Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Phyllis Bennis twists reality to fit politics on DN

Phyllis Bennis actually said this on Democracy Now Tuesday:
In Syria, both countries [Iran and the United States] have an interest in tamping down the violence, even though they have differences over what the real threat might be. Iran, in Syria, is still supporting the Syrian regime; the U.S., of course, opposes the Syrian regime. But both Iran and the United States say that they are against ISIS, I-S-I-S, the leading force in Syria that is opposed to the Syrian regime. So, the U.S. and Iran, in that context, are on the same side.
This is another good example of how those in the "anti-imperialist" camp twist reality to fit their twisted politics. Phyllis Bennis makes two, shall we say, dubious claims in the above statement 1) Iran is interested in tamping down the violence in Syria, and 2) ISIS is the leading force that is opposes the Syrian regime. These two statements represent a break from reality that is so serve that I really don't know where to begin except to say they illustrate why it is so hard to build unity or even carry on a rational conversation with these "anti-imperialist" neighbors, but let me at least try. If "tamping down the violence" means to Phyllis Bennis destroying any movement for democracy in Syria, slaughtering anyone who opposed the Assad regime so that there is no longer any armed resistance, and bringing the violence back to were it was for most of 40 years, through arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and murder in Assad's detention centers, then she may be able to make the argument that both the Assad regime and its Iranian backers are interested in "tamping down the violence," because after three years and 160,000 of his people's lives it should be clear to even a moron that Bashar al-Assad would rather take that road to "peace" than give up his "presidency." If on the other hand, one wishes for the Syrian people and the whole region, the peace that comes with justice, then we must acknowledge that Iran is one of the greatest purveyor of violence in this conflict. Second only to Russia, it has enabled Assad's carnage with political, economic and military support. It is first in putting foreign "boots on the ground" in Syria. It has its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps fighting for Assad in Syria, and it has, let us say, "encouraged" both Hezbullah and Iraqi Shiite militias to be Assad's shock troops. Those forces don't exactly have a reputation for "tamping down the violence." As a matter of fact, it has been widely reported for over a year now that Iranians are pretty much peopling and running the Syrian state. Phyllis Bennis suggests that Iran has an interest in "tamping down the violence" in Syria, but that's not what the Iranians say. They say their future is joined at the hip with the continuation of the Assad regime. In other words they say what the other regime supporters say "Bashar al-Assad or we burn the country." I'm sure Phyllis Bennis knows that. Why else the "tamping down" metaphor? So much for her not so veiled support for Bashar al-Assad and the Iranians. Shall we now turn to her attack on the Syrian Revolution? The view that all of Assad's armed opposition are Islamic jihadists is also an Assad regime talking point but ISIS is definitely not "the leading force" in Syria. I know there is a peculiar definition of "the leading force" among some on the Left that allows them to think a small group can be "the leading force" regardless of its size or disconnect from the mass struggle because they have the "right" ideology. If Phyllis Bennis thinks ISIS is leading this struggle ideologically, she must also see the struggle to overthrow the Assad dictatorship as a reactionary counterrevolution. But as a practical matter there is no way ISIS has been leading this revolution. First it is formally only about a year old, it has a relatively small number of fighters and they haven't been fighting the Assad regime. They have been fighting the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front, even Jabhat al Nusra, in fact every rebel group that the mind of Phyllis Bennis has them leading. Also the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces issued a memo on 10 February 2014 titled "ISIS & the Assad Regime: From Marriage of Convenience to Partnership" in which they said:
Since the FSA declared war on this group on 3rd January 2014 and took over many of their bases, significant evidence has been uncovered which has confirmed circulating testimony and rumors about the links between the regime and ISIS. This memo is just a small sample of testimony from FSA fighters that describe events on the ground where regime forces have been protecting and assisting this group. Accounts go further, saying that regime forces are intimately intertwined with this group, whose objectives are one and the same: to destroy moderate Opposition forces and establish control over as much of Syria as possible.
So there's that. As for her assertion that "the U.S., of course, opposes the Syrian regime," I have already dealt with that at length: How Obama has supported Assad's gas murder always Obama's Real Syria Policy: Endless War The Courtship Continues: Obama stopped French strike on Assad The Courtship Continues: Obama's New Gift to Assad How Obama Helped Assad Kill with Poison Gas in Syria Win-Win for Assad as Obama Response to CW Mass Murder Put on Hold Obama Denied Gas Masks to Assad's Victims Obama's Dilemma and Assad's Opportunity Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad Exposed! Obama "green lights" Assad's slaughter in Syria Assad's Redline and Obama's Greenlight! Chemical weapons use in Syria, Has Obama's red-line has been crossed? AP weighs in on Obama's Green Light for Assad's slaughter in Syria Syria: Obama's moves Assad's "red line" back as SOHR reports 42,000 dead! SecState John Kerry and his "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad How Obama's 'No MANPADS for you' policy in Syria is backfiring More thoughts on Obama's 'No MANPADS for you!' policy Obama: Did the CIA betray Assad's opposition in Syria? Obama planning drone strikes against Assad's opposition in Syria How Obama helps Assad: US tried to start war between FSA & al Nusra Front
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Benghazi

Benghazi minted its own coin in 480 BC even before it became a city of Rome. Mummar Qaddafi treated it as a back-water and it became the wellspring of the revolution that overthrew him. After Qaddafi's troops started shooting protesters in Benghazi, they started shooting back. When soldiers in the Katiba compound started shooting at the passing funeral procession of a protester shot earlier, the outraged people didn't stop until they had taken the compound, using bare hands, bulldozers and a car bomb to breach the walls. When Qaddafi sent General Abdul Fatah Younis to get Benghazi back, he defected and Qaddafi never regained control of the city. To most Americans, Benghazi means the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. It means the scandal around who said what when that has played out in the media and numerous congressional hearings over the years. The Republican Congress is just about to start another one. Friday, House Speaker John Boehner appointed seven Republicans to a brand new special committee to investigate "Benghazi." At the heart of all these hearings is the allegation that what Obama and Clinton were really doing in Benghazi was, in the words of Seymour Hersh, "responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria," and the most dangerous weapon from that arsenal is the man portable air defense system, or MANPADS. They are shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that are light enough to be used by one man and very deadly.
SA-7 MANPADS
Ever since the US government started handing out MANPADS like party favors to Afghan mujaheddinin the 1980's so that they could shoot down Soviet helicopters, there has been tremendous fear that these one-man anti-aircraft missiles would fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to shoot down airliners. Since 2003, the US government has carried out programs, through a mix of agencies, in more than 30 countries that have overseen the destruction of more than 32,500 missiles. Even before Tripoli fell, the U.S. had an operation going in Libya designed to limit the spread of Qaddafi's sophisticated weapons arsenal. Highest on the list were any chemical or biological weapons Qaddafi may have held out on after he voluntarily ended his WMD programs a decade ago, there were none, and his large stock of MANPADS. Libya had around 20,000 of the infrared tracking Soviet designed SA-7 MANPADS. As the tide of battle turned in Libya and Qaddafi's weapon depots, including his store of MANPADS, started to fall into rebel hands, the Libyan situation began to receive greater attention from the US arms collection efforts. More than a month before Tripoli fell, the US was giving $1.5 million to two international organizations - the Mines Advisory Group from Britain and the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action - to get their help in securing this stockpile of MANPADS. In June 2011, the US sent teams to four countries bordering Libya - Algeria, Chad, Mali, and Niger to talk to them about border security and missile identification. In late 2011, a bilateral agreement on weapons abatement was signed with the National Transitional Council [NTC] and a US government Quick Reaction Force of expert civilian personnel was embedded with Libyan military units. By January they had already inspected over 120 storage areas and 1,500 bunkers, accounting for over 5,000 MANPADS. Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, became the White House point man on the Libyan MANPADS problem. A week before Qaddafi was killed, he told AP that the issue of securing the weapons was a priority for President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying “We know that terrorist groups have expressed interest in obtaining these weapons.” Already the State Department had sent 15 specialists to Libya to find and secure the weapons. Shapiro said that the US had allocated $30 million to the effort and soon he would be increasing the number of specialist working on it to 50. A year later, a source would tell CNN that 35 people, divided between CIA and State Department, were working the Benghazi mission, 21 out of the annex when it was attacked on 11 Sept. 2012. A 42-year-old former Navy SEAL named Glen Doherty was one of the four killed along with Ambassador Christopher Stevens that night. He was interviewed by ABC News two months before the attack about his work for the State Department which he said was going out into the field, tracking down MANPADS and destroying them. In an email, the State Department told CNN that the mission was to help the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe to retain." Long before the consulate attack that would reveal the existence of this annex and its purpose, on 12 Dec 2011, Shapiro announced that the Libyan-US EOD teams had collected and destroyed 5,000 MANPADS. It is rumored that many of them were collected through a US financed "buy-back" program and the amount dedicated to the overall program was increased to $40 million, but however they got them, they said the weapons were blown up at sea near the village of Sidi Bin Nur, east of Tripoli. Since the Benghazi 9/11 attack, another theory about the true purpose of the CIA mission in Benghazi and what happened to all those MANPADS has been embraced by a curious alliance of extremes on the Left and the Right. This theory is that what the CIA was really doing in Benghazi was running guns and insurgents to Syria and that's were the MANPADS ended up, sent to Syria by the CIA. As CNN reported in August:
Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
The Arab Spring's Two Violent Revolutions
May they meet again soon
While the Arab uprising taking place in the Spring of 2011 shook almost every country in North Africa and the Middle East, only two of them were run by governments that didn't hesitate before using military power against unarmed protesters. They were the mutually supportive regimes of Mummar Qaddafi in Libya and Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Qaddafi ordered his army to open fire as soon as peaceful protesters took their demands for democracy to the streets of Benghazi and other cities on 17 February 2011. Already, on that day, he was shooting protesters from helicopters. Within a week, Qaddafi's forces had gunned down more than two thousand people, including 700 protesters in one night in the now aptly named Martyr's Square in Tripoli. How easy it is for some to cackle now about what a "mess" Libya is today, post Qaddafi, which saw 643 people killed in 2013, and forget about the horror it was under Qaddafi, or the bloody course he was undertaking, and that is the right word, before the UN and NATO intervened to put an end to his air assaults and curtail his artillery bombardments. To see a full exposition of what Qaddafi had in mind for Libya we need look no further than Syria, where Assad and his friends have enjoyed a free hand to suppress the rebellion by any means available. Assad is reported to have used poison gas to kill some 30 times since the August sarin attack with no new international sanctions. Syrians haven't enjoyed the protection of an internationally imposed "no-fly" zone and they haven't been allowed access to modern anti-aircraft weapons, so Assad has been able to use his air force with impunity. The estimated 30,000 lives lost in the war to rid Libya of Qaddafi now recedes into the shadows of the rising toll of the murderous Assad's attempt to cling to power. The official "Day of Rage" for the Syrian protest movement was a month after Libya on 15 March 2011, but already protests had been breaking out in February in concert with those in Libya. From the very beginning, the two revolutionary movements enjoyed close ties and grew up as brothers-in-arms. There has been strong support for the Syrian Revolution from the Libyan people and official support from the Libyan government no sooner than they obtained their own victory. Thousands attacked the Russian Embassy in Tripoli when it vetoed the Arab League-sponsored Security Council resolution condemning Assad's brutal crackdown. They took over the embassy and replaced the Russian flag with the flag of the Syrian Revolution. The NTC apologized and helped Russian security men restore order. Four days later, they gave Assad's diplomats 72 hours to leave the country and became the first country to turn the Syrian Embassy over to the Syrian National Council. This was all before Libya celebrated the second anniversary of its revolution on 17 February 2012. The revolutionary Libyan government has voted hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the Syrian cause and hundreds of Libyan revolutionaries have gone there to join the fight. Ashour Bin Khayal, who was heading up Libyan foreign affairs around the time of that 2nd anniversary, told FT about the "problem" of Libyan fighters going to Syria:
“Actually, we cannot stop anyone from going to Syria. People want to go and fight with the Syrians; no one is going prevent them. Officially, we don’t have this stance; but we cannot control the desire of the people. “Libya took a very revolutionary step to recognise the Syrian National Council. Those who are fighting the regime in Syria, we are supporting them. “The Syrian regime is pushing the country toward a stage that no one wants. They are doing the same as Gaddafi did. The regime will fall sooner or later.”
While Assad supporters and the Western media paint Libyans going to Syria with the same jihadist brush they apply to all foreign Arab fighters, the truth is that many support their cousin's struggle for entirely secular reasons and the plain truth is that many, like Che Guevara, are more comfortable carrying on the armed struggle elsewhere than settling into the duller routine of building the revolution at home. Che has become a very popular figure in Libya. This support for the struggle in Syria meant that US government plans to collect and destroy Libya's post-Qaddafi stock of excess heavy weapons had some serious competition. Not only did Qaddafi's African mercenaries, the ones some "anti-imperialists" claimed never existed, take the weapons Qaddafi had given them, along with whatever they could loot, and go back to Mali and other places, there was popular support for sending weapons to Syria. As the New York Times reported a year ago:
Many of the same people who chased the colonel to his grave are busy shuttling his former arms stockpiles to rebels in Syria. The flow is an important source of weapons for the uprising and a case of bloody turnabout, as the inheritors of one strongman’s arsenal use them in the fight against another.
Qatar, the Arab country that financed much of the arms purchased by those fighting Qaddafi, has been financing much of these arms transfers as well. According to the NY Times, the arms are put on ships or Qatar Emiri Air Force fights, then distributed through a network of intelligence agencies to Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey, which in turn issue them to their fighters on the ground. “It is just the enthusiasm of the Libyan people helping the Syrians,” Fawzi Bukatef, former Libyan brigade leader and ambassador to Uganda told the NY Times. One such ship was the Al Entisar, a Libyan ship that docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, 14 September 2012. It was reported by the Times of London that among "more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs)." The delivery was organized by the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support formed to help free Syria. Abdul Basit Haroun, who says he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria, confirms that the first weapons shipment was smuggled aboard the Libyan ship delivering aid last year but says now arms are flown "above board" into border countries on chartered flights. Haroun said:
"We are doing two great things, the first is that we are taking guns off the street. The mission is so popular that we get 50 percent discounts on weapons."
While it was widely reported that this ship was loaded with MANPADS for the rebels, these alleged SA-7s never showed up in Syria. More of the collected weapons have come from the revolutionary brigades than from the Libyan government. For years now, people have been clamoring for the Libyan militias to give up their heavy weapons. This is how they are doing it. A year ago Fawzi Bukatef said Libyan militias had been shipping weapons to Syrian rebels for more than a year. “They collect the weapons, and when they have enough they send it,” he said. “The Libyan government is not involved, but it does not really matter.” One person that was involved was Abdelhakim Belhadj. He was head of the Tripoli Military Council and had been a founder and leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. He has been an anti-Qaddafi activist since the 1980's. After he escaped from Libya, the CIA, with an assist from MI6, special renditioned him back to Qaddafi's "detention." In September 2011, with Tripoli already liberated and Qaddafi on the run, Belhaj took time to write about the founding of the LIFG in the Guardian:
It was 20 years ago that I left my hometown, Tripoli, in search of refuge. Colonel Gaddafi's security apparatus had the country in an iron grip; the eyes of its agents were everywhere. No one was safe. I have lived in many countries since, dedicating all my efforts to one objective: the overthrow of the dictatorship in order to bring about real change in our country. A change that would guarantee a dignified life, freedom and justice. It was clear to me by the end of the 80s that it was impossible to bring about change in a country whose ruler does not believe in plurality of opinion, will not allow a peaceful transition of power, and forces his people to live on low incomes despite the country's wealth. Those in opposition faced all kinds of repression. Even the right to religious freedom was violated – saying prayers in the mosques could land one in prison. Faced with this reality, there was no option but to resort to arms, and I and others founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. More...
He didn't have long to reminisce. Qaddafi was killed in October and by November Belhadj was off on his newest adventure, meeting with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the Turkish-Syria border about how the new Libyan government could best provide weapons and other provisions to their brothers-in-arms in Syria. Ruth Sherlock, reporting from Tripoli for The Telegraph wrote:
Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli's streets said yesterday that "hundreds" of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.
This is how Libyans came to be the majority of the foreign fighters against Assad in Syria. They had the revolutionary spirit, they had the real world combat experience and they had the weapons. They brought the weapons with them.
Was the US arming Syrian rebels?
While there is no evidence that the United States sold weapons to the Syrian opposition, bought weapons for the Syrian opposition, gave weapons to the Syrian opposition, or played any role in getting the weapons to Syria, there is plenty of evidence pointing to US President Barack Obama's use of the CIA and US influence in the crucial border countries of Turkey and Jordan to play a critical gatekeeper role in the weapons funneling process. The New York Times broke the news of this network on 21 June 2012 with the headline:
C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said. The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. More...
Perhaps the headline should have more accurately said the CIA was involved in steering arms away from the Syria opposition because that is what it was doing. The US was using its influence to stop the flow of any weapons to "unapproved" opposition groups and stop the flow of certain heavy weapons, such as MANPADS, to all opposition groups, without itself contributing a single weapon. Less than two months later, 13 Aug 2012, an article in the Australian echoed the same view and reported on the opposition response:
Despite mounting calls in Washington for a more aggressive US military role in Syria, the CIA has been quietly working along its northern border with Turkey to limit the supplies of weapons and ammunition reaching rebel forces, Syrian opposition officials say. "Not one bullet enters Syria without US approval," one official complained in Istanbul. "The Americans want the (rebellion) to continue, but they are not allowing enough supplies in to make the Damascus regime fall."
Apparently Obama's CIA and State Department were successful in keeping Libyan MANPADS out of Syria because to that point not a single aircraft had been shot down by Assad's opposition with a MANPADS. Another FSA officer, Ahmad al-Fajj, a brigadier-general in the Syrian Arab Army before his defection, was interviewed by AFP in Atmeh on the Turkish border, 25 Sept 2012. Faji said:
“The free peoples of the world – Europeans, Americans – must understand that their governments are indirectly responsible for the killings in our country.” “We asked all the arms dealers and traffickers in the region to sell us anti-aircraft missiles. They told us they needed the green light from the CIA and Mossad, and the light was red.” “They won’t sell us anti-tank weapons for the same reason. All we have to defeat [Assad’s] tanks are the RPGs we manage to retrieve from the enemy.”
In spite of these problems, MANPADS, specifically the older Soviet SA-7 models popular with both Qaddafi and Assad, did start to show up in Syrian rebel hands around the middle of 2012, although there aren't documented reports of a regime warplane being brought down with one until 27 November 2012 when a Syrian Air Force Mi-8 helicopter was brought down by a surface-to-air missile that most likely came from a SA-7. Business Insider attempted to use a sourced map created by journalist Damien Spleeter of MANPADS sightings in Syria to prove their theory that the Syrian opposition was receiving MANPADS from Libya. To make their point, in the version of Spleeter's map they published, they add a red tag noting the Turkish port of Iskenderun "where the massive SA-7 shipment docked," according to them, and they removed Spleeter's details of the MANPADS sightings. With those details we can see that of the 20 MANPADS sightings documented, only 6 involved complete MANPADS and only 2 document MANPADS being fired. So this map, rather than indicating a massive shipment of complete SA-7s arrived from Libya, indicates rather that some MANPADS in various conditions were being captured or purchased in Syria and a few had been pieced together good enough to be used.  
Is this Abdelhakim Belhadj?
This video, posted to YouTube on 26 Apr 2012 shows a brigade that has defected to the FSA near Rastan with what appears to be a complete SA-7 in what may be the earliest show of a MANPADS in the hands of the opposition. There are a number of videos that surfaced during the Summer of 2012 in which militias are posing with their weapons and a SA-7 appears. One wonders if there was only one SA-7 and a list going around "sign up to reserve SA-7 for group photo with your unit." Such videos can be seen with the Rastan al-Hamza brigade 27 Jun 2012, Sahaabi Dujana Battalion 8 Aug 2012, and most interesting is the 2 minute video of the Abu Bakr Brigade, 15 Aug 2012, because someone who looks like Abdelhakim Belhadj is first seen posing with the brigade and its one SA-7, and then he is seen showing off a storehouse of weapons in crates and on shipping platforms. Curiously, there are anti-aircraft guns and weapons of all sort in the display of what appears to be a new shipment, but there are no MANPADS in the storehouse, just the one in the brigade photo op. This supports the idea that someone was stopping MANPADS from getting through. However, what the Syrian rebels couldn't get from Qaddafi's horde, via the Benghazi pipeline, they were starting to get from Assad's horde through base and weapons depot seizures. In this video, 06 Oct 2012, Abu Bakr brigade is showing off the weapons they captured from the Syrian Battalion 591 Air Defense, Brigade 55 in East Ghouta, and here, for the first time, we see a number of SA-7s. The important thing to understand about these MANPADS is that they typically come in four parts and unless you have all four parts, you don't have a working weapons system. Those four parts are the launch tube,  the grip, the battery and the missile. There is also the question of battery life and many of the older SA-7s were thought to be past their useful life. In addition, where are dummy units and training units. You have got to know exactly what you are dealing with. It was clear that the rebels were getting a few MANPADS, but many of the early sightings were missing important parts and so probably not usable while others looked to be complete systems. On 14 Oct 2012 a video was posted of a missile being fired at and missing a jet over Aleppo. The poster says this is the first use of a thermal imaging rocket by the rebels. The next day C. J. Chivers wrote in his New York Times blog:
This blog had documented the part-by-part appearance in rebel hands of one old heat-seeking system, known as the SA-7. Since midsummer there have been occasional sightings of full systems but none, as far as we know, showing the system in actual use. Two videos recently posted on YouTube suggest that what had been expected is now occurring.
The second video, 15 Oct 2012, Chivers referred to shows two guys on a motor bike with a SA-7. There are at least 20 other YouTube postings that show MANPADS in opposition hands, Brown Moses maintains a list, before a plane is finally brought down with one, including videos of the same man with the more advanced SA-16 and SA-24 and a SA-7 being fired on 20 Nov 2012. A week later a Syrian Mi-8 helicopter was brought down by a missile and it looked like the rebels had scored their first MANPADS kill of the conflict, 27 Nov 2012. The day after that first MANPADS kill, 28 Nov 2014, the Guardian reported:
Just as the clamour for supplying the Syrian opposition with sophisticated new weapons looked to be reaching a tipping point in the Gulf and the west, the rebels have clearly got hold of some arms of their own. ... the rebels' principal backers, in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been chafing ever more loudly against the US veto on supplies of sophisticated, potentially decisive weapons such as shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles (widely known as Manpads – an acronym for man-portable air-defence systems) to the rebels.
With a rising death toll from Assad's aerial bombardment, they were growing impatient with "the US veto" against the modern air defense weapons. The Guardian continues:
"We did this as a favour to Obama," a Gulf source said. "But now Obama has been re-elected, there is a question of whether we should still be bound by such an undertaking." Shoulder-launched missiles could be bought in Pakistan or in Africa, the source added. So far, there is no evidence that any of the ground-to-air missiles used to date have come from outside Syria, according to Peter Bouckaert. Emergencies director for Human Rights Watch. "Everything we have seen so far has been captured from Syrian army bases. We have kept a close watch on what has been coming out of Libya but we have seen no surface-to-air missiles from there used in Syria," Bouckaert said.
The Guardian said the shoot-down "could mark a turning point in the conflict" but by-and-large, Obama's prohibition on MANPADS for the rebels held. While YouTube would record many other sightings, both of the SA-7 and more advanced SA-24 [Damien Spleeters work] in the hands of the opposition, it would be more than eleven weeks before another of Assad's warplanes was brought down by one, 14  February 2013, when the Free Syrian Army shot down a Syrian fighter jet over Homs, Idlib. A few days later, a Hip transport helicopter was also shot down over Menagh Airbase and on 5 March 2013 FSA shot down an aircraft over Aleppo airport. They did this with a new type of MANPADS and from a new source. They were Chinese made FH-6 MANPADS and we know they weren't captured because Assad didn't have any. Brown Moses reported on these Chinese MANPADS sightings. An opposition source told the Guardian:
"These were not weapons that had been captured from Syrian army bases as before. These were released from the Turkish warehouses. These are weapons the opposition had purchased previously but had not been allowed to take across the border." "Before, 23mm was the maximum calibre for anti-aircraft guns permitted and we were allowed to bring in RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] but not armour-piercing shells."
This statement completely characterizes the US role in "funneling arms to the rebels" in a nutshell. They weren't helping them obtain arms at all. While thousands of Syrian civilians were being murdered by Assad warplanes, the US has put itself in a position where it could deny the Syrian opposition air defense weapons which it had already purchased! 25 March 2013 the New York Times described the CIA arms control program and the rebel complaints:
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Still, rebel commanders have criticized the shipments as insufficient, saying the quantities of weapons they receive are too small and the types too light to fight Mr. Assad’s military effectively. They also accused those distributing the weapons of being parsimonious or corrupt. “The outside countries give us weapons and bullets little by little,” said Abdel Rahman Ayachi, a commander in Soquor al-Sham, an Islamist fighting group in northern Syria. He made a gesture as if switching on and off a tap. “They open and they close the way to the bullets like water,” he said.
The newspaper also explained that the US got involved so that it could control a process that was going to happen anyway. “These countries were going to do it one way or another,” the former official said. “They weren’t asking for a ‘Mother, may I?’”
The American government became involved, the former American official said, in part because there was a sense that other states would arm the rebels anyhow. The C.I.A. role in facilitating the shipments, he said, gave the United States a degree of influence over the process, including trying to steer weapons away from Islamist groups and persuading donors to withhold portable antiaircraft missiles that might be used in future terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft.
Apparently possible attacks on civilians targets wasn't a reason for withholding MANPADS from Washington's proxies in Afghanistan, but now, while Assad is killing thousands of civilians from the air, they are used as an excuse to allow him to continue. Never mind that MANPADS are already available on the black market. Three months later, 29 June 2013, The New York Times reported that Qatar was defying the banned, or at least making a show at defying the ban:
As an intermittent supply of arms to the Syrian opposition gathered momentum last year, the Obama administration repeatedly implored its Arab allies to keep one type of powerful weapon out of the rebels’ hands: heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles. But one country ignored this admonition: Qatar, Since the beginning of the year, according to four American and Middle Eastern officials with knowledge of intelligence reports on the weapons, Qatar has used a shadowy arms network to move at least two shipments of shoulder-fired missiles, one of them a batch of Chinese-made FN-6s, to Syrian rebels who have used them against Mr. Assad’s air force. ... The shipments were small, the Western officials and rebels said, amounting to no more than a few dozen missiles.
Other sources reported that these missiles didn't work too good:
Normally effective anti-aircraft missiles, the arms supplied by Qatar have been reportedly plagued with technical problems, including the batteries running out of power, the targeting systems not working, and the missiles failing to reach their targets.
Still the rebels continued to work with what they had. On 13 May 2013 FSA's Ahfad al-Rasul Battalions shot down an aircraft over Abu al-Dhuhur airbase with an older SA-7 and on 10 June 2013, a sixth Assad warplane, another helicopter, was brought down with a MANPADS, this time a SA-24, near the town of Nubl, northwest of Aleppo. On 20 July 2013 FSA 9th Division shot down a jet with a SA-7 and on 18 August 2013 Ahrar al-Sham shot down a jet with a FN-6. It would be more than two months before a ninth warplane was brought down by a rebel MANPADS on 26 Oct 2013. That last one used a rigged battery pack strapped to the shooters leg, indicating that the problem of dead battery packs had been overcome. Most recently a helicopter was shot down with a rocket on 1 April 2014. I may have missed a downed aircraft or two in my survey of the open source intelligence, but the point is, it is a very small number given the thousands of sorties Assad has flown against civilian targets. Beyond a few dozen funky MANPADS supplied by Qatar, there is little indication that they have received these weapons from other outside sources. The Wall St. Journal reported 14 Feb 2013:
Earlier in the conflict, rebels managed to seize a limited number of Manpads from regime forces. But they quickly ran out of the missiles to arm them, the Western diplomat said.
This is how effective Obama's sanction against MANPADS for the Syria opposition has been, in a war in which the Assad regime has made unlimited use of its air supremacy to indiscriminately slaughter civilians, especially children, in liberated areas, they have managed to bring down only ten of Assad's aerial death delivery systems with the sort of advanced technology that would be available to them without US interference. This is how the Obama administration has been "helping" the Syrian opposition overthrow the dictator he keeps saying should step down. This has been the result:
One of the oldest cities on Earth | Aleppo. Syria | 6 May 2014
Seymour Hersh and the Right-Left Alliance
The legend that Obama's CIA was secretly running and provisioning the Syrian insurgency out of a back office in Benghazi owes its success to a trifecta of support. First we have Obama's often made remarks that Assad should resign and his vocal support for Assad's opposition. Second, there is Assad and his followers, that have always maintained that he was the  victim of a proxy war in which terrorists were being ramrodded by the US, NATO, and the Gulf states. This line is also followed by many on the Left. Finally there are those on the Right who hate Barack Hussein Obama and would like use Benghazi to label him as the president that gave weapons to al-Qaeda. Since Hilary Clinton is likely the next Democratic presidential candidate, they would like to tar her with the same brush. The key to a good lie is to use the truth as much as possible and then add little twists as necessary to pervert the meaning. In the case of the Benghazi lie agreed upon, it was only necessary to belittle or ignore the weapons destruction function of the Benghazi operation, take the Libyans and other Arabs out of the driver's seat of the Syrian arms train, convert the CIA role in Turkey and Jordan from that of switch operator to engineer and ignore the real lack of MANPADS in rebel hands. All the other stuff works for them. The CIA was carrying out a secret program at a secret location in Benghazi and it did have to do with Libyan weapons. Benghazi was the center of both Libyan government and private support logistics for the Syrian Revolution, and the CIA did have agents in Turkey and Jordan that were involved with these arms transfers. Eventually, a few MANPADS did show up in Syria. One of the most prominent examples of this theory comes from Seymour Hersh's "The Red Line and the Rat Line", 6 April 2014. Hersh's version goes like this:
The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’) In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi...A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. ... The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’ Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going. ‘The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reported that the previous day rebels near Aleppo had used what was almost certainly a manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter.
So in the Sy Hersh version there is no mention of the weapons destruction program that predated the Libyan situation, the US and Turkey have the power to make agreements binding Qatar and Saudi Arabia to fund projects, and the Obama administration is the main force behind regime change in Syria. He makes that clear when he discusses the "rat-line" with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:
In effect, you could almost say that, in his own way, Obama—you can call it shrewd or brilliant. He was almost channeling Saudi Arabia and Qatari and the Turks to get something done we wanted done, which was to have the opposition defeat Bashar al-Assad. And that’s what it was.
No need to involve the Syrians in this equation. If Obama wants to see the opposition defeat Bashar al Assad, he certainly has a funny way of showing it. When the US imperialists were going for regime change in Afghanistan in the 1980's, they had no problem giving their proxies the latest MANPADS. If they really wanted to see Assad defeated, Syrian planes would be swatted from the skies with them now. After more than three years of struggle against the fascist Assad regime, the tragic facts on the ground expose the lie that the US and NATO really do want to see and end to the Assad Regime or that they are secretly funding and supplying the opposition. So Sy Hersh thinks the Obama administration has provided the Syrian rebels with boat loads of MANPADS. Well, where are they?
In Conclusion
In February, the Saudis again proposed providing the Syrian opposition with MANPADS. The WSJ reported "The Saudis have held off supplying them in the past because of U.S. opposition," and the US still objected. Late last month, Foreign Policy said:
Saudi Arabia has stockpiles of the weapons but is waiting for U.S. permission to send them into Syria, a step the White House has so far refused to authorize.
Now the White House is saying that they may allow the opposition to have MANPADS if they can be outfitted with fingerprint scanners and GPS systems to keep them from being misused, but this will take time to design and implement. Given that such solutions have been proposed for many years now, to talk about having to create them now before the weapons can be given to the Syrian rebels is just another delaying tactic. Meanwhile Assad keeps bombing and the people keep dying. FP concludes:
If the administration ultimately signs off, only small numbers of MANPADS would be sent Syria at one time, raising doubts about whether such a modest amount of arms would help turn the tide of the war. The technical challenges with the GPS locks may provide a convenient excuse for the administration to avoid having to answer that question and sending the missiles at all.
So far America's legacy in Syria is Obama's policy and that shameful legacy is that when a fire was consuming the Syrian house, we held back the fire hose. The Syrian National Council estimates that at least 20,000 people have been killed by Assad's barrel bomb attacks since March 2011. Allepo has been so heavily bombed this year that on 22 February 2014, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding an end to the barrel-bombing. Even the Russians supported it. Using satellite photos, Human Rights Watch was able to identify at least 340 distinct damage sites in the 113-day period before 20 February 2014. The resolution made no difference, it had no teeth, the bombing continued. In the 40 days between 22 February and 2 April HRW identified an additional 85 impact sites in liberated neighborhoods. The Violations Document Center reported that aerial attacks killed 651 civilians in Aleppo province between the pasting of the UNSC resolution and 22 April. And while Assad continues to slaughter civilians from the air in violation of the UN resolution, he faces little in the way of threat from MANPADS on the ground. Only one of his warplanes was brought down by a MANPADS in this whole period. In a Washington Post opinion piece titled "America can stop the ‘barrel bombs’ in Syria", 8 May 2014, Mohammed Alaa Ghanem argues:
It would not take much for the United States to make a difference. A man whose neighborhood has endured numerous bombings reports that, after one regime helicopter was shot down by opposition forces, all attacks from the air ceased for 15 days. So a slight increase in the opposition’s capacity to target helicopters could have an enormous payoff in lives saved.
On Tuesday the US upgraded the Washington offices of the Syrian National Coalition to "foreign mission" status. While that is well short of diplomatic recognition, it is progress. Now SNC President Ahmad Jarba is in Washington, DC for high level talks. Better and heavier weapons for those fighting Bashar al-Assad are sure to be on his shopping list. MANPADS would be the single most game changing and life saving thing the opposition needs. In this age of smart guns, there are many ways to make sure they aren't misused. Barack Obama should lift his ban against MANPADS for the people Assad is bombing.
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

How Seymour Hersh confuses Syria with Libya

In his most recent essay, The Red-line and the rat line, Seymour Hersh argues that the 21 August sarin attack in Syria was a "false flag" carried out by the opposition in the hopes that it would bring the US into the war. He says Obama had information pointing to this and Hersh uses the yard stick of NATO Libyan intervention to argue that Obama's failure to intervene similarly in Syria indicates that he knew he had no legitimate case for intervention. Hersh writes:
Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.
He makes the same argument a different way in a recent CNN interview:
HERSH: And then the question then is if it's such a wonderful case he has and they're so sure, why so quick to walk away? Why say after a little heat, why say that we're going to go all of a sudden, he's a constitutionalist? The guy who invaded Tripoli without one worry about the War Powers act, all of a sudden he's a constitutionalist and wants to go to Congress?
Because Sy Hersh thinks Obama is as supportive of regime change in Syria as he was in Libya, he concludes Obama's failure to take military action against Bashar al-Assad after the chemical attack can be taken as de-facto proof that the President knew that the Assad regime really wasn't responsible for the sarin attack. His logic simply makes no sense and shows how far he is willing to stray from rational thought in his effort to prove Obama "knows" Assad didn't do it. Since Obama intervened in Libya near the very beginning of that conflict and the use of chemical weapons never became an issue, the answer to why he hasn't treated Syria in the same manner cannot possibly be explained by events almost three years after the killing began and after probably twenty times the number of deaths that sparked the Libyan intervention. Since Sy Hersh brings up the yard stick of Libya to measure Obama's Syria response by, he must first explain this almost three year delay in intervention before he can use events around Obama's red-line bluff and the August sarin attack to explain why these might be reasons for further delay. Remember, the kick-off date for the Libya Revolution, was 17 February 2011, and less than 5 weeks later and within a week of the start of the uprising in Syria, French warplanes were stopping Qaddafi's armor from doing to Benghazi what Assad has been able to do to Homs, Idlib and Aleppo. US warplanes were only a few days behind them. So Hersh can't possibly explain why Obama or NATO failed to protect the people of Syria with a similar resolve in 2011, 2012 or two-thirds of 2013 by spinning a tale about administration conflict over the red-line in September 2013. It simply isn't logical. First you have to understand why Obama failed to intervene militarily even after a hundred thousands deaths, before the August sarin attacks added another thousand or so to the death count. Then you can go into why that attack failed to make him change his tune, in spite of his red-line bluff. Hersh operates under false assumption that Obama has not only been in support of regime change, but actively promoting it. Sy Hersh may believe that because that is the way Obama has always talked about Assad, but actions speak louder than words. When it comes to the Syrian opposition, Obama plays "good cop" to Putin's "bad cop," that's why he talks a different way, but he started working with Bashar al-Assad the same week Obama became President-elect in November 2008 and he would really like to see that regime survive. So would Israel. That is why he has failed to take any military action against Assad, or provide anything more than token support for the opposition, not just after the 21 August 2013 sarin attack, but also for the two and a half years before it. Obama never planned to carry out a military attack against Assad the way he did against Qaddafi. Obama never expected his bluff to be called. When Obama made his famous "red-line" statement, I said it was a green light to keep killing big time without chemicals. That was the role it played until Assad called Obama's bluff by finally using "a whole bunch of chemical weapons." Then for Obama it became a matter of finding a way to weasel out of his promise. Going to Congress gave him that out. It simply makes no sense to take Obama's failure to change his policy as proof that this continued unwillingness to act against the Syrian regime shows Assad is innocent. Barack Obama has been in Bashar al-Assad's corner all along:
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Sunday, April 13, 2014

After Hersh lays smoke screen, Assad lobes gas bombs

The Blogosphere is a Battlefield
Karl Marx famously quoted Carl von Clausewitz to the effect that war is the continuation of politics by other means. It should also be said that propaganda in times of armed conflict is war by other means. Even though the strength of the contending armed bodies is critical in war, their propaganda efforts among their own forces, against the enemy forces, and towards international observers, play an extremely important role as well. That is why I say the blogosphere is a battlefield. Certainly Assad understands that, and so does Putin. They both see the value of creating and promoting a narrative designed to justify their aggression. They both see the value of demonizing their opposition, creating smoke screens, muddying waters, and creating distractions. Today, to a large extent, these goals are accomplished with the help of the Internet, and they both have created sophisticated machinery and spent a lot of money on political support for the Assad regime.

Sy Hersh goes on the warpath again ahead of new regime attacks
Seemingly out of the blue, Bashar al-Assad's most prominent defender came out with a new 5,000 word essay again attempting to absolve the Assad regime for past chemical attacks. Even though the muzzled UN came as close as allowed to putting the blame on the regime when it said that the sarin used in both Ghouta and Khan Al-Assal came from the Assad arsenal and was used by a large chemical weapons component of a professional army, Seymour Hersh's rehash of the old arguments put forth again on 8 April 2014 in the London Review of Books, reopened a discussion that many had thought settled. His piece became like a call to action for Assad supporters everywhere to renew the claims that Assad didn't do it, repeat all the Fall conspiracy theories, and try to build unity among the conflicting versions. For example, Mint Press came out in support of Hersh, in spite of the fact that they had been supporting a version of how the rebels gassed themselves that involved untrained rebels in a tunnel bungling a big tank of sarin given to them by Saudi Prince Bandar. Hersh's current version has the Turks ramroding al Nursa, and using missiles, no Bandar, no tank, no tunnel. But nevermind about that, these Assad supporters are flexible, the main point is that Assad didn't do it and the rebels did. That is why all those that had formerly promoted a version that had the CIA and/or Qatar masterminding the chemical attacks were as quick as Mint Press to jump on the Hersh campaign bus. As a result, just when the UN's 5 March report had done so much to clear the air and settle the question of responsibility, at least for the two most deadly sarin attacks, Hersh comes along, completely ignores the UN report, and leads the charge in another smoke and mirrors attack with his pro-Assad LRP propaganda bomb and they have been successful in raising a lot of dust and confusion. Many of us on the other side of this battle in the blogosphere have been writing tooth and nail to discredit this latest Sy Hersh piece as well as his whole Assad-didn't-do-it thesis, but he is like a giant of journalism while we are the Lilliputians. He dismisses us as bloogers. We are working hard to clear the air, but every time the Hersh piece is reprinted or regurgitated, it is like another smoke grenade going off. Now we know why this propaganda war is so important, because in the past few days the reports have been coming in that Assad is again killing with poison gas, now the laying of smoke before these operations makes strategic sense. Was the timing of these new chemical weapons attacks, less than a week after the publication of the latest Sy Hersh defense of Assad, a coincidence, an opportunistic move on the part of Assad or was it part of a plan?
Below are some of the latest pieces on the chemical attacks: From Associated Press:
Poison gas claims complicate Syrian civil war
By Bassem Mroue April 12, 2014 BEIRUT — Both sides in Syria's bloody civil war said Saturday that a rural village fell victim to a poison gas attack, an assault that reportedly injured scores of people amid an ongoing international effort to rid the country of chemical weapons. What exactly happened Friday in Kfar Zeita, a rebel-held village in Hama province some 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of Damascus, remains unclear and likely won't be known for some time. It took United Nations weapons inspectors months to say it was likely some chemical weapons attacks happened last year, including an August attack that killed hundreds and nearly sparked Western airstrikes against President Bashar Assad's forces. But online videos posted by rebel activists from Kfar Zeita echoed earlier images that sparked a world outcry, showing pale-faced men, women and children gasping for breath at a field hospital. They suggest an affliction by some kind of poison — and yet another clouded incident where both sides blame each other in a conflict that activists say has killed more than 150,000 people with no end in sight. The main Western-backed opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, said the poison gas attack hurt dozens of people, though it did not identify the gas used. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group that relies on a network of on-the-ground volunteers, said the gas attack happened during air raids that left heavy smoke over the area. It reported that people suffered from suffocation and breathing problems after the attack, but gave no further details. State-run Syrian television blamed members of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front rebel group for the attack, saying they used chlorine gas to kill two people and injure more than 100. It did not say how it confirmed chlorine was used. Chlorine, one of the most commonly manufactured chemicals in the U.S., is used to purify drinking water. But as a gas, it can be deadly, with the German army using it in warfare in World War I. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Syria signed, banned its use in battle. More...
From EA WorldView:
Regime Uses Chlorine Gas on Kafrzita in Hama Province
By Scott Lucas April 13, 2014 12:16 On Saturday, we compiled videos of a claimed chemical attack on Kafrzita in Hama Province, probably from this airstrike and its “yellow-tinged cloud” See “Poison Gas” Attacks Near Damascus & in Hama Province To our surprise, Syrian State media admitted the attack, although they claimed — despite the airstrike — that it was the Islamist faction Jabhat al-Nusra Front who was responsible, using chlorine gas that killed two people and injured more than 100. Now Eliot Higgins, on his Brown Moses blog, puts together audio-visual and photographic evidence. His conclusion is that, even as the Assad regime claims it is shipping out its chemical weapons for destruction, only the Syrian military could have carried out Friday’s attack with “poison gas”. More...
From Syria Deeply:
Week in Review: Amid New Chemical Attacks and Battlefield Shifts, Assad Looks Ahead
April 13th, 2014 by Lara Setrakian Even by Syrian war standards, this was a brutal week. By the end of it, reports had surfaced of a poison gas attack in the central Syrian town of Kafr Zeita. One hundred people were left sick from exposure; the Syrian regime and rebel forces blamed each other for the incident. In weeks past,Syrian doctors told us of repeated small-scale chemical attacks around Damascus – a signal that the chemical destruction plan brokered by the U.S. and Russia last year hasn’t stopped the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Then there are the more conventional forms of destruction, which seem to be accelerating in pace. On Wednesday two car bombs struck an Alawite neighborhood of Homs, killing at least 25 people. \Rebels are advancing on government-held areas of Aleppo, Al Jazeera reports, while the Los Angeles Times profiled the practically apocalyptic scenes of life for Aleppines, struggling to get by in a once-prosperous city. More...
From BBCNews:
Claims of new poison gas attack in Syria
12 April 2014 The government and opposition forces in Syria have accused each other of using poison gas in an attack on a village on Friday. State TV said the jihadist Nusra Front group launched the attack on Kafr Zita in Hama province, killing two people and injuring dozens of others. But opposition groups quoted doctors as saying that an attack by regime planes led to suffocation and poisoning. There was no independent verification of either of the claims. "Regime planes bombed Kafr Zita with explosive barrels that produced thick smoke and odours and led to cases of suffocation and poisoning," said Rami Abdel Rahman, from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. More...
From The New York Times:
Damascus and Rebels Trade Blame in Gas Attack
12 April 2014 By Anne Barnard and Ben Hubbard BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syrian state television and antigovernment activists reported Saturday that poison gas had been used in a rebel-held village in the central province of Hama, with each side blaming its enemies for an attack they both said sickened more than 100 people. The attack took place Friday evening in the village of Kfar Zeita, sending streams of choking patients, including children, to poorly equipped field hospitals, according to local medics and videos posted online. Opposition activists said government helicopters had dropped improvised bombs on the village, covering it with a thick smoke that smelled of chlorine. While the opposition reported the attack soon after it happened, Syrian state television first mentioned it the day after in an urgent news banner during a broadcast. It blamed the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, for the attack, adding that two people were killed and more than 100 others affected by the gas. A subsequent banner announcement said the Nusra Front was preparing two more chemical attacks. It was the first time since last year that both sides agreed that toxic weapons had been used. More...
From Brown Moses Blog:
Evidence Chlorine Gas Was Used In A Second, Failed, Chemical Attack On Kafr Zita
Sunday, 13 April 2014 On April 11th, reports supported by video from the town of Kafr Zita, Hama, claimed to show the aftermath of a chemical attack on the town.  Reports claimed helicopters had dropped a "barrel bomb" containing a toxic gas on the town, with the below video claiming to show the attack as it happened. More...
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Mỹ Lai and Sy Hersh, a Reappraisal

I made a documentary about the Vietnam War five years ago, Vietnam: American Holocaust. Since I wanted it to be the ultimate Vietnam War documentary, I got the guy who narrated and starred in Apocalypse Now to do the voice-over. I made it because too many educated Americans will tell you 58,000 people died in the Vietnam War, when the real number is closer to three million, give or take 50,000. The tag line I have used to promote the film has been "The Vietnam War was a Mỹ Lai every week." Since most people know about the Mỹ Lai massacre, it is an easy way to say what the film's message is. The month after I released the film, Nick Turse published an article in The Nation titled A Mỹ Lai a Month about Operation Speedy Express, in which 10,889 Vietnamese were killed at the cost of only 267 American lives, which made much the same point. That point, already known to the Vietnamese, most serious students of the Vietnam War, and certainly most combat vets, is that the only thing really outstanding about the Mỹ Lai massacre is the amount of attention it received. Consider this relatively unknown massacre related by, Scott Camil, a decorated Vietnam combat Marine who testifies in my film. Why is it any less deserving to be known to the world and remembered throughout history?
In Operation Stone we were sitting up on the rail road trestle with a river on each side. There's another company behind each river. And like the people were running around inside. And we were just shooting them and the newspaper said Operation Stone like World War Two movie. We just sat up there and wiped them out, women, children, everything. Two hundred nine-one of them.
Was this not worthy of Pulitzer Prize winning reportage? Certainly Operation Speedy Express was because it clearly wasn't a simple case of a Lieutenant and his company going off the reservation. I have long been of the opinion that the US imperialists, even in their limited wisdom, understood they could never obliterate the people's memory of the many atrocities of the Vietnam War, so they allowed one to become famous, they allowed one to be publicized and prosecuted, in the hopes that the public memory of the generalized and pervasive massacres that was the Vietnam War, would be resolved down to the memory of this one atrocity, and in this they have been largely successful. I believe this is the proper context to view Seymour Hersh's Pulitzer Prizing winning reporting on the Mỹ Lai Massacre. When Sy Hersh asked "Why did the Army choose to prosecute this case?" the answer he got from his "military source" was:
“The Army knew it was going to get clobbered on this at some point, If they don’t prosecute somebody, if this stuff comes out without the Army taking some action, it could be even worse.”
The Mỹ Lai massacre took place on the morning of 16 March 1968 in the Vietnamese village of Son My. In Vietnam, it is properly known as the Son My massacre, but the US army wrongly had it marked Mỹ Lai on the map, and they don't easily admit mistakes so we call it the Mỹ Lai massacre. According to surviving villagers, the 504 unarmed civilians victims included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated. The real American heroes at the Mỹ Lai massacre were helicopter pilot Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr, and his crew. They were proving close-air support over Son My for the ground troops. When he saw that innocent civilians were being massacred, he became an interventionist. From Wikipedia:
Thompson then saw a group of civilians (again consisting of children, women, and old men) at a bunker being approached by ground personnel. Thompson landed and told his crew that if the soldiers shot at the Vietnamese while he was trying to get them out of the bunker that they were to open fire at these soldiers. Thompson later testified that he spoke with a lieutenant (identified as Stephen Brooks of the 2nd Platoon) and told him there were women and children in the bunker, and asked if the lieutenant would help get them out. According to Thompson, "he [the lieutenant] said the only way to get them out was with a hand grenade". Thompson testified that he then told Brooks to "just hold your men right where they are, and I'll get the kids out". He found 12–16 people in the bunker, coaxed them out and led them to the helicopter, standing with them while they were flown out in two groups. Returning to Mỹ Lai, Thompson and other air crew members noticed several large groups of bodies. Spotting some survivors in the ditch, Thompson landed again. A crew member entered the ditch and returned with a bloodied but apparently unharmed child who was flown to safety.
Hugh Thompson
When Thompson got back to base he reported the massacre to his superiors. He told his platoon leader:
"If this damn stuff is what's happening here," you can take these wings right now 'cause they're only sewn on with thread."
 At a time when the official Army line on Mỹ Lai was "U.S. infantrymen had killed 128 Communists in a bloody day-long battle.", Thompson stuck to his story and made it official. That meant being interviewed by a full colonel and the beginning of a record that would make this massacre hard to ignore. Thompson was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving the child but he refused it because it was accompanied by a fabricated account of how they saved the child from "intense crossfire." Another hero of Mỹ Lai was a 21-year-old soldier by the name of Tom Glen. Six months after the massacre, he wrote a letter to General Creighton Abrams, who was then commander of all US forces in Vietnam, in which, after describing the brutality he had witnessed, said:
"It would indeed be terrible to find it necessary to believe that an American soldier that harbors such racial intolerance and disregard for justice and human feeling is a prototype of all American national character; yet the frequency of such soldiers lends credulity to such beliefs. ... What has been outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but also in others we have worked with, and I fear it is universal. If this is indeed the case, it is a problem which cannot be overlooked,... "
Colin Powell, then a young major, was assigned to investigate Glen's complaint and came back with the verdict: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal Division soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." [the soldiers who committed the Mỹ Lai massacre were from the Americal Division.] Still, the record was building.
Ron Ridenhour
Finally, there was Ronald L. Ridenhour, SP5, a former door gunner and the first real investigator of the Mỹ Lai story. He said that after he first heard about it from a friend:
I spent the remainder of my time in Vietnam trying to locate people who had been there and of course part of it was easy because I was going straight to the divisional LRRP company.  Four or five people who had been my friends in Hawaii and had gone to Charlie company had transferred into the divisional LRRP company within a week or ten days after the massacre. So I was able to go in and talk with them and two of them were very good friends. ... On my first five missions, of the six men who were on our team, four of them had been at Mỹ Lai. I was going out with these guys and gathering this information. I would go and talk to them and I would try to find each of them, get each of them in a one-on-one conversation.
One of his friends, Michael Terry, was later interviewed and quoted by Sy Hersh. This is how Ridenhour found Sgt. Michael Bernhardt, a witness Sy Hersh would cite 28 times in his first three articles on the massacre:
The one thing I needed that I didn't have was somebody who had been there, who was a witness and who had not participated.  I didn't have any reason necessarily to believe my friends wouldn't be honest when they were asked about it. On the other hand, they had participated in this terrible crime and maybe they wouldn't.  So I felt I needed somebody that I could count on and I knew of such a man, his name was Michael Bernhardt.
Bernhardt wasn't easy to contact because the Army was keeping him on point out in the boonies, trying to get him killed before he could speak out. When he finally got some alone time with Bernhardt, and found that they were of like minds about the massacre, Bernhardt told him his plan was to go around and assassinate the officers involved "one by one", to which Ridenhour responded: "So why don't we try my plan. I'm gonna get an investigation going."  Once Ridenhour had assembled the facts and witnesses, he sent a letter to 30 members of Congress demanding an investigation. All but three of the recipients of Ridenhour's letter put it in the circular file. Those three, to their credit, were Congressman Mo Udall and Senators Barry Goldwater and Edward Brooke. Udall pushed for a House Armed Services Committee investigation. With pressure growing, the Army knew they needed a "fall guy", and after spending nearly a year investigating what had become known, even whispered in the halls of Congress, as the "Pinkville incident", they charged one man, Lt. William Calley Jr., "with premeditation murder" of 109 "Oriental human beings" on 6 Sept 1969.  He would become the only person ever convicted in this massacre. They also issued a short press release which was generally ignored. It is only now, after the Army had built its case and charged Calley [a more cynical person might say,  "After the Army had perfected its cover story."] that Seymour Hersh, the official hero of record in the Mỹ Lai massacre, comes onto the stage. He was alerted to the Calley court marshal by Geoffrey Cowan of The Village Voice. Geoffrey Cowan had earlier been active in the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer and had set up the first civil rights newspaper in Mississippi. He became an anti-war lawyer and was working on the anti-war presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968 when Sy Hersh was its press secretary. After he received Cowan's tip, Hersh called a trusted friend, a former defense official, and asked "What did this guy Calley do?" From the retired US Army colonel he got the story the Army wanted to put out:
"This Calley is just a madman, Sy just a madman! He just went around killing all those people. Little babies!"
After receiving a small grant from The Fund for Investigative Journalism, Hersh did extensive interviews with Calley's lawyer and finally Calley himself. Hersh later wrote of the 15 hr. interview in which Hersh plied Calley with booze:
"It was silly of him to speak with me, but he just wanted to talk. He went all night."
Calley was a 20-year-old soldier facing capital murder charges talking to an experienced reporter without his lawyer present, but he was by no means innocent, and such tactics certainly could have been justified had Hersh's motive been to end that devastating war, but Sy Hersh admitted 40 years later:
"I’d like to tell you that I thought, oh my God, this is going to kill the war, it’s going to hurt the war effort. But really, fame, fortune and glory raced through my mind. What a story!"
Sy Hersh was getting the story that made him and he was exposing an atrocity, but he was also helping the Army build its case against a scape-goat, and helping to shape the memory the military wanted people to have of the war. "Yes, there were a few atrocities, but we took care of that." His stories ran in 33 newspapers. This is how Sy Hersh became the instrument by which the Mỹ Lai massacre became public knowledge in November 1969. He was rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize and a job at the New York Times. At the time, Hersh boasted "I'm a fucking celebrity!" If I am right about the role that the exposure of the Mỹ Lai massacre was intended to play in the media and the American psych, then Sy Hersh was a good choice to get the scoop because unlike David Halberstam, Dan Rather, Peter Arnett, Barbara Gluck, Bob Simons and many other war correspondents, he lacked experience in Vietnam. Sy Hersh covered the story from the point-of-view of the court marshal, and he covered it initially in three stories from three locations, Fort Benning, GA on 13 November 1969, Washington, DC on 20 November 1969, and Terre Haute, IN on 25 November 1969. He reports on it not as an example of the kind of wholesale slaughter that was the Vietnam War, but in isolation from any other massacre. In his first article about Calley, Hersh quotes another officer defending Calley on the basis that what he did was nothing out of the ordinary:
"There weren’t any friendlies in the village. The orders were to shoot anything that moved.” Another officer said “It could happen to any of us. He has killed and has seen a lot of killing. ..Killing becomes nothing in Vietnam." 
A few paragraph later Hersh writes of Calley:
Friends described Calley as a “gung-ho Army man ... Army all the way.” Ironically, even his stanchest supporters admit, his enthusiasm may be somewhat to blame. “Maybe he did take some order to clear out the village a little bit too literally” one friend said “but he’s a fine boy.”
Sy Hersh should have known that the order "Kill anything that moves" was often given and often taken very literally. Here's another example from my film as told by Vietnam vet Jamie Henry:
19 women and children were rounded up as Viet Cong Suspects--and the lieutenant that rounded them up called the captain on the radio and he asked what should be done with them. The captain simply repeated the order that came down from the colonel that morning. The order that came down from the colonel that morning was to kill anything that moves, which you can take anyway you want to take it. When the captain told the lieutenant this, the lieutenant rang off. I got up and I started walking over to the captain thinking that the lieutenant just might do it because I had served in his platoon for a long time. As I started over there, I think the captain panicked, he thought the lieutenant might do it too, and this was a little more atrocious than the other executions that our company had participated in, only because of the numbers. But the captain tried to call him up, tried to get him back on the horn, and he couldn't get a hold of him. As I was walking over to him, I turned, and I looked in the area. I looked toward where the supposed VCS were, and two men were leading a young girl, approximately 19 years old, very pretty, out of a hooch. She had no clothes on so I assumed she had been raped, which was pretty SOP (that’s standard operating procedure for civilians), and she was thrown onto the pile of the 19 women and children, and five men, around the circle, opened up on full automatic with their M-16s. And that was the end of that.
I believe one of the effects of an almost obsessive focus by the media on the single massacre at Mỹ Lai has been to drown out the knowledge of these hundreds of other atrocities, larger and smaller, that gave the war the character of a holocaust in which more than 3 million human beings, "Oriental" or not, were slaughtered by Americans. The real American heroes of the Son My Massacre are first and foremost the ordinary soldiers who refused such orders and sometimes even offered armed resistance, and then those who refused to let the massacre be covered up. As Hersh reported at the time:
Interviews have brought out the fact that the investigation into the Pinkville affair was initiated six months after the incident, only after some of the men who served under Calley complained.
One of those soldiers was Sgt. Michael Bernhardt, who told Sy Hersh:
“The Army ordered me not to talk, but there are some orders that I have to personally decide whether to obey; I have my own conscience to consider."
These soldiers didn't receive any prizes or fancy new jobs for their troubles, but they should have.