Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumUS 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 Hershs 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. Hershs account makes it clear that the Obama administrations 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 Gaddafis resignation but retain the Libyan militarys capacity to hold off jihadist forces and rescind the sanctions against Gaddafis 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 Gaddafis 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........
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)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)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)passed on to Obama Administration though. That's what I have read, anyway.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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)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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident
...
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
Is the Administrations 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 havent got any of this, he said. We ask for anything going on, and they say theres nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, Were going to get back to you. Its 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. (Cheneys 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
Yes.