Messages
Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:23 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.interfax
Interfax-Military
July 10, 2012
Group of Russian Northern Fleet ships heading to Syria - source
MOSCOW: The large anti-submarine ship, Admiral Chabanenko, and three large landing ships left Severomorsk on Tuesday for the Mediterranean Sea, where they are due to enter the Syrian port of Tartous, a military diplomatic source told Interfax-AVN.
"The program involves a visit to the Syrian port of Tartous which hosts a [Russian] naval base," the source said.
During the journey, the Northern Fleet ships will be joined by the Baltic Fleet's Yaroslav Mudry escort vessel and vessels from an auxiliary fleet, he said.
------------
http://www.nowleban
Agence France-Presse
July 10, 2012
Russia sends naval flotilla to Syrian port
Russia has sent a naval flotilla of six warships led by an anti-submarine destroyer to its naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, the Interfax news agency reported Tuesday.
The Admiral Chabanenko and three landing craft have left their home port of Severomorsk in the Arctic Circle on their way to the Mediterranean where they will be joined by the Russian patrol ship Yaroslav Mudry as well as an assistance vessel, a military source told the agency.
"The program of the voyage includes a call in the Syrian port of Tartus," the unnamed source told the news agency.
The source said the trip was taking place in line with the plans of military readiness of the Russian fleet. According to Interfax, the source insisted that the deployment "was not linked to the escalation of the situation in Syria."
"In Tartus the ships are going to top up on supplies of fuel, water and foodstuffs," the source said, adding that their deployment in the Mediterranean would last until the end of September.
Russia has been bitterly criticized by the West for failing to cut military ties with Syria despite the conflict between the regime and opposition rebels that has claimed thousands of lives.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Interfax-Military
July 10, 2012
Group of Russian Northern Fleet ships heading to Syria - source
MOSCOW: The large anti-submarine ship, Admiral Chabanenko, and three large landing ships left Severomorsk on Tuesday for the Mediterranean Sea, where they are due to enter the Syrian port of Tartous, a military diplomatic source told Interfax-AVN.
"The program involves a visit to the Syrian port of Tartous which hosts a [Russian] naval base," the source said.
During the journey, the Northern Fleet ships will be joined by the Baltic Fleet's Yaroslav Mudry escort vessel and vessels from an auxiliary fleet, he said.
------------
http://www.nowleban
Agence France-Presse
July 10, 2012
Russia sends naval flotilla to Syrian port
Russia has sent a naval flotilla of six warships led by an anti-submarine destroyer to its naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, the Interfax news agency reported Tuesday.
The Admiral Chabanenko and three landing craft have left their home port of Severomorsk in the Arctic Circle on their way to the Mediterranean where they will be joined by the Russian patrol ship Yaroslav Mudry as well as an assistance vessel, a military source told the agency.
"The program of the voyage includes a call in the Syrian port of Tartus," the unnamed source told the news agency.
The source said the trip was taking place in line with the plans of military readiness of the Russian fleet. According to Interfax, the source insisted that the deployment "was not linked to the escalation of the situation in Syria."
"In Tartus the ships are going to top up on supplies of fuel, water and foodstuffs," the source said, adding that their deployment in the Mediterranean would last until the end of September.
Russia has been bitterly criticized by the West for failing to cut military ties with Syria despite the conflict between the regime and opposition rebels that has claimed thousands of lives.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:23 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.marketwa
Raytheon Company
July 10, 2012
Raytheon reveals new missile defense system architectural analysis capability
Tool can help shape future of Europe's territorial missile defense
FARNBOROUGH, England: Raytheon Company RTN has introduced a new missile defense system architectural analysis tool designed to help identify the best ways to leverage current NATO assets in support of growing Europe's integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
The analysis tool was built leveraging Raytheon's extensive knowledge and experience across sensors, command and control, and interceptors within the current European Phased Adaptive Approach construct.
"We've conducted a thorough analysis of U.S. missile defense system assets in Europe, and we understand how to position sensors and interceptors to achieve maximum protection for our allies," said Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems for Raytheon Missile Systems. "The assets in place today provide Europe with a viable shield of protection, but NATO assets are needed to make that shield more robust."
The analysis tool is flexible and can incorporate any element or geographical deployment to show the system's effectiveness for various mission scenarios.
"NATO nations have robust, highly sophisticated assets that could be used to strengthen the current shield; in these fiscally challenging times, we must make 'Smart Defense' investments using our limited resources," said Kremer. "Raytheon understands how integrated air and missile defense system elements fit together, and this gives us the unique ability to help allies evaluate how their current and future capabilities can be optimized when integrated with other U.S. and European assets."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Raytheon Company
July 10, 2012
Raytheon reveals new missile defense system architectural analysis capability
Tool can help shape future of Europe's territorial missile defense
FARNBOROUGH, England: Raytheon Company RTN has introduced a new missile defense system architectural analysis tool designed to help identify the best ways to leverage current NATO assets in support of growing Europe's integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
The analysis tool was built leveraging Raytheon's extensive knowledge and experience across sensors, command and control, and interceptors within the current European Phased Adaptive Approach construct.
"We've conducted a thorough analysis of U.S. missile defense system assets in Europe, and we understand how to position sensors and interceptors to achieve maximum protection for our allies," said Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems for Raytheon Missile Systems. "The assets in place today provide Europe with a viable shield of protection, but NATO assets are needed to make that shield more robust."
The analysis tool is flexible and can incorporate any element or geographical deployment to show the system's effectiveness for various mission scenarios.
"NATO nations have robust, highly sophisticated assets that could be used to strengthen the current shield; in these fiscally challenging times, we must make 'Smart Defense' investments using our limited resources," said Kremer. "Raytheon understands how integrated air and missile defense system elements fit together, and this gives us the unique ability to help allies evaluate how their current and future capabilities can be optimized when integrated with other U.S. and European assets."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:29 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.sacbee.
MEADS International
July 9, 2012
Unique MEADS Mobile Testing Capability Arrives At White Sands Missile Range
Share
FARNBOROUGH, England: A first-of-its-
The mobile test facility, or the MEADS System Stimulator – Mobile (MSS-M), is a suite of test equipment that generates real-time synthetic targets and validates operational MEADS system performance. By accelerating data collection, it reduces time and cost required to validate system performance.
"MSS-M allows MEADS to perform real-time, end-to-end, hardware-in-
The MSS-M brings extensive test capability to the field when other systems are limited to hardware-in-
"With this versatile testing capability, we are able to evaluate and assess MEADS system elements hundreds of times between actual live flight tests," said MEADS International Technical Director Marco Riccetti. "The MSS-M 'learns' from flight test data so future flights expand upon what was experienced in previous testing."
The MEADS system combines superior battlefield protection with new flexibility to protect forces and critical assets against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and aircraft. Using its 360-degree defensive capability, advanced MEADS radars and MSE missile, MEADS defends up to eight times the coverage area with far fewer system assets and significantly reduces demand for deployed personnel and equipment, which reduces demand for airlift.
MEADS International, a multinational joint venture headquartered in Orlando, Fla., is the prime contractor for the MEADS system. Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are MBDA in Italy, LFK in Germany and Lockheed Martin in the United States.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
MEADS International
July 9, 2012
Unique MEADS Mobile Testing Capability Arrives At White Sands Missile Range
Share
FARNBOROUGH, England: A first-of-its-
The mobile test facility, or the MEADS System Stimulator – Mobile (MSS-M), is a suite of test equipment that generates real-time synthetic targets and validates operational MEADS system performance. By accelerating data collection, it reduces time and cost required to validate system performance.
"MSS-M allows MEADS to perform real-time, end-to-end, hardware-in-
The MSS-M brings extensive test capability to the field when other systems are limited to hardware-in-
"With this versatile testing capability, we are able to evaluate and assess MEADS system elements hundreds of times between actual live flight tests," said MEADS International Technical Director Marco Riccetti. "The MSS-M 'learns' from flight test data so future flights expand upon what was experienced in previous testing."
The MEADS system combines superior battlefield protection with new flexibility to protect forces and critical assets against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and aircraft. Using its 360-degree defensive capability, advanced MEADS radars and MSE missile, MEADS defends up to eight times the coverage area with far fewer system assets and significantly reduces demand for deployed personnel and equipment, which reduces demand for airlift.
MEADS International, a multinational joint venture headquartered in Orlando, Fla., is the prime contractor for the MEADS system. Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are MBDA in Italy, LFK in Germany and Lockheed Martin in the United States.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
July 10, 2012
Influence bought in Afghanistan
John Robles
====
[T]he $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region.
[W]ho in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?
====
It was supposed to be big saving face I suppose, but sadly, as if to underline the failure of the Western adventure in Afghanistan, a conference by donor countries was recently held not in some free and peaceful city of Afghanistan, liberated by the peace-bringing/
President Hamid Karzai looked worried and none too pleased. Perhaps he knows that when NATO leaves his chances of staying power decrease exponentially. Perhaps he is tired of having to pose for photo ops with the same occupiers who have countless times ignored his calls for an end to civilian casualties and who have apologized countless times for the same casualties and the countless horrific acts against his people; acts of mass murder, urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies, torture and a sickening list too long to go into right now.
It’s an election year in the U.S. and soon NATO will be abandoning Karzai and the country it has devastated for over a decade, so a saving face plan had to be carried out. On the surface it looks as if the kind and benevolent West is out to help Afghanistan, granting it a special non-NATO ally/special ally status and $16 billion in economic aid. I guess this is supposed to please the Afghan people. Of course the $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region. A fact underlined by a statement made by Clinton at the donor summit: “We had no intention to leave Afghanistan. On the contrary, we are building partnerships with Afghanistan, which will continue far into the future."
Far into the future? Is the same in store for Pakistan which also recently received the “special ally” status from the U.S.?
As for the money, it is supposed to in some way guarantee that the country does not spiral into complete anarchy once the NATO forces leave; that is its public reason. The real reason for the money may be the buying of continued influence in the country: one reason why the West was so opposed to Iran’s offer to build infrastructure and roads in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the Taliban have continued to show the world that the U.S. has gotten nowhere in Afghanistan. Shortly after the donor meeting in Tokyo the Taliban launched a huge, albeit not entirely effective, attack on multiple targets in the country; a massive attack according to reports, resulting in 23 dead, 17 of them being Taliban. They were launched in response to the donor meeting which the Taliban saw as an agreement to continue the foreign occupation of their country.
Perhaps they are right, but who is really the worst in this conflict? The NATO/US forces have killed up to tens of thousands either directly or indirectly in their “righteous” war. But sadly the Taliban have proven time and time again that they can be just as savage if not more so than the occupiers of their country.
Sadly for Afghanistan the future looks bleak. Another recent event in a village called Qol-i-Heer in central Afghanistan, namely the cold-blooded execution of a poor Afghan girl named Najiba who was in her early 20s by the brutal and primitive Taliban for alleged “illegal sex” after she was passed around between two top Taliban leaders, underlines the West failure in Afghanistan.
Sure the Taliban are brutal, backwards and primitive savages making a mockery of their very name “Taliban”, which means roughly Students of the Holy Koran, but, who in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?
Sadly for the Afghan people. The answer to this question is not one that can be easily answered.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
July 10, 2012
Influence bought in Afghanistan
John Robles
====
[T]he $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region.
[W]ho in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?
====
It was supposed to be big saving face I suppose, but sadly, as if to underline the failure of the Western adventure in Afghanistan, a conference by donor countries was recently held not in some free and peaceful city of Afghanistan, liberated by the peace-bringing/
President Hamid Karzai looked worried and none too pleased. Perhaps he knows that when NATO leaves his chances of staying power decrease exponentially. Perhaps he is tired of having to pose for photo ops with the same occupiers who have countless times ignored his calls for an end to civilian casualties and who have apologized countless times for the same casualties and the countless horrific acts against his people; acts of mass murder, urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies, torture and a sickening list too long to go into right now.
It’s an election year in the U.S. and soon NATO will be abandoning Karzai and the country it has devastated for over a decade, so a saving face plan had to be carried out. On the surface it looks as if the kind and benevolent West is out to help Afghanistan, granting it a special non-NATO ally/special ally status and $16 billion in economic aid. I guess this is supposed to please the Afghan people. Of course the $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region. A fact underlined by a statement made by Clinton at the donor summit: “We had no intention to leave Afghanistan. On the contrary, we are building partnerships with Afghanistan, which will continue far into the future."
Far into the future? Is the same in store for Pakistan which also recently received the “special ally” status from the U.S.?
As for the money, it is supposed to in some way guarantee that the country does not spiral into complete anarchy once the NATO forces leave; that is its public reason. The real reason for the money may be the buying of continued influence in the country: one reason why the West was so opposed to Iran’s offer to build infrastructure and roads in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the Taliban have continued to show the world that the U.S. has gotten nowhere in Afghanistan. Shortly after the donor meeting in Tokyo the Taliban launched a huge, albeit not entirely effective, attack on multiple targets in the country; a massive attack according to reports, resulting in 23 dead, 17 of them being Taliban. They were launched in response to the donor meeting which the Taliban saw as an agreement to continue the foreign occupation of their country.
Perhaps they are right, but who is really the worst in this conflict? The NATO/US forces have killed up to tens of thousands either directly or indirectly in their “righteous” war. But sadly the Taliban have proven time and time again that they can be just as savage if not more so than the occupiers of their country.
Sadly for Afghanistan the future looks bleak. Another recent event in a village called Qol-i-Heer in central Afghanistan, namely the cold-blooded execution of a poor Afghan girl named Najiba who was in her early 20s by the brutal and primitive Taliban for alleged “illegal sex” after she was passed around between two top Taliban leaders, underlines the West failure in Afghanistan.
Sure the Taliban are brutal, backwards and primitive savages making a mockery of their very name “Taliban”, which means roughly Students of the Holy Koran, but, who in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?
Sadly for the Afghan people. The answer to this question is not one that can be easily answered.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.rt.
RT
July 10, 2012
‘America’s Syrian friends and Afghan foes are same people’
====
The US in particular wants to topple the Assad regime, which has long been considered anti-American. I believe Assad’s good relations with Russia have also played a role. Washington treats any government on friendly terms with Russia with a degree of skepticism, to put it mildly. So they would rather replace it with a regime more supportive of the US.
As for Islamist or Wahhabi monarchies in the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, they seek to model the Syrian regime after their own. They would like to cover all women under black veils, lock them up at home, and strip them of their electoral rights. In case of dissent, the government would follow the example of Bahrain and open fire against its own people.
====
It’s puzzling how the US can treat radical Islamists in Syria at allies while fighting against them as enemies in Afghanistan, says the chair of the Russian parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Washington’s double standard approach is evident in the Syrian crisis. It supports the armed opposition, which wants to turn the country into a dictatorship, claiming that their war against the Assad government has democracy as the goal, Aleksey Pushkov told RT.
RT: Do you think the events unfolding in Syria are in line with the interests of the Syrian people?
Aleksey Pushkov: There is a civil war going on in Syria, and it is only the Syrian political opposition that is benefiting from it. The opposition took up arms and uses violence to achieve their goal. I am convinced that most Syrians don't want to have this armed conflict.
It is well-known that the armed opposition groups persecute the Christian community in Syria. Thousands of Christians were driven out of their towns and villages. Shia Muslims, a minority in the country – they make up 13 per cent – are also targeted by armed Sunni radicals who represent the majority in the armed opposition.
Minorities are killed, as we saw in Houla, and driven out. There is a town in Syria called Hama, right now it is controlled by the militants. And there are basically no local residents left in Hama. They have either been killed or fled the city.
And in this situation the so-called "Friends of Syria" and Hillary Clinton tell us that the armed opposition is fighting for democracy. The armed opposition is not fighting for democracy; they are fighting for a dictatorship. It will be a dictatorship of the forces that they are trying to bring to power to replace Assad. It is clear by now that it has nothing to do with democracy. We can draw this conclusion from the way this armed opposition is acting. They don't want any negotiations, they don't want to comply with the Annan plan, they don't want to create a transition government; they don't want anything. What they want is to have all the power in the country.
I don't quite understand how the US can support the armed opposition, because these are the same kind of people who blow up American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and kill NATO troops in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they are considered enemies of the United States, while here they are treated as allies.
I don’t think this insurgency would have had any serious prospects without external support. But they have this external financial and political support. They get weapons from outside, therefore it's not just an uprising without a serious future – it’s a civil war that split the country in half, as a result of external interference.
RT: But what are these outside forces actually trying to achieve? Why would they want to wage war?
AP: The US in particular wants to topple the Assad regime, which has long been considered anti-American. I believe Assad’s good relations with Russia have also played a role. Washington treats any government on friendly terms with Russia with a degree of skepticism, to put it mildly. So they would rather replace it with a regime more supportive of the US.
As for Islamist or Wahhabi monarchies in the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, they seek to model the Syrian regime after their own. They would like to cover all women under black veils, lock them up at home, and strip them of their electoral rights. In case of dissent, the government would follow the example of Bahrain and open fire against its own people.
This kind of conflict is not unique to Syria. But with the events in Bahrain, the US simply turned a blind eye because Bahrain is America’s friend.
In other words, these Gulf countries would like the Sunnis to take power and establish a religious state just like in the Persian Gulf, and weaken the Shias, who have been ruling Syria, as well as Iran, which is currently regarded as Syria’s ally. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain treat Iran with much animosity and see a toppled Assad as a way to weaken the Shia-Iran.
The whole situation has little to do with freedom and democracy. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Qatar or Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates have any democracy or freedom, and most of these states even lack a constitution. It would be ridiculous to assume that these undemocratic states can bring democracy to Syria. The Sunni-Shia confrontation adds a very important dimension to this conflict. Though often ignored, it plays a major role.
RT: Just recently, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, I quote, “Russia and China will pay a price, because they are holding up progress, blocking it. This is no longer tolerable.” What’s your reaction to the statement?
AP: All I see is that the US is paying a price for what it did in Iraq. For example, the US has lost a lot of its glamour and trust in its foreign policy. I would even go as far as to say that the occupation of Iraq prompted a crisis in US foreign policy. At the moment, even its staunch allies like Turkey or Egypt, along with the Western European countries, like Germany, the UK and France, saw a drastic hike in anti-American sentiment.
The US has now paid a price for their occupation of Iraq.
Now Russia warns against the occupation of Syria. Russia says that it’s Syrians who should decide their own future. Hillary Clinton may well voice her opinion, but it’s no more than fantasy. I hear she’s about to step down as Secretary of State so this must be her farewell fantasy.
RT: The US has clearly demonstrated that it’s not going to back down over Syria. How far is Russia prepared to go?
AP: The conference on Syria held in Geneva in June adopted a roadmap, supported by the US, Russia and China. The countries agreed on the need to set up a transition government, to launch a dialogue between the government and the opposition. The participants agreed that it should be the representatives of the two warring parties that should start these talks.
This blueprint was backed by Russia, the US, China and France – almost every country present. So it looks like a sensible solution.
But as soon as they put their signatures to the plan, a war of interpretation broke out. Hillary Clinton said that the plan implies that Assad must go, while Russia said the document does not even mention the name of Assad so it has nothing to do with his future. Russia insists that the document aims to end violence and start negotiations. And all this despite the fact that all the countries said they had reached a common understanding.
It’s really strange when five minutes after you reach an understanding, the parties appear divided. Indeed, the countries did reach some common ground, albeit fragile, but again they tend to interpret it differently. This means a political battle is going on. Also, the rebels said they won’t take part in any kind of talks, and refuse to be part of a transitional government. I think pro-rebel forces can easily do both – sign the Geneva plan and then tell the rebels to press on with the old ways – that being their fight against the Assad government.
RT: What does Russia propose?
AP: Russia insists on the agreements that have already been reached – that the sides should…
RT: But the rebels are against…
AP: Well, if the rebels don’t want to join the negotiations, what can we do about it? We can’t send in our troops and force them to do so. All we can do is to work hard to persuade the US to use their leverage. Washington signed the Geneva plan to set up a transition government. Therefore the US should now use its influence on the armed opposition in Syria to make them comply with it. Otherwise, their policy would look hypocritical – while making official statements in support of the negotiation process they in fact sabotage it.
We could also work to persuade the Assad cabinet not to renounce their support for negotiations and a transition government. In fact, the Assad government has agreed to the plan. And it is only the armed opposition, the rebels, who are against it. The US says that the rebels are ready to join the negotiations only after Assad has resigned. But this was never mentioned at the Geneva conference. We never signed any document that would say that Syria must change its regime under the influence of the external players. We say that Syrians must make their own decision. This is Russia's stance. Russia cannot work miracles, however it can and will maintain its stance.
RT: Many experts say that for the US, a war in Syria would pave the way to attack Iran. Do you think this scenario is possible?
AP: I believe there has been too much speculation on this issue. Personally, I don’t quite see how a possible military strike against Iran is connected with Syria’s future.
Amidst the economic havoc and domestic hostilities, Syria is clearly out of shape to attack any of the US allies in the Middle East. So should the US decide to wage a war on Iran, Syria will have little to do with it.
RT: Perhaps it could be a strategic base?
AP: There are many US allies in the Middle East, for example Jordan, but nobody ever calls Jordan a strategic base to attack Iran. I would not take these speculations seriously. To me, the issues of Iran and Syria are poles apart. Damascus is thought to be Iran’s ally, so you need a regime change in Syria in order to weaken Iran. But in my opinion, this is all very far-fetched. Right now, Syria cannot be a fully-fledged ally to Iran. Too focused on its own domestic affairs, it can neither send its troops abroad, nor cause trouble for America’s allies in the Middle East. So the argument that the US needs to crush Syria before taking on Iran holds little water.
You know that the issue of Iran is not about its military expansion or aggression. It is all about the nuclear weapons that Iran may acquire. This was a hot topic long before the Syria crisis; it’s been on the agenda for about 12 years, with the US strongly against Iran going nuclear. This alone is enough to prove that the issue of Syria is very different from that of Iran. I would not link these two issues closely together.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
RT
July 10, 2012
‘America’s Syrian friends and Afghan foes are same people’
====
The US in particular wants to topple the Assad regime, which has long been considered anti-American. I believe Assad’s good relations with Russia have also played a role. Washington treats any government on friendly terms with Russia with a degree of skepticism, to put it mildly. So they would rather replace it with a regime more supportive of the US.
As for Islamist or Wahhabi monarchies in the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, they seek to model the Syrian regime after their own. They would like to cover all women under black veils, lock them up at home, and strip them of their electoral rights. In case of dissent, the government would follow the example of Bahrain and open fire against its own people.
====
It’s puzzling how the US can treat radical Islamists in Syria at allies while fighting against them as enemies in Afghanistan, says the chair of the Russian parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Washington’s double standard approach is evident in the Syrian crisis. It supports the armed opposition, which wants to turn the country into a dictatorship, claiming that their war against the Assad government has democracy as the goal, Aleksey Pushkov told RT.
RT: Do you think the events unfolding in Syria are in line with the interests of the Syrian people?
Aleksey Pushkov: There is a civil war going on in Syria, and it is only the Syrian political opposition that is benefiting from it. The opposition took up arms and uses violence to achieve their goal. I am convinced that most Syrians don't want to have this armed conflict.
It is well-known that the armed opposition groups persecute the Christian community in Syria. Thousands of Christians were driven out of their towns and villages. Shia Muslims, a minority in the country – they make up 13 per cent – are also targeted by armed Sunni radicals who represent the majority in the armed opposition.
Minorities are killed, as we saw in Houla, and driven out. There is a town in Syria called Hama, right now it is controlled by the militants. And there are basically no local residents left in Hama. They have either been killed or fled the city.
And in this situation the so-called "Friends of Syria" and Hillary Clinton tell us that the armed opposition is fighting for democracy. The armed opposition is not fighting for democracy; they are fighting for a dictatorship. It will be a dictatorship of the forces that they are trying to bring to power to replace Assad. It is clear by now that it has nothing to do with democracy. We can draw this conclusion from the way this armed opposition is acting. They don't want any negotiations, they don't want to comply with the Annan plan, they don't want to create a transition government; they don't want anything. What they want is to have all the power in the country.
I don't quite understand how the US can support the armed opposition, because these are the same kind of people who blow up American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and kill NATO troops in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they are considered enemies of the United States, while here they are treated as allies.
I don’t think this insurgency would have had any serious prospects without external support. But they have this external financial and political support. They get weapons from outside, therefore it's not just an uprising without a serious future – it’s a civil war that split the country in half, as a result of external interference.
RT: But what are these outside forces actually trying to achieve? Why would they want to wage war?
AP: The US in particular wants to topple the Assad regime, which has long been considered anti-American. I believe Assad’s good relations with Russia have also played a role. Washington treats any government on friendly terms with Russia with a degree of skepticism, to put it mildly. So they would rather replace it with a regime more supportive of the US.
As for Islamist or Wahhabi monarchies in the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, they seek to model the Syrian regime after their own. They would like to cover all women under black veils, lock them up at home, and strip them of their electoral rights. In case of dissent, the government would follow the example of Bahrain and open fire against its own people.
This kind of conflict is not unique to Syria. But with the events in Bahrain, the US simply turned a blind eye because Bahrain is America’s friend.
In other words, these Gulf countries would like the Sunnis to take power and establish a religious state just like in the Persian Gulf, and weaken the Shias, who have been ruling Syria, as well as Iran, which is currently regarded as Syria’s ally. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain treat Iran with much animosity and see a toppled Assad as a way to weaken the Shia-Iran.
The whole situation has little to do with freedom and democracy. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Qatar or Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates have any democracy or freedom, and most of these states even lack a constitution. It would be ridiculous to assume that these undemocratic states can bring democracy to Syria. The Sunni-Shia confrontation adds a very important dimension to this conflict. Though often ignored, it plays a major role.
RT: Just recently, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, I quote, “Russia and China will pay a price, because they are holding up progress, blocking it. This is no longer tolerable.” What’s your reaction to the statement?
AP: All I see is that the US is paying a price for what it did in Iraq. For example, the US has lost a lot of its glamour and trust in its foreign policy. I would even go as far as to say that the occupation of Iraq prompted a crisis in US foreign policy. At the moment, even its staunch allies like Turkey or Egypt, along with the Western European countries, like Germany, the UK and France, saw a drastic hike in anti-American sentiment.
The US has now paid a price for their occupation of Iraq.
Now Russia warns against the occupation of Syria. Russia says that it’s Syrians who should decide their own future. Hillary Clinton may well voice her opinion, but it’s no more than fantasy. I hear she’s about to step down as Secretary of State so this must be her farewell fantasy.
RT: The US has clearly demonstrated that it’s not going to back down over Syria. How far is Russia prepared to go?
AP: The conference on Syria held in Geneva in June adopted a roadmap, supported by the US, Russia and China. The countries agreed on the need to set up a transition government, to launch a dialogue between the government and the opposition. The participants agreed that it should be the representatives of the two warring parties that should start these talks.
This blueprint was backed by Russia, the US, China and France – almost every country present. So it looks like a sensible solution.
But as soon as they put their signatures to the plan, a war of interpretation broke out. Hillary Clinton said that the plan implies that Assad must go, while Russia said the document does not even mention the name of Assad so it has nothing to do with his future. Russia insists that the document aims to end violence and start negotiations. And all this despite the fact that all the countries said they had reached a common understanding.
It’s really strange when five minutes after you reach an understanding, the parties appear divided. Indeed, the countries did reach some common ground, albeit fragile, but again they tend to interpret it differently. This means a political battle is going on. Also, the rebels said they won’t take part in any kind of talks, and refuse to be part of a transitional government. I think pro-rebel forces can easily do both – sign the Geneva plan and then tell the rebels to press on with the old ways – that being their fight against the Assad government.
RT: What does Russia propose?
AP: Russia insists on the agreements that have already been reached – that the sides should…
RT: But the rebels are against…
AP: Well, if the rebels don’t want to join the negotiations, what can we do about it? We can’t send in our troops and force them to do so. All we can do is to work hard to persuade the US to use their leverage. Washington signed the Geneva plan to set up a transition government. Therefore the US should now use its influence on the armed opposition in Syria to make them comply with it. Otherwise, their policy would look hypocritical – while making official statements in support of the negotiation process they in fact sabotage it.
We could also work to persuade the Assad cabinet not to renounce their support for negotiations and a transition government. In fact, the Assad government has agreed to the plan. And it is only the armed opposition, the rebels, who are against it. The US says that the rebels are ready to join the negotiations only after Assad has resigned. But this was never mentioned at the Geneva conference. We never signed any document that would say that Syria must change its regime under the influence of the external players. We say that Syrians must make their own decision. This is Russia's stance. Russia cannot work miracles, however it can and will maintain its stance.
RT: Many experts say that for the US, a war in Syria would pave the way to attack Iran. Do you think this scenario is possible?
AP: I believe there has been too much speculation on this issue. Personally, I don’t quite see how a possible military strike against Iran is connected with Syria’s future.
Amidst the economic havoc and domestic hostilities, Syria is clearly out of shape to attack any of the US allies in the Middle East. So should the US decide to wage a war on Iran, Syria will have little to do with it.
RT: Perhaps it could be a strategic base?
AP: There are many US allies in the Middle East, for example Jordan, but nobody ever calls Jordan a strategic base to attack Iran. I would not take these speculations seriously. To me, the issues of Iran and Syria are poles apart. Damascus is thought to be Iran’s ally, so you need a regime change in Syria in order to weaken Iran. But in my opinion, this is all very far-fetched. Right now, Syria cannot be a fully-fledged ally to Iran. Too focused on its own domestic affairs, it can neither send its troops abroad, nor cause trouble for America’s allies in the Middle East. So the argument that the US needs to crush Syria before taking on Iran holds little water.
You know that the issue of Iran is not about its military expansion or aggression. It is all about the nuclear weapons that Iran may acquire. This was a hot topic long before the Syria crisis; it’s been on the agenda for about 12 years, with the US strongly against Iran going nuclear. This alone is enough to prove that the issue of Syria is very different from that of Iran. I would not link these two issues closely together.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:27 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://robertjprinc
[With hyperlinks at URL above]
Rob Prince Blog
July 8, 2012
Syria, the United States and the El Salvador Option (Part Two)
By Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince
So what is the Salvador option?
“The Salvador Option” is a “terrorist mode” of mass killings that was perfected by the US to destabilize regimes that the US saw as threats to its interests. Taught at places like the `School of the Americas’it is employed when other forms of political manipulation fail to produce the desired results. The option works through created and sponsored death squads, with the primary goal of committing slaughter of innocent lives. This triggers world outrage, necessitating intervention by the US under the humanitarian intervention framework. As we state in Part One, this was first applied in El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths. In Guatemala during the 1980s and 1990s, the number of t hose killed by basically the same option was more than 200,000.
A.
To see how it works, we would like to borrow an analogy from cooking. What are the needed ingredients for this process?
1- Identify a progressive regime that resists US imperialism and hegemony and declare it ‘rogue state’ or ‘access of evil’ etc. Use any expression with a catchy title to engineer the consent of the unsuspected people; it helps if this regime is somewhat authoritarian.
2- Develop a plan and begin the preparations, putting a destabilization expert in charge, normally as ambassador or someone with diplomatic immunity.
3- This person usually begins by contacting the army searching for elements that are prepared to sell their soul and their country for few pieces of silver.
4- If such elements cannot be found from within the ranks of the U.S. diplomatic corps, create such an entity; call it a ‘resistance’ or ‘liberation movement’ made up of preferably those trained at a U.S. army base or training camp somewhere in the world. If that is not possible, the U.S. can usually depend upon a readymade supply of Salafist and Wahhabi ‘freedom fighters’ willingly provided by allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; or better yet, use the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) terrorist organization that Washington and Tel Aviv have been long training.
5- Once the appropriate arrangement is agreed upon, the process of supplying `the freedom fighters with weapons, financial support, technical advisers, and clandestine operators begins. …You know what we mean.
6- To make it easier for this fabricated liberation movement to gain legitimacy, implement a tried and tested program that generates international revolution: the more abominable the crimes committed, the more likely the call to humanitarian intervention will arise.
7- To feign compassion(to make the whole thing kosher) , it helps to go to that circus known as the UN to organize a Security Council resolution. Once the appropriate U.N. vote is favorably extracted, bought through either bribery, threats or some combination thereof, it is possible to reap the harvest of all this intrigue and subterfuge by dividing the country or putting a puppet in charge; the sky is the limit! The ultimate goal – a la Libya – is to produce weak or fractured states, the smaller the better – and the easier to manipulate their weak and easily corruptible governments to accept radical global corporate intervention on easy terms. Are you following the point, catching the drift?
B.
Now let us see how this hypothesis works in the case of Syria.
In Part One, we stated that the destabilization and regime change in Syria has been part of US plan for the past ten years. Taking advantage of the authoritarian nature of the Assad regime, and emboldened by its ability to overthrow Khadafy in Libya, the Obama Administration turned its attention to Syria. Bringing down – or seriously weakening – Assad weakens Iran’s position in the region, undermines Hezbollah in Lebanon, puts a smile on Binjamin Netanyahu’s face and places Russia and China in a more difficult strategic position.
In Syria’s case, the only missing ingredient was an opportunity to implement the plan. The eruption of the Arab Spring and the eruption of the ensuing social crisis in Syria provided Washington with the opportunity to turn the regional democratic upsurge to its advantage.
There are many indications that the “Free Syrian Army”, currently engaged in armed struggle against the Assad government, is led not by Syrians, but by NATO-backed Libyan militants from the US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Recently, revelations that Syrian militants are in fact being armed, trained, funded, and joined on the battlefield by Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization (listed as #27) . The Telegraph would report in November 2011 that LIFG leader, Abdul Belhaj met with senior leaders of the “Free Syrian Army” on the Turkish-Syrian border. ) Belhaj and his LIFG’s role is not just assisting Syrian militants but in fact leading them in NATO’s armed destabilization of Syria. Belhaj pledged weapons and money (both of which he receives from NATO) as well as sending LIFG fighters to train and fight alongside Syrian militants.
VoltaireNet.
Saudi Arabia, which has closely coordinated with U.S. Middle East policy aims for decades, is also very much involved. It has also been confirmed that Saudi Arabia is shipping arms to foreign fighters and Syrian rebels operating out of Jordan. The Australian reports, quoting an Arab diplomat, that “Saudi military equipment is on its way to Jordan to arm the Free Syrian Army.” It must be noted that Saudi Arabia in turn, receives its weapons and a significant amount of military funding from the United States.
C.
The Role of U.S. Ambassador Robert S. Ford
In January, 2011, just as the Arab Spring was expanding region-wide from its Tunisian birthplace, one Robert Stephen Ford was appointed the new US Ambassador to Syria. Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was U.S. representative in January 2004 to the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf was the stronghold of the Mahdi army. A few months later he was appointed “Number Two Man” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs), at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of John Negroponte’s tenure as US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004- April 2005). Ford subsequently served under Negroponte’s successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006, another highly sensitive political appointment.
Ambassador Robert S. Ford’s activities in Iraq laid the groundwork for the launching of the insurgency in Syria in March 2011, which commenced in the Southern border city of Daraa. Much of what we know about Ford’s activities has been well documented by the Canadian research center, Global Research, Ca
Ford arrived in Damascus at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. He was no stranger to some of the more covert and nefarious aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Ford had been part of John Negroponte’s team at the US Embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) where he helped engineer “the Salvador Option” for Iraq. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squads and paramilitary forces modeled on the experience of Central America.
Robert S. Ford’s mandate as “Number Two” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs) under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte was to coordinate out of the US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the resistance movement.
Ford gave a touching statement of his goals in Syria in a communique from the U.S. embassy there:
“As the United States’ Ambassador to Syria—a position that the Secretary of State and President are keeping me in —I will work with colleagues in Washington to support a peaceful transition for the Syrian people. We and our international partners hope to see a transition that reaches out and includes all of Syria’s communities and that gives all Syrians hope for a better future. My year in Syria tells me such a transition is possible, but not when one side constantly initiates attacks against people taking shelter in their homes”.
“Peaceful transition for the Syrian people”? He was pursuing a much darker agenda.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research, Ca describes Ford’s role more honestly:
“Since his arrival in Damascus in late January 2011 until he was recalled by Washington in October 2011, Ambassador Robert S. Ford played a central role in laying the groundwork within Syria as well as establishing contacts with opposition groups. The US embassy was subsequently closed down in February. Ford also played a role in the recruitment of Mujahideen mercenaries from neighboring Arab countries and their integration into Syrian “opposition forces”. Since his departure from Damascus, Ford continues to oversee the Syria project out of the US State Department:
All indications are that Ford engaged in more cynical than simply engaging in muted congenial diplomatic relations. In Syria he was a key player, implementing two major building blocks of the Salvador option needed for the destabilization of Syria, as he did in Iraq:
He used the cover of the diplomatic immunity to travel around Syria in order to connect together the groups trained by the US intelligence community. He has been pictured with US military advisers visiting hotspot sites all over Syria.
2. On a more sinister level, as in Iraq, he used his diplomatic status in Syria to distribute sophisticated communication equipment, equipment whose communications could not be decoded by the Syrian authorities (or those in other countries where the system was used). The US embassy in Damascus was the system’s communication system.
Using this new secretly coded technology, he began to openly incite the Syrian elements sympathetic to the US interest to topple the régime. Imagine what would have happened to the Syrian ambassador in Washington, had he engaged in similar activities with the `Occupy’ movements here.
Another key figure in Syria’s `Salvador Option’ is David Petraeus. We’ll deal with his role in Part Three of this series.
[With hyperlinks at URL above]
Rob Prince Blog
July 8, 2012
Syria, the United States and the El Salvador Option (Part Two)
By Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince
So what is the Salvador option?
“The Salvador Option” is a “terrorist mode” of mass killings that was perfected by the US to destabilize regimes that the US saw as threats to its interests. Taught at places like the `School of the Americas’it is employed when other forms of political manipulation fail to produce the desired results. The option works through created and sponsored death squads, with the primary goal of committing slaughter of innocent lives. This triggers world outrage, necessitating intervention by the US under the humanitarian intervention framework. As we state in Part One, this was first applied in El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths. In Guatemala during the 1980s and 1990s, the number of t hose killed by basically the same option was more than 200,000.
A.
To see how it works, we would like to borrow an analogy from cooking. What are the needed ingredients for this process?
1- Identify a progressive regime that resists US imperialism and hegemony and declare it ‘rogue state’ or ‘access of evil’ etc. Use any expression with a catchy title to engineer the consent of the unsuspected people; it helps if this regime is somewhat authoritarian.
2- Develop a plan and begin the preparations, putting a destabilization expert in charge, normally as ambassador or someone with diplomatic immunity.
3- This person usually begins by contacting the army searching for elements that are prepared to sell their soul and their country for few pieces of silver.
4- If such elements cannot be found from within the ranks of the U.S. diplomatic corps, create such an entity; call it a ‘resistance’ or ‘liberation movement’ made up of preferably those trained at a U.S. army base or training camp somewhere in the world. If that is not possible, the U.S. can usually depend upon a readymade supply of Salafist and Wahhabi ‘freedom fighters’ willingly provided by allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; or better yet, use the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) terrorist organization that Washington and Tel Aviv have been long training.
5- Once the appropriate arrangement is agreed upon, the process of supplying `the freedom fighters with weapons, financial support, technical advisers, and clandestine operators begins. …You know what we mean.
6- To make it easier for this fabricated liberation movement to gain legitimacy, implement a tried and tested program that generates international revolution: the more abominable the crimes committed, the more likely the call to humanitarian intervention will arise.
7- To feign compassion(to make the whole thing kosher) , it helps to go to that circus known as the UN to organize a Security Council resolution. Once the appropriate U.N. vote is favorably extracted, bought through either bribery, threats or some combination thereof, it is possible to reap the harvest of all this intrigue and subterfuge by dividing the country or putting a puppet in charge; the sky is the limit! The ultimate goal – a la Libya – is to produce weak or fractured states, the smaller the better – and the easier to manipulate their weak and easily corruptible governments to accept radical global corporate intervention on easy terms. Are you following the point, catching the drift?
B.
Now let us see how this hypothesis works in the case of Syria.
In Part One, we stated that the destabilization and regime change in Syria has been part of US plan for the past ten years. Taking advantage of the authoritarian nature of the Assad regime, and emboldened by its ability to overthrow Khadafy in Libya, the Obama Administration turned its attention to Syria. Bringing down – or seriously weakening – Assad weakens Iran’s position in the region, undermines Hezbollah in Lebanon, puts a smile on Binjamin Netanyahu’s face and places Russia and China in a more difficult strategic position.
In Syria’s case, the only missing ingredient was an opportunity to implement the plan. The eruption of the Arab Spring and the eruption of the ensuing social crisis in Syria provided Washington with the opportunity to turn the regional democratic upsurge to its advantage.
There are many indications that the “Free Syrian Army”, currently engaged in armed struggle against the Assad government, is led not by Syrians, but by NATO-backed Libyan militants from the US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Recently, revelations that Syrian militants are in fact being armed, trained, funded, and joined on the battlefield by Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization (listed as #27) . The Telegraph would report in November 2011 that LIFG leader, Abdul Belhaj met with senior leaders of the “Free Syrian Army” on the Turkish-Syrian border. ) Belhaj and his LIFG’s role is not just assisting Syrian militants but in fact leading them in NATO’s armed destabilization of Syria. Belhaj pledged weapons and money (both of which he receives from NATO) as well as sending LIFG fighters to train and fight alongside Syrian militants.
VoltaireNet.
Saudi Arabia, which has closely coordinated with U.S. Middle East policy aims for decades, is also very much involved. It has also been confirmed that Saudi Arabia is shipping arms to foreign fighters and Syrian rebels operating out of Jordan. The Australian reports, quoting an Arab diplomat, that “Saudi military equipment is on its way to Jordan to arm the Free Syrian Army.” It must be noted that Saudi Arabia in turn, receives its weapons and a significant amount of military funding from the United States.
C.
The Role of U.S. Ambassador Robert S. Ford
In January, 2011, just as the Arab Spring was expanding region-wide from its Tunisian birthplace, one Robert Stephen Ford was appointed the new US Ambassador to Syria. Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was U.S. representative in January 2004 to the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf was the stronghold of the Mahdi army. A few months later he was appointed “Number Two Man” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs), at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of John Negroponte’s tenure as US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004- April 2005). Ford subsequently served under Negroponte’s successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006, another highly sensitive political appointment.
Ambassador Robert S. Ford’s activities in Iraq laid the groundwork for the launching of the insurgency in Syria in March 2011, which commenced in the Southern border city of Daraa. Much of what we know about Ford’s activities has been well documented by the Canadian research center, Global Research, Ca
Ford arrived in Damascus at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. He was no stranger to some of the more covert and nefarious aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Ford had been part of John Negroponte’s team at the US Embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) where he helped engineer “the Salvador Option” for Iraq. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squads and paramilitary forces modeled on the experience of Central America.
Robert S. Ford’s mandate as “Number Two” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs) under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte was to coordinate out of the US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the resistance movement.
Ford gave a touching statement of his goals in Syria in a communique from the U.S. embassy there:
“As the United States’ Ambassador to Syria—a position that the Secretary of State and President are keeping me in —I will work with colleagues in Washington to support a peaceful transition for the Syrian people. We and our international partners hope to see a transition that reaches out and includes all of Syria’s communities and that gives all Syrians hope for a better future. My year in Syria tells me such a transition is possible, but not when one side constantly initiates attacks against people taking shelter in their homes”.
“Peaceful transition for the Syrian people”? He was pursuing a much darker agenda.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research, Ca describes Ford’s role more honestly:
“Since his arrival in Damascus in late January 2011 until he was recalled by Washington in October 2011, Ambassador Robert S. Ford played a central role in laying the groundwork within Syria as well as establishing contacts with opposition groups. The US embassy was subsequently closed down in February. Ford also played a role in the recruitment of Mujahideen mercenaries from neighboring Arab countries and their integration into Syrian “opposition forces”. Since his departure from Damascus, Ford continues to oversee the Syria project out of the US State Department:
All indications are that Ford engaged in more cynical than simply engaging in muted congenial diplomatic relations. In Syria he was a key player, implementing two major building blocks of the Salvador option needed for the destabilization of Syria, as he did in Iraq:
He used the cover of the diplomatic immunity to travel around Syria in order to connect together the groups trained by the US intelligence community. He has been pictured with US military advisers visiting hotspot sites all over Syria.
2. On a more sinister level, as in Iraq, he used his diplomatic status in Syria to distribute sophisticated communication equipment, equipment whose communications could not be decoded by the Syrian authorities (or those in other countries where the system was used). The US embassy in Damascus was the system’s communication system.
Using this new secretly coded technology, he began to openly incite the Syrian elements sympathetic to the US interest to topple the régime. Imagine what would have happened to the Syrian ambassador in Washington, had he engaged in similar activities with the `Occupy’ movements here.
Another key figure in Syria’s `Salvador Option’ is David Petraeus. We’ll deal with his role in Part Three of this series.
