Fighting
Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is
a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”
Barack
Obama and John Kerry: Are They "Terror Suspects"?
Prof
Michel Chossudovsky
22
June, 2013
A
major transition in US counter-terrorism doctrine is unfolding.
While
Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of George W. Bush,
remains firmly committed to waging a “Global War on Terrorism”
(GWOT), his administration is now openly
supporting selected rebel units in Syria which are part of the Al
Qaeda network.
Known
and documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, which has covertly
supported the “Islamic Terror Network” since the heyday of the
Soviet Afghan war.
While
Al Qaeda is a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, a “New Normal”
has been established.
An Al
Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being
supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly”
by the CIA.
The
support of Al Nusrah, an affiliate of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), is no
longer channeled in secrecy as part of a CIA-MI6 covert operation,
it is now being supported –in a semi-official fashion– as
part of a US foreign policy agenda. The latter is also part of
America’s diplomatic discourse, implemented in consultation with
Britain, Canada, Germany and France. Although Al Nusrah was not
mentioned explicitly, “support to the Syrian rebels” was the main
topic of debate at the June 2013 G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland.
While
intelligence covert ops continue to perform an important role,
Washington’s support to Al Qaeda in Syria is now “out in the
open”, within the public domain. It is no longer part of a secret
undertaking. It is part of the mainstay of US foreign policy, carried
out under the helm of Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Support
to the rebels” is also debated in the US Congress. It is the object
of a bill which has already been adopted by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Senator Corker who co-sponsored the bill
stated that:
“The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region,” (emphasis added)
In
a twisted logic, the bill purports to prevent “an extremist
takeover” by supporting an Al Qaeda terrorist formation.
The
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 15-3 in favor of the
proposed bill.
Ironically,
the pro-Israeli lobby was also actively involved in lobbying in favor
of aid to jihadist rebels.
Israel
has supported Al Nusrah militarily in areas adjacent to the occupied
territories of the Golan Heights.
Senator
Rand Paul from Kentucky (left) voted against the bill, warning:
Al
Qaeda, Osama and “The Blowback”
Everybody
knows that Al Qaeda is now directly supported by the US government.
The
implications are far-reaching. Obama’s decision not only undermines
the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), it also
casts doubt on the “blowback” thesis.
Moreover,
it begs the embarrassing question: Why
is the US president supporting Al Nusrah, which is on the US State
Department list of terrorist organizations?
The
CIA refers to the so-called “blowback” thesis whereby an
“intelligence asset”, (i.e. the Islamic jihad) is said to “have
gone against its sponsors”; ”
The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. (The Guardian, London, September 15, 2001).
“What
we’ve created blows back in our face.” The US government and the
CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims. The CIA had been tricked
by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going against his father”.
While
the CIA acknowledges that the late Osama bin Laden, leader of Al
Qaeda, was an “intelligence asset” during the Cold War, the
relationship is said to “go way back”. In the wake of 9/11, news
reports would invariably dismiss these Osama-CIA links as part of the
“bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably
described as “irrelevant” to an understanding of the post-9/11
era:
“Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, … Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden.” (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)
Afghan
Mujahideen Commanders meet with President Ronald Reagan
While
the “blowback” thesis is an obvious fabrication, it has
nonetheless served to provide legitimacy to the “Global War on
Terrorism”. With “overt” support channeled by the US government
to an Al Qaeda affiliated organization, the blowback thesis falls
flat, it is no longer credible.
The
evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the
“Islamic Militant Network”. Historically, US covert support to
terrorists was a safely guarded secret, unknown to the broader
public. Moreover, the CIA would never channel its support directly.
It would proceed through its intelligence counterparts in Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia.
Since
the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not
only been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.
The
broad political and media consensus in the wake of the 9/11 attacks
was built around the blowback: Al Qaeda had attacked America.
The
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) against Al Qaeda and its affiliates
had been launched. Yet the evidence amply confirms that US
intelligence continues to harbor several terrorist organizations
which are on the US State Department’s list.
Paradoxically,
covert support to the terrorists by Western intelligence agencies
(including the CIA, MI6, Germany’s BND) is an essential instrument
of the “Global War on Terrorism”. Namely the war on terror to
protect the Homeland is waged by using US-NATO sponsored terrorists
and mercenaries as foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.
The
support provided covertly to “jihadist” terrorist organizations
in a large number of countries (e.g. former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Niger, Mali, Algeria, Egypt,
etc.) has been used by the US-NATO alliance to destabilize sovereign
states.
Obama
and Al Nusrah. The “State Sponsors of Terrorism”
Al
Qaeda was identified as the mastermind of the 911 attacks on the
World Trade Center Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Afghanistan
in the wake of 9/11 was immediately identified as a “state sponsor
of terrorism” leading to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan by
US and NATO forces on October 7, 2001. In turn, a gamut of
counterterrorism legislation and executive orders were put in place
in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Executive
Order 13224,
signed by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001
“authorizes
the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by
the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material
or financial support or who are otherwise associated with
terrorists.” (Sept. 23, 2001).
The
US Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 2001, signed into law by
President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The legislation was in
response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which allegedly had been perpetrated
by Al Qaeda.
According
to the 2001 Patriot Act, those “who
pay for the bomb“,
namely those who fund affiliates of Al Qaeda, are terrorists. In the
words of George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, “We
will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these
acts and those who harbor them.”
The
Act pertains to the harboring and financing of terrorist
organizations. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are defined in the PATRIOT
Act as a terror network. Persons and organizations which support or
abet Al Qaeda are considered as terrorists.
The
forbidden question: Does the substance of Executive order 13224 and
the PATRIOT legislation quoted above apply to a US president, a
Secretary of State, a Member of the US Congress?
The
Department of Justice “has prosecuted individuals and organizations
for providing material support to the terrorist organization, while
the Department of Treasury has frozen the assets of dozens of
terrorist financiers and networks.” (See
Council on Foreign Relations)
Similar
measures, including the freezing of assets or organizations
supportive of terrorism, were adopted in the European Union.
“Since 2007, Britain’s Ministry of Finance has frozen
the assets (PDF) of
hundreds of individuals and organizations connected to al-Qaeda via
its Asset Freezing Unit.” (Ibid)
National
governments which provide support to Al Qaeda are categorised as
“State-sponsors of terrorism”.
The
designation is determined by the US State Department. In fact, the
Secretary of State, namely John Kerry has the authority “to
determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism.” (State
Department List),
See also theCounterterrorism
Bureau)
Barack
Obama and John Kerry: Are They “Terror Suspects”?
Now
let us examine in more detail the Al Nusrah Front, which constitutes
the main rebel fighting force in Syria. Al Nusrah is affiliated to Al
Qaeda. The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, has pledged
his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced
Osama bin Laden after his death.
According
to the State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, Jabhat al
Nusrah, the main rebel force in Syria is a terrorist organization, an
affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The
State Department has issued a “prohibition
against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide,
material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with,
al-Nusrah Front, and
the freezing of all property and interests in property of the
organization that are in the United States, or come within the United
States or the control of U.S. persons.” (emphasis added).
It
is understood that US State Department Counter-terrorism policy also
applies to “state sponsors of terrorism”.
Al
Nusrah is financed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel in close
consultation with NATO and the Pentagon.
The
Obama administration has openly confirmed its support for the Syrian
rebels with most of this aid channeled to Al Nusrah.
The
PATRIOT Act “prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have
committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”.
Moreover,
an entire gamut of executive orders as well as the 2001 Patriot
legislation prohibit “the harboring of terrorists”.
The Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.” The terror threat emanates both from“the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button”.
According
to the Patriot legislation, those “who pay for the bomb”, namely
funding affiliates of Al Qaeda, constitutes a terrorist act.
In
other words, the
Obama administration and its allies are harboring a terror
organization which is on the US State department list.
In
this regard, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
could be held responsible for“knowingly
providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support
or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front”:
“The
[PATRIOT] Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly
harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety
of terrorist offenses”, yet the Obama administration is openly
supporting a terrorist entity, in violation of its own
counter-terrorism legislation.
Media
Complicity
According
to CNN, quoting intelligence sources, Al Nusrah is “the
best-equipped arm of the terror group” in Syria, with an estimated
10,000 forces. Where do they get their money and weapons? CNN does
not provide any details as to Why Al Nusrah is the best equipped, in
relation to the various so-called moderate rebels factions, which
from a military standpoint are broadly inoperative.
How
many of these Al Nusrah forces remain operative following the
government’s counteroffensive remains to be established.
Ironically,
this latest CNN report (June 18, 2013 suggests that the rebels rather
than the government have chemical weapons in their possession:
“They [Al Nusrah] are making desperate attempts to get chemical weapons,” the analyst told CNN, noting that in the past few weeks, security services in Iraq and Turkey arrested [Al Nusrah] operatives who were “trying to get their hands on sarin.”
In
relation to the later, Turkish Police confirmed that the arrested Al
Nusrah operative was in possession of sarin gas.
CNN
contradicts its own reports. The same CNN article which intimated
that the rebels were “attempting to get” chemical weapons, makes
the case for “arming the rebels”:
The Obama administration announced last week that it will start arming rebelsbecause Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons — including sarin gas — against the opposition.
The development is likely to be at the center of the Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland on Monday, setting a riveting backdrop to the meeting after Syria’s longtime ally Russia said the move supports “those who kill their enemies and eat their organs.”
…Obama has not detailed the increased military support, but Washington officials told CNN that the plan includes providing small arms, ammunition and possibly anti-tank weapons to the rebels.
The
Broader Implications of Obama’s Support of Al
Nusrah
The
blowback thesis is now defunct. The US has never ceased to support Al
Qaeda. These terrorist organizations were created by US intelligence
and supported by Washington. The blowback thesis is refuted not only
by Obama’s “overt support” of Al Nusrah but also with regard to
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an Al Qaeda affiliate,
which was directly supported by NATO from the outset of the
insurgency and Libya bombing campaign in 2011.
The
“Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) has become an increasingly
fragile concept. Waging a “War on Terrorism” with the active
participation of an Al Qaeda affiliated organization
constitutes an obvious fallacy, a big lie, a non
sequitur.
The
propaganda and media disinformation campaign behind the “Global War
on Terrorism” has also entered a dead alley. Going after the
terrorists by supporting the terrorists? Will the American
public support a government which funnels billions of tax dollars to
a terrorist organization as a means to “combating terrorism”?
The
Pentagon’s post-911 military doctrine is predicated on the “Global
War on Terrorism”. It is a consensus within US military. It is used
in the recruitment, training and indoctrination of US forces.
Will
American servicemen and women accept to swallow the big lie and fight
in what visibly constitutes a fake “war on terrorism”.
The
Criminalisation of the US State
President
Obama’s “overt” support to Syria’s Al Qaeda rebels “opens
up a can of worms”.
How
are we to categorize an American President who says he is committed
to fighting Al Qaeda, while at the same time supporting Al Qaeda?
The
entire Homeland Security doctrine tumbles like a deck of cards.
The
US government is in blatant violation of its own counter-terrorism
legislation
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.