Revolutionary Pawns of the Great Game
Seymour Hersch has a very important article out, titled Whose Sarin, but you won’t find it in the New Yorker or the Washington Post. Instead it’s tucked away in the London Review of Books.
The reason I think it’s important is because it validates the sources that were skeptical about the Sarin attack in Syria last August, and it exposes the deceit that came from Obama as he made his case for another Middle East war:
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assad’s government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’: ‘Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,’ he said. ‘We know the Assad regime was responsible … And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.’ Obama was going to war to back up a public threat, but he was doing so without knowing for sure who did what in the early morning of 21 August.
Ultimately that war didn’t happen (though the very real refugee crisis continues to happen without much concern from the Obama administration) but it should be noted that, while on the brink of launching military strikes against the Assad regime, Obama was willing to face the American people and lie to us in order to justify a war that Saudi Arabia and Israel desperately wanted the US to start.
I doubt many Americans will read the Hersch article, so the deceit won’t be widely known or remembered the next time Obama tries to rally the American people for a military attack, and that’s too bad. Democrats especially should pay attention, because it’s their desire to be global humanitarians that has been cynically exploited by the Obama administration to topple unfriendly regimes, like Gaddafi in Libya.
Skepticism should always be deployed when it comes to how internal opposition is organized and funded across the globe. I read an article last week that exposes how a globally renowned activist collaborated with Stratfor. The activist’s name is Srdja Popovic, a Serb who has globe-trotted for revolution. Here is how the article describes Stratfor’s perception of Popovic’s value:
Stratfor saw Popovic’s main value not only as a source for intelligence on global revolutionary and activist movements, but also as someone who, if needed, could help overthrow leaders of countries hostile to U.S. geopolitical and financial interests. So useful was Popovic to Stratfor that the firm gave him a free subscription, dubbed “legit sources we use all the time as a company” by Papic.
In a June 2011 email, Papic referred to Popovic as a “great friend” of his and described him as a “Serb activist who travels the world fomenting revolution.”
“They…basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like ,” Papic says in one email. Replying to a follow up to that email, he states, “They just go and set up shop in a country and try to bring the government down. When used properly, more powerful than an aircraft carrier battle group.”
Public protests thundered into a full-throttle civil uprising in Ukraine on Sunday, as hundreds of thousands of protesters answered President Viktor F. Yanukovich’s dismissiveness with their biggest rally so far, demanding that he and his government resign.
At the height of the unrest on Sunday night, a seething crowd toppled and smashed a statue of Lenin, the most prominent monument to the Communist leader in Kiev. The act was heavy with symbolism, underscoring the protesters’ rage at Russia over its role in the events that first prompted the protests: Mr. Yanukovich’s abrupt refusal to sign sweeping political and free-trade agreements with the European Union.
After an electrifying assembly in Independence Square in the center of Kiev, the main focus of the protests, the huge crowd surged across the capital, erecting barriers to block the streets around the presidential headquarters and pitching huge tents in strategic intersections. They were not challenged by the police, who have largely disengaged since their bloody crackdown on a group of protesters on Nov. 30 sharply increased outrage at the government.
International concern over the unrest in Ukraine appeared to deepen on Sunday, as the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, telephoned Mr. Yanukovich and Western leaders continued to call on him to respond to the demonstrators’ demands. The European Union has been eager to draw Ukraine, a nation of 46 million, into closer alliance with the West, while Russia has sought to safeguard its major economic and political interests in its close neighbor. Making the crisis more acute, Ukraine is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy and is desperate for financial assistance from abroad.
I’m sure a closer relationship with the EU will work out well for your average Ukranian. Free trade has done such great things for American workers, for example, it’s no wonder there are thousands of people in the streets clamoring to get cozy with an economic system that has helped countries like Spain and Greece succeed.
What is really sad about these manipulated revolutions is that the people in these countries end up risking their lives to further the agendas of western elites who will exploit any success for their own interests. Essentially the pawns of revolution must choose between which rapist will ravage their domestic space, which doesn’t make it much of a choice at all.