Western media complicity

The AA News Service: 

"I mean, is there a mystery as to who shot at the UN chemical investigators in Damascus?  I mean, is there a mystery as to who shelled the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus?  Yet, only silence in Western media."

We aggress Syria at a time when the background looks like ...

...that:
Financial Times:

 "... How America responds will, in part, be dictated by how firmly Mr Obama decides to stick to his foreign policy strategy: he wants to lessen American involvement in the Middle East, so allowing him to concentrate on domestic reforms, addressing the rise of China and the perfection of his golf swing.Where possible, Mr Obama has preferred to let allies take more of the strain of unfolding events in the region. He let Britain and France take the lead in military operations in Libya - albeit with indispensable American help. Ideally, he would also like to respond to turmoil in the Middle East in concert with a group of like-minded regional allies.But there is a big problem with that strategy. Traditionally, US policy in the region rested on strong relations with five crucial players: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf states. Whatever their differences on the surface, all these nations were status quo powers.However, the old status quo in the Middle East no longer exists - and America's traditional allies are now all pulling in different directions. The result is that the Obama administration will find it extremely difficult to forge a common regional approach to the turmoil. The situation in Egypt, more than Syria, has created irreconcilable differences between the US's partners.If Washington backed the Egyptian counter-revolution, it would delight some of its traditional friends in the region - and appal others. Saudi Arabia is America's oldest ally in the Middle East and it is also the chief cheerleader and regional supporter for the Egyptian military coup. Israel is also clearly quietly satisfied with the turn of events in Cairo.The Turkish government, however, is outraged by events in Egypt. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, is a leader that Mr Obama has carefully cultivated. According to a recent book by Vali Nasr, a former Obama administration official, the US president "phones [Mr] Erdogan often and has probably conferred with him more than he has with any other world leader".Yet Mr Erdogan is behaving increasingly erratically. He seems to fear that the street demonstrations in Turkey against his government are intended to set up a military coup, on the Egyptian model. Under pressure, he has resorted to increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories, implying last week that the Egyptian coup had been masterminded by Israel. Mr Obama thought that he had brokered an end to the war of words between Israel and Turkey - but that fragile entente is now breaking down again.Qatar, which has become an influential player in the region through the judicious use of vast quantities of money, is also host to the main US air base in the region. The Qataris are sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood - and therefore have been on the opposite side of the Egyptian argument from Israel and Saudi Arabia.On the surface, there is more regional unanimity about Syria. All of America's traditional friends in the region want to see the Assad regime go. The Saudis and the Israelis think that it would deal a huge blow to Iran, the regional rival that they fear most. The Qataris are big backers of the Syrian rebels and so are the Turks. The position of the new Egyptian regime on Syria is not yet clear - although it is suggestive that Mr Assad was evidently overjoyed by the coup in Cairo.Most of America's regional allies are keen to see the US get more heavily involved on the side of the Syrian rebels. The Israelis worry that if the Obama administration's red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria is flagrantly crossed, with no response, then the red lines that the US has set for the Iranian nuclear programme will have no credibility. But the Israelis are also worried by the strong jihadist element in the Syrian rebel movement - and those concerns are expressed even more strongly by western intelligence services.As for Mr Obama, he fears that if the US responds to the urgings of its allies in the region and beyond, and gets directly or indirectly sucked into the fight against Mr Assad, it will end up being cheered on from the sidelines by allies who will sit out the fight themselves - and then blame America when things start to go wrong. This regional discord probably only strengthens Mr Obama's initial instinct to back away from the Middle East rather than to rush towards the sound of gunfire. But sometimes events take on a logic of their own. With an aerial attack on Syria looking ever more likely, it seems as if President Obama will be dragged ever deeper into the Middle East, against his own better judgment.'

'Coalition of the Willing': Another US aggression in the making?

Even if it fires one missile into a bush, America will register another aggression against sn Arab sovereign state!

'Credibility-on-the-Bosphorous': "Turkey will aggress Syria (again) with or WITHOUT sanction from the UNSC!"

"... Turkey would join any international coalition against Syria even if a wider consensus on action cannot be reached at the U.N. Security Council, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu was quoted as saying on Monday.
"We always prioritise acting together with the international community, with United Nations decisions. If such a decision doesn't emerge from the U.N. Security Council, other alternatives ... would come onto the agenda," Davutoğlu told the Milliyet daily...."

Smorgasbord open for business: "President Obama will likely bomb Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria"

 'The 'Experts'

"... This may be the position he takes in Syria, in consultation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other interested parties, which would play some role along with the NATO command. If he decides to use force, it’s the only position he could reasonably take. Given the threat, the humanitarian crisis, America’s standing in the region, and the importance of preserving international norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, the best option might be to destroy huge chunks of the Syrian military, throw Assad’s regime off balance, and let those on the ground settle the aftermath. Maybe this would finally compel Assad to negotiate seriously; maybe it would compel the Russians to backpedal on their support (as NATO’s campaign in Kosovo compelled them to soften their support for Milosevic). Or maybe it would just sire chaos and violence...."

It worked! (in the short run)

SAA 'Capital Shield' was very near a total victory in the Jubar-Damascus area. To prevent the annihilation of 'rebels' forces, the anti-Assad alliance scrambled and was able to prevent a strategic rout. (The government acquiescence to the UN mission, meant the military operations had to be halted temporarily for the 'safety of the fact finding mission):
* ghost use of CWs 
* Threaten military strikes on government' command & control and Syrian Arab Army facilities...
* Put President Assad in the 'guilty of CW' use' sphere ... if & when Geneva II (re)convenes!

However, .... we all know that 'Les Jeux Sont faits!'

In Jordan, "mini-Bandar"

"... A senior U.S. intelligence official called the Saudis "indispensable partners on Syria" and said their efforts influenced American thinking. "No one wants to do anything alone," the official said in explaining why the partnership expanded.
The Saudi goal was to get the U.S. to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned base in Jordan. Then-CIA chief David Petraeus was an early backer of the idea, said Arab and U.S. officials, and helped clinch Jordanian military support for the base. Gen. Petraeus declined to comment.
Prince Bandar met with the uneasy Jordanians about such a base. His meetings in Amman with Jordan's King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. "The king would joke: 'Oh, Bandar's coming again? Let's clear two days for the meeting,' " said a person familiar with the meetings.
Jordan's financial dependence on Saudi Arabia gave the Saudis strong leverage, officials in the region and the U.S. said. They said that with the blessing of the Jordanian king, an operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition then started arriving, Arab officials said.
Prince Bandar sent his younger half-brother and then-deputy national-security adviser, Salman bin Sultan, to oversee the operation in Jordan. Some regional officials took to calling him "mini-Bandar." Earlier this summer, Prince Salman was elevated to deputy defense minister....
Prince Bandar flew to Paris soon after for talks with French officials. In July he was in Moscow to meet with one of Mr. Assad's prime supporters, President Vladimir Putin.
A generation ago, Prince Bandar, in a role foreshadowing his current one on behalf of Syrian opposition, helped the CIA arm the Afghan rebels who were resisting occupation by Soviet troops.
Arab diplomats said that in meeting with Russian officials this summer, the prince delivered the same message he gave the Soviets 25 years ago: that the kingdom had plenty of money and was committed to using it to prevail..."

WSJ: Bandar & al Jubeir: 'We don't expect the Syrian rebels to win ...'

"...Prince Bandar has been jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime, according to Arab, American and European officials.Meanwhile, an influential protégé, current Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel al-Jubeir, is leading a parallel campaign to coax Congress and a reluctant Obama administration to expand the U.S. role in Syria.
The conflict there has become a proxy war for Middle East factions, and Saudi Arabia's efforts in Syria are just one sign of its broader effort to expand its regional influence. The Saudis also have been outspoken supporters of the Egyptian military in its drive to squelch the Muslim Brotherhood, backing that up with big chunks of cash....
The CIA has put unspecified limits on its arming efforts. But the agency has been helping train rebels to better fight. Earlier this year it also began making salary payments to members of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, U.S. and Arab officials said. There are now more CIA personnel at the Jordan base than Saudi personnel, according to Arab diplomats.
Jordan denied any training or arming of Syrian rebels was taking place in the country, something Minister of State for Media Affairs Mohammad Momani said would be contrary to Jordan's national interest and policy "to remain neutral" on Syria.
"There are no military bases in Jordan for the Syrian opposition…There are no bases of any sort. This is inconsistent with the Jordanian position that calls for a political solution to the Syrian crisis," Mr. Momani said. He added that Jordanian King Abdullah has said firmly "Jordan will never be a base of training to anyone and will never be the launching base of any military action against Syria."...
Not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria. Some officials said they fear it carries the same risk of spinning out of control as an earlier project in which Prince Bandar was involved—the 1980s CIA program of secretly financing the Contras in Nicaragua against a leftist government. The covert program led to criminal convictions for U.S. operatives and international rebukes.
"This has the potential to go badly," one former official said, citing the risk weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.
Many top U.S. intelligence analysts also think the Syrian rebels are hopelessly outgunned by Assad allies Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group, according to congressional officials and diplomats.
Prince Bandar and Mr. Jubeir have told the U.S. they don't necessarily expect a victory by the Syrian rebels anytime soon, but they want to gradually tilt the battlefield in their favor, according to American officials who have met with them.
The Saudi plan is to steadily strengthen carefully selected groups of rebel fighters not in the radical Islamist camp, with the goal of someday seeing them in control in Damascus. Difficult as such an effort is proving to be, the Saudi thinking goes, not trying would risk a future in which Syria was dominated either by extremist Muslims from among the rebels or by Iran, Riyadh's arch rival in the quest for regional dominance.
In Jordan, officials said they couldn't yet tell whether the joint operation has reaped success in sifting moderate Syrian rebels from the extremists. Some said they couldn't rule out the possibility some Saudi funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar. U.S. officials said they couldn't rule out that mistakes would be made....
The Saudi king also was uncomfortable at sharing control with Qatar, a Persian Gulf rival. At a meeting to coordinate arms shipments last summer, Prince Bandar took a swipe at Qatar, a tiny nation with one of the region's largest broadcasters.
Qatar is "nothing but 300 people…and a TV channel," the Saudi prince yelled into a phone, according to a person familiar with the exchange. "That doesn't make a country." Saudi officials declined to comment on the exchange.
It marked the start of a new, more aggressive drive by Prince Bandar, and a Saudi shift to operate out of Jordan instead of Turkey. In July 2012, the Saudi king—his uncle—doubled the prince's duties; already head of the national-security office, Prince Bandar took over the Saudi General Intelligence Agency as well....."

WaPo: "As Syrian rebels’ losses mount, 15 years old begin filling ranks"

"... After more than two years of conflict that has already claimed more than 100,000 lives, some rebel commanders defend the use of teenage fighters as inevitable.“Many of these young men’s fathers and older brothers have died before them,” said Abu Diyaa al-Hourani, commander of a Free Syrian Army battalion outside the Syrian border town of Sheikh al-Maskin. He said that Syrians as young as 15 serve in his 800-man unit, whose average age has plunged to 19, down from 25 not long ago...."

"Failure!"

"... These were Turkish goals as stated by Davutoglu, but they did not happen. Yes, Davutoglu has worked hard for these goals, but his efforts do not guarantee success. This is not due to the fact that Turkey is isolated, hence the counter argument cannot be that it is “better to be alone and honorable than part of a shameful system.” No, it is time we call it by its real name: failure. This is just failed policy. Unless we can call it failure, we cannot make adequate changes. Oddly enough, failure is more common in foreign policy than success.In Syria, Turkey should have learned that it cannot control the civil war, and that it must manage the repercussions of the war inside its territory and on its border. Davutoglu and the AKP took the “principled” stand to heart and mobilized its base to condemn the Assad regime. Several foreign policy issues have become passionate battlegrounds for domestic consumption. There was one point when many Turks labeled those who did not “condemned Bashar” as Baathists. This is mind-boggling when you consider the fact that the Baath party stands for Arab nationalist ideology. I am not sure how big of an impact an ordinary Turk sitting in Istanbul condemning the Assad regime is going to have on stopping the bloodshed. Either way, all Western powers and Israel have officially condemned the Syrian regime, yet the atrocities of war continue.
Similarly, in Egypt, Turkey risks its investments, financial assistance and losing a crucial point of influence in the Arab world. It is understandable that the Turkish government does not want to be part of the Egyptian coup legitimization process. However, it is a step further to turn this into a major domestic issue for Turkey. Now, it has almost become a crime to not refer to the situation in Egypt as a “coup.”..."

WaPo: 'Gulf monarchies' proxy wars: To the last Egyptian (& Syrian)!'

'Watching Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Gulf states line up behind the bloody counterrevolution in Egypt, you can’t help suspecting that these conservative monarchies are ready to fight to the last Egyptian against the Muslim Brotherhood
The events of the past few weeks have been the culmination of a trend building since February 2011, ...Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have been disappointed that the United States hasn’t joined them in embracing the military government in Egypt that toppled President Mohamed Morsi. They see this as further evidence of American power in retreat globally, rather than, in simpler (and more accurate) terms, a function of the American public’s wariness, after Iraq and Afghanistan, of intervening in Muslim domestic conflicts.
This we-don’t-need-America tone was especially clear in a comment the other day by Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, during a visit to France: “Concerning those who announced stopping their assistance to Egypt or threatening to stop them, the Arab and Islamic nation is rich with its people and capabilities and will provide a helping hand to Egypt.”
What’s troubling about Gulf support for the Egyptian generals and their crackdown is that it repeats one of the dominant themes of modern Arab political life: the meddling of the Saudis and fellow conservative states in other Arab conflicts partly to keep turmoil outside their borders. It’s what the divide-and-conquer British used to describe as a “forward” strategy.

The list of Saudi interventions is long: With the Kuwaitis and others, they bankrolled the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon to the point of fomenting against the Christian-led government a civil war that raged for 15 years. They financed Saddam Hussein’s eight-year war against Iran; then, when an overconfident Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, they pleaded for a U.S. invasion to drive him back. After U.S. forces invaded once more in 2003 to overthrow Hussein, the Saudis backed Sunni groups in Iraq.

Then there were the Saudi-backed proxy wars against the old Soviet Union, most notably in Afghanistan. The Saudis (with strong U.S. support) encouraged Muslim insurgents, including the Afghan mujahideen groups that morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Washington has been struggling with the consequences of those covert actions since Sept. 11, 2001.
Saudi Arabia today deeply fears Iran, whose Shiite Muslim religion and Persian culture make it a traditional regional rival. The Saudis back Sunni forces in Lebanon against Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah; they back Sunni forces in Iraq who are waging an increasingly violent insurgency against the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Then there’s Syria: Sometimes the Saudis work with the United States and Jordan to help the moderate rebel leader Gen. Salim Idriss. Other times, they allow money to flow to more extreme jihadist forces.
Complicating this regional, internecine rivalry is Saudi animosity toward Qatar and Turkey, which back the Muslim Brotherhood across the region and provided Morsi with financial and political support. These quarrels may seem at times to be petty and myopic, but they have devastating consequences.
The core problem for Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf regimes is that they have immense wealth resting uneasily on conservative political systems. They resist change, even as their young populations get ever more connected electronically with the outside world — and its online trends of both secularization and radical jihad. The U.A.E. has tried, with some success, to rebrand itself as a “moderate” force for modernization. A similar effort in Bahrain blew up in 2011 when the Saudis backed the conservative monarchy in a violent move against parties representing the Shiite majority.
The Saudis and the Emiratis must decide how best to protect their own security and stability. The United States shouldn’t assume that Gulf countries’ interests and its own coincide. The idea that a Saudi-backed crackdown in Egypt that drives the Muslim Brotherhood underground will protect the conservative monarchies seems short-sighted, to put it mildly. But it’s their money.'

Muslim Brotherhood leadership fading: “I am not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,”

"...“I am not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Hegazy reportedly told authorities.In fact, Hegazy was a prominent voice in the organization that elevated Mohammed Morsi to the Egyptian presidency, and that has been on the run since his recent ouster.
The Brotherhood, a hierarchical movement that commands hundreds of thousands of faithful, had lost another leader. Hegazy was one of roughly a dozen senior figures – including spiritual leader Mohammed Badie and several provincial chiefs – detained in the last month. .. “The main effect is the army blockades. People are coming out and mobilizing without the leadership,” he said as passing cars and trucks honked support. “I have a question for Sissi: Why don’t you remove your tanks and see how large the crowds will be?”

Pentagon: "Syria is a swamp and any level of intervention will drag the US in deeper"

'As we observed last week, even as the Administration is trying to look across the Pacific – Secretary of Defense Hagel met with his Chinese counterpart in Washington and has departed to Asia for the ASEANmeeting on August 28^th in Brunei – its gaze is drawn remorselessly back to the Middle East.  Even as the consensus among decision-makers starts to form that the situation in Egypt is stabilizing in the favor of the military without Washington having to act, the sudden deterioration in Syria confronts the White House with a decision it had hoped to avoid. To date, President Obama has reacted cautiously. From conversations we have held with senior officials, we understand that his first instinct is that any US involvement in Syria would be counter-productive and would undermine his objective of, as indicated by the new CENTCOM commander, to reduce the US military footprint in the region. As one NSC analyst explained to us: “The President is extremely mindful of the law of unintended consequences. He wants to be sure that any US intervention ends well. It’s not easy to be 100% reassuring on that point.” Obama’s caution is echoed in the Pentagon source where a contact tells us:  “Hagel is deferring to the generals whose view is that Syria is a swamp and any level of intervention will drag us in deeper." Nonetheless, pressure is rising in Washington to take action. As and when US intelligence agencies can firmly establish conclusive proof of regime responsibility for the use of chemical weapons, we expect some form of punitive action, possibly in the form of cruise missile attacks against regime military positions, especially its airpower. It is not inconceivable that action could take place next week, perhaps under NATO rather than UN authority. In the meantime Secretary of State Kerry is conducting an active dialogue with his Russian counterpart to bring pressure on Damascus. If this happens, this could significantly mitigate the damage in US-Russian relations following the Snowden affair....'

"Way overstated"

McClatchy

"... The official said Obama has directed the intelligence community to "gather facts and evidence" to determine what happened in Syria and that once that happens, "the president will make an informed decision about how to respond."The U.S. has a "range of options available, and we are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria," the official said.
The meeting comes as a fourth Navy destroyer equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles was moved closer to Syria on Thursday. A U.S. Defense official, however, said any reports of preparations for a possible missile attack were "way overstated,".."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/24/200233/obama-convenes-saturday-meeting.html#.UhiirY5Hmnk#storylink=c.."

CIA: 'Al-Qaeda Dispatched 16 Tons of Explosives to Lebanon'

"friday-lunch-club": CIA: 'Al-Qaeda Dispatched 16 Tons of Explosives to...: "... After the US intel was conveyed to the Lebanese side, there were extensive discussions as to why the CIA would supply local secu...

Idiotic journalist: 'I possess the ability to see things before they happen!'

Nicholas Blanford is more efficient than CCTV:

"...Hours before the explosion, Hezbollah men were easily visible monitoring key junctions, identifiable by their walkie-talkies and some of them wearing bright green armbands. ..."

Russia: "Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident"

"Materials implicating the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad in chemical weapons use near Damascus were prepared prior to the alleged incident on August 21, the Russian foreign ministry said.
Moscow continues to monitor closely the event surrounding the“alleged”  chemical attack near Damascus, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement. 
“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”
The Damascus chemical attack accusations indicate the launch of “another anti-Syrian propaganda wave” and, in this context, the calls on the UN Security Council to immediately use force in Syria “heard from some EU capitals” are “unacceptable”, Lukashevich said.
The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that Assad’s government has demonstrated a “constructive approach” to the chemical weapons issue by allowing UN experts into the country..."

Obama on Syria: "No involvement in Syria! We have to think through strategically!"

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama called the apparent gassing of hundreds of Syrian civilians a "big event of grave concern" but stressed on Friday that he would not rush to embroil Americans in a costly new war...
Noting budget constraints, problems of international law and a continuing U.S. casualty toll in Afghanistan, Obama told CNN:
"Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.
"The United States continues to be the one country that people expect can do more than just simply protect their borders. But that does not mean that we have to get involved with everything immediately.
"We have to think through strategically what's going to be in our long-term national interests."

AIPAC/ WINEP: 'Assad's New Syria will look like Israel!'

The Day After Assad Wins: If Bashar al-Assad wins the war in Syria, as seems increasingly likely, he will not be magnanimous in victory. Post-war Syria will be a more brutal and anarchic place than ever before.

"... To keep its head above water, Damascus has reportedly received up to $500 million per month and lines of credit from Tehran to finance food and oil imports. That dependence would undoubtedly grow in the years ahead.... So any thought that an Assad victory will lead to stability in Syria should be tempered by the realization that he will be abjectly dependent on other countries for security and money. And that reliance will produce plenty of instability. The reconstituted Assad regime would be particularly beholden to Tehran, which would dramatically expand Iran's influence in the region and make it increasingly likely that Syrian and Lebanese territory would be used to confront Israel and other U.S. Sunni allies..."

Israel's minios inside the Beltway: 'We want Dictatorship in Egypt!'

"Egypt today is a zero-sum game. We’d have preferred there be a democratic alternative. Unfortunately, there is none. The choice is binary: the country will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood or by the military.,,
And which alternative better helps secure U.S. strategic interests? .... continued alliance with the pro-American Gulf Arabs and Jordanians, (and) retention of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, ...
Regarding Egypt, rather than emoting, we should be thinking: what’s best for Egypt, for us and for the possibility of some eventual democratic future.
Under the Brotherhood, such a possibility is zero. Under the generals, slim"