by Tony Cartalucci
The "peaceful," "unarmed" protesters have managed to killover 80 Syrian security force members. The Syrian government
insists that armed elements are operating amongst the protesters.
Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" specifically mentions
providing "some form of military support" for US-sparked popular
revolutions facing competent security forces.
Bangkok, Thailand May 2, 2011 - As the media circus over Bin Laden's latest reported death just begins to set up camp, Syria is still fighting desperately against an admittedly foreign-funded campaign of sedition and unrest. Meanwhile, the West is attempting to increase pressure on Syria via sanctions and by expanding support for further intervention.
Syrian security forces have recently overrun the city of Deraa claimed to be the "cradle" of the "pro-democracy" protests. The operation coincides with widespread arrests and an amnesty offer by the Assad government for protest leaders to turn themselves in to avoid prosecution. Perhaps fearing order will ultimately be restored, the West has increased pressure on the Arab League to "take a stance" against Syria's crackdown.
While the corporate owned media continues to rely on "rights groups" and their "witness accounts," most of which are admittedly being funded, directed, and equipped by the US, Syria's state news service SANA has reported that on Monday the army "tracked down terrorist groups that have terrorized civilians and killed 10 of its members and arrested 499 of them." SANA also reported that security forces "killed five snipers who were shooting at pedestrians."
This concurs with earlier reports and an increasing amount of evidence that suggests, just as in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and last year in Thailand, the foreign-funded "pro-democracy" protesters are serving as unwitting fodder for armed militants and provocateur gunmen.
It should be noted that in Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, the option of providing military support for US-sparked "popular revolutions" was not only considered, but deemed as an absolute necessity for nations with fully functioning and competent security forces. The combination of popular revolution, insurgency, and inviting a military coup were all discussed and suggested for use in tandem. Undeniably this formula, despite being fashioned for Iran, has served as a template for the entire "Arab Spring."
The report states, "as far as the regime change options themselves, an American administration might choose to pursue all three of the specific routes—popular revolution, insurgency, and coup—on the grounds that doing so would increase the likelihood that one of them will succeed. Moreover, employing all three simultaneously might create helpful synergies among them. For instance, if the regime becomes bogged down fighting various insurgencies, Iranian military officers might become convinced that the leadership must be replaced and that there is an opportunity to do so."
It continues by specifically mentioning the use of military aid to perpetuate popular revolutions by stating, "consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." In Libya, quite obviously this has been done on record, and emerging evidence suggests that it is now being done in Syria.
Syrian unrest is admittedly US-funded
Syria has long been slated for regime change. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing "Axis of Evil." It would be later revealed that Bolton's threats against Syria would manifest themselves as covert funding and support for opposition groups inside of Syria spanning both the Bush and Obama administrations.
In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, "We're not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we're trying to do in countries around the globe. What's different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people."
Toner's remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.
In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."
The West, perhaps seeing their window of opportunity closing, has become overtly aggressive in both their ongoing military campaign in Libya and their attempted military intervention in Syria. Indeed, calls have increased to exact a similar intervention against Assad that is currently unfolding against Libya's Qaddafi. All of this must be seen within the greater context of the admittedly foreign-funded and engineered "Arab Spring," and the greater campaign unfolding against Moscow, Beijing, and their peripheries.
