Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:32 PM Jan 2016

US Military Leadership Resisted Obama's Bid for Regime Change in Syria, Libya--Gareth Porter

US Military Leadership Resisted Obama's Bid for Regime Change in Syria, Libya

By Gareth Porter

January 04, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "MEE" - Seymour Hersh’s recent revelations about an effort by the US military leadership in 2013 to bolster the Syrian army against jihadist forces in Syria shed important new light on the internal bureaucratic politics surrounding regime change in US Middle East policy. Hersh’s account makes it clear that the Obama administration’s policy of regime change in both Libya and Syria provoked pushback from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).

That account and another report on a similar episode in 2011 suggest that the US military has a range of means by which it can oppose administration policies that it regards as unacceptable. But it also shows that the military leadership failed to alter the course of US policy, and raises the question whether it was willing to use all the means available to stop the funnelling of arms to al-Nusra Front and other extremist groups in Syria.

--------------

The 2013 initiative approved by the chairman of the JCS, General Martin Dempsey, was not the first active effort by the US military to mitigate Obama administration regime change policies. In 2011, the JCS had been strongly opposed to the effort to depose the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya led by then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

When the Obama administration began its effort to overthrow Gaddafi, it did not call publicly for regime change and instead asserted that it was merely seeking to avert mass killings that administration officials had suggested might approach genocidal levels. But the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which had been given the lead role in assessing the situation in Libya, found no evidence to support such fears and concluded that it was based on nothing more than “speculative arguments”.

The JCS warned that overthrowing the Gaddafi regime would serve no US security interest, but would instead open the way for forces aligned with al-Qaeda to take over the country. After the Obama administration went ahead with a NATO air assault against the Gaddafi regime the US military sought to head off the destruction of the entire Libyan government. General Carter Ham, the commander of AFRICOM, the US regional command for Africa gave the State Department a proposal for a ceasefire to which Gaddafi had agreed. It would have resulted in Gaddafi’s resignation but retain the Libyan military’s capacity to hold off jihadist forces and rescind the sanctions against Gaddafi’s family.

But the State Department refused any negotiation with Gaddafi on the proposal. Immediately after hearing that Gaddafi had been captured by rebel forces and killed, Clinton famously joked in a television interview, “We came, we saw, he died” and laughed.

By then the administration was already embarked on yet another regime change policy in Syria. Although Clinton led the public advocacy of the policy, then CIA director David Petraeus, who had taken over the agency in early September 2011, was a major ally. He immediately began working on a major covert operation to arm rebel forces in Syria. The CIA operation used ostensibly independent companies in Libya to ship arms from Libyan government warehouses to Syria and southern Turkey. These were then distributed in consultation with the United States through networks run by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The plan went into operation within days of Gaddafi’s death on October 20, 2011 just before NATO officially ended its operation at the end of that month, as the DIA later reported to the JCS.

Continued at...................
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43858.htm

_____________________

Interesting view from Porter, I thought........

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US Military Leadership Resisted Obama's Bid for Regime Change in Syria, Libya--Gareth Porter (Original Post) KoKo Jan 2016 OP
The political and military leadership EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #1
Serial regime change and arms transfer from Libya was really Clinton and Petraeus policy leveymg Jan 2016 #2
I think Porter and Hersh have said that it goes back to Bush Policy KoKo Jan 2016 #3
Petraeus and Clinton were effectively part of Bush's foreign policy team. leveymg Jan 2016 #4
Agree......there is that. KoKo Jan 2016 #6
He wrote about it in 07, we had the Brzezinski warning, the Minot incident and capture of Brits jakeXT Jan 2016 #5
...! KoKo Jan 2016 #7
depressing, totally. n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2016 #8

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
1. The political and military leadership
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:42 PM
Jan 2016

Of America is wildly incompetent. And delusional. And arrogant. And has been for decades.

Theres no other way to explain the endless action that will obviously blowback and harm America. They feel like they can simply continue to overthrow governments and bomb their way out of situations without any permanent damage being done.

That is psychotic.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
2. Serial regime change and arms transfer from Libya was really Clinton and Petraeus policy
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:48 PM
Jan 2016

While the President is ultimately responsible, he wasn't the author of this clearly reckless policy. To Obama's credit when the time came he fired Petraeus and graciously accepted Madam Secretary's resignation.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
3. I think Porter and Hersh have said that it goes back to Bush Policy
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:33 PM
Jan 2016

passed on to Obama Administration though. That's what I have read, anyway.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
4. Petraeus and Clinton were effectively part of Bush's foreign policy team.
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:37 PM
Jan 2016

I do wish that others were secure enough and clear enough to simply come out and admit that obvious fact. Continuity of government.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
6. Agree......there is that.
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:53 PM
Jan 2016

But without CNN/MSNBC and Networks doing Documentaries and having Discussion Group/Forums inviting others than the MIC to be on a Panel..we are left with the" Propaganda for the RW Masses "we have to deal with today.

Differing Opinions are NOT the Mainstream these days. Actually, we had much better MAINSTREAM MEDIA even during the Cold War with Edward R. Murrow and then in the 60's/70's with the Smothers Brothers and Gore Vidal, William Buckley Debates and Sunday Shows and Specials. The Networks did devote some time to Investigative Reports. But that was in the days of the "Fairness Doctrine for Media" which was done away with.

In these times we had Colbert and Stewart and MSNBC made an effort to go after Left thinking Viewers with their line up which has now been changed to compete with Fox News after trashing their format to appeal to the Left Dems that they attempted to appease during Obama Campaign and his Presidential Terms........ years 1 and a Half.

All GONE.

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
5. He wrote about it in 07, we had the Brzezinski warning, the Minot incident and capture of Brits
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 10:50 PM
Jan 2016

It looked like a direct confrontation, but than a proxy war with clandestine methods evolved


A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski
Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran
By Barry Grey in Washington DC
2 February 2007
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/02/brze-f02.html


The 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident occurred on 29–30 August 2007. Six AGM-129 cruise missiles, each loaded with a W80-1 variable yield nuclear warhead, were mistakenly loaded onto a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52H heavy bomber at Minot Air Force Base and transported to Barksdale Air Force Base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident


Iranian military personnel seized 15 Royal Navy personnel during 2007 and held them for 13 days. On 23 March 2007,

...

The Times stated that the British sailors captured by Iran were "in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq's maritime territory as Parliament was told", that the US-led coalition had drawn a boundary line between Iran and Iraq without informing the Iranians, that Iranian coastal protection vessels regularly crossed this coalition defined boundary, and that the British were first to raise their weapons in the incident before the Iranian gunboats came alongside.[1][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel


The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
By Seymour M. Hersh

...

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”)

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Foreign Affairs»US Military Leadership Re...