Editor’s Note: The Western media mouthpieces have long announced their ‘fears’ that Syria would use chemical weapons against its people. The shocking claim that as many as 1300 people were killed by sarin gas fired by Assad’s forces and killed as if sleeping – admittedly not confirmed – raises red flags precisely because the U.S. and European entities have been salivating at the mouth so long waiting for this to happen. Russia has officially questioned the event as a ‘provocation’ and others should, too.
The same script was used with Iraq, but ultimately not pursued to its end. The campaign to topple Assad – and more broadly to take on Iran and reorder the entire Middle East [see Tony Cartalucci’s analysis of the Brooking’s publication Which Path to Persia?] – has involved not only outright war, but the particular semi-covert backing of “rebel” forces (comprised of al Qaeda mercenary operatives) and – importantly – a media blitz to deliberately confuse viewers impressions of who is the enemy and bombard the mind with images of violence. The London Telegraph raised questions about the veracity of previous claims of limited chemical weapons use in Syria back in May, making clear that the claim is a ‘shock card’ in the deck of interventionists. Even today, we see headlines like this one in the Wall Street Journal: U.S. Sets Stage for Bigger Syria Role.
Thus, it is clear that in ‘seeing this chemical attack coming’ for so long, that the Pentagon and its allies are the ones who benefit from this atrocity (as it gives them a clear pretext to engage in all out war, no fly zones and/or the overt backing of rebel forces and/or NATO). It may well be the case that they purported it, and Tony Cartalucci asks the right questions here, and points the finger where it ought to be pointed, as his blog posts so often do. We should not, by inverse, find ourselves supporting dictators and despots being picked off by the larger imperial machine; however, we should finally have the courage to shame the foreign policy of this government in its attempt to wage war upon the entire planet. Can no one yet see how the same excuses are used over and over to engage in more and more war? Let history show whose hands the blood is upon, so that they might be rebuked and stopped.
Did the West Gas Thousands to Rescue Failed Syrian War?
August 25, 2013
As far back as 2007, it was a documented fact that the West, including the United States and its allies Saudi Arabia and Israel, conspired to use terrorists drawn from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” stated (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Starting in 2011, this conspiracy was catapulted into all out war – albeit behind the tenuous smokescreen of “pro-democracy activists” and the so-called “Free Syrian Army” fighting for “freedom” within and along Syria’s borders.
Not only has this conspiracy been exposed, but it has categorically failed. The Syrian government has routed even the most dug-in terrorist proxies, making irreversible gains against a clearly depleted enemy. While the US continuously threatens to “arm the opposition,” it is a fact that any and all weapons, cash, and support the US had, it has already sent over the last 3 years. This includes untold millions in cash, and literally thousands of tons of weaponry airlifted by the US and UK. The US and its regional allies have also scoured the global extremist networks they have built up over decades for every last fighter they could possible find – all to no avail.
There is nothing left except direct military intervention, which cannot be sold as helping an opposition now clearly exposed as being Al Qaeda. That means, the humanitarian intervention, “right to protect” (R2P) must be wiped clean of NATO’s lies and crimes in Libya, and prepared for Syria. Only what exactly could the West use to justify an intervention against the Syrian government that is worse than what it and its proxies have already done to tens of thousands of Syrian civilians?
With a victorious Syrian government mopping up NATO’s terrorist proxies and currently hosting UN chemical weapons inspectors in Damascus, the use of chemical weapons now would defy all logic – from a tactical level, to a strategic and political level. Chemical weapons, according to the US military’s own reviews of their extensive use in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s, reveal the true nature of chemical warfare – a truth the Western media has all but avoided in their speculative and purposefully manipulative coverage of the alleged incident.
A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” provides a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year Iranian-Iraqi conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial, not mass casualties. In the end, it is determined that conventional weapons are by far more effective and more preferable.
The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):
Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.
We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.
Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.
Therefore, had the Syrian government used chemical weapons and somehow was able to create the perfect circumstances to create mass casualties, they did so solely to produce an abhorrent civilian death toll and the perfect pretext for Western intervention, knowing full well such weapons would be otherwise useless in battling armed formations. Since Syria’s chemical weapons would most likely be under the lock and key of its most elite forces, as they are in Iran, revealed in a RAND Corporation document, that would mean that their use was approved by the highest ranking members of the Syrian government and military – this would be the same government and military that exhibited unlimited restraint against intentional and coordinated provocations carried out by NATO-member Turkey and their regional partner, Israel – restraint exhibited solely to avoid providing the West with the pretext for direct military intervention.
Why then would the Syrian government choose now, of all times, to give the West exactly what it was looking for, right as the window was closing on the West to accomplish its goals versus Syria and neighboring Iran?
The answer is, the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in Damascus, or elsewhere. And while the strawman currently being knocked down by the Western media is whether the attacks were faked or real, the stark reality is that NATO and its terrorist proxies most likely did expose a large number of people to something, seeking mass casualties in a last ditch effort to salvage what is clearly the end of their “Arab Spring” blitzkrieg.
As previously reported, NATO and its proxies in Syria have both the means and the motivation to carry out chemical weapon attacks.This includes access to Libya’s stockpile of chemical weapons and a NATO-enabled pipeline feeding fighters, cash, and weapons from Libya into Syria via NATO-member Turkey.