A Little Background: The U.S. Has Tried to Carry Out Regime Change Since Syria Became An Independent County …
The U.S. government has been trying to replace the Syrian government with folks who will be subservient to America since 1949 … 3 years after Syria became an independent nation.
The CIA succeeded in carrying out a coup in Syria 1949.
In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria using a false flag. (False flags are not only historically documented, but presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals, spooks, soldiers and police have ADMITTED to planning and carrying out false flat attacks).
In 1983, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2009 and 2012, American officials again schemed about regime change in Syria.
The 2013 Syrian Weapons Attack Was Carried Out By …
The 2013 sarin attack in Ghouta, Syria, was blamed by the U.S. on the Syrian government.
However, the United Nations’ report on the attack did NOT blame the government, and the U.N.’s human rights investigator accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack.
Moreover, high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government … to provide an excuse for regime change.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
As Hersh noted:
‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’
Indeed, it’s long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey.
And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a justification for war was leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic.
The 2017 Chemical Incident … Which “Justified” Trump’s Bombing Syria with 57 Cruise Missiles
The recent chemical incident was immediately blamed on the Syrian government. And the Trump administration immediately launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base based on the accusation.
But many of the American intelligence officials who warned that the claims about Iraq (which led to a disastrous war) were fake say that these claims are fake as well.
Indeed, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi says that American intelligence community insiders are furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And see this.
Indeed, the lead UN investigator into Syrian chemical weapons attacks has debunked one of the main allegations attempting to pin the recent chemical incident on the Syrian government.
But when the military-industrial folks want a war, do facts even matter?
Trump’s Foreign Policy After 100 Days: Tweeting with Bombs?
As US President Donald Trump prepares to mark 100 days in office, the administration’s foreign policy approach has become a painful disappointment to anyone with mildly optimistic expectations Washington would take a more realist approach to its role in the world.
In no time at all, Trump has strayed from the ‘America First’ rhetoric on the campaign trail and reversed course in a remarkable way. His decision to launch cruise missile strikes against Syria’s government on painfully a pretense, humiliatingly revealed to China’s leader over a piece of chocolate cake, is the picture of volatility.
Establishment pundits who had bogusly derided Trump as a Russian stooge christened him “presidential.” Buoyed by this bipartisan support for militarism, the Pentagon dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in a distant corner of Afghanistan, likely without Trump’s direct approval as part of his policy of giving the military a freer hand to act.
Far from “isolationism” or a realist repositioning of American foreign policy, Trump represents the continuity of endless warfare and US militarism’s pursuit of global hegemony, different in perhaps only it’s cruder, more impulsive presentation and televised set pieces with higher explosive yields.
A pragmatic US-Russia détente remains as elusive as ever, for obvious reasons. It is extremely disconcerting that Trump, whose approval ratings have hit historic lows, was so enthusiastically supported by the US political and media establishment for his display of military muscle.
Trump’s vivacious and approval-seeking personality, his shallow understanding of strategic affairs and his proneness to react to media coverage make him more prone than ever to the temptation of launching one-off cruise missile strikes in a “Wag the Dog” style publicity coup. Call it “tweeting with bombs.”
Nowhere is this propensity for impulsive militarism more dangerous than the Korean peninsula, where a provocation or miscalculation can quickly spiral out of control with unbearable and unthinkable humanitarian consequences. Trump himself hinted at unilaterally bombing North Korea as if the spectacles of Syria and Afghanistan hadn’t got the message across.
It’s crucial to understand that any US use of force to degrade North Korea’s weapons program would start a major war in Northeast Asia, both the world’s most densely populated region and a main driver of global economic growth, with some of the world’s busiest airports and container ports.
On a recent visit to South Korea, US Vice President Mike Pence declared the Obama-era policy of ‘strategic patience’ had come to an end, warning Pyongyang against conducting further nuclear or long-range missile tests to avoid triggering an unspecified US response.
Aside from the familiar adage of “all options on the table,” the Trump administration’s policy toward Pyongyang continues to lack a precise definition. The White House has recently completed a review of North Korea policy and settled on what it calls a policy of ”maximum pressure and engagement.”
This seems to mean the US will enforce tougher sanctions and pressure in other ways while leaving the door open for some form of negotiation. Trump, like the veritable leader of a global empire, recently summoned ambassadors of countries on the UN Security Council for a working lunch to call for tougher sanctions on North Korea.
He has also taken the extraordinary step of inviting the entire US Senate to the White House to be briefed on the administration’s North Korea policy. The outcome of a maximum pressure and engagement policy is certain not to achieve US strategic objectives unless accompanied by a level of flexibility previous administrations have been unwilling to show.
Firstly, Pyongyang has very limited exposure to global markets, and it cannot be expected to respond to economic sanctions in the same way as Iran, an energy exporter and key regional power, which agreed to a deal with the Obama administration for economic and financial sanctions relief.
North Korea is already the world’s most sanctioned country, and it has still achieved a modest level of economic growth in recent years. Pyongyang’s policy makers treat sanctions as a fact of life, and they’ve given every signal that they are prepared to stay the course.
Secondly, the chance of negotiating a peaceful end to North Korea’s weapons program is exceedingly unlikely, and for very logical reasons. Pyongyang has learned from the mistakes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, and will not give up its strategic nuclear deterrent, which serves both a critical security function and a symbolic function, one of immense national pride.
The Obama administration would only engage in dialogue with Pyongyang on the precondition that it agreed to commit to denuclearization. Unsurprisingly, this approach failed, and North Korea made strides in developing its nuclear capability. If the biggest carrot of Trump’s “engagement” policy involves the characteristically arrogant capitulation-for-dialogue approach, then no deal.
Pyongyang has signaled on numerous occasions a willingness to freeze nuclear development and missile tests in exchange for a peace treaty to formally end the 1950s-era Korean War (which ended in an armistice) and a moratorium on US and South Korea joint military exercises, which it views as a dress rehearsal for invasion.
This is the only soft landing in sight, and the outcome would far better serve the region’s security and development interests. Consequently, South Koreans are widely expected to elect opposition leader Moon Jae-in as president in polls scheduled for May. Moon favors engagement and détente with Pyongyang, a dramatic reversal of the policies taken by the outgoing conservative administration in Seoul.
He is also opposed to the earlier-than-expected deployment of the THAAD anti-missile defense system to the country and aims to hasten the transfer of wartime operational control of South Korea’s armed forces to Seoul, rather than the US military. For these reasons, he could find himself at loggerheads with the Trump administration.
Ultimately, Donald Trump as a politician narcissistically seeks attention and a dramatic victory to hold up as an example of how fantastic he is. Whether this is achieved through peace and deal-making or war and coercion is secondary to the man. He is not a student of history or a strategic thinker. He has no values or ideology apart from his ratings and his brand.
From the vantage point of his first 100 days in office, Trump appears to be channeling the foreign policy strategies of Ronald Reagan: a massive military build-up accompanied by threatening displays of strength as a means of gaining leverage over adversarial powers.
In any case, it didn’t take long for Trump to fold on the populist rhetoric and realist foreign policy of his campaign. The bitter irony is that the United States now finds itself back on a more-or-less Clintonian foreign policy trajectory. As Americans say, the only sure things in life are death and taxes… and the continuity of a militaristic US foreign policy.
Nile Bowie is an independent writer and current affairs commentator based in Singapore. Originally from New York City, he has lived in the Asia-Pacific region for nearly a decade and was previously a columnist with the Malaysian Reserve newspaper, in addition to working actively in non-governmental organisations and creative industries. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Mass Movement in South Korea against THAAD Missile Deployment
Riot Cops Exert Excessive Use of Force
The residents of Seongju and Gimcheon were caught off guard when the United States Forces Korea and the South Korean Defense Ministry forced key parts of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system into the former Lotte Skyhill Golf Course in the early morning hours of April 26. Many of the THAAD parts, including the AN/TPY-2 radar, are believed to have been transported into the deployment site.
Below is video of Seongju residents showing outrage, shedding tears of anger and sadness, as riot police contain them and allow for military vehicles to pass through to the deployment site.
(Video source: Street Journalist)
The South Korean government deployed 8,000 riot cops to forcibly remove the residents and Won Buddhist ministers peacefully protesting on the road leading to the THAAD deployment site. On two occasions, the police were able to clear a path for military vehicles carrying THAAD parts and equipment. At 4:45 AM, eight U.S. military vehicles entered the deployment site, and 30 more vehicles made their way in at 6:40 AM.
Below is a minute-by-minute breakdown of what transpired in the early morning hours of April 26:
1:40 AM — 30 people, including members of the Won Buddhist Emergency Struggle Committee, joined by other religious clergy, began a prayer sit-in on the road in front of the village center of Soseong-ri. Village residents blocked the road to the deployment site with their cars.
1:54 AM — South Korean riot police began to arrive at the protest site and surround the prayer sit-in. The police also blocked the protesters from communicating with other residents. They used excessive force to subdue several residents demanding the officers stop containing them. Several police officers threatened arrest against residents for blocking the road with their cars.
3:20 AM — The police issued an order of dispersal to the protesting residents.
3:40 AM — Immediately after the order of dispersal, the officers began to to use excessive force to break up the crowd.
4:05 AM — 30 Won Buddhist ministers were forced to disperse by the police. During the process, several protesters collapsed and lost consciousness.
4:13 AM — All Won Buddhist ministers were forcibly removed from the streets, and the road to the THAAD deployment site was cleared for the entry of military vehicles.
4:18 AM — Three injured residents were escorted to the hospital in ambulances.
4:45 AM — Eight U.S. military vehicles carrying what appeared to be parts of the THAAD battery drove past the residents of Soseong-ri and headed to the deployment site.
A group of 60 people, including Seongju residents, Won Buddhist ministers and Catholic clergy members attempted to block the entry of the military vehicles. The police, however, forcibly removed them from the road.
5:10 AM — 60 residents continued to protest near the Soseong-ri village center demanding the police withdraw from the village and the USFK stop the forced deployment of the THAAD battery. Residents chanted, “U.S. cops back off” to mean the South Korean police officers serve the interests of the U.S. and not the South Korean people. The riot police continued to block the residents from occupying the streets and obstructing the entry of U.S. military vehicles.
6:40 AM — Additional components of the THAAD battery were transported into the deployment site. The riot police, again, suppressed the residents to allow 30 vehicles carrying additional THAAD parts to pass through Soseong-ri.
At least six residents and Won Buddhist ministers were transported in ambulances to the hospital due to injuries sustained as a result of excessive force used by the riot police.
7:40 AM — 200 protesters gathered in front of the Soseong-ri village center to condemn the Defense Ministry for ambushing the peaceful protesters to transport key THAAD parts and equipment in the middle of the night.
8:05 AM — All police units pulled out of the village of Soseong-ri.
9:00 AM — A group of 100 people including residents and religious leaders held a press conference condemning the U.S. for forcibly deploying the THAAD missile system. The residents emphasized the lack of transparency surrounding the THAAD deployment and noted that there was never an official agreement signed between the U.S. and South Korean governments on the deployment.
The environmental impact assessment has yet to be completed, they also noted, yet the key THAAD components have already been transported into the deployment site. The THAAD battery’s radar system — the AN/TPY-2 radar — was transported on April 26. From the start of their fight to oppose the THAAD deployment, Seongju and Gimcheon residents had expressed concerns about the electromagnetic waves emitted by the radar and their long-term impact on their health and agricultural crops.
A total of 12 protesters sustained injuries and were escorted to the hospital in ambulances.
The Defense Ministry reportedly told the South Korean media that it plans to transport the remainder of the THAAD components into the deployment site by the end of this year.