I’ve had a lot of requests to talk about Turkey downing the Russian military aircraft. That event lends yet additional validation to what I’ve been saying all along about the U.S agenda concerning Syria.
Many Americans tend to look at each new news story as a stand-alone item. They don’t look back and connect what happened 6 months ago with what is happening now. Hell…sometimes you need to look back years in order to see today’s events in proper focus.
So, let me take you back a bit. In Aug of 2011 Barack Obama said that Syria’s Assad “must go”; that he could not remain the President of Syria. First, who the fuck is Barack Obama to tell the leader of any nation that that leader has to resign. And I’m not picking on Obama. I’d say the exact same thing if Bush was in office. Where does any President of the United States get off telling anyone that he or she cannot be the leader of his or her country any longer?
Since Aug 2011, the illegal removal of Assad, by any means necessary, has been the preeminent goal of the U.S. in the Middle East. Most every move you’ve seen in the Middle East since then has been in pursuance of that goal.
Despite its best efforts, the U.S. government has failed to remove Assad. That’s because Assad is tough and smart, and has had significant support from Russia and Iran.
Despite the failure to unseat Assad, Congress has declined to give the Obama administration authority to put U.S. boots on the ground in Syria. And none of the European countries that were part of the “coalition” in Iraq and Afghanistan have any interest in going into Syria. Outside the U.S., the rest of the world is crystal clear that the U.S. government lied about the reasons to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have no desire to let the U.S. pull them into another war based on lies.
So, if the U.S. has failed to remove Assad, and likely cannot achieve that goal without boots on the ground, and Congress won’t play ball on that, how can the White House get boots on the ground in Syria?
Though some Americans are reticent to accept the truth, ISIS is a CIA creation, used as a Middle East “boogeyman” so that Americans will continue to accept U.S. military action in the Middle East. But ISIS also served another role up until recently; they were the surrogate U.S. boots on the ground (among others) fighting in Syria against Assad under the direction of the CIA. This is so well recognized on Capital Hill that a Democrat and a Republican recently teamed up to introduce legislation to prohibit the CIA from trying to topple Assad. Putin’s bombing of ISIS in Syria ended their role as surrogate U.S. infantry troops deployed against Assad.
With years of failure concerning Assad, and knowing the only real way to accomplish the goal may be by putting troops on the ground in Syria, what has the CIA been doing to accomplish that? The first action was the Charlie Hebdo attack in January of 2015. The goal of that attack was get NATO into the fight. Article 5 of the NATO accord requires ALL NATO nations to fight against any force that attacks any NATO nation. Unfortunately for CIA planners, the Charlie Hebdo attack didn’t create that level of response in Europe. The leaders of the NATO countries didn’t see that incident as sufficient to invoke Article 5.
OK. If that didn’t work, time to ratchet up the scale and intensity. You saw that played out in the most recent Paris attacks. And the scale of THAT attack did get European leaders talking about Article 5! In a recent Newsweek article entitled, “Ex-NATO Chief Says Paris Attacks Qualify For Global Response”, former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, “Formally, I do believe that the attacks on Paris qualify for an invocation of Article 5. It was an attack on an ally and we know who the attacker is.”
But again the U.S. was disappointed. While Article 5 was now on the table, European leaders continued to reject the idea of having their troops embroiled in what they know is really a U.S. driven conflict in the Middle East. And France’s leaders flatly rejected invoking of Article 5.
As a side note, I wonder how many Americans are aware one of the primary ways the U.S. created its “coalition” after 9/11 was invoking Article 5 of the NATO accord, thus forcing all NATO nations to assist the U.S. military as it invaded two countries in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11. Gee…I can’t imagine why European nations wouldn’t want to go for round two! And of course they’re all too aware that the U.S. military is the de facto leader of NATO.
So now we come to Turkey shooting down a Russian warplane. Turkey is a member of NATO. If Russia was to retaliate against Turkey, Turkey could, and would, invoke Article 5. And although the “enemy” would be Russia, do you imagine NATO would invade Russia? No. NATO would go after Russia…in Syria. And you can bet your ass that the U.S. – through its leadership of NATO would make sure that NATO put ground troops into Syria. Viola! Congress wouldn’t approve it, but the CIA found a way to make it happen.
Now I know some people find this hard to swallow. They still believe that U.S. government is the “good guys” and the CIA would never do anything like that – despite overwhelming historical evidence to exactly the contrary.
The good news is you don’t have to believe me. Just watch how each and every event from today forward fits into the CIA’s agenda I’ve described here today. You’ll see for yourself.