Beyond Bin Laden: but figuring out the viability of attacking the Nuclear Arsenal of Iran, determining who is Friend / Foe in Syria vs Friend/Foe in Lybia (notice how we have decided that all parties in Syria are enemies: saving us considerable amounts of money. Also, that prevented the US from entering another war. Our only concern is the Chemical weapons that we have known about)
Speaking of Syria: spies and so forth were who determined whether or not Syria even _used_ chemical weapons.
It was a SIGINT Intercept. Spies are extrodinarily useful for figuring out the truth when international incidents occur. And knowing who is lying, why they're lying, what their motivations are, etc. etc. These are all important foreign-intelligence missions that Spies do their best to figure out for their country.
--------------
Now of course, spies get it wrong sometimes. The famous Iraq situation was brought about because the CIA focused on one bit of evidence that turned out to be falsified. But nonetheless, the general "intelligence successes" strongly outweigh the "intelligence failures" in the past decades.
Under the Obama administration the CIA was funneling billions of dollars worth of military equipment -- ranging from small arms and ammo, to vehicles and even anti-tank missiles -- into the hands of Syrian militant groups[1][2].
These groups specifically include ISIS.
It's hard to think that the Syrian civil war would have been so bloody or lasted as long as it did without USA involvement.
In addtion to other replies to your comment:
* So does the US and Saudi Arabia.
* Terrorists in Syria are supplied by Saudis and Qatar.
* If you are conducting a false-flag operation you would attack your own forces or your allies', no? Also there's been rumours (http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau...) that terrorists simply mishandled the chemicals.
As for the place being "current critical objective", it doesn't make sense for Assad to achieve a tactical victory and bring the strategic defeat (because that's what it will be if America intervenes).
* It's not the first attack, the previous smaller attacks had only brought UN inspectors.
* It's not a problem if you have the outside help (BTW: thanks, Saudi Arabia) and have absolutly no problem with killing (that's who the terrorists are)
* The same intelligence that presented the world the reason to attack Iraq? If they have the proof, why haven't it been submitted to the UN?
Having said all that, I must add that there is not enough proof for either point of view and it's exactly the reason why UNSC shouldn't authorize a military operation agains Syria.
As a side note, who benefits the most from the use of chemical weapons and what seemed to be emminent US attack? Looks like it's syrian terrorists, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US.
And here is an interesting thought experiment for you: if tomorrow it turns out that it was the terrorist's false-flag op, will the US intervene and wipe out the terrorists in Syria? Because, you know, they crossed the red line by using chemical weapons that are banned throughout the world?
Lets be cautious here and not jump into any quick conclusions. Investigation on the 2013 gas attack and who was behind it is still murky at best.
Theodore Postol of MIT analyzed the rocket trajectory and put a lot of doubt on the the location firing the rockets [0]
There is also reports that, Obama's Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper came to the conclusion the gas attack did not come from the Syrian regime [1]
"Obama's Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, was able to dissuade Obama from ordering a cruise missile strike, according to a newly-published book by Mideast expert Michael Lüders. Presumably, a deciding factor was an analysis of the chemical weapons used in Ghouta, conducted by a British military lab, which found the gas to be of a different composition than the Syrian army possessed."
There are also reports of the ISIS using chemical in Syria [2]
CIA trained and funded rebel groups, some ended up fighting alongside Al-Nusra (Al-Qaida in Syria). US weapons also ended up with Al-Nusra. In the same way there where islamist rebel groups in Libyan civil war (LIFG) and CIA did clandestine operations during that time too with different rebel groups.
And every US bombing campaign against the Syra regime de facto helped ISIL/ISIS.
Turkey, a NATO member, trained their own rebel groups and also made sure to have allow every jihadi to pass into Syria. Turkey is strongly anti-kurd. (Parts of this jihadi militia was this year sent to Azerbaijan by Turkey to fight against the Christian Armenians)
It is almost impossible for us outsiders to know what rebel group fought with what group and what objectives CIA actually had, however just the fact that US helped create a terrorist hotbed in Syria, together with a NATO ally, which in turn lead to terrorist attacks in Europe. Or the terrorist hotbed that was sprung up in Libya after the fall of Gaddafi.
Depending on the level of trust you have for American intelligence services you could either say that because of unintended consequences it resulted in terrorist attacks due to incompetent management or that working with the enemy of my enemy is part of their tactics and collateral damage is part of the game.
On the surface it looks like a failure for CIA because Bashar al-Assad is still in power, however it was not a failure for the coalition behind US/CIA, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, e.g. Israel has now permanently annexed the Golan Heights from Syria. Syria war was proxy war against Iran, which is an ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, see the Yemen war.
It's worth remembering that Al Qaeda in Syria (under various other names) was funded and armed by the United States, Britain, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar according to numerous published reports, and that fighters for the organization were trained at secret CIA/military bases in Jordan and Turkey, and that the CIA operation in Libya in coordination with Qatar (out of Benghazi) funneled Libyan weapons to the organization for use against the Syrian government.
For example:
"Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US went wrong 10 October 2015 BBC"
> "Those who supported his approach, the Arms for Rebels group, included then-CIA Director David Petraeus, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and most of the foreign-policy establishment in Washington, both Democrat and Republican."
"Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria (2017)"
> "...some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda..."
Seems to be a pattern of behavior dating back to the Cold War, when the CIA decided that supporting violent religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and elsewhere would provide a bulwark against the Godless Communists.
The war in Syria is a proxy for a battle between two countries: Iran on the one side, which supports Assad's regime, and Saudi Arabia on the other side, which supports the Sunnite rebel groups ISIS and Al Qaida.
Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US and Iran an enemy, so therefore the US supports the rebel groups that fight Assad's regime. What's more, US's close ally Israel is right at the border of Syria and Israel is a long time enemy of Iran as well.
There are a number of groups that benefited from ISIS being in the area.
Certainly Iran and Russia getting a poke in the eye probably wasn't a bad thing from the CIA's perspective but they were probably not the only (or even main?) players. More like the gun store and some advisory support. For the other suspects we need only look for the folks who benefited from a buffer between Russia and Iran and their own states and a proxy army keeping Iranian/Syrian/Russian forces tied down. The whole thing is pretty inexcusable though and the people responsible are a level of criminal IMOP. It also appears the scheme isn't going to work out long term and Iran and Russia will continue to have influence in the region. Which given the behavior of our "friends" in the area I can't say I feel terrible about. But I'm probably not looking at it through a geopolitical chess perspective but more a perspective of ruined lives and societies and the spread of extremist ideology.
They didn't 'ally with Al Qaeda', they just both happened to be opposed to the same guy while also being opposed to each other. It's a complicated situation out there. Even at the height of the Cold War, sometimes the CIA and KGB would share information of mutual benefit. That didn't mean the CIA was allying with communism. Even Trump has learned this when his 'bombing Syria is the wrong thing to do, what Assad gets up to is non America's business anymore' policy lead to Assad feeling free to start nerve gassing civilians again. Oops. Turns out him being against Islamic State doesn't make him our friend either. It's a horrible nasty mess, but even trying to stay out of it just makes you even more vulnerable to even greater problems in the long run.
This debate is stupid. No one understands what is going on in modern geopolitics of the middle east -- including policy czars, and especially your or I. Probably not even the US government. These are gigantic state sponsored operations with foreign governments (e.g Russia), militant organizations.
As an example -- consider that ISIS was shipping ~$160 million in crude oil via smuggling routes to China. Even with all our power, it is not trivial to track such things.
What I am saying is that there are interests here that are enormous and impossible to understand.. some not even based upon nation-state and totally a-political.
The fact that you believe you have a definitive assessment regarding the gas attacks reveals your naivete.
Take a look at the history of the Assad regime and how we destabilized the region by funding his opposition. Take a look at the history of Egypt or Libya over the past 40 years. One day Gadaffi was an American hero, the next day we are cheering for his downfall. Sensationalist stories of rape/murder/torture being spread through the media. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
This is all to say -- neither of us really knows what we are talking about. But you seem to have a very "good vs. evil" approach to the world that is naive at best.
The US has been in a war with the Syrian regime trying to take it down (which is an ally of Iran which is an ally of Russia which is an ally of China).
Btw, if there was a chemical attack, there are 3 possibilities: a) Assad, b) Rebels (who may already have got access to some chemical weapon), c) CIA doing business as usual.
And as always, we'll never learn the truth in time.
The reality is that the US et. al. allies have caused the war in Syria. Not just funded it or supplied the rebels with weapons. The CIA most likely started all of that, to create the distraction we now have.
When I mention this to Americans, they act like I'm all crazy. The CIA caused the 1973 coupe in Chile. There's the Bay of Pigs, the Iranian Contras, MK Ultra, The School of the Americas .. the list is long.
It shouldn't be silly or a conspiracy theory to suggest the CIA started the war in Syria in order to cause instability, prop up both ends of the weapon industry and to push American's war interests. America is a bully and the CIA is the secrete hand that is nothing less than a criminal mafia.
> Syria: Using chemical weapons, sponsoring terrorism
Was there a single UN report that was able to prove with certainty it was from the government and not the opposition? The Syrian government and Russia were winning the war at the time and it didn't make any sense to cross Obama's "red line". As for sponsoring terrorism, I guess you're talking about Saudi Arabia and the US who funneled money and weapons that ended up in ISIS hands, right? Even if we put 100% of the blame on Syria government, many of US allies have done the same (sponsoring terrorism such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan etc). The US also tuned a blind eye when SA slaughtered Yemenis, they even kept selling them weapons. Let's be real here, the US doesn't care about all these bad stuff, they only care that Syria is allied with Russia instead of them. Besides, the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam (napalm) and Afghanistan (white phosphorus) so let's not pretend they care.
> Iran: Assisting Syria; Actively developing nukes they say they will use, nuclear proliferation, biggest sponsor of terrorism, ....
Iran is Syria's ally so it makes sense that they are defending them. Why shouldn't Iran have nukes when others in the region already have them?
> Crimea: Illegal occupation by Russia. Ethnic cleansing.
Pretty sure the US has another ally that does some of those things and they seem to be best buddies.
Anyway, my point is not to say that any of these countries are not evil, it's just that the US and its allies does the same horrible things and don't seem to have a problem with it. The only reason the US is punishing these countries is because it won't bend to US hegemony. Not because of the reasons you listed. Let's be real here.
If it was, it certainly was a failed CIA operation.
No but honestly: while the US had some interest with the Kurds, they didn't engage to cause the Syrian civil war nor did they were able to stop Russia from gaining influence.
And I am not really sure if your mixing up ISIS supporters in your narrative. I haven't heard that they were links to the CIA for any terror in Europe connected to Syria.
* There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian military has stockpiles of nerve agents and ballistic delivery systems for them. BTW: thanks, Russia.
* The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition.
* There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military.
* The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage.
* For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance.
* There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing.
The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very credible.
The US has been directly[1], and indirectly[2] providing weapons to Syrian terrorist groups, including Al Nusra (Their local branch of Al Qaeda - with similar goals to what they pursued in Iraq over the past decade) for two years, now.
The State Department has never been skittish about getting into bed with violent islamic fundamentalists, and doesn't care about the success (Or the lack thereof) of the last round of military "fixes." It also doesn't seem to recall how this situation played out in Afghanistan... Circa 1980.
Speaking of Syria: spies and so forth were who determined whether or not Syria even _used_ chemical weapons.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/26/idf-intercept-shows-sy...
It was a SIGINT Intercept. Spies are extrodinarily useful for figuring out the truth when international incidents occur. And knowing who is lying, why they're lying, what their motivations are, etc. etc. These are all important foreign-intelligence missions that Spies do their best to figure out for their country.
--------------
Now of course, spies get it wrong sometimes. The famous Iraq situation was brought about because the CIA focused on one bit of evidence that turned out to be falsified. But nonetheless, the general "intelligence successes" strongly outweigh the "intelligence failures" in the past decades.
reply