by Ghassan Kadi
Before we move on describing and analyzing the events on the battleground in Syria and what has led to the current situation, we should insert in here a quick look at the events that culminated in the decision making of waging the “War On Syria”.
After the infamous New World Order (NWO) came into existence following the demise of the Soviet Union, a global “order” that virtually gave the USA a boundless mandate to exercise its dream of being the world police and hegemon, the USA was quick to bypass international law and invade Iraq and later on Afghanistan, Iraq again, bombed and pillaged Libya and then stopped a bit short of literally invading Syria.
But even before the NWO sprang into existence, and even during the height of the Soviet might, America engaged in direct military action in tens of countries and bombed most of them. The list is well-known and does not need to be elaborated herein.
In each and every situation, with or without UNSC mandate, America had no hesitation at all to classify nations as being friendly or ones that are part of the “Axis of evil”. George W Bush (GWB) made it clear when he said: “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. In that, he really meant: “either you do exactly what we tell you, or we shall bomb you”, as in practical terms, America gave itself the mandate to bomb and pillage as it deemed fit.
It is therefore true to say that if America is truthful to one promise, its history reveals that it always fulfills the promise of bombing a country it says it wants to bomb.
So what stopped America from bombing Syria more than four years after it made its first overt expression of interest in bombing it? One might ask.
In hindsight, American foreign policy makers must be feeling very annoyed, to say the least, about missing out on the one-off chance to invade Syria, but that was back in 2003. There was in fact another opportunity earlier on in 1991, but that particular one was thwarted by Assad Senior.
America had it in for Syria ever since President Hafez Assad calmly and diligently worked with Hezbollah to turn Israel’s invasion of Lebanon of 1982 into a humiliating defeat.
On the ominous date of the 5th of June, Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982 with a firm decision to destroy the PLO and drive it out of Lebanon. Even the capital Beirut itself fell, and nearly half of Lebanon came under the control of Israel. At that stage, Israel could have occupied all of Lebanon, but it felt there was no need to advance further, especially after it brokered a deal that saw the exodus of the PLO from Beirut to Tunis.
The memory of a previous war that also started on the 5th of June (1967) was still fresh in the minds of all Arabs. The lessons learnt from previous wars with Israel meant to Arabs that it (Israel) was invincible and that every inch of land occupied by Israeli forces stays under Israeli control. The partial Arab victory in the October 1974 war did not do much to change this image, especially that Kissinger’s diplomacy later on gave Israel more power and upper hand than it ever achieved militarily.
That was a long, hot and depressing summer in Lebanon, marred with hopelessness and despair. The horror of the Sabra and Chatila massacres chilled the entire globe, and there seemed absolutely no hope at all on the horizon for any possible way to see Israel packing up and leaving.
Out of the utter state of helplessness, the resistance took off and grew and grew. Hafez Assad was a genius tactician with limitless tenacity. He was determined to turn developments in the favour of Syria after many years of Kissinger’s policy of deception that clearly focused on securing the state of Israel by any means possible. The way America isolated Syria by taking Egypt out of the equation left Syria in a very vulnerable position that needed a huge shift in the balance of power in order to enable it to protect its borders and integrity. In his book Asad, Patrick Seale dedicated a significant section to the period of Kissinger diplomacy and its impact on Syria.
Hafez Assad knew well that he would not win a conventional war against Israel and with Hezbollah’s leadership, they both decided that only an asymmetrical war waged against Israel might just do the trick.
Ever since Hezbollah took off, and as its guerilla-style attacks on Israeli forces in South Lebanon started to take their toll, the American-Israeli axis vowed revenge on Assad.
Following Saddam’s uncalculated invasion of Kuwait, Bush senior wanted to attack both Iraq and Syria, but President Assad Senior spoiled it for him by pledging a token military unit in the coalition against Iraq and thus turning himself into an ally.
We must remember that was in 1991 at a time when Syria had lost the support of the USSR and Russia was deep into its own domestic issues. President Assad made a wise and pragmatic decision.
As the Hezbollah attacks on Israel became increasingly sophisticated and effective, Israel had two options; either to make another huge escalation or simply to retreat. Finally, and on the 25th of May 2000, they decided to leave Lebanon. They called it a withdrawal when in fact it was a retreat following a decisive defeat. President Hafez Assad fortunately lived long enough to see the fruit of his work and died only a few weeks later.
Apart from being a statesman of high substance, Hafez Assad was a nation-builder at many levels. For example, in banning certain imports, he did not only aim for austerity measures, but also as a means for the local industries to develop. When he assumed power in 1970, Syria was reeling from many years of political instability, and it suffered from a huge exodus of both finance and expertise to Lebanon. Its industrial and agricultural sectors were severely affected, its roads were dated and it had no direction. Assad was able to reverse all of this, all the while keeping a close eye on raising enough finance for the Army and the security apparatus.
On the social level, Assad was staunchly secular. Whilst Lebanon had a sectarian system and all government positions all the way from the president to gatemen were allocated on a sectarian split that was meant to be “fair”, in Syria any form of sectarianism was banned and for a citizen to make an inquiry about another citizen’s religion and sect was made illegal.
All of the above displeased Syria’s neighbours and opponents. Israel cannot justify its Zionist Jewish-based existence and be able to defend the argument that the only form of security and stability that is feasible in the Levant must be based on theocracy in the presence of a successful secular state by its side. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia had similar Sunni-founded concerns about the advent of secularism. Last but not least, the advances Syria made in the areas of industry, technology, agriculture, and other fields have all spelled danger for the long-term security of Israel. The anti-Syrian alliance, headed by America and Israel grew more adamant and determined to stop the progress of Syria and to send it back to the dark ages.
By 2003, following September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, America was determined to use the opportunity as a pretext to finally execute its long standing dream of invading Syria, but it needed a very good justification that was internationally palatable.
In 2003, America had no valid reason or need to invade Iraq. After more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq was drained, virtually bankrupt, ill-resourced, its people mal-nourished, its economy in ruins and its once mighty military reduced to a spent force. The fabrication of the WMD story was intended to ramp up more global hatred for the already hated Saddam, but Saddam was not the big fish America wanted to fry.
America’s whole obsession with the Middle East has always been two faceted; Israel’s security and oil, and in this order.
With Saudi oil at its beck and call, America did not “need” to invade Iraq to get oil. This leaves out Israel’s security, and that was what was at heart; not the oil. Oil was only the lubricant to lure in the insatiable huge corporations and the political clout they bring in.
But why would America attack Saddam if he no longer was able to threaten Israel? The simple answer to this is in saying again that Saddam was not the target.
America wanted to occupy Iraq only to use it as a springboard to attack and invade Syria and Iran, thereby vanquishing the states that stand against the American-Israeli plans of achieving total Middle East hegemony, cutting off the support lifeline of Hezbollah, putting an end to the “Axis of Resistance”, and forever guaranteeing Israel’s security.
As a matter of fact, soon after the fall of Bagdad, America started to make accusations against Syria of supporting and arming Iraqi insurgents. They did not waste any time to start ramping up anti-Syrian sentiment.
In their arrogance, the Americans thought that they were going to be able to fully control and subdue Iraq and that invading both Syria and Iran would be a walk in the park. Not only did they overestimate their own power, but as usual, they underestimated the might of their opponents.
Arrogant and short-sighted they might be, but American foreign policy makers couldn’t have planned to deliberately turn Iraq into total chaos. That became their contingency plan B. The initial intention was to turn Iraq into a vassal state, a stable one, but one that would jump when told to jump. They wanted an Iraq that has a good relationship with Israel, and one that is strong enough to curb any westward Iranian expansion. They wanted the new Iraq to be a model for the West, a state for the West to nurture and protect, a thorn in the side of both Syria and Iran, and use its loyalty to America to either falsely accuse the Syrians and Iranians of meddling with its security, or to actually provoke them enough to generate such actions. Most importantly, they wanted the whole world to rise up in arms in support of Iraq when its “totalitarian non-democratic” neighbours threatened its new-found democracy and freedom. Such was their pretext for inflaming serious international anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian passions to an extent that was enough to justify waging war against them both.
As it turned out, America was unable to control Iraq let alone think of expanding beyond its borders. Soon after Bush Junior’s “mission accomplished” statement, the US military came to the realization that invading Iran and Syria had to be declared as “mission aborted”, or should we say delayed, until it was more opportune to do so. The next best option the Americans had for Iraq was to turn Iraq into a failed state.
For America to invade Syria, it had first to demonize Assad and rally up as many enemies against him as possible, including creating new ones, domestically, regionally and internationally.
The assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in a massive car bomb in Beirut in February 2005 was an important piece of the puzzle. Syria was quickly accused of the assassination, at a time when its forces were still in Lebanon and controlling its security.
To stage an assassination in Lebanon is not that difficult at all, but people do not normally plan and execute such actions unless they can benefit from the outcome. If anything, Syria had a lot to lose from this murder, and nothing to gain. The winners of the assassination were the ones who were able to capitalize on the event in order to raise huge anger and hostility towards Syria. Whilst it cannot be proven, this assassination had the hallmarks and fingerprints that point to a joint Israeli-American plot aimed at demonizing Assad and getting the international political ground ready for an invasion of his country.
Arab leaders, especially Sunni Arab leaders as well as local Sunni Lebanese leaders decided, without a speck of evidence, that Syria was responsible for the murder, and as a result, Syrian forces were made to leave Lebanon, leaving Lebanon not only in the hands of the powerful Hezbollah, but also in the hands of the “Future Movement” gangs of thugs (ie Hariri’s party) and the so-called 14th of March Coalition that was formed and bundled together almost immediately after the infamous assassination.
Anti-Syrian sentiments became the fashion on Lebanese TV stations and other media supportive of the 14th of March Coalition, and there were clear indications that this would eventually come to a head.
The preparation for the Arab Spring became more plausible, but it had to wait for six more years.
What was to happen next was a joint international effort that was prepared to employ any force possible, regardless of its nature and outcome, just in order to topple the Syrian Government and to destroy its culture, history, secularism, and religious plurality. Yet, with all its ferocity, that “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” has thus far remained unable to wage its dream NATO-led attack on Syria as shall be subsequently discussed and explained.
Once again, an excellent summary of the background. My comment on Part One was that I looked forward to Part Two. Now I am eager to read the conclusion.
Hear, hear!
Lovely analysis.
Thank you Ghassan Kadi for part 2. An informative read.
I do agree.
I like it much more than the part 1.
Excellent!! Outstanding!!
Many will never have seen/heard Nasrallah’s long speech and display of captured Israeli drone video taken the day Hariri was assassinated and presentation of additional evidence to prove Mossad’s guilt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5odeTwU2zjw
It’s a long, 2+ hour, presentation, but essential viewing if one wants to know the truth.
Thank you, Mr.Kadi and Saker.
Outlaw: special thanks for posting the link to Nasrallah, et al. I have grown to have deep respect for this man’s words, and but for your thoughtfulness I might have never come across it. I will watch/listen soon.
Wow, thanks.
Israel is a sort of Murder Incorporated that has killed hundreds of political leaders of the Palestinians and various other Arab states, and probably others further afield. It’s quite easy when you regard your victims as a lower life form, and treat International Law with utter, undisguised, contempt.
You are right there.From the beginnings of the Zionist takeover in Palestine.They started to behave as a terrorist movement would be classed today.They chose murder and terror as acceptable policies to use.Looking at the history of their actions you’ll find that history littered with the victims they’ve murdered over the years.It truly is shocking that they are allowed to get away with that.That others haven’t adopted the exact same policy towards them in payback is even more shocking.Its something I’ve never understood about the Empire’s policies as well.They go around murdering anyone they choice.And yet haven’t received payback in return for that.It’s as if their enemies don’t understand that only by fighting fire with fire will they change.You can beg for mercy from a bully all day long,and they will keep hitting you.But if you punch them square in the nose,then they will back off and run away.I remember a video I saw by a famous fighting champion Bas Rutten once.It was showing how to defend yourself in a street fight.He showed a knife attack on him.And turned the knife back on the attacker.With the words “he tried to kill me,so I had to return the favor to him”.Crude yes,but still utterly correct.When your enemy is trying to kill you.You don’t beg him to stop,you kill him to stop him. Donbass and Syria,clearly show that.
I was very confused regarding the history but now I understand much more! Thanks for the history lesson, which the MSM doesn’t give.
thank you so much for very interesting and timely article. I’m so glad to hear about Bashar Assad’s father…?
Is there a part three ? Its so very good.
sorry but this part is incorrect , IDF already exhausted itself and the war in lebanon have no popular support among israeli citizen. the IDF also was forced to flee from southren lebanon by the growing hezbollah militias..
if anything , the israeli lebanon incursion is a total failure if seen from strategic point of view , while the PLO now displaced from lebanon , the vacuum left is filled with indigenous militias , like hezbollah who have iranian sponsor.
Witness the massive bombing of american and french by the hezbollah , and the destruction of Israeli Naval Commando unit (all killed including the unit commander , except 1 survivor) in Ansariya lebanon.. This ELITE naval commando unit was lured by false intelligence and fell into an ambush inside an area filled with claymore mines.. the first sign of ambush is the explosion of hezbollah mines , detonating in them midst of naval commandoes and exploding all the explosives carried by the commandoes further wounding / killing the remainder..
the survivor called for help and an israeli quick reaction force of paratroopers landed on the area , with another israeli medic shot KIA. The paratroopers gathered the body parts of commandoes lying around the area and took off , leaving many body parts still lying around to be displayed by the hebollah commander in photos…
many many people in this world got taken in by the MYTH OF ISRAELI SUPERIORITY , when in reality they are not superior at all , proven by the IDF defeat in lebanon 2006 by the hezbollah , when 30.000 IDF soldiers cannot advance past the 3000 hezbollah commando units..
Excellent analysis. Cannot wait for part 3!
This is an interesting and intelligent post, and I agree with most of it. However, I do think that you have missed a major piece of the puzzle.
The Syrian government also had an abusive pro-natalist policy, they banned the sale and use of contraceptives, and propagandized that women all needed to have six kids each in order to make Syria stronger etc., and deliberately created a population explosion.
http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html
You can chant ‘people are the ultimate resource’ all you want, the reality is that for nations without an open frontier, whenever governments decide to breed their people like cattle, it NEVER ends well. Look at Mexico: it was not that long ago that the Mexican oligarch’s did the same, allegedy to make Mexico ‘bigger and better’, the reality is that all that population growth drove wages down and profits up, but also created so much instability that Mexico is in danger of becoming a failed state and the Mexican government is desperate to dump as much of its excess population onto the United States to avoid collapse (why, if more people are always better, is the Mexican government so terrified of not being able to have its citizens leave the country in large numbers?).
Or take Japan before WWII, which industrialized faster than any nation in history – and the government banned contraceptives, created a population explosion, and by the eve of WWII the nation was so poor that it was on he verge of collapse – the current high standard of living in Japan was built up slowly and steadily AFTER the fertility rate had fallen.
So yes, the United States et al. was both stupid and evil, and Syria is not the devil. Nevertheless, the population policy of the Syrian government was abusive and would likely have resulted in Syrian collapse no matter what.
Post 1970 any intelligent mention of the economic effects of demographics (one is reminded that John Maynard Keynes was a disciple of Malthus) has been largely censored from public debate. Perhaps that too was a mistake.
Very informative, thank you very much.
A good summary here by Christina Lin on the Turkey ‘buffer zone’ proposal and the energy politics underlying the Syrian debacle:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/chinese-stratagems-and-syrian-buffer-zone-for-turkey-qatar-pipeline/
The other side of that coin is population-control (Malthusian principle).
China’s one-child policy was also implemented in abusive ways, including forced sterilization, abortion, sex-selection and abandonment of new-borns.
This population-control measure has resulted in a demographic of imbalance, with adult males outnumbering females. There are always social consequences, no matter what the best laid plans of mice and men.
The population control has resulted in mass daughter killing a crime as unforgivable as killing a cow.
***please provide links when stating gruesome facts like this – mod
The author is oversimplifying issues, is unfamiliar with older geopolitical history which lies at the root of many of these issues (British Empire history and dealings in particular), is grasping at too many straws and makes too many basic mistakes.
For example, the NWO didn’t “come into existence after the demise of the Soviet Union”. It’s been around much, much longer.
The relationships between radical Islamic organisations and the Anglo-Zionist Western countries go way back, long before the time of Brzezinsky. The British were already at this game since at least the 1800’s. The Muslim Brotherhood (a cornerstone of global Islamic Terrorism) and the British and US have been cooperating and coordinating for at least decades, long before Brzezinsky came along.
All that really needs to be understood is that the Anglo countries have global designs (the “NWO” and “One World Government”), that they use and sponsor various tools such as Bolshevism, Islamic terrorism or Ukrainian Nazism in order to achieve their geopolitical aims, that Wars earn huge profits for the Bankers and that the Bankers are some of the primary drivers behind Anglo Imperialism.
Nevertheless, some of the information makes for interesting reading.