Tony
Cartalucci, June 27, 2015
NEO
NEO
Unbeknownst
to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that
binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics.
Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do – teams of unelected
policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then
become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by “legislators,” as well
as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.
(THIS IS COMMUNITARIANISM!)
Such a policy paper has been
recently written by the notorious US
policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, “Deconstructing
Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country.” The signed and dated open-conspiracy to
divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of
miles from America’s shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and
enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.
Pretext
ISIS: US Poured Billions Into “Moderates” Who Don’t Exist
……………..In reality, ISIS’ supply lines lead right into US operational zones in Turkey and Jordan, because it was ISIS and Al Qaeda all along that the West planned to use before the 2011 conflict began, and has based its strategy on ever since – including this most recent leg of the campaign.
The US Invasion of Syria
After arming and funding a literal region-wide army of Al Qaeda terrorists, the United States now plans to use the resulting chaos to justify what it has sought since the beginning of the conflict when it became clear the Syrian government was not to capitulate or collapse – the establishment of buffer zones now called “safe zones” by Brookings.
These zones once created, will include US armed forces on the ground, literally occupying seized Syrian territory cleared by proxies including Kurdish groups and bands of Al Qaeda fighters in the north, and foreign terrorist militias operating along the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south. Brookings even admits that many of these zones would be created by extremists, but that “ideological purity” wound “no longer be quite as high of a bar.”
The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would actin support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of Special Forces as well. The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack through a combination of technologies, patrols, and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.
Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces, he would be likely to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his military of one of its few advantages over ISIL. Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.
In a single statement, Brookings admits that the government of Syria is not engaged in a war against its own people, but against “ISIL” (ISIS). It is clear that Brookings, politicians, and other strategists across the West are using the threat of ISIS in combination with the threat of direct military intervention as a means of leverage for finally overrunning and seizing Syria entirely……………..
...Britain was considering the
option of training a massive, 100,000-strong army in Turkey and Jordan to
defeat President Bashar Assad, according to a plan drawn up by a leading
British general. The invasion was later scrapped as too risky.
The strategy, revealed by BBC
Newsnight, involved Britain training a 100,000-strong rebel army in Jordan and
Turkey over a 12-month period.
The rebels would have been
trained by an international coalition armed with high-quality weaponry, and
would have marched on Damascus with air cover provided by Britain and its
allies.
The plan echoes the ‘Shock and
Awe’ campaign used in Iraq during its initial invasion in 2003.
The idea was developed two years
ago by Lord Richards, the UK Chief of Defense Staff at the time. During his
tenure, he actively lobbied Prime Minister David Cameron to intensify the war
effort in Libya, and directly target its then-leader Muammar Gaddafi, rather
than just protect civilians........
AND SO IT GOES ON.....