The American Bear

› Groundwork for arming Syrian rebels began before Obama’s announcement | McClatchy

AMMAN, Jordan — The U.S. military began laying the groundwork to arm and support Syrian rebels more than a week ago, using a military exercise currently being held in Jordan as a cover for bringing in personnel and equipment.

Despite official statements by the Obama administration that a decision to arm the rebels was made on June 13, preparations were seen by McClatchy on the ground days earlier. In addition to the 300 U.S. Marines that Jordanian officials said were currently stationed along Jordan’s northern border with Syria, meetings were held between Syrian rebels and U.S. officials more than 10 days ago to establish what type of weapons the White House is willing to provide.

Jordanian officials also have said that those Marines had no connection to the exercises currently being run by the U.S. and Jordanian militaries, though they were brought into the country under the guise of being part of the “Eager Lion” exercises. Regional analysts and officials have said that while those exercises are touted as a “multilateral relationship-building” measure, on the ground they are widely seen as the U.S. “flexing its muscles” and laying the groundwork for future maneuvers.

“The U.S. has been preparing this for some time. So it is very clear to us, here on the ground in Jordan, that the Obama decision to arm the rebels was made weeks ago rather than days ago,” a Jordanian diplomatic official told McClatchy in an off-the-record briefing. Other diplomats, also interviewed in Jordan, said that there was widespread consensus that the U.S. was preparing to arm the rebels, though the gesture was often called “too little too late.”

Like the Jordanian official, the various officials, rebel leaders and others who spoke to McClatchy did not want to be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Syrian rebels, said one European official, had repeatedly traveled to Jordan to try and plead their case with the diplomatic community and had pressed the need for a no-fly zone and heavy weapons. The official added that there was “very little appetite” left to arm the rebels at this stage, especially given what he called the “increasing presence of radical Islamist groups in Syria.”

“The assessments being made are that at this stage, the arming of the rebels only ensures one thing – that the fighting will drag on for years to come,” said the European official.

Syrian rebels, meanwhile, have said that it is still unclear if the U.S. will provide what they call “a high-enough impact weapon.”

“They made it clear that the sophisticated weaponry, the sort of items we have been requesting for more than a year, is off the table. We are thankful for what they are giving us, but our arsenal will remain very limited compared to what the Syrian army is using against us,” said one Syrian rebel leader in Amman. He said that shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles were under discussion, as were command-and-control systems, but that anti-aircraft weapons were clearly “off the table.”

(Enter Saudi Arabia and France: Saudi Arabia, France sending Syria rebels anti-aircraft guns: source)

A possible U.S.-led no-fly-zone near Jordan’s border with Syria has also been under discussion, though officials in Jordan insist no final decision has been made. The Patriot anti-aircraft missile system that the U.S. military brought to Jordan as part of the Eager Lion exercise already has been approved to stay in country once the exercises are completed. The system, which has a range of 62 miles, would easily enforce a limited no-fly zone along Jordan’s border if it were left behind. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s announcement over the weekend that he had approved both the Patriot missile system and F-16s to remain in Jordan was seen by many as an indication that the Eager Lion exercise was an excuse to bring both into the country.

› Saudi Arabia, France sending Syria rebels anti-aircraft guns: source | Al Akhbar English

Saudi Arabia, with some French funds, began supplying anti-aircraft missiles to Syrian rebels “on a small scale” about two months ago, a Gulf source familiar with the matter said on Monday.

The shoulder-fired weapons were obtained mostly from suppliers in France and Belgium, the source told Reuters. France had paid for the transport of the weapons to the region.

The supplies were going to General Salim Idriss, leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who was still the kingdom’s main “point man” in the opposition, the source said.

Speaking to Reuters on Friday, Idriss urged Western allies to supply anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles and to create a no-fly zone, saying if properly armed he could defeat the Syrian army within six months.

The Gulf source said without elaborating that Saudi Arabia had begun taking a more active role in the Syrian conflict.

The remarks come one day after German news weekly Der Spiegel reported that that Saudi Arabia was looking at sending European-made Mistral-class MANPADS, or man-portable air-defense systems.

The article, citing a classified report received by the German foreign intelligence service and the German government last week, said the shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles can target low-flying aircraft including helicopters and had given mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan a decisive edge against Soviet troops in the 1980s.

It wasn’t immediately clear if these were the same anti-aircraft guns that the kingdom has already allegedly sent.

The United States vowed last week to send military aid to rebel forces after accusing the government of using “small amounts” of chemical weapons. Washington has also sent F-16 jets and anti-aircraft guns to Jordan with talk of possibly enforcing a no-fly zone on Syria.

Russia has repeatedly said that a unilateral US-imposed no-fly zone on Syria would violate international law, and on Monday said it would “not allow” such a scenario.

“I think we fundamentally will not allow this scenario,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told a news briefing Monday.

Lukashevich spoke before planned talks between President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of a G8 summit in Northern Ireland which were expected to focus on the conflict in Syria that has killed at least 93,000 people according to the UN.

“All these manoeuvres about no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors are a direct consequence of a lack of respect for international law,” Lukashevich said.

He said Russia did not want a scenario in Syria that resembled the events in Libya after the imposition of a no-fly zone which enabled NATO aircraft to help rebels overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

› Obama moves to escalate Syrian slaughter | Bill Van Auken

The White House claim that this military escalation is a US response to the regime of Bashar al-Assad crossing Obama’s “red line” and violating “international norms” by using chemical weapons against the so-called “rebels” is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the United States and the world.

[…] The fundamental reason for this debacle is not a lack of weapons—which Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have poured into the country under the CIA’s supervision—or the brutality of the Assad regime, but the fact that the majority of the population, however much they might dislike Assad, hate the Islamist “rebels” even more.

There is a palpable element of desperation in the latest turn by the Obama administration, which the White House left to a junior aide to announce. It is responding not only to the failure of its previous [proxy war] policy, but also to enormous pressure from within the ruling political establishment for war.

This found sharp expression in the remarks Tuesday by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, who warned that Obama would look like a “wuss” and “total fool” if he stopped short of “dropping a few bombs.” Clinton solidarized himself with Republican Senator John McCain, whose own reckless militarism makes him a candidate for either a war crimes tribunal or a mental facility.

This was the culmination of a steadily escalating campaign by politicians of both parties, the media, the Washington think tanks and sections of the military and intelligence apparatus for a more direct military intervention.

Serving as adjuncts in this campaign are pseudo-left groups such as the International Socialist Organization in the US, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France and the Left Party in Germany, which promote the Islamist militias and mercenaries in Syria as “revolutionaries” and fashion twisted political alibis for imperialist intervention. All of them have blood on their hands.

Nonetheless, there are evidently deep divisions within the state over a war that poses the threat of drawing the entire region as well as powers with interests in Syria, particularly Iran and Russia, into the maelstrom.

After the bitter experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq, there is virtually no support among the American people for US intervention in Syria. US imperialism’s pretense to be championing democracy in Syria is further shattered by the revelations of its police state spying operations against the people of the United States and the world, and the vicious witch-hunt it has launched against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has exposed these crimes.

Despite two years of media propaganda vilifying the Assad regime and casting the Al Qaeda-linked militias as crusaders for democracy, an NBC- Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that barely 11 percent of the US public supports even arming the “rebels.”

The entire political setup in the US proceeds with indifference to these popular sentiments. The hackneyed statements of the Democratic and Republican politicians have nothing to do with convincing anyone to support the war, while the corporate media churns out “news” that resembles Orwellian propaganda.

It will be the working class, both in the US and internationally, that pays the price for intervention in Syria. Under conditions where it is universally proclaimed that there is no money for jobs or vital social programs, not a word is raised about what the military options being considered by Obama will cost. More fundamentally, there is an inexorable logic to a US escalation in Syria, which points toward military confrontation with Iran and potentially Russia, threatening the lives of millions.

› Breaking: Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria | The Independent

Robert Fisk reporting. If true, Obama’s decision to (more openly) arm the “good” rebels may be the spark that sets off a bigger regional war.

› Chemical weapons experts still skeptical about U.S. claim that Syria used sarin | McClatchy

Chemical weapons experts voiced skepticism Friday about U.S. claims that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad had used the nerve agent sarin against rebels on at least four occasions this spring, saying that while the use of such a weapon is always possible, they’ve yet to see the telltale signs of a sarin gas attack, despite months of scrutiny.

“It’s not unlike Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn’t bark,” said Jean Pascal Zanders, a leading expert on chemical weapons who until recently was a senior research fellow at the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies. “It’s not just that we can’t prove a sarin attack, it’s that we’re not seeing what we would expect to see from a sarin attack.”

Foremost among those missing items, Zanders said, are cellphone photos and videos of the attacks or the immediate aftermath.

“In a world where even the secret execution of Saddam Hussein was taped by someone, it doesn’t make sense that we don’t see videos, that we don’t see photos, showing bodies of the dead, and the reddened faces and the bluish extremities of the affected,” he said.

Other experts said that while they were willing to give the U.S. intelligence community the benefit of the doubt [never, ever, do this, ed.], the Obama administration has yet to offer details of what evidence it has and how it obtained it.

› White House: Syria Crossed ‘Red Line’ on Chemical Arms | Jason Ditz

After a couple of days debating the relative merits of escalating aid to the rebels, including the possibility of arming them, the White House has informed Congress that it has decided the Syrian government used chemical weapons during the ongoing civil war, killing 100-150 people.

With that the White House went on to declare the “red line” in had set for Syria to have been officially crossed, and pledged to “increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the rebels.”

White House officials were careful not to mention that they had spent the past several days holding meetings on the rebel aid, and presented the decision as a function of spy agencies’ sudden determination of chemical weapons use, which doesn’t appear to have been based on any actual new evidence, but on the same old evidence the White House had repeatedly rejected in the past, when it wasn’t ready to start arming the rebels yet.

With the about-face on that dubious “evidence,” the deals of which have been carefully kept from the public, the Obama Administration can now spin the direct aid to rebels as something they were forced to do, as opposed to an ill-timed decision to arm a severely divided rebellion simply because they want to keep the war going at a time when the Assad government is seen to have momentum.

› Rebels withdraw from Qusayr, Syrian army claims victory | Al Akhbar

Syrian rebels withdrew overnight Wednesday from the Syrian town of Qusayr near the border with Lebanon, after an onslaught by the Syrian army and Hezbollah fighters, a rebel statement said.

“In face of this huge arsenal and lack supplies and the blatant intervention of Hezbollah… tens of fighters stayed behind and ensured the withdrawal of their comrades along with the civilians,” said the statement.

Syrian state television SANA said Wednesday that the Syrian army had overrun the strategic region of Qusayr, marking a major victory for Bashar al-Assad’s forces in the 26-month conflict.

› Syria and the Sham of “Humanitarian Intervention” | Ajamu Baraka

[The] U.S. approach to the [Syria “peace”] conference [originally scheduled for June, now derailed and postponed], … gives the impression that the gathering is a charade meant to mollify those elements in the U.S. Congress and public still hesitant to support another expensive military adventure. The U.S. demand that a peaceful solution to the conflict is predicated on a “transitional government” being established in which Assad should play no role, means effectively that there will be no serious attempt to resolve the conflict short of regime change and the surrendering of Syrian sovereignty. The U.S. position also confirms the real objective of the conference which is to justify more direct military intervention by the U.S. once the conference “fails” to bring peace.

While this is absolutely clear for many people around the world, the U.S. public, along with much of what used to be called the progressive and/or radical sectors, continue to be hoodwinked by some of the most crude and obvious manipulation I have ever witnessed. It was precisely the smooth efficiency with which the public was being manipulated that motivated me to write an earlier article on Syria that attempted to offer an explanation for the reasons why U.S. State propagandists, and I include the mainstream media in this category, have been so successful in confusing the general public and dividing the anti-war, anti-imperialist movement.

I believe part of their success has been due to the fact that they have used the concept of humanitarian intervention as one of their main tools. In my article, I made the argument that humanitarian intervention, along with the concept of the “right to protect” (R2P) has developed into the most effective ideological weapon the liberal human rights community provided Western imperialism since the fall of the Soviet State. Humanitarian intervention has proven to be an even more valuable propaganda tool than the “war on terror,” because as the situation in Libya and now Syria has demonstrated, it provides a moral justification for imperialist intervention that can also accommodate the presence of the same “terrorist” forces the U.S. pretends to be opposed to. And of course, in the eyes of the U.S. government, tyrannical and dictatorial governments that need to be deposed are only those that present an obstacle to the realization of U.S. geo/political interests—never those paragons of freedom and morality like Saudi Arabia and Israel. [more]

› US to deploy missiles and jets to Jordan | Al Jazeera English

The United States will send a Patriot missile battery and F-16 fighters to Jordan for a military drill and may keep the weapons there to counter the threat posed by Syria’s civil war, officials said.

The anti-missile systems and jets were approved for deployment to Jordan as part of a joint exercise with Jordanian forces, US Central Command said in a statement on Monday.

“In order to enhance the defensive posture and capacity of Jordan, some of these assets may remain beyond the exercise at the request of the government of Jordan,” the statement said.

US officials declined to say how many F-16s would be taking part in the exercise, or how many aircraft might remain afterwards.

The US backed a similar move earlier this year in Turkey, with NATO deploying Patriot missile batteries along Turkey’s border with Syria.

[…] The decision to possibly station F-16s and missile batteries in Jordan will fuel speculation of a potential US military intervention, which the White House so far has described as a remote possibility.

Patriot missiles are designed to shoot down Scud or other short-range missiles, known to be in the Assad regime’s arsenal.

The Pentagon has already sent about 200 troops to Jordan, including an element of a US Army headquarters, to help the country prepare for possible military action in Syria, including scenarios to secure the regime’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

Fighting raged on Monday in Syria, with regime aircraft pounding the embattled city of Qusayr near the border with Lebanon, in a three-week-old offensive backed by Hezbollah forces.

› S-300 Missiles Not Sent To Syria From Russia Yet, Putin Says

› State Dept Withholds Syria Rebel Aid, Citing ‘Disarray’ | Antiwar

Despite announcing new rounds of rebel aid every week or two, the US State Department hasn’t actually delivered the bulk of it to Syria’s rebel forces, and is withholding the $63 million pledged to the Syrian National Coalition (SNC).

US officials are citing the increasing “disarray” in the rebel leadership, particularly in the SNC, which saw its president resign in March and has been unable to settle on a new leader since.

Officials say this wasn’t “the plan” but that they are now looking for “more credible partners” for backing the rebel side in the Syrian Civil War, and imposing regime change in the nation.

At the core of this growing frustration is the US effort to put together some sort of peace conference in Geneva, apparently aiming to show Assad’s unwillingness to negotiate. Instead, Assad has agreed to join the talks, and the rebels have refused, forcing the US to back off the pretense of trying to reach a settlement and publicly concede that their priority is to impose regime change however they can get it.

› British man and American woman killed in Syria, reports say | guardian.co.uk

A British man named as Ali Almanasfi has been killed while fighting in Syria, together with two other foreigners including an American woman, Syrian TV has reported.

The three are believed to have been killed on Wednesday in Idlib province in the north of Syria. Syrian TV broadcast footage of the dead Briton’s passport which appeared to identify him as 22-year-old Ali Almanasfi, born in London in June 1990. The Foreign Office could not confirm any details about the Briton and his identity could not immediately be verified.

Syrian TV also identified the dead American woman as Nicole Mansfield, 33, from Michigan. The American woman’s family said she had died while apparently fighting with the rebels against government forces. “I’m just devastated,” her aunt, Monica Mansfield Speelman, told Reuters. “Evidently, she was fighting with opposition forces.” Speelman said the FBI had informed the family on Thursday afternoon.