LR Editor’s
Note: We are pleased to host this guest analysis by Robert Barsocchini, an internationally
published researcher and writer who focuses on global force dynamics and writes
professionally for the film industry. He is a regular contributor to
Washington’s Blog. On Monday (5/25), Juan Cole dismissed
well-known international SECURITY
scholar Nafeez Ahmed’s investigative piece on
the newly declassified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency documents as “just a
clickbait story”—Cole did this while offering his own brief and superficial analysis in
a mere 190 words of what is actually a complex DIA document. The below
point-by-point examination of the DIA documents in question provides the truly
in-depth analysis that Cole fails to give us. (Note: Embedded Tweets are not
endorsements of the article, but provide broaderCONTEXT
of events unfolding in Syria).
by Robert Barsocchini
Here, I wrote that these documents “may” say the US/West
wanted/want a Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria, because the declassified
docs 1) say “Salafist, Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria”; 2) in theNEXT
sentence, the doc defines the “The West, Gulf Countries, and
Turkey” as the countries that “support the opposition”; 3) they later say the
“opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern areas”, where Syria
borders Iraq, and, specifically of this control of Eastern areas, say the
“Western Countries, the Gulf States, and Turkey areSUPPORTING
these efforts”. 4) In a section about “effects on Iraq” the docs
say that “there is a possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria…”, then say “this is exactly what the
supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
However, while the document begins by stating that “The West,
Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition”, the document, as noted,
also defines other groups, which could be considered “powers”, as either
components of or supporters of the opposition: Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood,
and AQI. The report states: “AQI supported the opposition from theBEGINNING
…”
While the FSA is defined as “opposition”, Salafists, Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI are initially described as “the major forces driving the
insurgency”, not as “the opposition”. It could be that the document means that
the FSA is “the opposition” and the West, its allies, and the Islamic groups
are simply all supporting them, but with different individual goals. However,
AQI is also directly described as “opposition” to Assad: “AQI declared its
opposition of Assad’s government because it considered it a sectarian regime
targeting Sunnis.”
In the section that says “there is a possibility of establishing a declared or
undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria…”, then that “this is exactly
what theSUPPORTING
powers to the opposition want”—this section of the doc defines
the opposition forces controlling the Iraq/Syria border as “Syrian Free Army”,
the FSA, and says the FSA will try to take “advantage of the sympathy of the
Iraqi border population”.
It then says that “If the situation [likely meaning FSA control
of the border] unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or
undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and
this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to
isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia
expansion (Iraq and Iran).” (The US obviously opposes Iranian expansion and
sides with the Sunnis, but the last part of this sentence, as it is framed in
terms of Shia expansion, may suggest that here the “supporting powers to the
opposition” may be referring not the sentence stating “The West, Gulf
Countries, and Turkey support the opposition”, but to earlier sentences stating
“AQI supported the opposition from the beginning…” and “AQI declared its
opposition of Assad’s government because it considered it a sectarian regimeTARGETING
Sunnis.”
Thus, perhaps this is simply unclear writing, or too much is censored, and what
this really means is that while both AQI and “The West, Gulf Countries, and
Turkey”SUPPORT
the “opposition” (and AQI also comprises the opposition), only
the AQI part of that support for the opposition would want a “Salafist
Principality” to be established. This is clearly stated regarding the effect on
Iraq. However, the US/West do strongly support existing Salafist
Principalities, as noted above, including the most ideologically expansionist
one, Saudi Arabia. Thus, supporting a Salafist Principality, and annexation of
territory (Israel, Cuba, Diego Garcia, etc.), is something the US already does
currently. (International relations scholar Dr. Nafeez Ahmed notes that a RAND corp reportpreviously
advised the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of
the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them
against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”)
The doc says the above-noted “deterioration”, likely referring
to the ‘unravels’ term above, “has dire consequences on the Iraq situation.” ItCONTINUES
that this “deterioration” would give more momentum to terrorist
groups and could allow them to declare an “Islamic state”, “which will create
grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”
(A study out of British universities noted that US government/media did not
report on ISIS publicly until it began to seize oil fields. Then, the study
shows, the US sent drones to try to stop ISIS.)
The last uncensored sentence of the doc says that the third
consequence of the “deterioration of the situation” (‘the situation’ likely
meaning the FSA control of the border region) would be terrorist elements from
all over the Arab world ENTERING
into Iraqi arena.”
The rest of the document is censored, as are some sections
before this.
Overall, what we can see in the document clearly states that a
Salafist Principality is not desired by the West in terms of the Iraqi
situation, but may or may not suggest that this principality is desired in
terms of isolating Assad, which is a stated goal of the West and its allies
(not just isolating, but removing). However, it is also a goal of AQI and its
allies, which are defined both as supporting “the opposition” and having
“declared its opposition of Assad’s government”. While this group and its affiliates
could be viewed as a strategic asset for isolating Assad, they could also be
viewed as a third party outside the wider globalCONTEST
between West and East, which is opposed to either. However, a
group in Syria opposed to both sides could be seen as preferable to having a
group allied with the East and opposed to the West.
InternationalSECURITY
scholar Dr. Nafeez Ahmed analyzes these documents and concludes the US practices a policy of
“sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.”
“According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon
foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of this
strategy, and warned that it could destabilize Iraq. Despite anticipating that
Western, Gulf state and TurkishSUPPORT
for the “Syrian opposition” — which included al-Qaeda in Iraq — could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and
Syria (ISIS), the document provides no indication of any decision to reverse
the policy ofSUPPORT
to the Syrian rebels. On the contrary, the emergence of an
al-Qaeda affiliated “SalafistPRINCIPALITY
” as a result is described as a strategic opportunity to
isolate Assad.”
“The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinaryCONFIRMATION
that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three
years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the
region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of
Iran.”
“The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern
Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to
the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes
those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”
Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan
Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said (noted by Ahmed) that the
documents “raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and
media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”
“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK
governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted
Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore
deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine
thisASSESSMENT
, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite
their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”
AhmedQUOTES
a former US Marine: “US intelligence predicted the rise of the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly
delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a
US strategic asset.”
Ahmed concludes: “The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand
into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US
intelligence as likely — but nevertheless strategically useful — blowback from the West’s commitment
to “isolating Syria.”
What the docs establish beyond doubt is that, in 2012, when they
were written, the US saw the likelihood of a “Salafist Principality” or
“Islamic State” being established, and was fully aware the insurgency in Syria
was mainly driven by Islamic groups, who were fighting Assad and alsoSUPPORTING
the FSA, which itself has been shown to have Islamic tendencies.
For example, an FSA commander is on video saying he would want to implement Sharia law. But the West and
its alliesCONTINUED
their support, as FSA members openly shared their US
supplies with the ISIS-related groups, and even converted to ISIS.
As Ahmed puts it, “the PentagonCONTINUED
to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the
probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in
Syria and Iraq.”
“As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did
the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature
and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion” — namely, the emergence of ISIS — “but that this was considered an
advantage for US foreign policy. This alsoSUGGESTS
a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead
the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion
was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”
AhmedQUOTES
a former MI5 officer explaining that after Libya and other such
projects by the West, we see in this behavior towards Syria “part of an
established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human
suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”
What we already knew before these docs is that the US and West
strongly support extremist Salafist states as part of their strategy of eating
away at the parts of the world not under the US thumb, the “East”: Syria, Iran,
Russia, and China. The US and West themselves are built on andCONTINUE
to support and commit theft and annexation of territory, and
support, commit, or ignore (if they are not politically helpful) all kinds of
mass killings, including by groups worse than ISIS; these have included the Khmer Rouge, the Suharto
Regime, and the US itself: theestablishment of the USA and the building of it into a superpower was aPROCESS
that involved crimes worse than anything ISIS will ever
accomplish.
Further, ISIS, as pointed out by Kofi Annan and many others,
arose as a consequence of the illegal US invasion of Iraq, motivated largely by
Bush Jr.’s religious fanaticism, an
invasion the international community tried and failed to prevent, which, the
most recent and comprehensiveREPORT
finds, has killed about 1 to 2 million or more people, another
feat ISIS will never accomplish.
While studies and many official statements make clear, and it is
obvious to any minimally non-US-brainwashed individual, that the invasion was
largely about oil, even if we disregard that, ignore the rest of USHISTORY
, and declare the US had/has “good intentions” regarding
Iraq, that puts us at the level of of Japanese fascists, who believed in their
“good intentions” regarding their invasions of China and elsewhere.
People with too much power always declare good intentions, and
are often sincere, as they get god-complexes and view themselves as humanity’s
benevolent saviors. But the reason war (including supporting warring proxies)
is outlawed as an instrument of policy is that it has disastrous consequences,
as we are seeing, even for the sincerely well-intentioned.
It should be stressed that clearly admitting the West would
“want” a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria is not generally the kind of
statement people in governments would make of themselves, even in private,
hence makes it less likely here that the West is being referred to specifically
by that statement, as does the inclusion of the phrase “if the situation
unravels” (meaning FSA control of the East) an Islamic state could result.
However, it is noteworthy that the West and the Islamists are so easily
conflated in this document (this conflation may well be intentional as a way of
discussing benefits without clearly stating that they might be desired), as
they are clearly delineated as both being opposed to the Assad government, and
for similar reasons – opposing Iran and the Shia, backed by Russia and China,
the latter part being of greater import to the West. The doc also makes
very clear that the FSA was/is beingSUPPORTED
by AQI and its Islamist affiliates, and that those Islamists
were known to be “the major forces driving the insurgency”. It has long
been known that FSA shares its
US/Western/Gulf/Turkish supplies with and converts to Islamist groups, and AQI,
the ISIS precursor, has always been known as particularly aggressive. And
as Dr. Ahmed points out, the document nowhere suggests ending aid to the opposition
due to its being driven by AQI and affiliates, and only frames the potential
creation of the “Islamic state” as a bad thing in relation to Iraq. In
relation to Syria/Assad, it is not framed as a bad thing, but as something that
would be seen to “isolate” Assad, a goal shared by the West and the Islamist
groups. So, these documents may well be an example of discussing a
strategy while attempting to maintain someDEGREE
of “plausible deniability”.
It must also be remembered that the US and West not only support
extremist Salafi/Wahhabi/Sharia established states, but have on numerous
occasions worked with, backed, aided and/or paralleled some of the goals of
non-state groups such as the Mujahedin and al Qaeda (in Afghanistan – see
Brzezinski, Bob Gates; Bosnia, Kosovo – on these see Fulton in scholarly
journal GlobalSECURITY
Studies), including under Obama in relation to Libya. In
US support for the Mujahedin in Afghanistan and then the Taliban, the support
was not even seen as a means to an end, but a completely acceptable end in
itself: the US was fine with the Taliban taking power and staying in power, as
long as it cooperated with the US. That is the bottom line. As soon
as it proved uncooperative, the US “discovered” the Taliban human rights
violations that non-governmental US monitors had been decrying for years, while
the US was supporting the Taliban (here).
And, as noted, abhorrent behavior is not a deterrent to US support. The
US has committed far worse crimes than ISIS and supported groups far worse than
ISIS. Only those unfamiliar withHISTORY
and glued to US TV can think ISIS is some new level of evil in
the world, or at least one not seen for a long time. The only qualifier
for US support is whether the group in question is willing to cater to US
business and strategic interests.
Filed Under: Interventionism, Media and Disinformation, State sponsorship,Syria Conflict Tagged With: al-Nusra, AL-QAIDA, CIA, DIA Report, FSA, ISIS,Juan Cole, Robert Barsocchini, Syria Conflict, Syria Predictions
AS OF THIS WRITING ourREPORTING
on the newly declassifiedAugust 2012 DIA
document has yet to make it into mainstream media in the West; it has
however, made it into RT News.
On Saturday, RT’s International English broadcast, based in London and
Washington D.C., relied on Levant Report’s original reporting of both the DIA
document and former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s prior relationship to
ISIS aligned militants.
Monday (5/25) and Tuesday will be significant days to see
whether the story gathers enough momentum in the press to elicit an official
response from Washington. For this to happen the DIA document would have to be
covered in British media, or by an American newsroom with enough clout to
attract attention, like McClatchy’s Washington Bureau or The Intercept, inORDER
to get the ball rolling.
Nafeez was recently a columnist for The Guardian, one of
Britain’s big three national newspapers, and is still based in the UK. He took
to Twitter over the weekend and announced that he is currently attempting to
push the story into mainstream media, as the DIA document contains startling
revelations that deserve the world’s attention and candid debate:
OF COURSE, MANY OF THESE establishment media outlets have been so heavily invested in
advancing a particular set of false assumptions regarding the dynamics of the
conflict in Syria, that they would be loath to publish anything that damages
their own credibility, even should clear evidence in official government
documents contradict the prior reporting.
We are living in an age in which the unique propaganda
system that operates in the West is so effective that it often doesn’t
matter if government officials admit that they were purposefullyPROMOTING
a false narrative, or were engaged in criminal conspiracy.
So long as their admissions come long after the fact, and so
long as they occupy positions of prestige and respect, they can expect not to
come underCLOSE
scrutiny by a media establishment that itself was complicit in
uncritically parroting their falsehoods all along.
THE TWITTER HANDLE, @fordrs58 is indeed Ambassador Robert Ford’s account, as was confirmed to
me in a personal email by Dr. Joshua Landis, Director of Middle East Studies at
theUNIVERSITY
of Oklahoma and the most well-known Syria scholar in the United
States.
While RT News broadcast the video evidence of Ford’s crimes, it remains for American media and US CongressTO
BEGIN
asking serious questions about the State Dept., DOD, and CIA’s
relationship with confessed ISIS collaborators on the Syrian battlefield. At
the very least, a serious Congressional investigation is warranted. Americans
must demand this.
Filed Under: Interventionism, Media and Disinformation, Rebel crimes, State sponsorship, Syria Conflict, Texans for Sane Foreign Policy Tagged With: al-Nusra, AL-QAIDA, CIA, DIA Report, ISIS, Robert Ford, Syria Conflict
On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog groupJudicial
Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S.
Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.
While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi
consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission andCONFIRMATION
is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired
in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in theREGION
.
Astoundingly, the newly declassifiedREPORT
states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO]
SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A
DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER
ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THESUPPORTING
POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
REGIME…”.
The DIA report,
formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated
widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS,
NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence
predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS),
but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions
the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have
documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the
formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest
level internal U.S. intelligenceCONFIRMATION
of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as
their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states
just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence,
as well as recentADMISSIONS
of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria
Robert Ford’s admissions here and here),
have since proven the State Department and CIA’s materialSUPPORT
of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield goingBACK
to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic
evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament
Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered
from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint
program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012
“Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
§ Al-Qaeda
drives the opposition in Syria
§ The West
identifies with the opposition
§ The
establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of
the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troopWITHDRAWAL
from Iraq
as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable
politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
§ The
establishment of a “SalafistPRINCIPALITY
” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external
powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf
Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
§ “Safe havens”
are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the
Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of
‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
§ Iraq is
identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
§ A Sunni
“Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the
renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab worldENTERING
into Iraqi
Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
_____________________________________________
R 050839Z AUG 12
…
THE GENERAL SITUATION:
A. INTERNALLY,EVENTS
ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.
B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE
MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEYSUPPORT
THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
…
3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE
SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THEBEGINNING
, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…
…
4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF
IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF
THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THEREGIONS
BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN
UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR
VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.
…
7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:
A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN
TERRITORY.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENTEVENTS
INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE
EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES
(MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES,
THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARESUPPORTING
THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM
RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILLHELP
PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE
COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.
…
8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFISTPRINCIPALITY
IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE
SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC
DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI
COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER
IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THEPROTECTION
OF ITS TERRITORY.
