hanging the sarin false flag fiasco
around his neck.
As for the “rat line” from Libya, that had been chugging
along even before the CIA's involvement which, according to Hersh's article, was approved in early 2012. What might have cut the “rat
line” and forced Bandar to turn to Croatia was the fact that Saudi Arabia
pushed Qatar out of the leadership of the GCC anti-Assad initiative and Libya—a
close Qatar ally—declined to play ball with Riyadh, and it would have been up
to Prince Bandar to work out new supply channels, and a modus vivendi with Erdogan.
I wrote about the Qatari precursor of the “rat line” in
November 2011. If I may be excused for
patting myself on the back, it is a rather prescient piece, both about the
mechanics of outside support for the insurgents, and for its bleak view of the fate
of the domestic Syrian revolutionary movement.
For bonus points, it also highlights the involvement of an enthusiastic
State Department regime-changer, Victoria Nuland, who was very much in the news
recently for her encouragement of the ruckus in Ukraine.
The piece in full follows below.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Syrian revolution—a broad-based, non-sectarian,
democratic anti-despot national movement—has failed.
Mass demonstrations never materialized in Damascus and
Aleppo. The military and security forces didn’t crack. The Alawite
on Sunni crackdown (Alawites form the backbone of the army/security
forces/irregular goon squads) fomented sectarian divisions, with most
non-Sunnis minorities cleaving desperately to the Assad regime.
Prosperous Sunnis have presumably been hedging their bets by donating to the
anti-government cause in recent days but have not explicitly abandoned the
regime.
The Gulf powers and the West would have welcomed a Ba’athist
regime collapse at the hand of domestic anti-government demonstrations.
That didn’t happen.
As the peaceful democratic
movement has faltered, there has been no move from the Western/Gulf powers to
encourage reconciliation and reforms.
Quite the contrary, in fact.
Whenever Assad makes an offer of reform, the Western powers dismiss it as too
late and/or insincere.
Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, counseled Syrian dissidents
to defy the Assad regime’s offer of an amnesty in return for handing in illegal
weapons, as the LA Times
reported:
Syria accused Washington of
"inciting sedition, supporting the acts of killing and terrorism,"
the official Syrian news agency said, quoting an official source at the Foreign
Ministry.
…
The comments came a day after State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland
declared that she would counsel Syrians to reject the amnesty, in which those
the government terms arms violators were asked to turn themselves in with their
weapons "to the nearest police station" during a one-week period that
began Saturday. Those who surrender and have not killed anyone "will be
released soon," the Interior Ministry vowed.
"I wouldn't advise anybody to turn themselves in to regime authorities at
the moment," Nuland told reporters in Washington.
Nuland, by the way, is married to PNACer and neocon pundit Robert Kagan.
Recalling Dick Cheney's enthusiasm for driving to Damascus post-Iraqi Freedom,
maybe we should call the Syria enterprise
Clean Break II: The Do-Over.
Anyway, democracy didn't work. Time for Plan B.
The foreign
powers interested in Assad’s fall—and stripping Iran of a regional ally--have
made the decision to piggyback a foreign-supported, foreign-funded insurrection
on the faltering anti-government movement.
More accurately, the democratic revolution is now an
uncertain and unwilling passenger on the Gulf-funded military machine rumbling
toward Damascus.
Havens for anti-Assad fighters
have materialized in Turkey, and arms and money are flooding in from all over
the place.
Weapons and money for anti-Assad insurrectionists has been trickling in for
months, to the
blissful
disregard of western news outlets fixated on the images of democracy
demonstrators struggling against oppression.
Now that the political option is sliding off the table and it is clear a
foreign-funded insurrection is needed to remove the Assad regime, the gusher of
arms and cash has become too big to ignore.
But the story doesn’t require old-fashioned reporting anymore.
Just go down to a Turkish foreign ministry presser for tea, cookies, and a
targeted backgrounder.
Turkey has
positioned itself as the indispensable Western/Gulf proxy on Syria’s northern
border.
Iran’s IRNA news agency passed on a
report in Turkey’s Millyet
tabloid, a major Turkish news outlet. IRNA is sometimes selective and/or
inaccurate in its presentation of international news, so I’m passing it on with
a caveat, but the report as presented passes the smell test for me:
According to Milliyet,
as cited by IRNA, France has sent its military training forces to Turkey and
Lebanon to coach the so-called Free Syrian Army -- a group of defectors
operating out of Turkey and Lebanon -- in an effort to wage war against Syria's
military.
The report added that the French, British, and Turkish authorities “have
reached an agreement to send arms into Syria.”
The Turkish daily said that the three have informed the US about training and
arming the Syrian opposition.
According to Milliyet, a group of armed rebels are currently stationed in
Turkey's Hatay Province near the border with Syria.
The report comes as an earlier report had revealed that the British and French
intelligence agencies have reportedly tasked their agents with contacting
Syrian dissidents based in the northern Lebanese town of Tripoli in order to
help fuel unrest in Syria.
Reports also said that French intelligence agents have been sent to northern Lebanon
and Turkey to build the first contingents of the Free Syrian Army out of the
deserters who have fled Syria.
For those of you who prefer to get your Turkey/Syria news
from a reliable Crusader source, here’s an eyebrow-raising
item
from the Daily Telegraph, albeit via Hurryet on November 27:
Syrian dissidents held
secret talks Nov. 25 with Libya’s new authorities and Turkish authorities in
Istanbul with the aim of securing weapons and money for their insurgency
against Damascus, the Daily Telegraph has reported.
Syrian opposition group requested
“assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and
potentially volunteers, during the meeting, the daily reported Nov. 25.
“There is something being planned to send
weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” a Libyan source said on condition
of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks
you will see.”
Preliminary discussions about arms
supplies took place when members of the Syrian National Council (SNC) – the
country’s main opposition movement – visited Libya earlier this month, said the
daily.
“The Libyans are offering money, training
and weapons to the Syrian National Council,” said Wisam Taris, a human rights
campaigner with links to the SNC. Last month, Libya’s interim government became
the first in the world to recognize Syria’s opposition movement as the
country’s “legitimate authority.”
Large shipments of weapons have not yet
been sent, said activists, mainly because of logistical difficulties.
But proposals for a “buffer zone” inside
Syria, monitored by the Arab League, or the likely emergence of an area inside
the country controlled entirely by rebels, could solve this problem. “The
[Libyan] council’s offer is serious,” said Taris.
Sources in the Libyan town of Misrata
suggested that some weapons may already have been sent. Some smugglers were
caught selling small arms to Syrian buyers in Misrata, said a man who
trafficked guns to Libya’s rebels during the country’s civil war.
Libyans feel closely aligned to the
Syrian cause, said Hameda al-Mageri, from the Tripoli Military Council.
The Tripoli Military Council is the creature of Islamist strongman Abdelhakim
Belhadj.
Belhadj is the preferred in-Libya muscle of the Gulf States—“proxy” is perhaps
not too strong a term. He recently found it expedient to
issue
a non-denial denial that Qatar had dispatched nine planeloads of arms to
Tripoli for the exclusive use of his forces.
Belhadj was denied a seat in the new Libyan cabinet thanks to Western anxiety
over any overtly Islamist tinge to the proceedings. In an inspiring
demonstration of the give-and-take of new Libyan democracy, a representative
from Zintan was able to leverage his town’s continued and suspiciously
prolonged local custody of Saif Qaddafi into a winning bid for the defense
slot.
Instead, Belhadj now has the opportunity to pursue profitable mischief in Syria
on behalf of the Gulf states and their anti Sh’ia/anti-Iranian counter
revolution (and perhaps dissipating the intimidating shadow of Belhadj and a
number of his well-trained and hardened fighters from the streets of Tripoli).
In an amusing sideline, Belhadj--presumably on his way to the Istanbul
meeting--got a friendly hazing at the airport from his Zintan buddies.
The brief detention was noted by the local Libyan press; the thing about the
money was apparently
glossed
by a pro-Gaddafi website (they still exist!):
The battalion
of Zintan men has arrested him after the discovery that the passport is
registered with the competent authorities and carrying fake name.
After the
arrest the rebels received a call from the President of the Council Mustafa Abdul
Jalil asking the Alzentan and officials at the airport in Tripoli to allow
Hakim Belhaj to leave the country, this has been found on the large sum of
money inside the bag Khuwaildi Belhadj.
The democratic revolution ship has sailed. What’s going on today is a
foreign-supported insurrection.
The Chinese and the Russians have a clear-eyed understanding of what’s going on.
The PRC is loath to get on the wrong side of Saudi Arabia, its largest energy
supplier, by going too far to defend Syria.
Moscow, which has a real stake in its Iran alliance and cares about the fate of
Assad’s regime, has shown no such qualms.
A selection of headlines from RIA Novosti gives an idea of what a responsible
multi-lateral response on Syria—as opposed to a hurried military ass-kicking
enabled by global anti-Iranian forces meant to obscure the failure of a
peaceful "color revolution"—would have looked like:
Syria welcomes
Russia as intermediary in reconciliation talks
Syrian opposition
should not boycott reforms—Russian FM
Moscow calls on Arab
League to work for peace in Syria
None of this is happening, of course.
As to where this all ends up, I will outsource the increasingly plausible
endgame--
Turkey
is ready to invade Syria--to the estimable M. Badhrakumar of Asia Times
(and his personal blog, Indian Punchline):
Turkey and its western allies are transferring the Libyan fighters whom they
trained and armed to depose Muammar Gaddafi to Syria. Around 600 Libyan
‘volunteers’ have entered Syria. Daily Telegraph reported that secret meetings were held on
Friday in Istanbul between the Turkish officials and the Syrian opposition
representatives and the Libyan fighters. Large-scale infiltration of weapons
from Turkey and Jordan have been going on for months to create civil-war
conditions in Syria, but this is the first move to introduce
‘volunteers’.
The move
is necessitated by the failure to induce defections form the Syrian armed
forces, except a mere handful. Turkey and the western powers are desperate
to create the myth of a ‘Syrian resistance’ force without which their blatant
aggression will be in full display.
…
Things seem to be heading for a flash point, indeed. The
sure sign is that US V-P Joseph Biden is heading for Ankara in the weekend. It is a major
signal of the US giving the go-ahead to Turkey to act on Syria without fear.
Again, Jordanian King, Abdullah, travelled to israel. He is Saudi Arabia’s
‘back channel’ to Israel and a key regional ally for the western
intelligence.
Turkey is indeed shedding its fear of the unknown and is
coming out into the open on the Syrian situation. Turkish FM Ahmet Davitoglu indicated today for the first time that
Turkey is all set for invasion of Syria once it gets the green signal from its
western allies. He said this before heading for the combined meeting of EU
foreign ministers and Arab League representatives (read Saudi Arabia and
Qatar).
The day Davutoglu spoke, November 29, will stand out as a
notable date in the chronicle of the Turkish Republic that Kemal Ataturk
founded. Ataturk’s ‘red line’ used to be that Turkey should never get
entangled in the affairs of the Muslim Middle East but should instead
concentrate on its own ‘modernization’. Evidently, the Islamist government
in power today thinks Turkey is today ‘modern’ enough already and can now go
back and reclaim its Ottoman legacy.
A Turkish army moving into an Arab country - it is a
historic point. It is a century after the Turks were driven out by the ‘Arab
revolt’. The matrix is dripping with irony. The Arab revolt against the
Turks was instigated by Great Britain. And Britain, although a far weaker power
today, is still playing a seminal role - except, it is encouraging the Turks to
return to the Arab world. One hundred years ago, Britain successfully
pitted the Arabs against the Turks. Today, Turks join hands with some Arabs who
have a grouse against some other Arabs.
The Syrian revolutionaries were too weak to get the nation they wanted.
They’ll have to make do with whatever state that Turkey, the Gulf powers, and
the western democracies decide to give them.
