Tag: war

Zerohedge supplies a partial list:

Winter War
In 1939 the Red Army shelled Mainila, a Russian town near the
Finnish border. Soviet authorities blamed Finland for the attack and
used the incident as a pretext to start the Winter War four days later.

Kassa attack
The Kassa attack in 1941 involved the city of Kassa, today Košice
(Slovakia), which was then part of Hungary, being bombed by three
unidentified planes of apparently Soviet origin. This attack became the
pretext for the government of Hungary to declare war on the Soviet
Union.

Operation Ajax
The replacement of Iran’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company with five
American oil companies and the 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the
consequence of the U.S. and British-orchestrated false flag operation,
Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax used political intrigue, propaganda, and
agreements with Qashqai tribal leaders to depose the democratically
elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the
CIA-sponsored coup d’etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.

Operation Northwoods
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by
the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios
such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and
military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning
crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged
Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S.
aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft
disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and
would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel
Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise
discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a
result of the comprehensive search for records related to the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records
Review Board in the mid-1990s. Information about Operation Northwoods
was later publicized by James Bamford.

Keep these in
mind as you consider the current casus belli being bruited about by
Obama and the bi-factional ruling party’s representatives in Congress. 
The logic they are presenting is really rather impressive when combined
with the apparent facts. Because al-Qaida affiliated rebels losing the
civil war in Syria mishandled chemical weapons provided by Saudi Arabia,
America must act as al-Qaida’s air force and attack the Assad regime.

How
does this make any sense?  My feeling is that the ruling party is going
to have to come up with a more emotionally appealing false flag before
they can get the votes in Congress.  If I were in charge of designing
it, I’d give the Syrian rebels a poison gas missile or three, preferably
loaded with Zyklon B, have them launch it at an Israeli kindergarten,
then blame it on the Assad regime.

The fact that it
would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for Assad to suddenly attack
Jewish children with poison gas reminiscent of The Very Baddest Thing To
Happen To Anyone Ever In Human History wouldn’t even slow down the
Christian Zionists and Anti-antisemitic White Liberals in their
frothing-mad rush to nuke Damascus.

There is certainly no shortage of evidence that the situation currently being presented to the public is a false one:

“Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a
military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated
intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s
two-year civil war. Grayson made the accusation in an interview published
Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday
discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given
intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration
claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical
weapons.”

And while it could be more of the usual Middle East bluffoonery, as per Saddam “The Mother of All Battles” Hussein,  there appear to be indications that the Iranians aren’t necessarily going to play according to the rules of the Great Game according to the Great Powers.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish
Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and
strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned
with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical
think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then
we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],”
he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family
member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors,
U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18
hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the
world].”

I’d be a little more skeptical if it weren’t for the fact that there are as many Iranian agents in the USA as Iran felt like putting in place, thanks to the insane immigration policies.

John Hawkins takes a poll of 46 right-wing bloggers, including me, concerning the proposed military adventure in Syria:

#1) Do you think Congress should give Obama authorization for ANY sort of military operation in Syria?

No: 84.8% (39 votes)
Yes: 15.2% (7 votes)

#2) If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, would you support bombing Syria?
No: 76.1% (35 votes)
Yes: 23.9% (11 votes)

It’s informative to see that the warmongering Right is considerably less enthusiastic about the use of military force than either the antiwar Left or the Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House.  But fortunately, the United States has an elected leader it can trust to lead it into war.

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
– Barack Obama,  September 4, 2013

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players
on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch
of weapons moving around or being utilized.”
– Barack Obama, August 21, 2012

Karl Denninger correctly sums up the upcoming Syrian misadventure in his customarily reserved manner:

Obama is spouting off from the ass once again in Sweden. Every
time this buttclown, McStain, Graham or the others open their mouths (or
McStain plays poker during the Senate hearing yesterday) they continue to obfuscate and ignore the bottom line:
A military strike at Assad’s government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA’S AIR FORCE.

The rest of this debate is arm-waving.

A military strike at Assad’s government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA’S AIR FORCE.

Al Qaida is a sworn enemy of the United States.  The United States has ratified their statement of being our enemy through more than 10 years of continual declaration of a “state of emergency” citing the so-called “war on terror.” It is an act of Treason according to our Constitution to provide material aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of our nation.

A military strike at Assad’s government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA’S AIR FORCE.

To be honest, it’s hard to argue with either his argument or his conclusions.  Meanwhile, the leading House Republicans are busy demonstrating that while attacking Syria is clearly not in either the national interest or the party’s interest, the decisive factor appears to be that they see it as being in Israel’s interest.  Consider Eric Cantor’s statement that he’ll vote to authorize the use of military force against Syria no matter what the authorizing language happens to be.


“I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.”

That is a total lie.  America has no “compelling national security interest” in Syria, especially since there are reports that the weapons came from Saudi Arabia and were set off accidentally by the Al Qaida rebels.  And seriously, what are the chances that launching missiles, or worse, invading, is going to reduce, let alone prevent, further instability in the Middle East?

It’s probably a good thing this didn’t happen in the late 1970s. I can’t even imagine how many Hal Lindsay readers would be convinced that the end of the world was approaching.

Or maybe not.  I have to wonder if Obama is hoping Congress will bail him out by refusing to provide the authorization sought:

President Obama announced Saturday that he has concluded the United
States should take military action against Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad and his regime for using chemical weapons on civilians, but
will first seek authorization from Congress.

My suspicions regarding this are mostly aroused by the fact that historically, most military actions haven’t waited on Congressional summer vacations.

UPDATE: Oops.  It turns out the rebels are even admitting that they were responsible for the chemical weapons attack:

“In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the
rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated
Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.

“Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the
rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is
affiliated with AP. In that report allegedly the rebels told him the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons….

“Gavlak reports he was told by rebels that the gas “attack” was the
result of rebels mishandling the chemical weapons they acquired from the
Saudis. He says in the Mint Press report the following:

“”They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,”
complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were
chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.””

This tends to raise an obvious question: from whom did the Saudis obtain the chemical weapons?

The British Parliament refuses to buy a second manufactured excuse for an invasion in the Middle East:

The Grand Old Duke of York marched his men to the top of the hill, then marched them down again. Britain’s Prime Minister last week promised cruise missile strikes on Syria and recalled Parliament early from its summer break to authorise our participation. He now discovers that he has charged up his own hill while the majority of the British people and indeed a majority of their MPs remain stubbornly at the bottom.

David Cameron’s attempt to play statesman on the world stage has created a political shambles which culminated in a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons late last night.

Last night’s defeat will also have repercussions for Britain’s relationship with America, which can no longer rely on the incumbent of No 10 Downing Street to do its bidding almost without question when it comes to military matters.  Heaven knows whether President Obama will launch a punitive strike against Syria in the days ahead. Some political fudge may yet enable Cameron to involve Britain anyway.

But in my view there’s no doubt the Prime Minister has made a colossal fool of himself, on a matter of the utmost gravity – that of war and peace. Almost the worst part of the fiasco is that one day we shall need to deploy our shrunken armed forces against a real threat from a real foreign enemy.

And because our leaders have so often deceived us in the past, crying wolf amid their own hubristic  delusions and pretensions, the British people will not believe them.

The theatrics out of the usual warmongers like John McCain and some even weirder ones from less customary ones like Joe Biden notwithstanding, I don’t see much, if any evidence that the American people are buying the “Assad is winning the civil war so he did the one thing that Obama said was needed to trigger US involvement”.

Considering that his father nearly flattened Hama in 1982 and had up to 40,000 Syrians killed in a 27-day massacre, the idea that Assad had any need to use chemical weapons is simply absurd.  It is a pity that the American Congress has neither a backbone nor the ability to stop responding to the war drums like Pavlov’s dogs to the dinner bell.

In an amazing and unsettling coincidence, it seems the recent massacre in Syria, which we are supposed to believe was committed by the Assad regime just as it had taken control of the civil war, was anticipated by the need for one more than 18 months in advance. Zerohedge posts a StratFor email from December 2011 via Wikileaks:

I spent most of the afternoon at the Pentagon with the USAF strategic studies group – guys who spend their time trying to understand and explain to the USAF chief the big picture in areas where they’re operating in. It was just myself and four other guys at the Lieutenant Colonel level, including one French and one British representative who are liaising with the US currently out of DC.

They wanted to grill me on the strategic picture on Syria, so after that I got to grill them on the military picture. There is still a very low level of understanding of what is actually at stake in Syria, what’s the strategic interest there, the Turkish role, the Iranian role, etc. After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce [ZH: “recce” means reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway, but all the operations being done now are being done out of ‘prudence.’ The way it was put to me was, ‘look at this way – the level of information known on Syrian OrBat this month is the best it’s been since 2001.’ They have been told to prepare contingencies and be ready to act within 2-3 months, but they still stress that this is all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation.

I kept pressing on the question of what these SOF teams would be working toward, and whether this would lead to an eventual air camapign to give a Syrian rebel group cover. They pretty quickly distanced themselves from that idea, saying that the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within. There wouldn’t be a need for air cover, and they wouldn’t expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in columns anyway.

They emphasized how the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a piece of cake. Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much denser, esp around Damascus and on the borders with Israel, Turkey. THey are most worried about mobile air defenses, particularly the SA-17s that they’ve been getting recently. It’s still a doable mission, it’s just not an easy one.

The main base they would use is Cyprus, hands down. Brits and FRench would fly out of there. They kept stressing how much is stored at Cyprus and how much recce comes out of there. The group was split on whether Turkey would be involved, but said Turkey would be pretty critical to the mission to base stuff out of there. EVen if Turkey had a poltiical problem with Cyprus, they said there is no way the Brits and the FRench wouldn’t use Cyprus as their main air force base. Air Force Intel guy seems  pretty convinced that the Turks won’t participate (he seemed pretty pissed at them.)

There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It isn’t clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can’t just create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD campaign lasting the duration of the war. They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn’t reach that very public stage. Theyre also questiioning the skills of the Syrian forces that are operating the country’s air defenses currently and how signfiicant the Iranian presence is there. Air Force Intel guy is most obsessed with the challenge of taking out Syria’s ballistic missile capabilities and chem weapons. With Israel rgiht there and the regime facing an existential crisis, he sees that as a major complication to any military intervention.

I imagine Mr. Putin knew this already when he expressed his doubts concerning the Syrian regime’s responsibility for the attack.  At this point, I wouldn’t blame those who are beginning to wonder if the Boston Massacre was a false flag.  We should have known George W. Bush wasn’t serious about war with Iran despite all the neocons beating the drum for one, given that the media was never full of atrocities committed by the Iranian government.

So, it looks like Syria is happening and my strategic antenna back in November 2011 were not quite as off-base as I’d concluded they were.

It’s pretty well understood that the Assad regime has the Syrian civil war well in hand.  So, are we supposed to believe that the regime is not only dumb enough to resort to chemical weapons it didn’t use when it was in far more dire straits, but just happened to pick the one weapon that could be expected to trigger US involvement?  That makes no sense.

“A year ago President Obama promised that the use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels would bring a game-changing shift in U.S. posture toward Assad’s often brutal regime.

“‘We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground,’ Obama said on August 20, 2012, ‘that a red line for us is [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.'”

I think it is considerably more likely that the Syrian rebels staged the chemical attack in order to try to force the West’s hand.  Foreign Affairs even stated: “months of fighting have underlined the harsh reality that the opposition is outmatched”. To be honest, if I thought the Obama administration wanted yet another war on its hands – and I most certainly do not – I would find Obama to be a far more credible suspect than Assad.