"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth: All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory"And this is where Sy Hersh and his latest article " Military to Military-Seymour US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war" begin to impose yet another lie onto history to enforce the new truth over your own memory I've been reading it over and over for the past three days. The piece is riddled with contradictions and rife with unsubstantiated claims. An unnamed source? So we can’t verify this information in any way shape or form. We can’t know if this person exists. This is obviously problematic.None the less there are some interesting aspects about this Hersh obfuscation/demonization. I find the article sets up the parameters for future spin. The expose appears, at least partially, to be a preparatory narrative for the blow back meme. And likely the the non cooperation between agencies narrative can also be extracted from the piece. Recalling the same type of account presented after 9/11.It also contains, what I consider to be, the framing and blaming of a future nation to be destabilized- Saudi Arabia. And the further demonizing of Turkey. Same as we've witnessed by the likes of Mike Whitney and other alt media darlings.: Mike Whitney- Obfuscating for NATO, AGAIN! Turkey to 'annex' Syria? Also today's post: Sibel Edmonds Explains the Erdogan TakedownNotice we got the same "annex" meme a short time ago with Turkey all set to annex Mosul and create a Sunnistan" PKK Occupy 3 Assyrian Iraqi Villages- Turks to Mosul and more
'The rubbish about Turkey annexing Mosul- is just that. Rubbish. Turkey is in no position to annex territory- period. I simply cannot believe the garbage in the alt media at this time! It's a complicated situation- and this simplistic blaming Turkey for the sun not rising is little more then NATO/Israeli propaganda being regurgitated"
Reinforcing the perception managementI'll bold the questionable parts of Mr Hersh's story
“Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped”
"Obama is captive to cold war thinking" I’m not certain that Obama is captive to any of his own thinking let alone cold war thinking! However if we wish to attribute the act of thinking to Obama, as opposed to the reality of simply acting, he is actually captive to or affiliated with a one world/ dominant force thinking. Does Washington really have "anxiety about the spread of terrorism" Or has Washington used "terrorism" to it's advantage or gain? Does Washington or Obama for that matter "believe that Islamic State must be stopped" That is the claim, but, the reality doesn't match. When a so called expose, within the first paragraph, contains multiple false claims what are we to make of the entire piece?
“The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya”
“The military’s resistance" ? The assessment regarding Syria, like Libya, may have come concluded that chaos would ensue, but, Hersh doesn’t question whether or not this was actually the desired outcome? You know, the plan? He wants the reader to assume chaos is not the plan, but, why should you or I make that assumption
By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State
So we have the CIA shipping weapons into Syria via Turkey in a cooperative fashion but then "The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy" So it's more of that blame and frame Turkey! Well isn't this a timely meme. So, Turkey was suddenly the major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy? NATO occupied Turkey. And what was it Turkey impeded Obama from accomplishing in Syria? Destabilization? No. Turkey was used as a conduit by the CIA. NATO. Anyone and everyone else.. Regime change? Again NATO occupied Turkey was the means to an end. So, I'm not getting an impediment kind of vibe.Brief Digression: No mention of Israel's participation in all this. Strange? No mention of Israel bombing Syria for Al Nusra? No mention of Israel providing medical care to IS and Al Nusra? Why is that omitted by Hersh? Instead we get Turkey setting up rump terror groups?Hersh will contradict his "Obama's policy" claim to inform us all that destroying Syria was not Obama’s policy- Rather it was a policy that preceded the Obama administration. So why he insists on pushing this here and now as Obama policy is beyond me? According to Hersh, who is promoting a very timely blame Turkey meme, Flynn warned jihadis were in control of the opposition... and it was all Turkey’s fault.Digression: US ex-intelligence chief on ISIS rise: It was 'a willful Washington decision'
General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis. Flynn believes the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose.“I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision,” the former DIA chief said.
Hmmm.. That’s a bit different then the Hersh narrative. According to Flynn, Turkey was looking the other way in accord with the US willfully deciding to ignore the intelligence assessment and looking the other way also! Seems about right for NATO occupied/US dominated Turkey. Going along to get along.
"They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success’
Hersh keeps labelling this as “Obama’s policy”- It isn’t. And never was.However, it's necessary that you believe this is Obama's baby so you can buy into the whole narrative Hersh is set to promote. Which is the JCS took matters into their own hands because this Obama policy was going to result in chaos and JCS was so concerned they had to subvert Obama's policy for mom, apple pie and to wave the flag.If you choose to believe this was Obama's policy you can then also swallow the nonsense that JCS supplied intelligence to the Syrian army. Except the JCS didn't provide intelligence to Syrian Army. JCS allegedly provided intelligence to others. Others we are to assume passed it on to Syrian army. Of course there is no way of verifying if any of this so called intelligence was passed to others, let alone that the intelligence made it’s way to Syria. That would require a rather large assumption that shouldn’t be made by anyone. This is hearsay. All of it.Note the language in all the writing:
“Germany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the Syrian army, and able to exercise some influence over Assad’s decisions – it was through them that US intelligence would be shared"
No direct intel sharing. No proof of intel sharing from Germany, Israel or Russia to Syria.Would be? Could be? May be? It does not state through them US intelligence WAS shared with Syria.The use of was would be a statement of fact. Intelligence was shared. But that's not what's written!Tossing the intelligence sharing claim to the curb- Thunk! Interestingly when one reads further down Hersh's entire JCS shares intel with Syria narrative is contradicted.
There was no direct contact between the US and the Syrian military; instead, the adviser said, ‘we provided the information – including long-range analyses on Syria’s future put together by contractors or one of our war colleges – and these countries could do with it what they chose, including sharing it with Assad"
Or not?I didn't need to read that above paragraph to know claims of US passing intel to Syria were false.Hersh's claim of everything being Obama's policy- also kicked to the curb by Sy Hersh himself in yet more contradictory information! :
State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks show that the Bush administration tried to destabilise Syria and that these efforts continued into the Obama years. In December 2006, William Roebuck, then in charge of the US embassy in Damascus, filed an analysis of the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the Assad government and listed methods ‘that will improve the likelihood’ of opportunities for destabilisation. He recommended that Washington work with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to increase sectarian tension and focus on publicising ‘Syrian efforts against extremist groups’ – dissident Kurds and radical Sunni factions – ‘in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback’; and that the ‘isolation of Syria’ should be encouraged through US support of the National Salvation Front, led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president whose government-in-exile in Riyadh was sponsored by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood. Another 2006 cable showed that the embassy had spent $5 million financing dissidents who ran as independent candidates for the People’s Assembly; the payments were kept up even after it became clear that Syrian intelligence knew what was going on. A 2010 cable warned that funding for a London-based television network run by a Syrian opposition group would be viewed by the Syrian government ‘as a covert and hostile gesture toward the regime’.
As stated, at the beginning of my post, the policy of destroying Syria was one written before ObamaAgain toss claims of this being Obama's bad plan to the curb- Thunk, goes yet more trash!Interesting that comment about creating the concept/perception of uncontrolled blow back? The same perception management runs through this Hersh piece. Coincidence? I think not!Now we get to the most ridiculous part, of much silliness, in Hersh's article:
"In July 2013, the Joint Chiefs found a more direct way of demonstrating to Assad how serious they were about helping him. By then the CIA-sponsored secret flow of arms from Libya to the Syrian opposition, via Turkey, had been underway for more than a year (it started sometime after Gaddafi’s death on 20 October 2011).[*] The operation was largely run out of a covert CIA annex in Benghazi, with State Department acquiescence"
Arms dealing from Benghazi is well known. There has to be at least 3 posts here on the Benghazi op.
By the late summer of 2013, the DIA’s assessment had been circulated widely, but although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming, presenting a continuing problem for Assad’s army.
So the JCS decide to help Assad by flooding Syria with even more weapons!!! I'm not kidding, this increased flow of weapons from the JCS is presented as an attempt to help the Syrian government. And get a load of the "worked with Turks we trusted who were not loyal to Erdogan,’ This is either PKK. Grey Wolves. Or both. In a chaos creating 'let you and him fight' kind of manipulation.
The CIA was approached by a representative from the Joint Chiefs with a suggestion: there were far less costly weapons available in Turkish arsenals that could reach the Syrian rebels within days, and without a boat ride.’ But it wasn’t only the CIA that benefited. ‘We worked with Turks we trusted who were not loyal to Erdogan,’ the adviser said, ‘and got them to ship the jihadists in Syria all the obsolete weapons in the arsenal, including M1 carbines that hadn’t been seen since the Korean War and lots of Soviet arms. It was a message Assad could understand: “We have the power to diminish a presidential policy in its tracks.”’
This shipping in of weapons, called obsolete, doesn't make them unusable. Particularly not in the case of Kalashnikovs. This so called 'obsolete' arms shipments coincides with the news of that time March 25/2013:
Syria: Massive CIA arms shipments..... A post that contains two, related to Hersh's story, links
CIA aids in massive arms airlifts to so called Syrian rebels....
Weapons shipments via the CIA- visual
BTW- AK47 from the Lords of War: Obsolete my friends? Oh, I think not AK47- wikipediaIt's all in the spin. We've all seen the images of the 'rebels' with their AK's It seems to me what Hersh is obfuscating with his narrative is the fact that the JCS & the CIA colluded to ensure the delivery of more weapons in a faster more efficient manner to their rebels all the while undermining the elected Turkish leadership. And, continuing to destroy and destabilize Syria.The Hersh piece is perception management at it's finest! Here's the blame Saudi Arabia part:
In January 2014, despairing at the lack of progress, John Brennan, the director of the CIA, summoned American and Sunni Arab intelligence chiefs from throughout the Middle East to a secret meeting in Washington, with the aim of persuading Saudi Arabia to stop supporting extremist fighters in Syria. ‘The Saudis told us they were happy to listen,’ the JCS adviser said, ‘so everyone sat around in Washington to hear Brennan tell them that they had to get on board with the so-called moderates. His message was that if everyone in the region stopped supporting al-Nusra and Isis their ammunition and weapons would dry up, and the moderates would win out.’ Brennan’s message was ignored by the Saudis, the adviser said, who ‘went back home and increased their efforts with the extremists and asked us for more technical support. And we say OK, and so it turns out that we end up reinforcing the extremists.’
Despairing the lack of progress? In what context? Saving Syria? I laugh!The CIA summons their agents from "throughout the Middle East to a secret meeting in Washington" and tells them to stop supplying weapons so the moderates would win out? What a bunch of baloney! There are so many weapons now in place. IS and Al Nusra are well supported by their own smuggling & extortion rings. Aided by Israel, the Kurds and who ever else is on the ground supporting them, making this claim laughable. Stop supporting the extremists. What a joke! After the CIA and the JCS opened Pandora's box they present a narrative of trying to reign it in as a face saving measure. Face saving. That's all!"message was ignored by the Saudis" Bad Saudis- but not bad Israel 'And we say OK, and so it turns out that we end up reinforcing the extremists.’- Oh look it's the "unintended consequences narrative"!Hersh's article continues. But, I'm done. I see his expose as nothing more then a rewrite of known history- To spin what really happened- reality & fact- into a face saving work of fiction that can be spun off into any number of directions. It's imperial propaganda. All you have to do is not believe it!