When Foreign Policy magazine recently claimed, “Turkey Goes to War,” in their article of the same title, what they really meant was “the US goes to war.” That is because the lengthy plan they described in their article is not of the Turks’ creation, but a long-standing US plan committed to policy papers since at least as early as 2012.
The article claims:
Both the United States and Turkey agree that the Islamic State should be driven from its territory along the Turkish border, though U.S. officials only speak of an “ISIL-free zone” while Turkish officials describe a vision for a “de facto safe zone” where displaced Syrians could find refuge from both regime and jihadi attacks.
However, these “safe zones” are precisely what US policy think tank the Brookings Institution has conspired to create over the entire course of the Syrian conflict, under different pretexts – first predicated on feigned “humanitarian” concern similar to the ruse used to justify NATO’s war on Libya in 2011, and now using the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) as a pretext.
Brookings’ 2012 Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change” would state:
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.”
Clearly, while the justification for Western meddling constantly shifts with the political winds, the underlying plan to divide, destroy, incrementally invade, occupy, and eventually overrun Syria remains.
In reality the latest pretext, ISIS, was created and to this day perpetuated by US, Saudi, Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish support. ISIS is incapable of sourcing the weapons, cash, and fighters within Syria and Iraq alone, and admittedly receives the vast majority of all three from abroad. In Turkey alone, hundreds of trucks a day pass by Turkish border checkpoints destined for ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq. So overt are these supply convoys that a Deutsche Welle’s camera crew spent a day filming them and interviewing locals describing the daily torrent feeding state-sponsored terrorism just across the border in northern Syria.
Likewise, reports from Israel’s own Haaretz newspaper admitted that the Israeli Defense Force was rendering aid to Al Qaeda’s al Nusra Front, long listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization and having cooperated openly with ISIS in the past. The report titled, “Israel halts medical treatment for members of Syria’s Nusra Front,” admitted that:
A senior Israel Defense Forces officer revealed Monday that Israel has stopped treating members of an extremist Syrian rebel group wounded in that country’s ongoing civil war. The policy change concerning the Al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front was made about six weeks ago.
According to the officer, a number of injured Nusra Front fighters had received medical treatment in Israel.
Growing complaints from Israel’s Druze community prompted the public statement which proves that Israel, like Turkey to Syria’s north, is providing material support for Al Qaeda terrorists – the very terrorists the West and its regional allies are attempting to use as a pretext to yet further escalate the Syrian conflict.
If Turkey Really Wanted to Stop ISIS…
Were Turkey serious about ending the ISIS menace, its first order of business should be to stop harboring their fighters in their territory. Stricter measures along Turkey’s borders would be implemented to prevent new fighters from streaming into Syria and joining ISIS’ ranks, and the endless torrent of supplies flowing into ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq, apparently through NATO-member Turkey’s territory, would also be interdicted immediately.
One may notice that Turkey is the virtual port-of-call for all fighters from across the world seeking to join ISIS – whether they are Uyghur terrorists the US and Turkey are trafficking from China, or patsies recruited by Western intelligence services across North America and Europe sent to and from Turkey before carrying out spectacular terrorist attacks back home. In fact, it was to Turkey that one of several of the French Charlie Hebdo shooting suspects attempted to flee in an attempt to rejoin ISIS fighters in Syria.
For years now, these options were clearly on the table and at any point Turkey could have exercised them. But Turkey has not. That is because eliminating ISIS is not the objective of this most recent attempt to militarily intervene in Syria, rather the objective is to carve out “safe zones” as described by US policymakers in 2012, from which to topple the Syrian government.
Turkey has no intention of “stopping ISIS.” There are no “moderate” fighters Turkey has to back in its alleged, upcoming military operation. It will carve out Syrian territory in a de facto invasion, and push the front closer to Damascus in a desperate bid to once again shake the resolve of both the Syrian people, and the Syrian Arab Army. It also seeks to shatter the resolve of Syria’s allies who have thus far stood with Damascus. By threatening to carve out Syrian territory in a de facto invasion under the pretense of “fighting ISIS,” when in all reality ISIS will simply be provided with NATO aircover to further build its otherwise inexplicable fighting capacity, NATO hopes to force concessions from Syria’s allies to salvage what would be left after the operation concluded.
The US and Turkey’s planned invasion of northern Syria is a power move born of a frustrated, stalled conspiracy to topple the Syrian government in quick succession after the fall of Libya’s government in 2011. A well-calculated power move by Syria’s allies is in order to counter it.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
”
Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change” NYTimes March/2015
“The prolonged and devastating drought that sparked the mass migration of rural workers into Syrian cities before the 2011 uprising was probably made worse by greenhouse gas emissions, US scientists say.
The study is one of the first to implicate global warming from human activities as one of the factors that played into the Syrian conflict…..“We’re not arguing that the drought, or even human-induced climate change, caused the uprising,” said Colin Kelley at the University of California in Santa Barbara. “What we are saying is that the long term trend, of less rainfall and warmer temperatures in the region, was a contributing factor, because it made the drought so much more severe.”
From 2006, the Fertile Crescent, where farming was born 12,000 years ago, faced the worst three year drought in the instrumental record.” the Guardian March 2015
Tony’s article is a brilliant analysis but sadly, he thinks global warming is a hoax, meaning that 99.9% of the world’s climate scientists are frauds. The lesson is that as climate change creates extreme droughts, flooding (melting of 90% of world’s glaciers), etc) it exacerbates the extreme reactions to such crises.
The worst migrations ever in the history of Middle East have been caused by bombing Libya – millions of black Abricans worked in Gaddhafi’s land. Libya was a factor of stability. Now, those people have to move to Europe searching jobs and better life – this is a humanitarian catastrophe.
People from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria are fleeing war too! This is a migration to Europe
Stop manipulation – paid troll! Google: gift economy and start planting FREE fruit-trees, veges … google: guerrilla gardening and help people turn the planet into a FREE GARDEN where no one can be sold/baught for a salary
If I am a paid troll (a deliberate but hilarious lie, of course), so are you, because I agree with you about about the criminal bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq,Libya, and Syria.
I already have fruit trees and veggies growing…have done so for most of my life. Even now in the redwoods, my apples and nectarines are thriving, due to the warming since I moved here 24 years ago. Extreme weather exacerbating social divisions can lead to wars, humanitarian catstrophes. In the future, many areas will lose their water sources (due to glacial melting running its course) and that will lead to more wars, conflicts, etc.
The efforts to mitigate global warming and resist Western militarism must be fought against the same forces, the fossil fuel oligarchies which promote wars which they fuel, which promote wars in oil rich nations to take control of the resources, and which went after Afghanistan on the heels of a 600 billion pipeline deal that went sour. All these factors are interconnected. 9/11 was funded by oil, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed by oil oligarchs, Condi Rice was negotiating with the Taliban, Bush and Cheney were oilmen………………..and the anti-global warming propaganda campaign is funded by the oil industry, which has known about it since the 80’s.
It’s the same struggle to end the power of the transnational, energy corporations,banks,and weapons makers,promoting war and blocking control of fossil fuel pollution and emissions…….
You know I am not a paid troll…….why do you substitute libel with understanding?
Your comment is a classic non sequitur.
Iraq – Afghanistan- Yugoslavia – Libya – Yemen – Ukraina – Syria… how many wars more?
Are Americans not tired of throwing the bombs all around?
Is there any one who could say STOP WARS – STOP KILLING – STOP SOVEREIGNTY NON-RESPECT
I note that gifteconomy has edited his post to removed his libelous lie that I am a paid troll. It would have been decent of him to accompany his edit with an apology. In my original post, I pointed out the commonality between the neo-con war mongers and the forces funding anti-global warming propaganda. Today, I found an article detailing this link, since those who profit from war are the banks, which fund wars , the energy cartels which fuel it (and gain access to new sources in oil wars), the weapons makers, and all industries which profit from human catastrophes.
“9 Industries That Are Cashing In as Our Planet Heats Up
”
Big Oil, Monsanto and Wall Street are all cashing in on climate change.
By Larry Schwartz / AlterNet
I would add to the list detailed at Alternet, the weapons makers who profit from wars, which are exacerbated by crisis. Here is an example of climate change crisis which leads to war.
“U.S. News.com
Study: Climate Change Could Put Millions More at Risk of Water Scarcity
Water scarcity will be amplified 40 percent by climate change, study says.”
Wikipedia reports: “A comprehensive online database of water-related conflicts—the Water Conflict Chronology—has been developed by the Pacific Institute. This database lists violence over water going back nearly 5,000 years.
Recent humanitarian catastrophes, such as the Rwandan Genocide or thewar in Sudanese Darfur, have been linked back to water conflicts.
For example, the Middle East has only 1% of the world’s freshwater shared among 5% of the world’s population.[29] Intrastate conflicts take place between two of more parties in the same country. An example would be the conflicts between farmers and industry (agricultural vs industrial use of water).
According to UNESCO, the current interstate conflicts occur mainly in the Middle East (disputes stemming from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq; and the Jordan River conflict among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the State of Palestine), in Africa (Nile River-related conflicts among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan),[2] as well as in Central Asia (the Aral Seaconflict among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan).
Some analysts estimate that due to an increase in human consumption of water resources, water conflicts will become increasingly common in the near future.”
On the notion of climate change, I would say that “war” is the elephant in the room and the major if not A major factor in creating climate change. From the manufacturing and deployment of weapons that destroy infrastructures around the globe, surely that has a devastating impact on the climate. I seldom if ever hear any reports about the devastating impact of war on the environment as if we live in a vacuum where the destruction of another’s infrastructure has no bearing on our own, as we live safely away from the bombs.
But what about the materials used in these bombs and munitions? Depleted Uranium, mini nukes, TNT, etc…. What about the mass graves? What about the impact on the wild life and natural habitat of these countries, what about the lakes and streams and rivers that are polluted by the refuse of war’s destruction. What about the psychological damage that occurs as people now have to scurry, scavenge and die from lack of proper nutrition and health care? Why aren’t these questions and others related being brought up at the UN or any of these other so called Committees of G8+ whatever?
How can we talk about climate change in one breath and ignore the impact of destroying the environment on the other?