US-Geheimdienst
Veteranen warnen Obama vor falschen Informationen, die zum Krieg gegen Syrien
führen können
Zutiefst alarmiert
über die Entschlossenheit US-Präsident Obamas, Syriens Regime für den
angeblichen Einsatz von chemischen Waffen zu „bestrafen“, bei dem am 21. August
Hunderte Menschen, darunter viele Kinder, in einem Vorort von Damaskus ums Leben kamen,
veröffentlichten die amerikanischen „Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity“ (VIPS) ein an den Präsidenten
gerichtetes Memorandum. Sie vertreten darin die Überzeugung, dass Syriens Präsident
Assad „NICHT für den „Chemie-Unfall“ , wie sie es nennen, verantwortlich ist. VIPS`ehemalige
Geheimdienst-Mitarbeiter weisen Obamas Behauptung, Assad habe die Attacke am
21. August angeordnet „kategorisch“ zurück.
VIPS ist eine Gruppe aktiver und ehemaliger Angehöriger der
US-Nachrichtendienste, darunter der Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), des U.S.
State Department’s Intelligence Bureau (INR) und der Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA). Sie wurde 2003 aus Protest
gegen Fehlinformationen über Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak gegründet, die die
Basis für die amerikanisch-britische Invasion des Iraks lieferten. Ein
Memorandum, das sie kurz vor Kriegsbeginn an den damaligen Präsidenten Bush
richteten, verfehlte seine Wirkung. Die Informationen erwiesen sich nach
Kriegsende tatsächlich als falsch und brachten die britische und amerikanische
Regierung in Bedrängnis. Dennoch schenkte Obama schenkte bisher diesen
erfahrenen Agenten einiger der wichtigsten US-Geheimdienste kein Gehör.
Eier der
Unterzeichner, Philip Giraldi, erklärt, dass das Studium offizieller
Erklärungen der US-Administration im Falle des Chemiewaffen-Einsatzes keine
klaren Beweise für Assads Schuld erkennen ließe. Giraldi, ehemaliger
Mitarbeiter von CIA und DIA, ist heute Direktor des „Council for the National
Interest“, einer politisch unabhängigen Institution, die sich die Förderung
amerikanischer Außenpolitik im Mittleren Osten auf der Basis „amerikanischer
Werte“, zum Schutz der nationalen Interessen der USA und zur Förderung einer
gerechten Lösung des arabisch-israelischen Konflikts zum Ziel setzt. Als
intimer Kenner der Sprache der Geheimdienste, der in diesen Kreisen üblichen
und beliebten Wortspiele ist Giraldi davon überzeugt, dass es in Wahrheit keine
klaren Beweise dafür gebe, dass Assad -
wie Obama hartnäckig behauptet – den Befehl zur Attacke mit chemischen Waffen
gegeben habe. Auch die Fotos der Opfer,
die die US-Regierung als Beweis vorlegen, überzeugen den Experten nicht. Sie ließen nicht darauf schließen, „dass
diese Leute Opfer einer militärischen Operation oder einer vom Regime
angeordneten Aktion wurden“. Auch werden
in den Beweismaterialien der US-Regierung nach Giraldis Überzeugung keine verlässlichen
Quellen angegeben. Sie bestehen vielmehr aus Bruchstücken, die man in einer
Richtung, genauso aber in der gegenteiligen zusammensetzen könne. „Die
Regierung hat sich eindeutig bemüht einen Kriegsgrund zu konstruieren.“ Giraldi weist darauf hin, dass seine
Kontaktleute teilweise bereits aus den Geheimdiensten ausgeschieden seien, doch
weiterhin enge Verbindungen mit ihren früheren Kollegen unterhielten. „Sie
sagen alle das selbe aus.“
Den vor wenigen Tagen
in der „Mint Press“ veröffentlichten Bericht über Interviews mit syrischen Rebellen,
die die chemischen Waffen von Saudis erhalten und sie irrtümlich zur Explosion
gebracht hätten (siehe Ifamo vom 5.9.2013), hält Giraldi für „sehr glaubwürdig“.
Diese Ansicht würden auch viele seiner Kollegen vertreten. Der Bericht „liefert
Antworten auf viele offene Fragen.“ Zum Abschluss des Interviews für die „Scott Horton Show“ ( http://scotthorton.org/2013/09/03/9313-philip-giraldi/)
richtet Giraldi eine Mahnung an die Amerikaner und wohl auch die Bürger anderer
westlicher Staaten: Sie sollten „viel skeptischer“ sein, und er meint wohl
gegenüber den Regierungen, aber auch der Berichterstattung in vielen der
etablierten Medien.
Wir bringen nun im
Folgenden das „Memorandum“ der VIPS im Wortlaut.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals Warn Obama on
Syrian Intel
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(antiwar.com)
Saturday,
September 7, 2013
Despite the
Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government
guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military
and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up
information that undercuts the Official Story.
MEMORANDUM
FOR: The President
FROM:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is
Syria a Trap?
Precedence:
IMMEDIATE
We regret
to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically,
that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable
intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical
incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that
British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we
choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers
decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible
denial.”
We have
been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we
addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5,
2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support
attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the
doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The
fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very
afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond …
the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no
compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are
likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.
Our sources
confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries
on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident
was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade
chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to
CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John
Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the
media, the public – and perhaps even you.
We have
observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our
former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes
in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero
credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn
testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.
Intelligence
Summary or Political Ploy?
That
Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in
Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of
the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it
was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released
the “assessment.”
This is not
a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government
Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a
political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers
avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that,
though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of
confirmation.”
Déjà Fraud:
This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002,
on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British
intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials
that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military
action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he
visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.
The
discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence,
prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened
with the “intelligence” on Syria.
The
Intelligence
There is a
growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East – mostly
affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters – providing a strong
circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned
provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The
aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring
the United States into the war.
According
to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb
of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity
died; others were injured.
We are
unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of
carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no
reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a
strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In
addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored
opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular
military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders
and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted
Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command
center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign
sponsors.
Senior
opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional
commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing
development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At
operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari
and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition,
the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition
leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S.
bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari
and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that
they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And
they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all
opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses
controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of
U.S. intelligence officers.
Cui bono?
That the
various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample
incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is
clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government
in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged
in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel
and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli
objective is becoming crystal clear.
Reporter
Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New
York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her
article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the
Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s
two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.
Rudoren continues:
“For
Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian
perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and
his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated
by Sunni jihadis.
“‘This is a
playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t
want one to win – we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli
consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s
the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat
from Syria.’”
We think
this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and
that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes
– is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in
Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in
the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.
That
Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays
a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to
have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an
embarrassment for Tehran.
Iran’s Role
Iran can
readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation,
real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most
damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience
suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible
also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or
damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of
Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s
worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S.
military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.
Iran has
joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident,
and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According
to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups
for [the United States].”
Actually,
he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of
entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try
to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given
the full picture.
Inevitable
Retaliation
We hope
your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a
matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For
example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely
to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look
like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration
directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S.
Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in
Beirut, 1983.”
For the
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas
Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip
Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew
Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry
Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick
Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David
MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray
McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth
Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd
Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam
Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen
Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright,
Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
Source URL:
Links:
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen