conflict zones, empire watch, ISIS, latest, media watch, Middle East, NATO, Propaganda, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, USA
Comments 17

U.S. May Be Salvaging Victory for Jihadists in Syria: How & Why

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

According to Britain’s Telegraph, in a recent report, the U.S. Tow antitank missiles that U.S. President Barack Obama sent in October to the Islamic Sunni fighters in Syria to use against the forces of the non-sectarian Shiite ruler there, Bashar al-Assad, have been so effective against Russia’s forces that Assad had invited in, that Russia — defending (upon Syria’s legal request) President Assad’s forces, and attacking the jihadists imported into Syria by the Saudis and the rest of the West — is now being forced to send into the battle Russia’s costly T-90 tanks, which are less vulnerable to America’s missiles. “The deployment of the T-90s appears to reflect Moscow’s frustration at this failure [‘getting sucked into a costly and possibly lengthy fight’], as well as concern over the damage inflicted by the rebels’ anti-tank missiles, themselves supplied by the regime’s arch-rivals in the Gulf states [specifically Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait] and Turkey.” All of those invading nations (other than the United States) are controlled by Sunni aristocrats, supporters and enforcers of Sharia Law, who (backed up by the U.S.) intend to take over and control the existing non-secular government of Syria, which is run by Bashar al-Assad, and impose Sharia Law.

The Telegraph, as a propaganda-medium for the British aristocracy, which aristocracy is allied like a “lap-dog” with the U.S. aristocracy, doesn’t so much as even mention the U.S. nor its Tow missiles that were sent into Syria through Turkey, precisely in order to protect their terrorists against the Russian-Syrian forces. Those U.S.-made missiles were purchased and now owned by “the Gulf states” — specifically, by the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait — all of which fund the terrorists (for examples, see this and this). However, the Telegraph  article does prominently make note that, “Deployment of T-90 tanks is [the] latest sign that [the] Kremlin is being forced to escalate its intervention from an air to a ground war.”

The cost of a Tow antitank missile is only $180,000. The cost of a T-90 tank is $4.5M, which is 25 times as much. This is therefore a battlefield strategy designed to bleed Russia’s economy to death.  That’s how Obama intends now to conquer Russia, on the battlefields of Syria — to use Syria against Russia, in the same way that ‘we’ had used Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.  And the man speaking there, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is a longtime personal friend and advisor of Obama.  The identical strategy is being repeated, but this time without the ideological gloss of a conflict between communism and capitalism.  It’s just raw conquest the U.S. aristocracy want, and are determined to get.  The jihadist Sunni aristocracies work hand-in-glove with America’s — and, incidentally, buy their U.S. weapons, such as here and here.  Add in America’s NATO alliance, and it’s an awesome combination they’re using against Russia.  The strategy and weapons come mainly from America; the money comes mainly from the Saud family. But none of this is even mentioned in the Telegraph’s  piece.

This propaganda-article in the Telegraph  then goes on subtly to blame Syria’s anti-jihadist President, Assad, for the jihadists who are trying to overthrow him: “Experts say the Russian intervention is prolonging a conflict that has already claimed the lives of more than a quarter of a million Syrians, causing millions to flee abroad as world world powers pile in to join an escalating civil war.” In other words, according to the Telegraph:  if only Russia hadn’t, on 30 September 2015, joined the battle against the jihadists who have been sent by the U.S. and the Sunni aristocrats, into Syria, then the EU wouldn’t be flooded with refugees from Syria, which refugees had actually already been flooding in long before Russia even started its bombing on September 30th.

That article in the Telegraph  is thus a superb example of really professional propaganda, which skillfully exploits its readers’ stupidity and cultural (here, basically pro-American) biases or prejudices: it reverses the blame onto the actual victim (the non-sectarian leaders of Syria), and hides the actual guilty parties (which support the Telegraph, and buy ads in it for their companies). Furthermore, the Telegraph  article implies (without providing any evidence at all) that the victim of the U.S. alliance’s invasion of Syria, the anti-jihadist Syrian President and his forces, is instead the victimizer, and the source of America’s (illegal — which they ignore) invasion there. (Of course, a reader has to be stupid to fall for any of that, but PR is always exploiting people’s stupidity — that’s what it does, and that’s how it works, and how it’s designed to work.)

In a journalism class, I would thus cite this article in the Telegraph  as an example of how sophisticated the propaganda operation by the West is against Russia and its allies. ‘Journalism’ students (especially ones who aim to work for financially well-endowed ‘news’ media) need to know how to do this, because it’s what they’ll be paid to do, once they get out into the world of ‘journalism,’ to ‘earn’ a living (actually, serve the aristocrats). Informally, this is called simply “pleasing the clients.” Military contractors are increasingly important clients, and they do especially well in such ‘news’ media — but they’re not the only  ones who do. For example, the corporations who want to control vital natural resources also do, and Russia is the world’s most resource-rich nation. (And, even the World Bank acknowledges the “natural resource curse,” though without mentioning it, and though ignoring that its basis is the threat and reality of invasions by foreign aristocracies — such as America’s — something that’s unmentionable by an institution which, like the World Bank, is indirectly financed largely by such invasions.)

The propaganda-function isn’t merely in the press; it’s also in academia, and throughout the aristocracy itself — which funds both the press, and academia.

As is usually the case when reading ‘news,’ this article in the Telegraph  is far more reliable, and informative, in what it reveals behind  its lines, than on  its lines. And what it reveals behind its lines is the way the world works.

Putting it all together, in this manner: America’s salvaging victory for the jihadists in Syria makes brilliant sense. But it’s not what’s on  the lines that Western ‘news’ media report. It’s only behind  the lines, where the real sense is found.

On December 15th, representatives of all of the many jihadist groups that comprise the Western coalition to defeat Assad and Russia were to be meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the Saud family was to select (with U.S. advice and consent) which of the terrorist groups are ‘moderates’ and will thus be supported by the West to take over Syria. The meeting fell apart even before it started. The Sauds’ demands, however, were clear: On December 10th, UPI headlined from Riyadh, “Saudi Arabia: Assad Must Resign Or Be Forcibly Removed For Peace Success.” Such are the West’s ‘democratic’ allies. They refuse to allow what Assad and Putin have been insisting upon: a Syrian Presidential election that will be internationally monitored, and not concluded unless and until the international monitors announce that the results were not produced by fraud. The reason that the West refuses a democratic determination of the matter is that even the polling that has been done in Syria by Western polling firms consistently shows that Assad would win any democratic election in Syria overwhelmingly. And the reason why Assad would win is obvious: the U.S fostered this war at least from the moment that Barack Obama became America’s President, and most Syrians blame the U.S. and ISIS, not Assad, for their misery. And so, they loathe America. They know that America leads this invasion, from behind the scenes.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was asked about Syria’s war, in an interview published Saturday December 12th in Munich’s Evening Times, and she said:

The International Alliance against the Islamic State does not include Assad and his troops. Let us not forget that the majority of refugees who have come to us are fleeing Assad. He throws still more barrel bombs on his own [jihadist] people [so she implies let’s protect them!]. He must not remain as the head of state there. We still need to speak to all groups in Syria together, for a political solution to the conflict.

The obedient interviewer asked no follow-up questions of her lies. The Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. ‘international alliance’ she was referring to, fighting to replace Assad with an anti-Russian stooge, does not include Assad and his troops, who have been fighting against the Islamic State since 2011; but, clearly, it does include Merkel’s German government, whose own population is now rebelling against the refugees from America’s Middle Eastern invasions into Syria and Libya. Instead of Europeans blaming America, the European stooges such as Merkel are blaming Assad, for this war that the U.S. has been fomenting since 2009. When she says most of the refugees are “fleeing Assad” instead of fleeing her own alliance (which is largely Islamist itself), she simply lies. And when she insists upon “a political solution to the conflict,” she is simply insisting that Assad must be forced out and be excluded from being a candidate in any ‘democratic’ election, because she knows he’d win it.

She also asserted: “We extend our military mission against the Islamic State now legitimized by international law by Iraq on Syria.”  However, that too is a lie: Germany is instead joining America’s illegal invasion of both countries. Russia had been invited in; the U.S. and its allies are instead invading the sovereign territory both of Syria and of Iraq — but especially of Syria, which never authorized America’s invasion (see this and this and this and this and this — it’s all a U.S. invasion).

Isn’t today’s ‘Western democracy’ a marvelous thing? It’s such a modern form of dictatorship. And, sometimes, even major international figures acknowledge that that’s what it is. But, of course, the press in a dictatorship (with few and tiny exceptions such as here) hides such realities. So, maybe pass this around to all your friends. Let them in on the secret, too. Maybe it’s not the most that a reader of this can do, but it’s the least — and shouldn’t it be done? Or: how  should one respond to this knowledge?

After all: this could be the build-up to a nuclear war, between ‘the West’ and Russia. Shouldn’t people who live in the West (not only  in Russia) know that?

And it’s all for what? For whose benefit? Is that fair? Is that good? Is that even tolerable?


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

17 Comments

  1. James Cole says

    During the American wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, each over a decade long with US ground troops and armor fully engaged, the US forces faced Anti tank Guided Missiles only on a few occasions, early on. Russia, made a concerted effort to present the sale or leaking of any of Russia’s far superior ATGM like Kornet. Russian missile kill armor better, are much lighter, and have superior targeting. Due to Russian efforts, thousands of American troops were spared death, and hundreds of tanks were not knocked out.
    Russia played the role of a sane actor, keeping these missiles out of the arms markets.
    Today, we have the USA acting in just the opposite manner, they could not wait to flood the battlefield with TOWS. ISIS loves to make TOW videos.
    Deadly they are. But the Donetsk Army has fought successfully on a battlefield against the much better Kornet. And the Syrian battlefield can be coped with as well. It just is harder. Air Power must degrade and then infantry move forward with the armor at long range provided direct fire support. This tactic developed in WWII. The Syrians know how to fight with TOW’s on the battlefield. And the Russian’s even more so.
    The T-90 carries an anti ATGM system, and will reduce armor losses. But don’t think TOW is a game changer. It is not. ISIS and friends are being pushed back slowly, with the right type of attack tactics.
    It is just a western dream and hope, that their great TOW missile will defeat Russia and Syria. It will not.
    And worse! Next time the USA invades a nation, will Russia do all in it’s power to stop modern ATGM from leaking into the defending forces?

    Like

  2. Mick McNulty says

    The dynamics of this conflict must surely be different from the proxy wars of the past and so must unfold differently. Then it was the US military fighting Russia’s proxies Korea and Vietnam whereas now it is Russia’s military fighting US proxies. Perhaps the only consistency is the inability of the US to win wars even though it started every one of them. The problem is rather than being seen to lose against Russia the US would rather scorch the earth so everyone loses.

    Like

  3. The Joohadis are being run and funded by the Zionist powers. Israel, US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.

    Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

    The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

    The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an &ldquoaffront to justice&rdquo when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing &ldquoextensive support&rdquo to the armed Syrian opposition.

    That didn&rsquot only include the &ldquonon-lethal assistance&rdquo boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of &ldquoarms on a massive scale&rdquo. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a &ldquorat line&rdquo of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

    Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?CMP=twt_commentisfree-gdnopinion

    Like

  4. Bernard says

    The outcome of the Syrian war does not turn on the use of a particular weapon. There are tactical military measures capable of dealing with TOW missiles or any other asset used by the terrorists, and those measures are being implemented. At the strategic level, the Russian intervention is a game changer, very likely decisive.

    Like

    • The NATO mercenaries in Syria may be putting up stiff resistance (which nobody denies) but they are still losing. Which is precisely why NATO has been looking to escalate its war on Russia on all sorts of way, other than increased provisions of TOW missiles.

      Like

    • I hope so! But without your citing convincing evidence — and you cited no evidence (not even unconvincing evidence) — your opinion is entirely unpersuasive. Please cite the best evidence you have on this. Use either phrases to web-search between quotation-marks, or else cite specific URLs, but please cite your evidence, so that intelligent readers can tell whether what you said is poorly informed, or instead well-informed..

      Like

      • The NATO mercenaries have lost ground on all fronts. Nothing spectacular, but they are definitely on the back-foot (before the Russian intervention they scored some major victories, especially in taking over Idlib and Palmyra) They have also been evicted from Homs (the city where the “revolution” started)

        There are many sources on the internet that confirm this. The best commentator (on the Middle East in general) is Elijah J. Magnier. Another good source for the Syrian war, is http://www.almasdarnews.com/

        There are also many other sources.

        But let me tell you the main reason why I claim that the NATO-mercenaries in Syria are losing. Since the Russian intervention commenced (with a rather small number of planes and even smaller number of helicopters) we have seen western commentators panicking, people such as McCain/Fiorina/Cotton/Lucas/assorted “think-tanks” losing their shit, and above all else, we have seen NATO-GCC extremely eager to escalate in a variety of ways. The downing of both the Russian airliner and the Su-24, the much increased provision of TOWs, the Paris false flag, the scrambling of massive NATO forces in the region, the Turkish invasion of Iraq etc etc etc. All this is unmistakable evidence that the entire NATO-GCC empire cannot just relax and let Russia exhaust herself in Syria. In fact, we see an extreme urgency of setting into motion a vast machinery of counter-attacks on all fronts. Good enough?

        Like

          • Barish says

            At this point in time, I wouldn’t put much of any weight on those two particular sites. Remember that Bloomberg, for example, eagerly picked up the hoax-ical “crematorium”-story on East Ukraine.

            The “empire” is reeling, otherwise its “perception management” wouldn’t be screeching so shrilly. And while I know that one needs to be very much an optimist to state such, I would not be too surprised if the stepped up “perception management” merely serves as cover to, somewhat, gently lead out of this stand-off, even though the ones doing it might not be aware.

            Like

            • Yes, Bloomberg is conservative, and, like any conservative site they are sloppy with facts; but, clearly, “Many senior officials in Moscow underestimated how long the operation in support of Bashar al-Assad would take when Putin entered Syria’s civil war on Sept. 30.” Clearly, Russia entered the conflict under false understanding of what it was entering. If that’s not disturbing, nothing can be.

              Regarding Politico, they’re even worse. For example, their article cites as an authority the Institute for the Study of War. That was founded by Kimberly Kagan, married to Frederick Kagan, the brother of Robert Kagan, who is married to Victoria Nuland — all of whom championed invading Iraq as well as every other invasion and coup to conquer Russia.

              The thing that disturbs me is that Russian intelligence goofed big-time on this. That incontestable reality means that the likelihood of all optimistic outcomes plunges.

              Like

  5. Yonatan says

    The T-90s, all 9 of them, are quite old 1990s verisons, on their way to the metaphorical scrap yard. The $4.5 million figure exists only in the head of propagandists. Like all the old bombs Russsia has been using, it is probably cheaper and more cost effective for them to be used and disposed of (in case of the bombs) in Syria rather left to rot or be safely disposed of in Russia.

    The argument is also retrospective projection as TOWs have been used long before the arrival of Russia support.

    Like

    • I agree with you. The TOWs are indeed the most formidable and effective weapon that the NATO mercenaries in Syria possess, without it, they would have been defeated long ago. But on its own, it is not enough to save the NATO mercenary death-squads from ultimate defeat. It has been long in use and can be defeated, albeit with difficulty. As for bleeding Russia economically, well this has always been the policy of the West, ALWAYS.

      There are still lots of twists and turns in this First Global Hybrid War.

      Like

      • “As for bleeding Russia economically, well this has always been the policy of the West, ALWAYS.”:

        It succeeded in the 1980s to bring down and break up the Soviet Union. Why would it not succeed this time?

        Like

        • The policy succeeded in the 1980s because the Soviet Union was exhausted and hamstrung by its economic system and ideology which were not responsive enough to its people’s needs and which lacked proper transparency and accountability to the government and the public. People had very little loyalty to the Soviet leadership. Also the USSR was stuck in a grinding war in Afghanistan which was being fed by the CIA aiding the mujahideen, and this was draining the country.

          Thirty years later, Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union. It does not need to prop up satellite states in eastern Europe or central Asia. The Russian government commands more respect and loyalty from Russian Federation citizens. If the majority of people are loyal to Moscow now, they are more likely to support government initiatives in stimulating Russian agriculture and industry in the face of US and EU economic sanctions against the country. (Look at the level of support Bashar al Assad has from Syrians and compare Syria’s steadfastness against ISIS, the US and Turkey against Iraq and Libya when those countries were attacked by the US.) There is perhaps still a lot of corruption within the Kremlin and Russian public institutions, and RF citizens may still be dissatisfied with most of their politicians but Putin is riding on popularity ratings of over 80% and that in itself indicates public trust in his leadership.

          In the 1980s, the US was still wealthy and could afford to fling money at bleeding the Soviet Union dry. These days the US is in a much poorer state and is bereft of ideas. The Russians also have the benefit of hindsight and can dodge US attempts to break up Russia – whatever the Americans try, Russia has seen it all before. The way in which Russia is assisting Syria against jihadis is not the same as in Afghanistan 30 years ago; the Russian intervention in Syria is limited to airstrikes, it has clear aims, and it also involves cooperating with the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces, all of them battle-hardened.

          The style of total warfare the US wages against Russia may be the same but the participants and the playing field are now very different. The mistake the US may be making is assuming that Russia is the same country as the Soviet Union was 30 years ago or even 20 years ago.

          Like

          • Jen, that answers the question superbly. Maybe you should be submitting articles of your own here. (But, if you do that, you should embed links to your sources that are available on the Internet. That’s what makes getting the new online a hell of a lot better than getting it merely in print.)

            Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s