Obama’s Gun-running Operation


Obama’s Gun-running Operation

If you thought the Isis war couldn’t get any worse, just wait for more of the CIA
Even America’s top spies know that arming rebels is ‘doomed to failure’ – but that can’t stop Obama’s gun-running operation

By Trevor Timm

Information on secret weapons already flowing into Syria has been kept in hiding from most of the people who approved paying for them. Photograph: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty

Information on secret weapons already flowing into Syria has been kept in hiding from most of the people who approved paying for them. Photograph: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty

As the war against the Islamic State in Syria has fallen into even more chaospartially due to the United States government’s increasing involvement there – the White House’s bright new idea seems to be to ramping up the involvement of the intelligence agency that is notorious for making bad situations worse. As the Washington Post reported late Friday, “The Obama administration has been weighing plans to escalate the CIA’s role in arming and training fighters in Syria, a move aimed at accelerating covert U.S. support to moderate rebel factions while the Pentagon is preparing to establish its own training bases.”

Put aside for a minute that the Central Intelligence Agency has been secretly arming Syrian rebels with automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and antitank weapons since at least 2012 – and with almost nothing to show for it. Somehow the Post neglected to cite a front-page New York Times article from just one month ago alerting the public to the existence of a still-classified internal CIA study admitting that arming rebels with weapons has rarely – if ever – worked:

As the Times’ Mark Mazzetti reported:

‘One of the things that Obama wanted to know was: Did this ever work?’ said one former senior administration official who participated in the debate and spoke anonymously because he was discussing a classified report. The C.I.A. report, he said, ‘was pretty dour in its conclusions.’

The Times cited the most well-known of CIA failures, including the botched Bay of Pigs invasion and the arming of the Nicaraguan contra rebels that led to the disastrous Iran-Contra scandal. Even the agency’s most successful mission – slowly bleeding out the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s by arming the mujahideen – paved the way for the worst terrorist attack on the US in its history.

But as anyone who has read journalist Tim Weiner’s comprehensive and engrossing history of the CIA knows, the agency’s past is a graveyard rife with literally dozens of catastrophic failures involving covert weapons deals to countless war criminals and con artists in an attempt to overthrow governments all over the world. Not only has the CIA failed repeatedly, but oftentimes its plan has completely backfired, solidifying the very power of the actor it sought to remove and leaving the people the agency claimed to be helping in a much, much worse-off spot than before the CIA gun-running mission began.

We’ve already seen Syrian fortunes turn for the worse as the US has stepped up involvement in the past few months, as Bashar al-Assad has gone on the offensive against the US-backed rebels, and as the US airstrikes have reportedly led to Isis and al-Qaida reuniting, after being sworn enemies for more than a year. The two terrorist groups then proceeded to route the “moderate” rebels in combat and are currently in possession of many of the US-made weapons previously owned by the rebels.

Two months ago, the US Congress voted to send hundreds of millions of dollars in more arms to Syria. Even the politicians voting on sending countless more US weapons into the middle of a civil war were kept in the dark about the CIA’s internal report. That should be a scandal, right up there with the torture report the CIA is trying to keep secret, too.

But at least a few in-the-know elected officials were aware of the dangers of insanity of Congress’ Syria vote. The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim and Sam Stein quoted an unnamed Democratic Congressman in September who was even more blunt, insisting that the CIA’s belief in arming rebels was “doomed to failure”:

‘I have heard it expressed, outside of classified contexts, that what you heard from your intelligence sources is correct, because the CIA regards the effort as doomed to failure,’ the congressman said in an email. ‘Specifically (again without referring to classified information), the CIA thinks that it is impossible to train and equip a force of pro-Western Syrian nationals that can fight and defeat Assad, al-Nusra and ISIS, regardless of whatever air support that force may receive.’

The unnamed Congressman added: “The CIA also believes that its previous assignment to accomplish this was basically a fool’s errand, and they are well aware of the fact that many of the arms that they provided ended up in the wrong hands.”

But the information on the secret weapons that were already flowing into Syria has been kept in hiding from most of Congress. John Kerry refused to answer any questions about the CIA’s activities in Syria when asked by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite the news of the agency’s involvement in Syria being on the front page of newspapers for years. “I hate to do this,” he said. “But I can’t confirm or deny whatever that’s been written about and I can’t really go into any kind of possible program.

Perhaps the most shocking part is that we know Barack Obama himself has read the CIA study and knows that arming rebels in Syria – or anywhere – was an incredibly dangerous idea. Seemingly referencing the study, Obama told David Remnick of the New Yorker earlier this year:

Very early in this process, I actually asked the C.I.A. to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn’t come up with much.

So even though the CIA “couldn’t come up with much” proof of any time when sending tons of weapons into a war zone full of extremists has worked in the past, or that the agency itself has told Congressmen arming the rebels was “doomed to failure,” the Obama administration is ready to do just that.

No one doubts that Isis is a horrific terrorist group that’s terrible for the entire Middle East – as it proved over the weekend by barbarically beheading another innocent aid worker – but further entrenching the CIA and its weapons into an already awful situation can really only make things worse. Much worse.

© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

 

About these ads

The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya


The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya

 

Democrats and Republicans Are Both Missing the Big Picture On Benghazi and Libya

Democrats and Republicans have very different views about Benghazi, Libya.

The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya 070514ben

Image: Clinton & Obama (YouTube).

Republicans say the Obama administration is to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens – and have created a special committee to investigate Benghazi – while Democrats by and large say that the is nothing but politics.

The truth is bigger than either side is admitting …

First, Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam under Nixon and the torture scandal under Bush – says that Benghazi was really a CIA outpost for running weapons capture from Libya after Gaddaffi was overthrown into Syria … approved on a bipartisan basis by both Democrats and Republicans.

Second, it has been confirmed that the U.S. backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya so that they would overthrow Gaddaffi.

Third, as we noted right after Gaddaffi fell, the Obama administration’s stated reason for going into Libya makes no sense. Now, RAND Corporation political scientists theorize that Obama might have decided to bomb Libya – not for any reason having to do with Libya or Gaddaffi themselves – but rather “to keep the Arab Spring going“.

The U.S. ousted Gaddaffi and then left, and Libya has now descended into chaos.

The Washington Post argues that America fighting the Libyan war is a bigger scandal than Benghazi itself:

Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.


The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

Fourth, the Libya war – just like the Iraq war – was illegal, as noted in the New York Times,Washington PostHuffington PostWashington TimesGuardianSalon, and elsewhere.

Those are four the deeper stories about Benghazi and Libya which neither the Democrats or Republicans are talking about …

source: washingtonsblog.com

Rothschild’s Saudi Lapdog Armed Syrian & Libyan Rebels


Rothschild’s Saudi Lapdog Armed Syrian & Libyan Rebels

BY 

14world

In a March 7, 2011 article in The Independent of London titled “America’s Secret Plan to Arm Libya’s Rebels”, journalist Robert Fisk reported that the Obama Administration had asked Saudi Arabia to arm the Libyan rebels.  The Saudis complied and later backed the same al Qaeda rebels in Syria.  The Saudis also invaded Bahrain to save the al-Khalifa monarchy.

The Saudis have played this role for the City of London banker cabal for nearly a century – part of a quid pro quo which involves oil, arms, drugs and covert operations.  (See my post, The Saudi Paymaster, or Chapter 3 of my book, Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

The Saudi throne has long served as anti-democratic bulwark in the region for the London/Wall Street bankers and their inbred royal European shareholder brethren.  It was all part of a plan hatched by the Rothschild-controlled Business Roundtable a century ago to seize control of Middle East oil.

The Rothschilds are majority owners of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Saudi central bank – Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA).

In 1917 the British made a client of Ibn Saud, who was told to encourage Arab tribesman to repel the Ottoman Turks from the Persian Gulf Region.  That same year the British House of Rothschild pushed through the Balfour Declaration, lending Crown support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  A year later the Ottomans were defeated.

Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were carved out of the Ottoman Empire and fell under British rule, with Ibn Saud taking control of his namesake – Saudi Arabia.  In 1922 the Treaty of Jeddah gave Saudi Arabia independence from Britain, though the Crown still exerted considerable influence.  To this day British mercenaries serve as bodyguards for the House of Saud.

During the 1920’s – with help from British troops – Ibn Saud grabbed more territory from the Ottomans.  He annexed Riyadh and seized the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites.

Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Texaco) found oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938.  The company formed ARAMCO with its Four Horsemen cartel buddies Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP.  The US and Britain signed security agreements with the House of Saud and Bechtel busied itself building ARAMCO’s oil infrastructure.

In 1952, on the heels of the US/Saudi Security Agreement, SAMA was created as the Saudi Central Bank.  By 1958 SAMA was run by Pakistani native Anwar Ali, later adviser to King Faisal.  Anwar had been Chief of the International Monetary Fund’s Middle East Department.

Ali recruited three Western bankers to serve as SAMA advisers.  Known as the Three Wise Men or White Fathers, these Western bankers called the shots at SAMA, with Ali serving as figurehead.  The most powerful of the three was John Meyer, Jr., chairman of Morgan Guaranty’s (now JP Morgan Chase) International Division and later chairman of the entire Morgan mother ship.

The White Fathers funneled SAMA petrodollar royalties into Morgan Guaranty accounts.  In turn Morgan served as well-paid investment counselor to SAMA.  Anwar Ali’s son even landed a job at Morgan Guaranty.  With billions in petrodollars flowing, the oil for arms quid pro quo was established.

Ibn Saud’s progeny form the modern-day House of Saud monarchy, which rules Saudi Arabia.  Less than twenty families connected to the throne control the Saudi economy.  The House of Saud spreads its influence through money and reproduction.  Male members of the Saud family now number over 5,000.

Crown Prince Abdullah – half-brother of King Fahd – runs the Saudi National Guard and has assumed day to day control of the Kingdom since King Fahd suffered a serious stroke in 1995.  Prince Sultan, Prince Nayef and Prince Salman are full brothers of King Fahd and serve as Ministers of Defense and Interior and Governor of Riyadh, respectively.  Prince Sultan’s son is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US.  Prince Bandar’s cousin, Prince Saud al-Faisal is the Saudi Foreign Minister.

These Saudi princes use the government agencies they run as personal piggy banks and represent foreign companies bidding for contracts in the Kingdom.  They handle trillions in overseas investments.  King Fahd is the second richest man in the world with a personal fortune of over $20 billion.

Prince Bandar is part of the Sudeiri clan which is comprised of the offspring of the late King Adbul Aziz and his favorite wife.  The Sudeiris are the most powerful and most Westernized family in the kingdom.  The House of Saud encourages a fundamentalist Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, but practitioners of Wahhabism in the Kingdom consider the Sudeiris munafaqeen (hypocrites).

While the Sudeiri clan lives in opulence, most Saudis struggle to put food on their tables.  The increasingly unpopular Sudeiris rule with an iron fist and are constantly cited by international human rights organizations for their brutality and opposition to democratic freedoms.

The Saudi monarchy rules by decree.  Women are not allowed to drive cars and are banned from many restaurants.  The Kingdom has no democratic institutions.  Opposition to the House of Saud is criminalized, driving political opponents underground.  In 1990 the Saudis beheaded 111 dissidents.

US corporations acquiesce in the Saudi oppression of women.  At Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Starbucks establishments in Saudi Arabia, there are segregated sections for men and women.  The women’s sections are run down.  Starbucks has no seating at all for women.  Women who show up at other Western restaurants without their husbands are turned away.

In January 2002 the US-based Freedom House released a survey which ranks countries in accordance with the freedoms they allow.  Saudi Arabia was ranked as one of the ten least free countries in the world.

Human Rights Watch recently accused the United States of ignoring Saudi human rights violations to ensure a continuous oil supply.

The US/NATO intervention in Libya is not about “freedom”.  It is about snuffing out a long-time nemesis of the House of Saud, the London & Paris-based Rothschilds and the neo-colonial international economic system which these financial parasites lord over at the expense of developing and resource-rich nations.

source: deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Israel Is A Racist State


Israel Is A Racist State

In this report, Joel Northam explores the question: What happens when you condense 500 years of conquest and colonial expansion into 65 years, possess the latest high tech weaponry, sprinkle a little bit of imperialist patronage of the United States to the tune of 30 billion dollars a year in military aid, possess a vast nuclear arsenal, and gift wrap it all in a nationalist ideology that would make every fascist dictatorial regime in history proud?

Isreal, Palestine, Apartheid, Isreal Apartheid, Occupied land, Racist, Occupied Palestine, Gaza, human rights, Racism, US Israel relations, African migrants, Jewish state, Zion, Zionism, Pillar of defense, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Uganda, Rwanda, South Korea, Popular Resistance, Resistance Report, Joel Northam, Acronym TV, Asher Platts,

The film that rocked Saudi Arabia


The film that rocked Saudi Arabia

 

The film that rocked Saudi Arabia, will be soon in Syrian theaters, “The King of the Sand”.

It is the title of the movie of the famous Syrian director Najdat Ismail Anzour. A sensational news because this film tells the story so far never approached of King Abdul Aziz A’al Saud, founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

According to the director Anzour “The film research the roots of the concept of terrorism that has spread throughout the world, and the Wahhabi ideology that has facilitated the spread of the groups of extremism and violence and their expansion around the world.”

King of The Sand Conference London Part 01, 02, 03