Capsule history of the Syrian conflict

Two voices that I have come to depend on regarding Syria (and Libya and every war of aggression since Obama took office) are Thierry Meyssan, French intellectual and proprietor of, and Moon of Alabama, one of those sites that just seems wired somewhere and which has a way of staying on top of things and offering counter-media insight. The latest article I read on Syria by Meyssan gives a nice capsuled history of the conflict as follows:

  • The United States planned the destruction of Syria at a meeting on September 15, 2001, at Camp David. They began to prepare this by adopting the Syria Accountability Act on December 12, 2003. They tried to plunge Syria into war first by causing the adoption of Resolution 1559 by the Security Council, then killing the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri and accusing President al-Assad of ordering the assassination.
  • This scenario having failed, they subcontracted the war to the United Kingdom and France who prepared themselves via the Treaty of Lancaster on November 2, 2010. The signal for the commencement of operations was given by the United States from Cairo in early February 2011.
  • From that date, and for 15 months, NATO and the GCC launched a fourth generation war, based entirely on their domination of the mass media. They convinced the world, including the Syrians, that the whole country had risen, though the most important events did not exceed 5,000 people. Thanks to snipers and commandos, they staged a bloody crackdown. However, in March-April 2012, after the fall of the Islamic Emirate of Baba Amr, Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the withdrawal of France, while in May, the Syrians began to doubt Al-Jazeera’s reports and in June, Washington accepted its defeat at the Geneva Conference.
  • During this period, the combatants were either Syrian Takfirist (including 3000 captured in Baba Amr) or foreign professionals, particularly the Libyan members of al- Qaeda controlled by Abdelhakim Belhaj. Together, they formed the Free Syrian Army, flanked by British and French officers, with the logistical support of Turkey.
  • François Hollande’s election as French president and the appointment of Laurent Fabius as Zionist Ministry of Foreign Affairs relaunched the war. Relying on CIA General David Petraeus and the expertise of Ambassador Robert S. Ford (former assistant to John Negroponte), France signaled a new war, this time Nicaragua style, by gathering the “Friends of Syria” in Paris on July 6th, 2012.
  • Two weeks later, a mega-attack decapitated the army by assassinating members of the National Security Council. Immediately, 40,000 foreign jihadists, supported by a few thousand Syrians and supervised by French and British officers, began the assault on Damascus. … There followed a year of cruel and bloody war that killed more than 100,000 martyrs.
  • During this period, the United States … at most …tried to influence Qatar and Saudi Arabia to limit the weight of jihadists and promote secular mercenaries. Recruitment centers were opened in Tunisia and Afghanistan. Airlifts were organized from Libya and Yemen to deliver tens of thousands of jihadists who came to die in Syria.

The attack on Damascus put the Syrians in high gear, and they have since prevailed and forced the jihadists to back down. Meysson continues

  • Noting their new failure, the NATO and GCC powers tried to ignore the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council. By organizing a crime to which they would attribute a huge symbolic significance, they would justify international intervention to protect civilians so they could finish by bombing the country as they did in Libya. The chemical attack on ghoutta, August 21, 2013, was organized by NATO. The weapons were transported from a Turkish army barracks to Damascus and the usual media war was mobilized to make this episode more serious than any other event.
  • But the unexpected deployment of the Russian fleet off the Mediterranean coast would have forced the Pentagon to attack from the Red Sea, flying over Jordan and Saudi Arabia, that is to say, plunging their allies into the war. Washington, having given up on entering a regional conflict, [will use] U.S. diplomacy to prepare for the Geneva 2 conference.

Current domestic support behind the Assad government, according to Meyssan, is between 60-90%. Everything now hinges on whether NATO can rewrite the history of the era to make it a democratic revolution that failed, or the reality, aggressive war staged by imperialist powers. Geneva 2 will determine which version of history prevails.

17 thoughts on “Capsule history of the Syrian conflict

    1. That agreement, the distribution of the Ottoman Empire to the imperial powers of the time, still resonates. Later came Balfour, which unilaterally gave Jews a home in Palestine. Nice bit of arrogance – no interest in development of the region, just exploitation.


  1. You take comfort in imagining that world leaders have such plans. I guess you imagine they will turn their organizational skills to doing good some day.

    A large driver of events in Syria is the Alawite-Sunni friction. If you don’t mention this, you leave out 90% of it.


    1. Oh, I don’t think 90% is even close. There is factional friction everywhere.

      Imagine, for example, that the US was a small country, and only a regional power, and that, say, India was a massive superpower with global ambitions. We have friction in our country with immigration on the southern border, and a large group of Hispanics within. Suppose that India, in order to bring down the Obama regime, began circulating stories about what a ruthless dictator he was, and tried to assassinate him and set off a bomb in the cabinet. At the same time, Hispanics from all over Latin America were being brought in by India and paid and armed and were engaged in terrorist acts all over the Southwest, and that 120,000 American were killed. But in the end, the Obama regime prevailed, and the rebels were disarmed and forced to go home.

      Along comes Fred, who says that if we ignore that Hispanic/Caucasian friction in the Southwest, that we are missing 90% of the story.


    2. And Fred would be right. Pun intended.

      You gloss over such frictions because it does not fit your model, but they are real. People don’t run around killing each other civil war fashion just because the US tells them to.


      1. The government tells us it’s a civil war, and your reflect that attitude. The whole essay above is evidence that it is aggressive war by outside forces. (Damn! You didn’t read it. Did you.)

        Fred would be wrong.


      2. Your handlers tell you it is aggressive war by outside forces, and your reflect that attitude. There are many essays with evidence that it is a civil war.


  2. Fred Bucks is right, you put too much stock in the ability of individuals to plan and control world events. The world is much more chaotic than you acknowledge.


      1. You seem to be saying that without US interference there would be no civil conflict or suffering in Syria. Perhaps. What if there were no Iranian or Russian interference?


        1. Russia has a huge stake there, including a naval base and a pipeline from the Pars gas field to Europe, which is why the US wanted to attack the place even in 2001. Iran and Hezbollah have responded as well to support Assad. But to say they are “interfering” is an odd way of looking at it. If the US had not decided to attack, nothing would have changed, 120,000 people would not have died, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah would not have had to take extreme measures to defend the regime.


    1. The key there in my mind is “US withdrawal” creating a vacuum that the Turks are positioned to fill. Is that withdrawal fueled by the failure of the Iraq occupation? (Some well-funded source is fueling ongoing terrorist attacks in that country, I naturally assume the Brits or the US or both.) Or is it the recent retreat in the face of a stubborn Russia? Or the fall of the Morsi government? All of the above?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s