Posts Tagged ‘Syria’

via The most perilous time in world history got worse

The Most Perilous Time In World History Just Got WORSE! Posted By Luther Blissett: By Stephen Lendman: Intrepid Report 03/19/18: Or:

Events ongoing should terrify everyone—things likely heading for greater war than already.

Most Americans, Brits, and others in NATO countries are unaware of the danger posed by hardline Western extremists in charge of policy-making—notably in Washington, London and Israel, the Jewish state an alliance Mediterranean Dialogue member.

Businessman Trump was co-opted to be a warrior president—neocon generals in charge of geopolitical policies, their agenda hardened by Mike Pompeo replacing Rex Tillerson at State, along with torturer-in-chief Gina Haspel appointed new CIA director.

An unholy alliance of US extremist policymakers allied with like-minded ones in partner countries risks war winds reaching gale force, a terrifying prospect if confrontation with Russia, Iran or North Korea occurs—the possibility increased by recent events.

Earlier this week, US Defense Secretary Mattis and UN envoy Haley threatened Russia and Damascus.

Russia vowed to retaliate against US attacks on Syrian forces in East Ghouta or elsewhere endangering its personnel in the country.

Anti-Russia hysteria in Britain over the Sergey Skripal poisoning affair, most certainly Moscow had nothing to do with, soured bilateral relations more than already.

In response to British PM Theresa May demanding swift Russian answers to questions posed about the incident, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman (speaking for her government) replied sharply saying, “One does not give 24 hours notice to a nuclear power,” adding the “Skripal poisoning was not an incident but a colossal international provocation,” adding not a “single international legal mechanism [exists] to probe the Skripal case.”

Russia’s embassy in London said “Moscow will not respond to London’s ultimatum until it receives samples of the chemical substance to which the UK investigators are referring.”

“Britain must comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention which stipulates joint investigation into the incident, for which Moscow is ready.”

“Without that, there can be no sense in any statements from London. The incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia.”

“Any threat to take ‘punitive’ measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that.”

“Not only is Russia groundlessly and provocatively accused of the Salisbury incident, but apparently, plans are being developed in the UK to strike Russia with cyber weapons.”

“Judging by the statements of the prime minister, such a decision can be taken at tomorrow’s meeting of the National Security Council.”

Given the gravity of the situation, the above comments by Russian diplomats were uncharacteristically strong.

Sergey Lavrov warned Washington that “[i]f a new [US] strike . . . takes place [against Syrian forces], the consequences will be very serious,” adding, “I simply don’t have any normal terms left to describe all this.”

What’s coming remains to be seen. Hostile rhetoric from US and UK officials, along with hawkish extremists Pompeo in charge at State and Haspel appointed new CIA chief likely signal more war, not less.

What’s ongoing assures no possibility of improving dismal bilateral relations with Russia, China, Iran and other sovereign independent countries.

Talks with North Korea could either be scuttled or confrontational if they take place.

Given very disturbing ongoing events, the perilous state of world conditions reached a new low.

Be scared about what may follow—be very scared!


[Here’s What THAT Would Take & WHY IT Ain’t Gonna Happen, Folks!]

By Ric A Ohge | Quotes & Attributions Noted And/Or Linked | Nov 17, 2015

In my previous post on this I pointed out a number of inconvenient facts behind WHY Paris in particular, and France, generally, was targeted for this “terrorist” attack. For details, read: []

President Hollande, not unlike Sarkosy, has been wandering further away from US and NATO positions for going on a couple years. France has chafed under the Russian sanctions promoted by the US and NATO, has turned out Monsanto from French farming and is about to turn thumbs down on the TTIP/TISA “Trade Deals” that are the cornerstone of Obama’s benighted eight year ‘Legacy’.

Frances reaction was swift and deadly, raining ordinance on Raqqa, the Caliphate’s capitol city. [

If you’ve REALLY followed this story from “go”, you know the US spent years arming the “Moderate Militants” and “Free Syrian Army” to remove the allegedly[as claimed by the US and Islamists trying to topple him] tyrannical Assad Regime. 

WE Armed Them-And Allowed Them To Become ISIS

Reported In The Fair Blog, Feb 22, 2015:


As Ian Sinclair noted last September in the Huffington Post:

In mid-2012, the most influential newspaper in the world reported the US was helping to arm the rebels-1–a fact confirmed by subsequent stories-2 in the New York Times itself, as well as numerous reports-3 in other mainstream news outlets around the world.




Contrast this publicly available, easily accessed information with these summaries from the mainstream media of the ongoing US role in Syria…

New York Times (5/4/13): “President [Obama] seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago.”


Guardian (5/8/13): “The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA [Free Syrian Army].”


New York Times (9/9/14): “Mr Obama has resisted military engagement in Syria for more than three years, out of fear early on that arming the rebels who oppose Mr. Assad would fail to alter the balance in the civil war.”


BBC Today Programme (9/11/14), presenter Mishal Husein to US ambassador: “If you [the US] had helped the moderate Syrian opposition, the Free Syrian Army, three years ago, even two years ago, we might well not be in the position that we are now. President Obama’s reluctance to intervene and to take action on Syria has contributed to what we are seeing now.”

HOW Tyrannical?

This Video from 2014 illustrates, as RT interviews Virginia Senator Richard Black who had drafted a letter to President Assad thank him for saving the lives of so many Christian Syrians-Published on Aug 29, 2014:

Video Link:

“Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be lauded for his efforts to protect Christians from the radical militants of the Islamic State, according to Virginia State Sen. Richard Black. In May, the Republican wrote a letter to the Syrian leader, openly thanking his army and air force for providing protection from jihadists. As the IS threat grows, the senator believes showing support for the Assad is becoming even more important. RT’s Ameera David spoke to Black to get his anti-“groupthink” take on the crisis.”

But WHY Does Assad Remain In Power?

Edward Dark Writes In Middle East Eye | Mar 31, 2015:

Assad’s support in Aleppo and Damascus

A regime that has no support among its own population cannot survive years of civil war, no matter how powerful it is or how much support it gets from abroad, it just goes against all logic. 

A large part of the Syrian population-1 still inside the country still supports-2 the regime. 



Many are from Syria’s numerous and diverse religious minorities, but a sizable number are also from the Sunni populations in the large and cosmopolitan cities of Damascus and Aleppo.


This is a startling statistic after three years of civil war, and not one you are likely to read about in the news anytime soon. 

Worse still, if you’re in the Middle East, the Syrian conflict is framed by the dominant Gulf-owned pan-Arabian news networks that strongly back the insurgency as a fully sectarian Shia vs Sunni issue. 

This helps galvanize support – and initially even recruits – to the anti-regime cause and keeps Arab public opinion – mostly Sunni Muslim – on side.

The Sunni split

The truth, however, is far more nuanced, though there is definitely a sectarian dimension to the Syrian conflict and significant internal polarization along those lines. 

The Syrian army is largely made up of Sunni conscripts, while many willing Sunni volunteers in the paramilitary groups that support regular government forces fight alongside foreign Shia militias, like Hezbollah, against a plethora of rebel groups that are all exclusively Sunni Muslim of varying extremes – both local and foreign. 

It is this Sunni split in Syria that is perhaps the most significant but overlooked factor in shaping the conflict.

A protracted civil war also favors the most powerful player on the ground and the one that can provide stability, or at least the prospect of it, no matter how dim. 

In Syria’s case this happens to be the central state, which for all intents and purposes is the ruling regime. 

They are inexorably and organically linked together, hence getting rid of the regime would also destroy central government. 

Absent any credible viable alternatives, this would cement the failed state status of a Syria embroiled in constant internal conflict for decades to come.

The dangers of collapse

This sort of central collapse would also almost certainly see jihadist groups fill the void, creating even more powerful extremist mini-statelets, the ideal breeding ground and export hub for terrorist fanatics. 

As you can imagine, this is not a prospect welcomed by most Syrians, nor indeed one of the most powerful backers of the opposition and insurgency, the United States. 

It is, on the contrary, an acceptable outcome for others like Israel, Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, who are obsessed with regime change at any cost despite the catastrophic consequences a disorderly collapse would have on the nation, and the profound wider-reaching repercussions.

This scenario plays well with their strategic regional interests of countering Iranian influence and hegemony in the Middle East, which in the case of the Gulf States and Israel is viewed as an imminent existential threat. 

A fractured Syria would deny Iran an important ally, and enable them to retain permanent spheres of influence in the north and south of Syria through their proxy rebel militias. 

They can then accommodate or deal with the extremist groups in the long term, at least that’s their flawed reasoning. 

This intransigent self-interest is one of the major obstacles to reaching a lasting political settlement to the conflict.

Stability, services and incomes

Amid all this fear and uncertainty we cannot underestimate the psychological and pragmatic attachment of many Syrians to a central government that continues to provide at least the bare minimum of public services, civil bureaucracy and state institutions including policing, free healthcare, education, as well as salaries and pensions to hundreds of thousands of civil servants and government employees. 

This is the case even for those living in opposition or ISIS territory. 

For many families, this is their only source of income.

Syria is a nation split along geographic and demographic lines and those divides grow ever deeper the more intractable the fighting gets. 

There is no realistic prospect of a military victory for any side anytime soon. 

In the meantime, the plight of ordinary Syrians continues to get ever more desperate as extremist groups take advantage of the chaos to sow terror at an industrial scale.

The only solution to this conflict – as has been repeated time and again – is a negotiated political settlement. 

The only way to achieve that is to sit down and talk with the ruling regime no matter how unpalatable or controversial that may seem. 

For all of its reprehensible acts, the ruling regime represents the central state, the Syrian army and a sizable chunk of Syrians and their interests.

It would be folly to ignore all that and keep pushing the same shortsighted narratives that have lead us nowhere except to more violence. 

At the end of the day, it is the enemy you negotiate with to end war, not your friends.”


A June 25th 2013 Article from the Voltaire Network reports on an internal NATO study (dated June 2013), which takes stock of Syrian public opinion.
“The study shows that 70% of Syrians support President Bashar al-Assad, 20% adopt a neutral position and 10% support the “rebels.”
These figures are presented as reflecting a change of heart. The population is tired of the abuses and divisions of the armed opposition. From NATO’s perspective, what we are witnessing is not a phenomenon that is occurring in view of the approaching “Geneva-2” peace conference.
For two years, the events in Syria have been portrayed by the Atlanticist and GCC press as a peaceful revolution cruelly suppressed by a tyrant. The Syrian and anti-imperialist press, on the contrary, brands them as a foreign attack, armed and funded to the tune of billions of dollars.” [
So, despite all of this, and as “our answer” to the Paris attack, President Obama is being urged to step up air attacks, put “boots on the ground”, and in general ramp up American power against an enemy WE essentially created, a call showing an obvious disconnect between the Rothschild NATO Zionist Western MSM and reality.
The ONLY way this could ever happen OR work, is if those forces were placed under the Syrian-Russian-Iranian Coalition Command, bombed and/or attacked coalition targets, all under the auspices of support for an Assad Syrian Regime, with Israel required to stand down in IT’S escalating attacks against Syrian targets.


Such a combined effort could wipe the core of the Caliphate off the planet in weeks…BUT, it puts Obama in the embarrassing position of doing a 180 degree turn against the forces he at least HELPED create, and who he’s continued to support up to now, as well as affirming new support for a Syrian Regime, that he, nor NATO, nor the Rothschild Banking Cartel want.

In the end, I’m afraid the Bankers will have their way. 
We can then anticipate that an increased American presence in the Middle-East Conflict[It’s no longer a “Syrian” war], especially as Israel and NATO are stepping theirs up, will push us ever closer to that WW III scenario no one in their right mind would want.
And is it ONLY ME, or is appearing more clearly NO ONE IS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND.I’m Just Saying…

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow appreciates Athens’ position on flights of Russian aircraft with humanitarian aid to Syria through the Greek airspace.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Moscow appreciates Athens’ position on flights of Russian aircraft with humanitarian aid to Syria through the Greek airspace, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Saturday.

“We appreciate Greek partners’ adherence to principles and respect for our bilateral relations… Position of Athens shows their deep understanding of the difficult humanitarian situation in Syria,” Zakharova told journalists.

The Greek authorities had refused to prohibit Russian support aircraft from flying into Syria despite the United States’ request.


Russian aircraft with humanitarian aid to Syria through the Greek airspace.

Russian specialists sent to Syria to teach armed forces to operate Russian weapons.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russian military specialists are currently deployed in Syria in order to help Syrians master Russian military equipment that is being delivered, Russian Foreign Minister spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Wednesday.

In recent days, several media outlets published images, found on social media accounts, showing Russians troops in locations across Syria.

“I can confirm and reiterate that there are Russian military specialists in Syria who are helping master the equipment being delivered.”

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russia provides “considerable” support to Syria in terms of equipment, training and weaponry.

The Relationship Between Sob_ama And ISIS: The Evidence!

Syria has been engulfed in a civil war since 2011. 

The conflict is essentially a struggle between the Syrian government and the so-called moderate opposition, which aims to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, but it has been made more complicated by extremist groups, such as the Islamic State, operating in the country.

America, out, out, Syria will stay free’; chanted a million-strong march in Damascus on Wednesday. 

This is a result of the Brentwood mentality to rule the world aka;  banking cabal’s NWO of totalitarianism by usurping the U.S. to do their bidding via false flag coups, murder, sedition, treason etc etc. [they coup’d their 1913 Fed Reserve, now they want the world ~ typical of sociopathic hoarding]

Further Details Emerge on the Epic U.S. Foreign Policy Disaster that is Syria

So Far, Our Exploits In Syria Have Put A LOT Of Folks “Into Motion”…

Have Created And Cemented Wonderful New Friendships…

Michael Krieger | Sep 12, 2015

With all the U.S.-trained fighters dead, captured or missing and their leader in the hands of Al Qaeda, top U.S. commanders are scrambling this week to determine how to revive the half-billion dollar program to create a moderate Syrian army to fight the Islamic State.

The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who viewed the force as a critical element of the military strategy in both Syria and Iraq, is conferring with top Pentagon officials behind closed doors to figure out what options are left for what is widely considered a policy and military failure, according to senior defense officials.

Sen. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Appropriations Committee, returned from a trip to the region last week where he was briefed on the effort. 

His assessment of the program: “a bigger disaster than I could have ever imagined.”

– From the the Politico article: The Pentagon’s Syria Debacle:  []

American “leaders” have the anti-Midas effect when it comes to foreign policy.

Everything they touch turns to shit. 


Yet there they remain. 

Firmly in positions of power, pulling the strings and goose-stepping the world into military-industrial complex oblivion. 

Before getting to the meat of this post, I want to reiterate my overall thesis on U.S. foreign policy and what it means for our nation. 

From the post, The Forgotten War – Understanding the Incredible Debacle Left Behind by NATO in Libya []:

There are only two logical conclusions that can be reached about American foreign policy leadership in the 21st century.

1) American leadership is ruthlessly pursuing immoral wars all over the world with the intent of creating outside enemies to focus public anger on, as a conscious diversion away from the criminality happening domestically. 

As an added bonus, the intelligence-military-industrial complex makes an incredible sum of money. 

The end result: serfs are distracted with inane nationalistic fervor, while the “elites” earn billions.

2) American leadership is completely and totally inept; being easily manipulated into overseas conflicts by ruthless corporate interests and cunning foreign “rebels” in order to advance their own selfish interests, which are in conflict with the interests of the general public.

I can’t come up with any other logical conclusion. 

Either way, such people have no business running the affairs of these United States, and their actions are merely increasing instability and violence across the planet. 

The longer they remain in charge with no accountability, the more dangerous this world will become.

In charge they remain, which is why we continue to be tortured with fiction-esque stories of incompetence such as the following.

From Politico []:

With all the U.S.-trained fighters dead, captured or missing and their leader in the hands of Al Qaeda, top U.S. commanders are scrambling this week to determine how to revive the half-billion dollar program to create a moderate Syrian army to fight the Islamic State.

The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who viewed the force as a critical element of the military strategy in both Syria and Iraq, is conferring with top Pentagon officials behind closed doors to figure out what options are left forwhat is widely considered a policy and military failure, according to senior defense officials.

Just the latest failure in an endless string.

But a year after Congress authorized the Syrian train and equip program, to the tune of $500 million, even Republican hawks are no longer willing to throw their support behind it — including some who think it should be scrapped altogether.

“It’s a bad, bad sick joke,” Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters, calling the decision to authorize the program in the first place a mistake.

You know it’s bad when one of the biggest proponents of arming and supporting Syrian “moderates” in the first place, Crazy John McCain, is against it.

Sen. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Appropriations Committee, returned from a trip to the region last week where he was briefed on the effort. 

His assessment of the program: “a bigger disaster than I could have ever imagined.”

After nearly 12 months of extensive international outreach, the program has so far yielded only 54 fighters — all of whom were killed, captured by terrorists in Syria or scattered when they came under attack this summer.

The White House’s original goal for the first year was for more than a brigade’s worth of combatants — about 5,400 — who would be able to push the Islamic State out of the villages it controls in northern Syria and then go on offense against the terror group.

“Hundreds” more fighters are in training as part of a second cadre, defense officials say, but it isn’t clear whether when they’d enter Syria or even whether they’d be held back until the Pentagon decides how it might try to overhaul the program.

Yeah, I mean why would they learn from their mistakes and stop acting like imbeciles over and over again.

Now here’s the money shot. 

What’s the brilliant solution? 

More of the same, just bigger. 

Which will naturally lead to further unmitigated disaster, a result American leadership consistently achieve with remarkable consistency.

So Dempsey, leaders of the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, and other top officials are considering a number of options.

One is to evaluate the idea of fielding a much larger force this time,according to the officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Another option is to pair a cadre of trained Syrian fighters with a force of Kurdish fighters like those who helped push the Islamic State out of the town of the Syrian town of Kobani. 

And the Pentagon is studying ways to better prepare future trainees in the so-called New Syrian Force with better intelligence, air support, and to keep closer control of them.

A touch of Khorasan group, a dash of al-Qaeda, two tablespoons of ISIS, and presto! 

Another Pentagon funded and created terrorist group is born.

Carter, in brief remarks to reporters Wednesday, insisted that “the underlying concept of trying to find capable, motivated ground forces that we can enable, who are local, who can sustain the defeat of extremism on territories, is fundamentally the right strategic principle.”

If that fails, we can always try the General Petraeus strategy: Team Up with al-Qaeda

With this group in charge, it will take a miracle to escape WW3.

The Brookings Institute Plan to Liquidate Syria

By Mike Whitney – Aug. 10 06, 2015  

Here’s your US foreign policy puzzler for the day:  

When is regime change not regime change?

When the regime stays in power but loses its ability to rule.

This is the current objective of US policy in Syria, to undermine Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s ability to govern the country without physically removing him from office.

The idea is simple:

Deploy US-backed  “jihadi” proxies to capture-and-hold vast sections of the country thereby making it impossible for the central government to control the state.

This is how the Obama administration plans to deal with Assad, by making him irrelevant.  

The strategy is explained in great detail in a piece by Michael E. O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institute titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”.

Here’s an excerpt:

“…the only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria….the international community should work to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria over time…

The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. 

American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces.

The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack.

Western forces themselves would remain in more secure positions in general—within the safe zones but back from the front lines—at least until the reliability of such defenses, and also local allied forces, made it practical to deploy and live in more forward locations.

Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL….

The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones… The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force….to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.”

(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war“, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)

Isn’t this the basic gameplan that is unfolding in Syria today?

Notice how O’ Hanlon never considers the moral implications of obliterating a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and displacing millions of others.

Those kinds of things simply don’t matter to the pundits who concoct these imperial strategies.

It’s just grist for the mill.  

Notice, also, how the author refers to “buffer zones and “safe zones”, the same terms which have been used repeatedly in relation to Turkey’s agreement with the US for the use of Turkey’s Incirlik air base.

Turkey wants the US to assist in the creation of these safe zones along Syria’s northern border to protect it from attack and to create a sanctuary for the training so called “moderate” militants to be used in the war against ISIS.

As it happens, these prospective safe zones are a vital part of O’Hanlon’s broader plan to break the state into a million disconnected enclaves ruled by armed mercenaries, al Qaida affiliates, and local warlords.

This is Obama’s dream of a “liberated Syria”, an anarchic failed state sprinkled with US military bases where massive resource extraction can take place unimpeded.  

What Obama wants to avoid at all costs, is another embarrassment like Iraq where the removal of Saddam created a  security vacuum that led to a violent and protracted revolt that cost the US dearly in terms of blood, treasure and international credibility.

That’s why he’s settled on the present strategy which he thinks is a smarter way to achieve the same objectives.

In other words, the goals haven’t changed.

The only difference is the methods.  

Here’s more from O’Hanlon:

“The plan would be directed not only against ISIL but in part against Assad as well.

In a bow to reality, however, it would not explicitly seek to overthrow him, so much as deny him control of territory that he might still aspire to govern again.

The autonomous zones would be liberated with the clear understanding that there was no going back to rule by Assad or a successor.

In any case, Assad would not be a military target under this concept, but areas he currently controls (and cruelly bombs) would be.

And if Assad delayed too long in accepting a deal for exile, he could inevitably face direct dangers to his rule and even his person.”

(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)

What does this mean?

It means that Syria is going to be the testing ground for O’Hanlon’s new regime change strategy, a strategy in which Assad is going to be the number one guinea pig. 

And just so there isn’t any misunderstanding about the real aim of the operation, O’ Hanlon makes this rather stunning admission:

“This plan would differ from current strategy in three main ways.

First, the idea would be plainly stated as the avowed goal of the United States….. It would also help dispel the lurking suspicion that Washington was content to tolerate the Assad government now as the lesser of two evils.”

(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)

So the administration should abandon the pretense that the US is conducting a war on ISIS and just admit openly that ‘Assad’s got to go.’  

According to O’ Hanlon that would help to smooth things over with other members of coalition who are confused about Washington’s real intentions.  

Here’s more from O’ Hanlon:

“…multilateral support teams, grounded in special forces detachments and air-defense capabilities as needed, would be prepared for deployment into parts of Syria once opposition elements were able to seize and reliably hold strong points…..This last part would of course be the most challenging, and the actual deployment of any such teams the most fraught.

It need not be rushed….But it’s a necessary part of the effort.” (“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)


There’s going to be US boots on the ground in Syria.

You can bet on it.

While it’s okay to deploy the jihadi cannon fodder to lead the charge and “soften up” the enemy; eventually, you have to send in the A Team to seal the deal.

That means special forces,  a countrywide no-fly zone, forward operating bases, and a ginned-up propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the sheeple that Syria must be destroyed in order to defend US national security.  

All of this will unfold in Phase 2 of the Syria war fiasco which is about to intensify by many orders of magnitude.

Finally, here’s O’ Hanlon making one last spirited pitch for his spanking-new regime change strategy:

“This type of plan may be the only realistic path forward… Moreover, while it is not without risks for the United States, the scale of military involvement envisioned is not substantially greater than what we have been doing the last year or so in Afghanistan.

President Obama…. should not view Syria as a problem to hand to his successor, but rather a crisis that demands his attention and a new strategy now.”

So there you have it; the plan to rip Syria to shreds, precipitate an even bigger humanitarian crisis, and topple Assad without physically removing him from office.  

All that carnage and destruction in one-short 1,100 word essay.  

How’s that for brevity?

Do you ever wonder if these policy brainiacs, like O’ Hanlon, ever think about the suffering they cause with their grand strategies, or does it even matter to them?