By Yossef Bodansky There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.
The extent of U.S. foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.
On Aug. 13-14, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and U.S. Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the U.S.-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.
Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on Aug. 21-23. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machine guns. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. Intelligence.
These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Followup weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of Aug. 24-25, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlibto-Aleppo area, including the Al Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).
Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the U.S. and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on Aug. 26. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by U.S. Amb. Robert Ford.
More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and U.S. Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days. “The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced U.S. bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, Aug. 29. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.
The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of U.S. intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a U.S.-led military intervention.
I’m on board, Mata. Something’s not right.
Bodansky recently authored an article titled “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?”
@Greg: Slight correction.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/03/yossef-bodansky-did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/
Bryan Preston wrote this article.
But it is a goody.
He adds to Bodansky’s case.
@Greg… sigh. You don’t do yourself many favors, do you? If you read the “Most Wanted”, and compare to your own link, you’ll see it’s the same article, but cross posted in two different publications. The exception is the last seven paragraphs include more info than the version you linked from two days ago.
I’m telling ya… you have to slow down and read before you type.
@drjohn…. OMG. Peace is possible between oft warring factions, eh? LOL
@Nan G, just so no one gets confused… you liked to Preston’s article about Bodansky’s article.. this MW post. Greg linked to the same Bodansky article published two days ago, and without the updates/modification in today’s version in the last seven paragraphs.
I don’t know who is responsible for the headlines, as authors often find their headlines changed by the publishing entity. But Bodansky never said the WH “helped” the CW attack. He said they should have had knowledge about it before it happened. I suspect the first publication trends towards the scandalous headlines type of methods for more hits? Dunno….
@MataHarley:
Yes, it is the same article. The point was to include the omitted title that appeared with the original version, which I believe warns readers that the author may be somewhat biased. Maybe he didn’t title it himself, but I think the content itself is cause for great skepticism.
This is misleading as hell. Médecins Sans Frontières could neither confirm nor deny sarin was used because they didn’t test for sarin. They treated 3,600 patients. They undoubtedly performed medical tests on their patients. That doesn’t mean they tested for exposure to sarin, or even had the ability to do so. Their conclusion that their patients were likely all the victims of a nerve gas attack were based on the fact that they had all of the signs and symptoms.
Apparently something significantly more toxic than riot control gas or pesticides was used. Six medics who came to the aid of victims died of exposure. That’s indicative of a highly toxic nerve agent.
The remains of 20 rockets were reportedly found in the area after the attack. They didn’t explode. They hit the ground intact. Apparently they released the toxic agent before impact as an aerosol. That’s far more sophisticated than releasing a batch of “kitchen sarin.” Syrian rebels are extremely unlikely to have that sort of advanced military technology. They’re constructing makeshift mortar bomb launchers out of steel pipes.
Right. Syrian Commando forces, trying to get to the bottom of who perpetrated these heinous attacks… That bit of the story most likely comes direct from the Syrian government. As do a number of cited details. Does anyone actually believe information from official Syrian sources is at all reliable? Why would Bodansky think that it is? He’s certainly made himself a conduit for it.
@MataHarley:
Which makes this following rather long winded article, (Put online by Breitbart and accredited as being penned by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.) an interesting read:
Let’s Join One Another to Crush the Unholy, Unruly, Jihadi Muslims
The whole article is peppered with Putin’s snide comments. But there was a single sentence in the last paragraph quoted above that we should think long and hard about:
Even the devil can speak the truth when it suits him. We need to consider, what Obama and the Progressives in congress hope to benefit from this, and the reasons are likely many.
While I doubt the average American civilian will ever know who really attacked those people in Syria, I think it is suspicious that Obama wanted to RUSH into his little action before a UN report on the attack’s chemicals came in.
Obama saw the writing on the wall after his finger in the wind showed very few Americans agreed with him and so he did what he does best; he dithered.
That was good, for a change.
After his dithering Obama realized he couldn’t save face unless he actually went into Syria for at least a pinprick.
So, he passed off the call to Congress.
Now, if he ends up looking bad, it is ”the Republicans’ fault.”
I doubt the UN report can verify where a chemical came from (rebel tunnel or Assad missile) but Obama doesn’t want to see if they can before he’s acted.
Weird, that.
Our credibility is on the line because Obama made the red line speech without any plan to back it up. His ego did the talking. If he was serious, he would have gotten Congressional approval prior to them going on recess and would have launched strikes by now, not withstanding the fact that there is evidence that someone other than Assad may have launched the attacks.
In the end, the only surefire way to make sure WMD is not used again is to remove all possible suspects. That means OSF (Operation Syrian Freedom). Bomb the bad guys. All of them- Assad’s forces, the terrorist backed rebels, the terrorists themselves. Invade with ground troops to finish what is left and then occupy the country as long as necessary to install a pro West government and to make them strong enough to secure their own country. Anything less than that and we are pissing up a rope. Now, how many warmongers out there are willing to go the distance here? If this civil war is that big of an issue, then this is what needs to be done.
@another vet:
I disagree. It is Obama’s credibility that is on the line, not “America’s”.
But wait! Now, in yet another blame someone else move, Obama, Kerry and Pelosi say that it is the world, not Obama that drew the Red Line:
Obama: I didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did
Kerry: Strikes Not About Obama’s Red Line
Pelosi: Obama Didn’t Draw the Red Line
Well now, If we are going to look at it that way, then it is the “world’s” responsibility to enforce the red line not America’s. And U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday warned that any “punitive” action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last month would be illegal without Security Council approval or a sound case for self-defense.
That’s good enough for me. The UN Secretary General has created the excuse Obama needed to let him off the hook. Call your Congress critters and the White House and tell them “We oppose any military action without a United Nations resolution”. Put the responsibility ball back in the UN’s court where it belongs.
@Ditto:
Well, it seems that the “world” (i.e. every other nation in the world except for France, which promises to supply croissants) didn’t get the memo. Cameron has stated, again, Great Britain will not be a player in Obama’s shell game.
This, again, comes down to what you do.. or more importantly, do *not*.. have on your bookshelf, Greg. I’ve pointed out your resistance to self education. I might have to expand that to a terminal laziness, preferring to form a snap judgement on a headline, which wasn’t even likely chosen by the author (if you looked up his articles on his ISSA site, or looked at the titles of his book, you’d see hyperbole ain’t his style…). Instead you steadfastly refuse to learn about a source of information that apparently you have never heard of.
You can even find a simple bio of Bodansky on Wiki, so that’s no excuse. Bias? One of his many books does sit on my shelf – The Secret History of the Iraq War, where this “biased” American Israeli rakes the Bush admin and intel agencies over the coal for what he called a doomed war from the start. Dunno, Greg… he sounds more like you, but actually more informed on things because of his vast background in intel and ME analysis.
Speaking of “bias”, why on earth would you assume an Israeli born American had a preference for either Sunni or Shi’a factions, neither of which hold any love for Israel?
I know exactly what your attempt was in trying to suggest he was an extremist loon. ’tis a pity you didn’t know what you were talking about, eh?
Speaking of misleading, is there a reason you decided to stop your copy/paste of MSF spokesman, Janssens (NOT Bodansky) – and ensuing analysis in the article – where you did? Let’s add the missing context, shall we?
It’s not the MSF’s job to define the specific strain of any CW, or to define the source. That’s the job of the UN/OPCW inspectors, who have been in Syria AT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF ASSAD since March. That UN report is not yet available. Nor will it necessarily ID who used the CW, but it will identify what *was* used.
But it appears that the Obama admin and his war hounds don’t want to follow the protocol that they, themselves, always insist need to be done. Things like wait for the results, and take it to the UNSC and the member nations.
Have you got a cogent point in this tact?
You still demonstrate a stubborn resistance to reading, Greg. Let me repeat from Bodansky’s article above:
Does that sound like they were “…constructing makeshift mortar bomb launchers out of steel pipes” to you?
sigh… Greg, I know you were on the other “Obama to Strike Syria” thread since you and I exchanged comments. Did your propensity for reading/skimming miss my comment #64, documenting a statement directly from the UN Secy General, Ki-Moon, stating that Assad requested a UN investigation on chemical weapons use back in *March*, and they had been present in Syria all this time, again AT THEIR REQUEST, doing that work?
So why would you doubt that Syrian forces didn’t wish to get to the bottom of it since it was Assad, himself, who demanded a UN investigation?
@Ditto:
I see where you’re coming from, but the fact that he was elected by the majority of those who voted in 2012 means they elected him to speak for the country for better or worse. If he loses credibility, we lose it. Remember our credibility after Carter’s response to Iran? It was America that looked weak, not just Carter. Ditto for Clinton’s response to AQ.
What a trio. Three lying narcissists. I suppose we can look at the bright side- for a change he didn’t blame Bush.
: )
I forgot this, Greg:
Why on earth would Assad’s forces release toxic gases as an aerosol over Ghouta, and risk their adjacent Damascus population? Have you looked at a map lately?
@another vet and @Ditto, while there is merit to both your opinions, I might want to point out that America’s “credibility” does not rest upon a single POTUS. As AV pointed out, it sucked the big one under Carter, and that changed around*big* time with Reagan.
I might also add that any half ass intervention would only result in further credibility problems.
I find this argument rather self-absorbed in nature since only the US appears to be vain enough to worry about world opinion. Germany, Britain, other OPCW nations? They don’t seem to have this self-image problem. And it only takes one action for America to prove that opinion wrong… but this isn’t that action.
The US credibility will survive Obama, just as it’s survived losers in it’s past. It’s the worst possible excuse for intervention.
@MataHarley:
That’s the point. While one could argue that America ‘risks it’s credibility’ by whom a majority of the electorate places in the office of the President, The Office transcends a single office holder. There will be times when someone who is elected to the office will turn out to be ineffectual or an embarrassment, who makes the nation look bad. Does that ruin the credibility of the entire nation? I think not, it only reflects on that portion of society that provided the majority of votes to elect him. However it without a doubt damages the credibility of that current office holder. When that office holder is already known to be a congenital liar and political posturer, it asserts that this is a person with no credibility.
Agreed, and our nation is much more than what this single event says about us.
@Ditto, I got your point and tend to agree. But I also got AV’s point that credibility is damaged for Obama’s duration of term.
I suppose, in the long run, it depends upon what happens during the remainder of the term. Were Iran to take advantage of a perceived weakness prior to Jan 2017, AV has a point. Then again, depending upon what Iran does and how Obama and Congress react prior to Jan 2017, that perception can turn on a dime… even with the same POTUS.
My point is there is a moment/event of credibility to defend. This one ain’t it. But apparently even the GOP in Congress is blind to this. So you won’t find me doing any rah rah GOP Congress at this point. They are indistinguishable from the Dems, save they advocate for even more deep involvement. That isn’t a plus in their favor.
THE LAST MESSAGE FROM OBAMA,
MADE ME THINK THAT MAYBE HE WAS JUST BLUFFING ,
AND WILL NOT ATTACK BUT SCARE THE SH SH SH T , OUT OF HIM IT MIGHT HAVE HAPPEN
ANY TIME FROM THE BEGINNING TO NOW, HE THOUGHT WELL HE HAS A GOOD MESSAGE NOW,
MISSION ACCOMPLISH,
CHECK IT UP,
he was not elected by the people who have vote as one voter,
he won by other means not legit which sway the election to him by a narrow margin.