[News] Military to Military - US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Thu Dec 31 22:15:38 EST 2015
*http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military*
Military to Military - US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Seymour M. Hersh - January 7, 2016
Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave
office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of
defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even
overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the
Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as
the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin.
In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and
China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both
countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in
and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must
be stopped.
The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a
highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin
Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos
and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was
then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs
told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on
information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a
dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to
finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA
had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi
Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow
of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence
estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria
policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as
a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting
Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an
across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the
opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called
moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group
stationed at an airbase in Turkey.’ The assessment was bleak: there was
no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and
2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified
warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of
toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the
opposition. Turkey wasn’t doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. ‘If the American public saw the
intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they
would go ballistic,’ Flynn told me. ‘We understood Isis’s long-term
strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that
Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the
Islamic State inside Syria.’ The DIA’s reporting, he said, ‘got enormous
pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did not want
to hear the truth.’
‘Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and
actually having a negative impact,’ the former JCS adviser said. ‘The
Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by
fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory. They
wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So
who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if
you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody
else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint
Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a
zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take
steps against the extremists without going through political channels,
by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the
understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used
against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.
Germany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the Syrian army, and
able to exercise some influence over Assad’s decisions – it was through
them that US intelligence would be shared. Each had its reasons for
co-operating with Assad: Germany feared what might happen among its own
population of six million Muslims if Islamic State expanded; Israel was
concerned with border security; Russia had an alliance of very long
standing with Syria, and was worried by the threat to its only naval
base on the Mediterranean, at Tartus. ‘We weren’t intent on deviating
from Obama’s stated policies,’ the adviser said. ‘But sharing our
assessments via the military-to-military relationships with other
countries could prove productive. It was clear that Assad needed better
tactical intelligence and operational advice. The JCS concluded that if
those needs were met, the overall fight against Islamist terrorism would
be enhanced. Obama didn’t know, but Obama doesn’t know what the JCS does
in every circumstance and that’s true of all presidents.’
Once the flow of US intelligence began, Germany, Israel and Russia
started passing on information about the whereabouts and intent of
radical jihadist groups to the Syrian army; in return, Syria provided
information about its own capabilities and intentions. There was no
direct contact between the US and the Syrian military; instead, the
adviser said, ‘we provided the information – including long-range
analyses on Syria’s future put together by contractors or one of our war
colleges – and these countries could do with it what they chose,
including sharing it with Assad. We were saying to the Germans and the
others: “Here’s some information that’s pretty interesting and our
interest is mutual.” End of conversation. The JCS could conclude that
something beneficial would arise from it – but it was a military to
military thing, and not some sort of a sinister Joint Chiefs’ plot to go
around Obama and support Assad. It was a lot cleverer than that. If
Assad remains in power, it will not be because we did it. It’s because
he was smart enough to use the intelligence and sound tactical advice we
provided to others.’
*
The public history of relations between the US and Syria over the past
few decades has been one of enmity. Assad condemned the 9/11 attacks,
but opposed the Iraq War. George W. Bush repeatedly linked Syria to the
three members of his ‘axis of evil’ – Iraq, Iran and North Korea –
throughout his presidency. State Department cables made public by
WikiLeaks show that the Bush administration tried to destabilise Syria
and that these efforts continued into the Obama years. In December 2006,
William Roebuck, then in charge of the US embassy in Damascus, filed an
analysis of the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the Assad government and listed
methods ‘that will improve the likelihood’ of opportunities for
destabilisation. He recommended that Washington work with Saudi Arabia
and Egypt to increase sectarian tension and focus on publicising ‘Syrian
efforts against extremist groups’ – dissident Kurds and radical Sunni
factions – ‘in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and
uncontrolled blowback’; and that the ‘isolation of Syria’ should be
encouraged through US support of the National Salvation Front, led by
Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president whose
government-in-exile in Riyadh was sponsored by the Saudis and the Muslim
Brotherhood. Another 2006 cable showed that the embassy had spent $5
million financing dissidents who ran as independent candidates for the
People’s Assembly; the payments were kept up even after it became clear
that Syrian intelligence knew what was going on. A 2010 cable warned
that funding for a London-based television network run by a Syrian
opposition group would be viewed by the Syrian government ‘as a covert
and hostile gesture toward the regime’.
But there is also a parallel history of shadowy co-operation between
Syria and the US during the same period. The two countries collaborated
against al-Qaida, their common enemy. A longtime consultant to the Joint
Special Operations Command said that, after 9/11, ‘Bashar was, for
years, extremely helpful to us while, in my view, we were churlish in
return, and clumsy in our use of the gold he gave us. That quiet
co-operation continued among some elements, even after the [Bush
administration’s] decision to vilify him.’ In 2002 Assad authorised
Syrian intelligence to turn over hundreds of internal files on the
activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Germany. Later that
year, Syrian intelligence foiled an attack by al-Qaida on the
headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and Assad agreed
to provide the CIA with the name of a vital al-Qaida informant. In
violation of this agreement, the CIA contacted the informant directly;
he rejected the approach, and broke off relations with his Syrian
handlers. Assad also secretly turned over to the US relatives of Saddam
Hussein who had sought refuge in Syria, and – like America’s allies in
Jordan, Egypt, Thailand and elsewhere – tortured suspected terrorists
for the CIA in a Damascus prison.
It was this history of co-operation that made it seem possible in 2013
that Damascus would agree to the new indirect intelligence-sharing
arrangement with the US. The Joint Chiefs let it be known that in return
the US would require four things: Assad must restrain Hizbullah from
attacking Israel; he must renew the stalled negotiations with Israel to
reach a settlement on the Golan Heights; he must agree to accept Russian
and other outside military advisers; and he must commit to holding open
elections after the war with a wide range of factions included. ‘We had
positive feedback from the Israelis, who were willing to entertain the
idea, but they needed to know what the reaction would be from Iran and
Syria,’ the JCS adviser told me. ‘The Syrians told us that Assad would
not make a decision unilaterally – he needed to have support from his
military and Alawite allies. Assad’s worry was that Israel would say yes
and then not uphold its end of the bargain.’ A senior adviser to the
Kremlin on Middle East affairs told me that in late 2012, after
suffering a series of battlefield setbacks and military defections,
Assad had approached Israel via a contact in Moscow and offered to
reopen the talks on the Golan Heights. The Israelis had rejected the
offer. ‘They said, “Assad is finished,”’ the Russian official told me.
‘“He’s close to the end.”’ He said the Turks had told Moscow the same
thing. By mid-2013, however, the Syrians believed the worst was behind
them, and wanted assurances that the Americans and others were serious
about their offers of help.
In the early stages of the talks, the adviser said, the Joint Chiefs
tried to establish what Assad needed as a sign of their good intentions.
The answer was sent through one of Assad’s friends: ‘Bring him the head
of Prince Bandar.’ The Joint Chiefs did not oblige. Bandar bin Sultan
had served Saudi Arabia for decades in intelligence and national
security affairs, and spent more than twenty years as ambassador in
Washington. In recent years, he has been known as an advocate for
Assad’s removal from office by any means. Reportedly in poor health, he
resigned last year as director of the Saudi National Security Council,
but Saudi Arabia continues to be a major provider of funds to the Syrian
opposition, estimated by US intelligence last year at $700 million.
In July 2013, the Joint Chiefs found a more direct way of demonstrating
to Assad how serious they were about helping him. By then the
CIA-sponsored secret flow of arms from Libya to the Syrian opposition,
via Turkey, had been underway for more than a year (it started sometime
after Gaddafi’s death on 20 October 2011).[*]
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/#fn-asterisk>*
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/#fn-asterisk> The
operation was largely run out of a covert CIA annex in Benghazi, with
State Department acquiescence. On 11 September 2012 the US ambassador to
Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed during an anti-American
demonstration that led to the burning down of the US consulate in
Benghazi; reporters for the /Washington Post/ found copies of the
ambassador’s schedule in the building’s ruins. It showed that on 10
September Stevens had met with the chief of the CIA’s annex operation.
The next day, shortly before he died, he met a representative from
Al-Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services, a Tripoli-based company which,
the JCS adviser said, was known by the Joint Staff to be handling the
weapons shipments.
By the late summer of 2013, the DIA’s assessment had been circulated
widely, but although many in the American intelligence community were
aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the
CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming, presenting a continuing problem for
Assad’s army. Gaddafi’s stockpile had created an international arms
bazaar, though prices were high. ‘There was no way to stop the arms
shipments that had been authorised by the president,’ the JCS adviser
said. ‘The solution involved an appeal to the pocketbook. The CIA was
approached by a representative from the Joint Chiefs with a suggestion:
there were far less costly weapons available in Turkish arsenals that
could reach the Syrian rebels within days, and without a boat ride.’ But
it wasn’t only the CIA that benefited. ‘We worked with Turks we trusted
who were not loyal to Erdoğan,’ the adviser said, ‘and got them to ship
the jihadists in Syria all the obsolete weapons in the arsenal,
including M1 carbines that hadn’t been seen since the Korean War and
lots of Soviet arms. It was a message Assad could understand: “We have
the power to diminish a presidential policy in its tracks.”’
The flow of US intelligence to the Syrian army, and the downgrading of
the quality of the arms being supplied to the rebels, came at a critical
juncture. The Syrian army had suffered heavy losses in the spring of
2013 in fighting against Jabhat al-Nusra and other extremist groups as
it failed to hold the provincial capital of Raqqa. Sporadic Syrian army
and air-force raids continued in the area for months, with little
success, until it was decided to withdraw from Raqqa and other hard to
defend, lightly populated areas in the north and west and focus instead
on consolidating the government’s hold on Damascus and the heavily
populated areas linking the capital to Latakia in the north-east. But as
the army gained in strength with the Joint Chiefs’ support, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and Turkey escalated their financing and arming of Jabhat
al-Nusra and Islamic State, which by the end of 2013 had made enormous
gains on both sides of the Syria/Iraq border. The remaining
non-fundamentalist rebels found themselves fighting – and losing –
pitched battles against the extremists. In January 2014, IS took
complete control of Raqqa and the tribal areas around it from al-Nusra
and established the city as its base. Assad still controlled 80 per cent
of the Syrian population, but he had lost a vast amount of territory.
CIA efforts to train the moderate rebel forces were also failing badly.
‘The CIA’s training camp was in Jordan and was controlled by a Syrian
tribal group,’ the JCS adviser said. There was a suspicion that some of
those who signed up for training were actually Syrian army regulars
minus their uniforms. This had happened before, at the height of the
Iraqi war, when hundreds of Shia militia members showed up at American
training camps for new uniforms, weapons and a few days of training, and
then disappeared into the desert. A separate training programme, set up
by the Pentagon in Turkey, fared no better. The Pentagon acknowledged in
September that only ‘four or five’ of its recruits were still battling
Islamic State; a few days later 70 of them defected to Jabhat al-Nusra
immediately after crossing the border into Syria.
In January 2014, despairing at the lack of progress, John Brennan, the
director of the CIA, summoned American and Sunni Arab intelligence
chiefs from throughout the Middle East to a secret meeting in
Washington, with the aim of persuading Saudi Arabia to stop supporting
extremist fighters in Syria. ‘The Saudis told us they were happy to
listen,’ the JCS adviser said, ‘so everyone sat around in Washington to
hear Brennan tell them that they had to get on board with the so-called
moderates. His message was that if everyone in the region stopped
supporting al-Nusra and Isis their ammunition and weapons would dry up,
and the moderates would win out.’ Brennan’s message was ignored by the
Saudis, the adviser said, who ‘went back home and increased their
efforts with the extremists and asked us for more technical support. And
we say OK, and so it turns out that we end up reinforcing the extremists.’
But the Saudis were far from the only problem: American intelligence had
accumulated intercept and human intelligence demonstrating that the
Erdoğan government had been supporting Jabhat al-Nusra for years, and
was now doing the same for Islamic State. ‘We can handle the Saudis,’
the adviser said. ‘We can handle the Muslim Brotherhood. You can argue
that the whole balance in the Middle East is based on a form of mutually
assured destruction between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and
Turkey can disrupt the balance – which is Erdoğan’s dream. We told him
we wanted him to shut down the pipeline of foreign jihadists flowing
into Turkey. But he is dreaming big – of restoring the Ottoman Empire –
and he did not realise the extent to which he could be successful in this.’
*
One of the constants in US affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union
has been a military-to-military relationship with Russia. After 1991 the
US spent billions of dollars to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons
complex, including a highly secret joint operation to remove
weapons-grade uranium from unsecured storage depots in Kazakhstan. Joint
programmes to monitor the security of weapons-grade materials continued
for the next two decades. During the American war on Afghanistan, Russia
provided overflight rights for US cargo carriers and tankers, as well as
access for the flow of weapons, ammunition, food and water the US war
machine needed daily. Russia’s military provided intelligence on Osama
bin Laden’s whereabouts and helped the US negotiate rights to use an
airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The Joint Chiefs have been in communication with
their Russian counterparts throughout the Syrian war, and the ties
between the two militaries start at the top. In August, a few weeks
before his retirement as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dempsey made a
farewell visit to the headquarters of the Irish Defence Forces in Dublin
and told his audience there that he had made a point while in office to
keep in touch with the chief of the Russian General Staff, General
Valery Gerasimov. ‘I’ve actually suggested to him that we not end our
careers as we began them,’ Dempsey said – one a tank commander in West
Germany, the other in the east.
When it comes to tackling Islamic State, Russia and the US have much to
offer each other. Many in the IS leadership and rank and file fought for
more than a decade against Russia in the two Chechen wars that began in
1994, and the Putin government is heavily invested in combating Islamist
terrorism. ‘Russia knows the Isis leadership,’ the JCS adviser said,
‘and has insights into its operational techniques, and has much
intelligence to share.’ In return, he said, ‘we’ve got excellent
trainers with years of experience in training foreign fighters –
experience that Russia does not have.’ The adviser would not discuss
what American intelligence is also believed to have: an ability to
obtain targeting data, often by paying huge sums of cash, from sources
within rebel militias.
A former White House adviser on Russian affairs told me that before 9/11
Putin ‘used to say to us: “We have the same nightmares about different
places.” He was referring to his problems with the caliphate in Chechnya
and our early issues with al-Qaida. These days, after the Metrojet
bombing over Sinai and the massacres in Paris and elsewhere, it’s hard
to avoid the conclusion that we actually have the same nightmares about
the same places.’
Yet the Obama administration continues to condemn Russia for its support
of Assad. A retired senior diplomat who served at the US embassy in
Moscow expressed sympathy for Obama’s dilemma as the leader of the
Western coalition opposed to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine:
‘Ukraine is a serious issue and Obama has been handling it firmly with
sanctions. But our policy vis-à-vis Russia is too often unfocused. But
it’s not about us in Syria. It’s about making sure Bashar does not lose.
The reality is that Putin does not want to see the chaos in Syria spread
to Jordan or Lebanon, as it has to Iraq, and he does not want to see
Syria end up in the hands of Isis. The most counterproductive thing
Obama has done, and it has hurt our efforts to end the fighting a lot,
was to say: “Assad must go as a premise for negotiation.”’ He also
echoed a view held by some in the Pentagon when he alluded to a
collateral factor behind Russia’s decision to launch airstrikes in
support of the Syrian army on 30 September: Putin’s desire to prevent
Assad from suffering the same fate as Gaddafi. He had been told that
Putin had watched a video of Gaddafi’s savage death three times, a video
that shows him being sodomised with a bayonet. The JCS adviser also told
me of a US intelligence assessment which concluded that Putin had been
appalled by Gaddafi’s fate: ‘Putin blamed himself for letting Gaddafi
go, for not playing a strong role behind the scenes’ at the UN when the
Western coalition was lobbying to be allowed to undertake the airstrikes
that destroyed the regime. ‘Putin believed that unless he got engaged
Bashar would suffer the same fate – mutilated – and he’d see the
destruction of his allies in Syria.’
In a speech on 22 November, Obama declared that the ‘principal targets’
of the Russian airstrikes ‘have been the moderate opposition’. It’s a
line that the administration – along with most of the mainstream
American media – has rarely strayed from. The Russians insist that they
are targeting all rebel groups that threaten Syria’s stability –
including Islamic State. The Kremlin adviser on the Middle East
explained in an interview that the first round of Russian airstrikes was
aimed at bolstering security around a Russian airbase in Latakia, an
Alawite stronghold. The strategic goal, he said, has been to establish a
jihadist-free corridor from Damascus to Latakia and the Russian naval
base at Tartus and then to shift the focus of bombing gradually to the
south and east, with a greater concentration of bombing missions over
IS-held territory. Russian strikes on IS targets in and near Raqqa were
reported as early as the beginning of October; in November there were
further strikes on IS positions near the historic city of Palmyra and in
Idlib province, a bitterly contested stronghold on the Turkish border.
Russian incursions into Turkish airspace began soon after Putin
authorised the bombings, and the Russian air force deployed electronic
jamming systems that interfered with Turkish radar. The message being
sent to the Turkish air force, the JCS adviser said, was: ‘We’re going
to fly our fighter planes where we want and when we want and jam your
radar. Do not fuck with us. Putin was letting the Turks know what they
were up against.’ Russia’s aggression led to Turkish complaints and
Russian denials, along with more aggressive border patrolling by the
Turkish air force. There were no significant incidents until 24
November, when two Turkish F-16 fighters, apparently acting under more
aggressive rules of engagement, shot down a Russian Su-24M jet that had
crossed into Turkish airspace for no more than 17 seconds. In the days
after the fighter was shot down, Obama expressed support for Erdoğan,
and after they met in private on 1 December he told a press conference
that his administration remained ‘very much committed to Turkey’s
security and its sovereignty’. He said that as long as Russia remained
allied with Assad, ‘a lot of Russian resources are still going to be
targeted at opposition groups … that we support … So I don’t think we
should be under any illusions that somehow Russia starts hitting only
Isil targets. That’s not happening now. It was never happening. It’s not
going to be happening in the next several weeks.’
The Kremlin adviser on the Middle East, like the Joint Chiefs and the
DIA, dismisses the ‘moderates’ who have Obama’s support, seeing them as
extremist Islamist groups that fight alongside Jabhat al-Nusra and IS
(‘There’s no need to play with words and split terrorists into moderate
and not moderate,’ Putin said in a speech on 22 October). The American
generals see them as exhausted militias that have been forced to make an
accommodation with Jabhat al-Nusra or IS in order to survive. At the end
of 2014, Jürgen Todenhöfer, a German journalist who was allowed to spend
ten days touring IS-held territory in Iraq and Syria, told CNN that the
IS leadership ‘are all laughing about the Free Syrian Army. They don’t
take them for serious. They say: “The best arms sellers we have are the
FSA. If they get a good weapon, they sell it to us.” They didn’t take
them for serious. They take for serious Assad. They take for serious, of
course, the bombs. But they fear nothing, and FSA doesn’t play a role.’
*
Putin’s bombing campaign provoked a series of anti-Russia articles in
the American press. On 25 October, the /New York Times/ reported, citing
Obama administration officials, that Russian submarines and spy ships
were ‘aggressively’ operating near the undersea cables that carry much
of the world’s internet traffic – although, as the article went on to
acknowledge, there was ‘no evidence yet’ of any Russian attempt actually
to interfere with that traffic. Ten days earlier the /Times/ published a
summary of Russian intrusions into its former Soviet satellite
republics, and described the Russian bombing in Syria as being ‘in some
respects a return to the ambitious military moves of the Soviet past’.
The report did not note that the Assad administration had invited Russia
to intervene, nor did it mention the US bombing raids inside Syria that
had been underway since the previous September, without Syria’s
approval. An October op-ed in the same paper by Michael McFaul, Obama’s
ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, declared that the Russian
air campaign was attacking ‘everyone except the Islamic State’. The
anti-Russia stories did not abate after the Metrojet disaster, for which
Islamic State claimed credit. Few in the US government and media
questioned why IS would target a Russian airliner, along with its 224
passengers and crew, if Moscow’s air force was attacking only the Syrian
‘moderates’.
Economic sanctions, meanwhile, are still in effect against Russia for
what a large number of Americans consider Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine,
as are US Treasury Department sanctions against Syria and against those
Americans who do business there. The /New York Times/, in a report on
sanctions in late November, revived an old and groundless assertion,
saying that the Treasury’s actions ‘emphasise an argument that the
administration has increasingly been making about Mr Assad as it seeks
to press Russia to abandon its backing for him: that although he
professes to be at war with Islamist terrorists, he has a symbiotic
relationship with the Islamic State that has allowed it to thrive while
he has clung to power.’
*
The four core elements of Obama’s Syria policy remain intact today: an
insistence that Assad must go; that no anti-IS coalition with Russia is
possible; that Turkey is a steadfast ally in the war against terrorism;
and that there really are significant moderate opposition forces for the
US to support. The Paris attacks on 13 November that killed 130 people
did not change the White House’s public stance, although many European
leaders, including François Hollande, advocated greater co-operation
with Russia and agreed to co-ordinate more closely with its air force;
there was also talk of the need to be more flexible about the timing of
Assad’s exit from power. On 24 November, Hollande flew to Washington to
discuss how France and the US could collaborate more closely in the
fight against Islamic State. At a joint press conference at the White
House, Obama said he and Hollande had agreed that ‘Russia’s strikes
against the moderate opposition only bolster the Assad regime, whose
brutality has helped to fuel the rise’ of IS. Hollande didn’t go that
far but he said that the diplomatic process in Vienna would ‘lead to
Bashar al-Assad’s departure … a government of unity is required.’ The
press conference failed to deal with the far more urgent impasse between
the two men on the matter of Erdoğan. Obama defended Turkey’s right to
defend its borders; Hollande said it was ‘a matter of urgency’ for
Turkey to take action against terrorists. The JCS adviser told me that
one of Hollande’s main goals in flying to Washington had been to try to
persuade Obama to join the EU in a mutual declaration of war against
Islamic State. Obama said no. The Europeans had pointedly not gone to
Nato, to which Turkey belongs, for such a declaration. ‘Turkey is the
problem,’ the JCS adviser said.
Assad, naturally, doesn’t accept that a group of foreign leaders should
be deciding on his future. Imad Moustapha, now Syria’s ambassador to
China, was dean of the IT faculty at the University of Damascus, and a
close aide of Assad’s, when he was appointed in 2004 as the Syrian
ambassador to the US, a post he held for seven years. Moustapha is known
still to be close to Assad, and can be trusted to reflect what he
thinks. He told me that for Assad to surrender power would mean
capitulating to ‘armed terrorist groups’ and that ministers in a
national unity government – such as was being proposed by the Europeans
– would be seen to be beholden to the foreign powers that appointed
them. These powers could remind the new president ‘that they could
easily replace him as they did before to the predecessor … Assad owes it
to his people: he could not leave because the historic enemies of Syria
are demanding his departure.’
*
Moustapha also brought up China, an ally of Assad that has allegedly
committed more than $30 billion to postwar reconstruction in Syria.
China, too, is worried about Islamic State. ‘China regards the Syrian
crisis from three perspectives,’ he said: international law and
legitimacy; global strategic positioning; and the activities of jihadist
Uighurs, from Xinjiang province in China’s far west. Xinjiang borders
eight nations – Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India – and, in China’s view, serves as a
funnel for terrorism around the world and within China. Many Uighur
fighters now in Syria are known to be members of the East Turkestan
Islamic Movement – an often violent separatist organisation that seeks
to establish an Islamist Uighur state in Xinjiang. ‘The fact that they
have been aided by Turkish intelligence to move from China into Syria
through Turkey has caused a tremendous amount of tension between the
Chinese and Turkish intelligence,’ Moustapha said. ‘China is concerned
that the Turkish role of supporting the Uighur fighters in Syria may be
extended in the future to support Turkey’s agenda in Xinjiang. We are
already providing the Chinese intelligence service with information
regarding these terrorists and the routes they crossed from on
travelling into Syria.’
Moustapha’s concerns were echoed by a Washington foreign affairs analyst
who has closely followed the passage of jihadists through Turkey and
into Syria. The analyst, whose views are routinely sought by senior
government officials, told me that ‘Erdoğan has been bringing Uighurs
into Syria by special transport while his government has been agitating
in favour of their struggle in China. Uighur and Burmese Muslim
terrorists who escape into Thailand somehow get Turkish passports and
are then flown to Turkey for transit into Syria.’ He added that there
was also what amounted to another ‘rat line’ that was funnelling Uighurs
– estimates range from a few hundred to many thousands over the years –
from China into Kazakhstan for eventual relay to Turkey, and then to IS
territory in Syria. ‘US intelligence,’ he said, ‘is not getting good
information about these activities because those insiders who are
unhappy with the policy are not talking to them.’ He also said it was
‘not clear’ that the officials responsible for Syrian policy in the
State Department and White House ‘get it’. /IHS-Jane’s Defence Weekly/
estimated in October that as many as five thousand Uighur would-be
fighters have arrived in Turkey since 2013, with perhaps two thousand
moving on to Syria. Moustapha said he has information that ‘up to 860
Uighur fighters are currently in Syria.’
China’s growing concern about the Uighur problem and its link to Syria
and Islamic State have preoccupied Christina Lin, a scholar who dealt
with Chinese issues a decade ago while serving in the Pentagon under
Donald Rumsfeld. ‘I grew up in Taiwan and came to the Pentagon as a
critic of China,’ Lin told me. ‘I used to demonise the Chinese as
ideologues, and they are not perfect. But over the years as I see them
opening up and evolving, I have begun to change my perspective. I see
China as a potential partner for various global challenges especially in
the Middle East. There are many places – Syria for one – where the
United States and China must co-operate in regional security and
counterterrorism.’ A few weeks earlier, she said, China and India, Cold
War enemies that ‘hated each other more than China and the United States
hated each other, conducted a series of joint counterterrorism
exercises. And today China and Russia both want to co-operate on
terrorism issues with the United States.’ As China sees it, Lin
suggests, Uighur militants who have made their way to Syria are being
trained by Islamic State in survival techniques intended to aid them on
covert return trips to the Chinese mainland, for future terrorist
attacks there. ‘If Assad fails,’ Lin wrote in a paper published in
September, ‘jihadi fighters from Russia’s Chechnya, China’s Xinjiang and
India’s Kashmir will then turn their eyes towards the home front to
continue jihad, supported by a new and well-sourced Syrian operating
base in the heart of the Middle East.’
*
General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept
their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office.
General Michael Flynn did not. ‘Flynn incurred the wrath of the White
House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,’ said Patrick Lang,
a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief
Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. ‘He thought truth
was the best thing and they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.’ Flynn
told me his problems went beyond Syria. ‘I was shaking things up at the
DIA – and not just moving deckchairs on the /Titanic/. It was radical
reform. I felt that the civilian leadership did not want to hear the
truth. I suffered for it, but I’m OK with that.’ In a recent interview
in /Der Spiegel/, Flynn was blunt about Russia’s entry into the Syrian
war: ‘We have to work constructively with Russia. Whether we like it or
not, Russia made a decision to be there and to act militarily. They are
there, and this has dramatically changed the dynamic. So you can’t say
Russia is bad; they have to go home. It’s not going to happen. Get real.’
Few in the US Congress share this view. One exception is Tulsi Gabbard,
a Democrat from Hawaii and member of the House Armed Services Committee
who, as a major in the Army National Guard, served two tours in the
Middle East. In an interview on CNN in October she said: ‘The US and the
CIA should stop this illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the
Syrian government of Assad and should stay focused on fighting against …
the Islamic extremist groups.’
‘Does it not concern you,’ the interviewer asked, ‘that Assad’s regime
has been brutal, killing at least 200,000 and maybe 300,000 of his own
people?’
‘The things that are being said about Assad right now,’ Gabbard
responded, ‘are the same that were said about Gaddafi, they are the same
things that were said about Saddam Hussein by those who were advocating
for the US to … overthrow those regimes … If it happens here in Syria …
we will end up in a situation with far greater suffering, with far
greater persecution of religious minorities and Christians in Syria, and
our enemy will be far stronger.’
‘So what you are saying,’ the interviewer asked, ‘is that the Russian
military involvement in the air and on-the-ground Iranian involvement –
they are actually doing the US a favour?’
‘They are working toward defeating our common enemy,’ Gabbard replied.
Gabbard later told me that many of her colleagues in Congress, Democrats
and Republicans, have thanked her privately for speaking out. ‘There are
a lot of people in the general public, and even in the Congress, who
need to have things clearly explained to them,’ Gabbard said. ‘But it’s
hard when there’s so much deception about what is going on. The truth is
not out.’ It’s unusual for a politician to challenge her party’s foreign
policy directly and on the record. For someone on the inside, with
access to the most secret intelligence, speaking openly and critically
can be a career-ender. Informed dissent can be transmitted by means of a
trust relationship between a reporter and those on the inside, but it
almost invariably includes no signature. The dissent exists, however.
The longtime consultant to the Joint Special Operations Command could
not hide his contempt when I asked him for his view of the US’s Syria
policy. ‘The solution in Syria is right before our nose,’ he said. ‘Our
primary threat is Isis and all of us – the United States, Russia and
China – need to work together. Bashar will remain in office and, after
the country is stabilised there will be an election. There is no other
option.’
The military’s indirect pathway to Assad disappeared with Dempsey’s
retirement in September. His replacement as chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, General Joseph Dunford, testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee in July, two months before assuming office. ‘If you
want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the
United States, I’d have to point to Russia,’ Dunford said. ‘If you look
at their behaviour, it’s nothing short of alarming.’ In October, as
chairman, Dunford dismissed the Russian bombing efforts in Syria,
telling the same committee that Russia ‘is not fighting’ IS. He added
that America must ‘work with Turkish partners to secure the northern
border of Syria’ and ‘do all we can to enable vetted Syrian opposition
forces’ – i.e. the ‘moderates’ – to fight the extremists.
Obama now has a more compliant Pentagon. There will be no more indirect
challenges from the military leadership to his policy of disdain for
Assad and support for Erdoğan. Dempsey and his associates remain
mystified by Obama’s continued public defence of Erdoğan, given the
American intelligence community’s strong case against him – and the
evidence that Obama, in private, accepts that case. ‘We know what you’re
doing with the radicals in Syria,’ the president told Erdoğan’s
intelligence chief at a tense meeting at the White House (as I reported
in the /LRB/ of 17 April 2014
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line>).
The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington’s
leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey’s support for
it. The message was never listened to. Why not?
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20151231/bcbc369c/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list