Going through Wikileaks is a depressing yet telling experience, and the more you look, the more you can see why the USA preaches freedom of expression then tries to incarcerate or kill whistle-blowers. Below is a document showing the United States of America had plans for Syria as far back as 2006.
Reference ID 06DAMASCUS5399. Created 2006-12-13 16:03. Classification: SECRET. Origin: Embassy Damascus. Now let's take a little peak at the inner workings of the United States of America's foreign policy.
The piece is an appraisal of opportunities to destabilize the SARG - Syrian Arab Republic Government and begins with the sentence: "The SARG ends 2006 in a much stronger position domestically and internationally than it did 2005". It continues with an assessment of possible weaknesses in the Government and refers to post-Assad scenarios.
Then an honest description of the cable itself: "This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising. These proposals will need to be fleshed out and converted into real actions and we need to be ready to move quickly to take advantage of such opportunities. Many of our suggestions underline using Public Diplomacy and more indirect means to send messages that influence the inner circle".
So, before the United States of America began its subversion, there is an admission that "The country is economically stable (at least for the short term), internal opposition the regime faces is weak". Then the cynicism of the US diplomatic mission in Damascus is shocking - references to the lack of experience of Bashar al-Assad and how "we may directly impact regime behavior where it matters".
Regarding the Hariri investigation, the US Embassy suggests that Syria's response is irrational in defending itself and its international standing because:
"Rationally, the regime should calculate that it can deal with any summons of Syrian officials by refusing to turn any suspects over, or, in extreme cases by engineering 'suicides'."
So, therefore, next point, "Possible action" in capitals, and I quote: "PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE".
First ball out of the box? Saudi Arabia: "We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him with venues for airing the SARG's dirty laundry. We should anticipate an overreaction by the regime that will add to its isolation and alienation from its Arab neighbors."
And apart from that, discourage other countries to invest in Syria, particularly Foreign Direct Investment: "DISCOURAGE FDI, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GULF".
Internally, back in 2006, the USA was already considering using the Kurds as instruments of its anti-Assad policy: "THE KURDS: The most organized and daring political opposition and civil society groups are among the ethnic minority Kurds, concentrated in Syria's northeast, as well as in communities in Damascus and Aleppo".
And now the bombshell: "Extremist elements increasingly use Syria as a base, while the SARG has taken some actions against groups stating links to Al-Qaeda".
"Possible Actions: ...Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG,s argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria."
I will quote the conclusion to this document in its entirety:
"CONCLUSION: This analysis leaves out the anti-regime Syrian Islamists because it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the threat within Syria that such groups pose. They are certainly a long-term threat. While it alludes to the vulnerabilities that Syria faces because of its alliance with Iran, it does not elaborate fully on this topic. The bottom line is that Bashar is entering the new year in a stronger position than he has been in several years, but those strengths also carry with them -- or sometimes mask --vulnerabilities. If we are ready to capitalize, they will offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep him off-balance, and make him pay a premium for his mistakes."
2006. So, what was that about a chemical attack? Is Congress really going to ignore the sheer evil which underlies the foreign policy of the United States of America? Those voting in favour of military action are underlining the claims of those who say that instead of change, the USA needs a revolution.
Is Congress rotten to the core, or does it listen to its Constituents? Tomorrow we shall see.
Look at the photograph. Are these unarmed civilians? No, they are not...
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru