CIA Supplied Arms to Syrian Rebels That Ended Up Part of Al Qaeda Affiliate

[Comrade Grumpy]

Buried in this New York Times story about the deaths of several ranking leaders of Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria, is this little nugget:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/world/middleeast/4-nusra-front-leaders-said-to-be-killed-in-syria.html?_r=0

The leaders’ reported deaths came after the Nusra Front had extended its control over much of northwestern Syria, mostly by routing more moderate rebel groups.

One such group, the Hazm Movement, received anti-tank missiles and other arms from a covert program by the Central Intelligence Agency and other countries, operated across the border in Turkey.

Hazm announced this week that it had disbanded after the Nusra Front took over one of its bases and seized its arms.

-------------

Nice. Does the CIA ever learn?

Here's more from the Times on the CIA's little Syria operation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/middleeast/us-and-allies-turn-to-rebels-with-a-cause-fighting-isis.html

Cheers.

[Takashi Zara]

1. How could they have POSSIBLY foreseen that??

and before being totally overrun, both Hazm and the so-called FSA mostly sold off the shiny new toys to an-Nusrah and Ahrar ash-Sham anyway.

The United States and its tyrannical allies are busy supplying the takfiri war effort, Syria and Iran--"the bad guys"--are dealing them battlefield defeats. Cognitive dissonance can be a funny thing.

[Takashi Zara]

2. more concerned about General Dempsey's recent remarks about future US boots on Syrian ground

again, the kind of thing that just gets buried in a wire piece about the recent takfiri assualt on the Aleppo Syrian Air Force Intelligence office:

American Army Chief: US forces could have role in Syria’s future

The US military's top officer, General Martin Dempsey, told lawmakers on Wednesday it was possible special operations forces could eventually be sent to Syria to back up American-trained rebels.

But officials said Dempsey's comment was addressing a "hypothetical" scenario for the moment as moderate opposition forces have not yet been trained.

Asked if more American troops would have to be sent to Iraq or Syria to take on ISIS, Dempsey said if commanders requested it, he would be ready to endorse it to President Barack Obama.

Dempsey said "if the commander on the ground approaches either me or the secretary of defense and believes that the introduction of special operations forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian forces," or forward air controllers, "these skilled folks who can call in close air support" are needed, "if we believe that's necessary to achieve our objectives, we will make that recommendation."

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/rebels-attack-syrian-government-building-aleppo

[Savannahmann]

3. Short answer? No.

Long answer. No. President Obama and his advisors really wanted to get rid of Assad. But there was a problem then, and the problem remains today. The Russians have one naval base, such as it is, in the Mediterranean. That one base for them is in Syria. We have bases in Italy, Spain, and Turkey. Russia has one. There is no way we would allow someone to overthrow the Governments in any nation we have a major base at. There was no way that Russia was going to let that happen to them.

So overthrowing Assad was a pipe dream at best, a match that could start World War III at worst. Then our policy changed in Syria after ISIS/ISIL/IS went from a footnote in a briefing document to a major problem. In the mean time we had been giving Rebels in Syria weapons and experts to teach them how to use the weapons to fight our enemy Assad. Why he was our enemy was never really clear, but that is not important. McCain made an ass of himself by going and posing for pictures with the "rebels" in Syria. Only to find out they were essentially cut from the same cloth as the douchebags in Al Qaeda. We had no idea who the "good guys" were. No clue what the hell was going on. But as IS grew, we decided to support any group who wasn't IS, while we ignored Assad as part of our new plan, first get rid of IS, then get rid of Assad, then be friends with whoever is left.

I can only imagine that our CIA and State Department folks are running around Syria desperately trying to find someone, anyone who doesn't greet us with Death to America so we can declare them the Syrian version of George Washington, again, and announce that they are a moderate force for change in Syria who wants to implement social reform including a liberal attitude towards homosexuality. Frankly, that isn't even a pipe dream, it's a delusion brought on by either a severe blow to the head, or nearly fatal amounts of drugs. It's one of those things that come on just as you're standing on the threshold to death.

The last couple moderate forces we've identified and announced we were going to help have turned out to be an offshoot of the terrorist organizations that we've been fighting for years, or a group that is not really aligned with ISIS/ISIL/IS but manages to have a base right next door with zero shooting going on between the two camps. The funniest explanation I heard about that was that the various rebel factions had agreed to first, defeat Assad, and then decide who would run the country when he was dead. Nothing like a four or five way civil war to make you realize that things have pretty much gone to shit.

No, I am not saying that Assad is a persecuted guy who's done nothing wrong. My point then, and now is that there aren't any good guys in the fight. There are no reformers, no people with dreams of democracy and a government of the people etc. Everyone involved is an asshole who will persecute the people of Syria if they get half a chance. The people of Syria, like all people stuck in a warzone, want food, medicine, and the fighting to just fucking stop already.

My suggestion before, and it remains the same is this. Tell the Russians that we would like to chip in and help Assad. Yes, he's a brutal dictatorial thug. But he's a known element in a nation filled to the brim with people who dream of removing Assad and replacing him with themselves as the next brutal dictatorial thug. If that plan doesn't help you out, then tell the Russians to start shipping arms by ton and tell Assad we said hello and good luck.

Assad is a brutal dictatorial thug. But he's a known quantity. He held no special animus towards the United States before we tried to force him out. He's not likely to get over that anytime soon. Anyone we replace him with is going to make Pancho Villa look stable and sane by comparison. President Wilson thought that Villa was a good guy because he didn't drink. Sure he killed a lot of people but by comparison he doesn't seem so bad. Then we decided he was just too much trouble and we backed Carranza who we didn't like either. When everyone in the running for the top job is a bloodthirsty lunatic, you just pick one and run with it and hope that in a generation or two you get someone who is a little less of a lunatic.

[Bugenhagen]

5. Assad is a brute, but he's got the tiger by the tail.

He's in a precarious position where loss of control of Syria means death for him and probably a large proportion of his fellow Alawites and other minorities. The "resistance" hates him, they are numerous, and are full of fanatic Sunnis ala Muslim Brotherhood/ISIS. So sure, he's a monster, but he is in a desperate position and has been since he was born. The ISIS caliphate we seem to be going for in Syria won't be any better.

[leveymg]

7. Kerry was actively wooing Assad until early 2011 when the Petraeus-Clinton faction took control

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

over MENA policy, and regime change was brought simultaneously to Syria, along with Libya and Tunisia. The project was most aggressively led by covert operators on the ground from France and Qatar, to a lesser extent involving the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, UAE and Turkey in funding, coordination, propaganda and logistics and support. Ongoing programs run by CIA and State Dept. were ballooned, and there were a lot of meetings, but mostly we watched events unfold on the ground as third-force special forces units (mostly Qatari) led armed opposition in Libya and Syria. In March 2011, President Obama signed a classified "finding" coordinating efforts with Qatar and several other countries to overthrow Qaddafi. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 A similar directive was signed ordering similar covert operations in Syria.

In April, 2011, Chris Stevens arrived in Eastern Libya where he took a lead role in organizing opposition militia. At the time of Stevens death on September 12, 2012, Ghadaffi had been killed the previous October after retreating to his tribal homeland in Sirte, and the Libyan army had dissolved. Opposition militia were in charge of the rest of the country and arms stocks. By that stage, there was an active pipeline set up for Islamic fighters and looted Libyan heavy arms -- along with shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles (MANPADs) -- flowing into Syria by way of Turkey. That movement of MANPADs was first confirmed in a Times of London article published two days after the attack on the US compound in Benghazi. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/28/1137620/-Times-of-London-Shipload-of-Looted-Missiles-From-Libya-Arrives-in-Turkey#

The death of Stevens and the spread across the region of heavy arms and Jihadist Libyan fighters armed and trained by Qataris using Saudi and Gulf money forced President Obama to reconsider the policy. CIA Director Petraeus, who was confirmed in September 2011 to succeed Leon Panetta, resisted winding down the operation. In a showdown White House meeting the following October, Petraeus was supported by Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Panetta. Obama's decision to wind down what has been referred to as "Operation Zero Footprint" came after discussions with national security advisor Tom Donilon. The rift within the Administration was first made public during Senate hearings the following February. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0 Petraeus' ongoing affair with his biographer was exposed, and Secretary Clinton's resignation graciously accepted after the Inauguration. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Octafish]

8. Reads like 'Seven Days in May'

Except the love letters were put in play.

Thank you for the report, leveymg.

[leveymg]

9. Has anyone ever determined the date of the Syria finding? That has remained under wraps.

All the reports I've read state that Obama's signature was months prior to the public announcement on August 1, 2012. Why such a detail remains classified has not been explained, except that if it was done close to the Libya covert action directive would indicate a degree of coordination between the two operations that belies the official narrative, indicating instead a two-track or multi-track CIA and State Dept. destabilization program across MENA.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. Thank you. Good stuff. n/t

[Bugenhagen]

4. I am starting to think that that was the plan.

Perpetual war for perpetual profits.

[Scuba]

6. Does the CIA ever learn? Oh yeah, they learn all right. Endless war is their goal.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Little bits but this close to their version of perfection nobody is looking to reinvent the wheel

Plus, there are no mistakes only opportunities. The only real mistake for them is something that carries the potential to reduce budgets and they don't make that kind apparently.

You aren't saying you think the outcomes are significantly off from intent are you?

[AngryAmish]

12. At this time, it is easy to determine what the us will do next in the region

If it stupid and will get a lot of people killed then the US will do it. Posters above have laid out why.

Quite frankly our universities have failed to educate the current generation of leadership. The intellectual fashion of "Orientalism" is dominant. No one has informed our leaders of the real nature of things. That part of the world has been awful at least since Hulagu showed up. We can't change it, we should not tey and we should leave them to soil their own nest.

In fact, some members of the military and cia want this current conflict to be Islam's Thirty Uears War, from which an arab enlightenment will follow. Again, stupid.