Washington to partition Iraq and Syria

The currently stateless Kurds sit astride the Iraq-Syria border on land blessed/cursed with oil, other resources, and geopolitical significance. Is it any wonder that mega-corporations and their client states are looking to use the Kurds, stoke conflict, and exploit the situation?

ExxonMobil, Kochs, Israel Pushing Washington to Partition Iraq and Syria

By Whitney Webb

Global Research, August 22, 2017

MintPress News 14 August 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Analysis) — Years before the U.S. illegally invaded and then occupied Iraq, plans were circulating within the Pentagon to partition the country along “sectarian” lines, with the express purpose of allowing the U.S. and its regional allies to better control oil resource production and movement within the Middle East.

In Syria, the same narrative of partition has more recently been circulated as the “only” solution to the nation’s sectarian divisions, divisions which did not emerge until they were artificially created in 2011 when the current conflict began and later fomented by hostile foreign actors.

While the Bush and Obama administrations pushed for the partition of Iraq on several occasions, it was largely corporate actors during that time that took the most active steps towards creating an independent state within the Iraqi region controlled by the U.S.-allied Kurds, an area with sizeable energy reserves and other strategic resources.

The area of Syria controlled by the U.S.-backed Kurds conveniently connects directly with the Kurdish “statelet” in Iraq, making the possibility of a larger independent Kurdistan more feasible. This area also boasts the largest concentration of many of Syria’s most critical resources.

While past administrations avoided openly recognizing the partition of Iraq, the administration of President Donald Trump is striking a different tone, largely due to the influence within the administration of some of the biggest players who actively sidestepped Iraq’s government in favor of the Kurds years ago.

Chief among such players was ExxonMobil — whose CEO at the time, Rex Tillerson, is now Trump’s Secretary of State — along with other corporations whose financial and political support for the Trump administration is well-documented.

The geopolitical and economic motives for a partitioned Iraq

The corporatist, neoconservative dream of partitioning Iraq has been around for well over a decade, first materializing a year before the U.S.’ ill-fated 2003 invasion of that nation. The plan, drafted by former Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, contemplated the division of Iraq into three autonomous, sectarian “statelets” for Iraqi Muslim Sunnis, Muslim Shi’as, and ethnic Kurds, who are also predominantly Muslim. This partition, it was believed, would allow the U.S. and its regional allies to more easily dominate Iraq and its important fossil fuel resources, along with conferring other “strategic advantages.”

As U.S.-based private intelligence firm Stratfor noted in 2002, the invasion and destruction of Iraq would pave the way for partition and thus greater U.S. control over Iraq and the entire Middle East:

“After eliminating Iraq as a sovereign state, there would be no fear that one day an anti-American government would come to power in Baghdad, as the capital would be in Amman [Jordan]. Current and potential U.S. geopolitical foes Iran […] and Syria would be isolated from each other, with big chunks of land between them under control of the pro-U.S. forces.
Equally important, Washington would be able to justify its long-term and heavy military presence in the region as necessary for the defense of a young new state asking for U.S. protection – and to secure the stability of oil markets and supplies. That, in turn, would help the United States gain direct control of Iraqi oil and replace Saudi oil in case of conflict with Riyadh.”

Creating the divisions needed to justify partition

The big problem for the partition plan, however, was the simple fact that these diverse groups had coexisted with minimal sectarian violence in Iraq for centuries. This meant, of course, that the sectarianism that was needed to justify partition had to be engineered. The U.S., in its invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, happily obliged, sponsoring sectarian violence through the military training – including torture techniques – it gave to Iraqi militias, police and military forces that divided along particular ethnoreligious lines.

Many of these organizations have been found to be repeat human rights offenders and have targeted particular ethnoreligious groups within Iraq. Despite their egregious track record, the U.S. continues to financially support these armed groups.

The U.S. has also worked to create and strengthen ethnoreligious divisions within the country by promoting Iraqi organizations founded on religion or ethnicity rather than along political lines.

Though some analysts believe that the biggest winners in the U.S.-created environment of Iraqi sectarianism were the Iraqi majority population of the Shi’a – which, after all, was given control of the post-invasion government – it was really the Kurds who gained the most as a result of the U.S.’ machinations to divide and conquer Iraq.

The Kurds are the largest group of nomadic people in the world and have long existed without their own state. As journalist Sarah Abed has noted,

“This fact has allowed Western powers to use the ‘stateless’ plight of the Kurdish people as a tool to divide, destabilize and conquer Iraq and Syria, where colonial oil and gas interests run deep.”

Although the most powerful Kurdish political parties in these countries do not see themselves as pawns, history shows that Western colonial powers have used them that way in the past and continue to do so, often with their willing cooperation.

In recent decades the U.S. government and military have openly supported Kurdish separatist elements, though they have stopped short of recognizing “Kurdistan” as a state completely independent of the Baghdad-based government. This role fell instead to U.S. corporations, such as ExxonMobil, a major force in the fossil fuel industry. In 2011, ExxonMobil unilaterally brokered an oil deal with the Kurdistan region, bypassing Iraq’s central government in the process.

According to ExxonMobil, the move was partly motivated by problems it was having contracting with Iraq’s central government regarding oilfields in southern Iraq. However, the promise of oil reserves in Kurdistan said to be “one of the world’s most promising regions for the future [of] hydrocarbon discovery,” was also a clear motivator. As a result, ExxonMobil sided with the Kurdish separatists over the central government, giving clout to Kurdish goals of greater regional autonomy – and thus furthering their shared goal of a divided Iraq.

Other oil corporations – including Chevron and Gazprom, among others – followed Exxon’s lead..

By 2014, more than 80 foreign energy corporations had struck deals with Kurdistan. Oilman Ray Hunt, whose Hunt Oil Co. signed its own unilateral agreement with Kurdistan in 2007, has consistently heaped praises upon Kurdistan and has also made clear his vision for the future of Iraq: “In the end, you’ll end up with a soft partition of Iraq.”

Corporate connection to Trump’s change of heart on Iraq partition

Over the years since these deals were struck, the Kurdish separatist parties in Iraq have benefited immensely, though more recently they have been hit hard by the global drop in oil prices. In 2014, they were exporting 280,000 barrels of oil every day. And, despite troubles with foreign companies brought on by falling oil prices and the rise of Daesh (ISIS), the Kurds – as of the end of 2016 – were exporting nearly 600,000 barrels a day.

Though Daesh was painted by the media as a scourge to the Kurds, they have in fact benefited from Daesh’s invasion of large swaths of Iraq. Indeed, the Kurds – trained, armed and provided with airstrike support by the U.S. and Israel – have taken control of many former Daesh territories and have thereby expanded the size of their own territory.

The U.S. and its regional allies have said that the Kurds’ ability to confront Daesh essentially entitles them to “have their way.” As Sadad Ibrahim al-Husseini, former head of exploration and development for the Saudi state oil company Aramco told The New York Times in 2014:

“At the end of the day, the Kurds will have their way, because they are the only credible Sunni group that can confront ISIS.”

Not surprisingly, the Kurd’s oil riches have brought them into direct conflict with Iraq’s central government, which has since cut off national funding for the Kurdish region and threatened any country or company buying Kurdish oil with legal action for violating the nation’s constitution by not sharing its oil sale revenue equally among all Iraqis.

However, countries like Turkey and Israel continue to buy significant amounts of oil, as well as natural gas, from the Kurds. Turkey’s case is particularly interesting given Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s well-known hatred of the Kurds and opposition to Kurdish independence in Syria. However, when it comes to Iraqi Kurdistan at least, economic factors have won out, with Turkey’s ruling party having stated that Kurds in Iraq have the right to self-determination.

Kurdish control of Iraq’s oil-rich north is key to the partitioning plan. As Michael Makovsky, a former Pentagon official, told The New York Times:

“I think Iraqi Kurdish independence is inevitable, at least eventually. They have natural allies in the United States because of the oil companies involved in drilling there. And the Turks and Europeans need their gas.”

Though candidate Trump had not voiced support for a partition of Iraq, spurred by his administration’s strong ties to the oil industry, Washington has become even more friendly to the Kurds – and to the idea of Kurdish secession – since Trump took office.

However, when the State Department was asked by journalist Nafeez Ahmed whether it still stood by the traditional position of supporting a unified Iraq, a department spokesperson answered:

“With respect to the unity of Iraq, you’re right; that is something we make a point of saying. But ultimately, these are all internal political discussions that Iraq needs to have with all ethnic groups resident in the country.”

As Ahmed notes, this is the first time that the State Department has officially announced the U.S.’ willingness to consider the partition of Iraq.

Why the sudden change of heart?

ExxonMobil once again emerges as a key player — not surprisingly, given that current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO when the unilateral contract with the Kurds was forged. Tillerson, however, is not the only former ExxonMobil employee with ties to the Trump administration. Ali Khedery — a former Pentagon official who served in the U.S. coalition authority in Iraq, and a former ExxonMobil executive — has repeatedly promoted the division of Iraq.

Khedery is also the founder of Dragoman Ventures, a firm connected to the Committee to Destroy ISIS, which has been instrumental in bringing about the Trump administration’s change of opinion regarding Iraq’s partition. The Committee’s executive director, Sam Patten, also shares deep connections to members of Trump’s campaign and transition teams, as well as to certain Iraqi oligarchs suspected of having ties to U.S. intelligence and insurgent elements in Iraq.

Nor is oil the only resource that has swayed the Trump administration and its corporate allies to view partition favorably. Iraq’s Anbar province was recently found to contain nearly a tenth of the world’s total deposits of phosphates, a key ingredient in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Now — with control of more than 70 percent of the world’s phosphate supply, and with markets reaching a point where demand is beginning to outstrip supply — the world’s largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer is eager for access to Anbar province.

That company, Koch Fertilizer Inc., is owned by the infamous Koch Brothers. Fully one-third of Trump’s entire transition team had ties to Koch Industries.

The role of Israeli ties in pushing the partition plan

The Trump administration’s close ties to Israel may also be a factor in Trump’s willingness to consider Iraq’s partition. Though the U.S. is clearly driving partition in both Iraq and Syria, it is not alone. Israel stands to gain greatly from a partition of Iraq and has worked, like the U.S., to engineer sectarianism there and strengthen the Kurds. The Kurds have received weapons, training, and more from Israel — well before the rise of Daesh, with ties dating back to the 1960s.

Israel has also directly supported the Kurds’ economy. In 2015, despite warnings from Baghdad, Israel was importing as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Iraqi Kurdistan, funneling much-needed money to the cash-stripped Kurdish regional government.

Israel has long recognized the potential role of the Kurds in dividing countries it and its allies seek to weaken. It is hardly a coincidence that Israel’s Greater Israel project aligns almost perfectly with “Kurdistan.” In the Oded Yinon plan, or the plan for a “Greater Israel,” the use of the Kurds is considered imperative as a means for dividing neighboring countries in order to aid in Israeli plans for greater domination and territorial expansion.

In addition, Israel considers the Kurds an important part of its long-standing goal to destabilize Iran. For instance, WikiLeaks revealed in 2010 that Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad had expressed interest in using the Kurds and other ethnic minorities to topple the Iranian government by manufacturing the country’s division. Given that the partition of Iraq would isolate Iran from Syria, Israel – like the U.S. – views partition as serving multiple goals, ultimately enabling Israel to dominate the entire Middle East.

Syria partition plan follows the Iraqi partition playbook

Iraq is by no means the only Middle Eastern country that Western powers are seeking to partition. The partition of Syria has been repeatedly sold to the public as the “only” solution to Syria’s ongoing “sectarian” conflict, now well into its seventh year. However, this sectarianism was engineered and stoked by foreign powers to bring about the current conflict in Syria. WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA was involved in instigating anti-Assad and “sectarian” demonstrations as early as March 2011. Declassified CIA documents show the plan to engineer sectarianism in order to weaken the Syrian state dates back to at least the 1980s.

The partition idea was also repeatedly touted by the Obama administration, which stated that it “may be too late” to keep Syria whole.

In 2011, when the conflict was in its infancy, the U.S. and its allies – namely Israel, Qatar, Turkey, France, the U.K. and Saudi Arabia – began supplying tons upon tons of weapons to insurgent and sectarian elements within Syria, heavily arming the so-called “moderate” Wahhabi opposition like the Free Syrian Army and the Kurds. As the conflict raged on – and the “moderate” opposition was exposed time and again as sharing close ties with internationally recognized terror organizations like al-Qaeda – Washington’s support began to shift increasingly towards the Kurds.

As in Iraq, the spread of Daesh in the area became a pretext for the U.S. not only to arm the Kurds but also to allow them to take control of areas, such as Raqqa, once held by Daesh. Media and government sources repeatedly told the public that the Kurds must be armed, as they were the only group that had proven “effective” in countering Daesh. This past March, the Kurds declared the formation of a Kurdish federation under democratic self-rule. This declared federation has yet to obtain international recognition, but – given what has transpired in Iraq and in U.S.-Syrian relations – such an achievement doesn’t seem far off.

The Kurds and their U.S. allies currently have gained effective control of Syria’s north, which comprises about a quarter of the entire country but boasts over 90 percent of Syrian oil and gas potential. According to Yeni Şafak, the U.S. along with the Saudis, Egypt, and Kurdish officials have held meetings where decisions were made to extract, process and market the oil, with the Kurds being given a handsome share of the profits. As of 2015, they were said to be earning in excess of $10 million every month.

Syria’s Kurdistan exports its oil to Iraq’s Kurdistan, with which it conveniently shares a border. It is then refined and sold to Turkey. Though no corporations are explicitly involved, the deal between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds was brokered by unnamed “oil experts” and “oil investors.” The Kurds in Syria and Iraq did not even sign the agreement in person. They were subsequently “informed” and instructed to supervise the operation.

A source in Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) told NOW News that

“with regard to southern Kurdistan, it was a company and not the KRG that signed the deal, and it is [the company] that directly hands over the sums in cash every month.”

Given that over 80 foreign companies are involved in the KRG’s oil trade, most of them based in the U.S., we can safely assume that many of the same players have also been involved in developing the oil trade of Syria’s Kurdistan.

Non-oil assets of Syrian Kurdistan also tempt corporations and governments

In addition to oil, the “Kurdistan” of Syria also includes much of Syria’s freshwater, including its three largest reservoirs, as well as much of its electricity (hydropower via Tabqa) and its agricultural resources. The growth of Syria’s Kurdistan also has major implications for one of Syria’s other key assets: its location. In 2013, The New York Times noted that “Syria’s prime location and muscle make it the strategic center of the Middle East.”

Syria’s strategic location makes it crucial to the regional flow of hydrocarbons. Having the northern section of Syria — and potentially the eastern as well, if the U.S. gets its way — under the control of a U.S. ally could have a profound effect on future and existing pipelines. Notably, it would complicate the land route between Syria and Iran, Syria’s staunchest regional ally and long-time foe of the U.S. and Israel — a scenario highlighted by U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor back in 2002.

The words of late journalist and historian Patrick Seale – “Whoever would lead the Middle East must control Syria” – ring true for the U.S. government now more than ever. With internal reports warning of the U.S.’ waning position as the “world’s only superpower,” the division of Iraq and Syria is essential to Washington’s designs to maintain its influence, as well as the influence of the corporate powers it protects.

The original source of this article is MintPress News

Copyright © Whitney Webb, MintPress News, 2017

Syrians return to their country in droves disproving MSM propaganda!

MSM and Islamists had long been spreading anti-Assad propaganda and concocted & exaggerated torture claims. Most of the Islamists around the world still now think that there is legitimate jihad going on in Syria. A huge chunk of Muslims choose to remain in ignorance, shoot in their own feet and blame others for their miseries!

If Assad Is “Killing His Own People” Why Are They Rushing Back To Him?

Brandon Turbeville

August 21, 2017 

As the mainstream corporate press attempts to guilt Westerners over making Syrian refugees return home, Western outlets are, in fact, deconstructing their own propaganda narrative for all to see.

For instance, according to the International Organization for Migration, more than 600,000 Syrians have returned home to Syria since the beginning of 2017, more than the number of returning refugees in the entire year of 2016.

IOM reports that the majority of those Syrians going home were internally displaced people. After that, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq followed respectively.

The typically pro-imperialist NPR attempted to suggest that the return of the internally displaced to their homes are being forced to relocate back home by the Syrian government. That claim, while largely nonsensical, is also contradicted by reports from other mainstream agencies.

IOM is worried that the “appropriate measures” to ensure safety to those Syrians returning home are not yet in place.

Of course, the real question that needs to be asked here is simple: “If Assad is killing his own people, why are Syrians running back to him in droves?” After all, when African refugees were being labeled Syrian two years ago, we were told that these people were fleeing the “brutal Assad,” the dictator “killing his own people.” So why would people who were being slaughtered by their own government rush back to it at the earliest possible opportunity?

Perhaps because they actually prefer to live in Syria than some other country. Perhaps their government isn’t killing them like Americans are being told they are.

It is also important to point out that the rate of return for Syrian refugees has increased directly with the amount of territory liberated by the Syrian government. In other words, as the Syrian government liberates more territory, more Syrians return to their homes in government-controlled territory. Obviously, if Syrian refugees were fleeing Assad, we would be seeing an increase in refugees.

Regardless, it is clear to all who are not being paid to see otherwise that Syrians are returning home because America’s terrorists are losing territory and, thus, they now have the ability to return to their homes under government control.

October 15 2017 - Trigger Event for the US Dollar? (Ad)

While alternative media researchers have been pointing this out since the beginning of the conflict, mainstream media now has no choice but to admit that Syrians are willingly returning to the country run by the man these same outlets have attempted to demonize and destroy for six years.
Slowly but surely, the mainstream media’s narrative surrounding Syria is unraveling in front of everyone’s eyes.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

America’s Wars of Aggression

An uneasy armistice with North Korea, defeat in Vietnam, post-war violence and chaos in Libya, unacknowledged defeat in Afghanistan, heading for defeat in Syria.

America’s Wars of Aggression. Syria and the Illusion of US Invincibility

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, August 21, 2017

America’s vaunted military knows how to wage wars of aggression, not win them – including time and again failing to win peace, mass slaughter, destruction and chaos its legacy everywhere its killing machine shows up.

Its post-WW II record includes an uneasy armistice with North Korea, defeat in Vietnam, post-war violence and chaos in Libya, unacknowledged defeat in Afghanistan with Trump set to announce escalated US involvement, and heading for defeat in Syria.

Addressing a Foreign Ministry conference on Sunday in Damascus, Assad said

“the West is facing an existential conflict… living in a state of hysteria whenever there is a state that wants to take part with it in the international decision-making in any field and in any place in the world.”
“We paid a dear price in Syria in this war, but we have managed to foil the Western project in Syria and the world.”
“Talking about foiling the Western project in the region doesn’t mean we are victorious.”
“They have failed, but the battle is still going on. They have failed until this moment, and we haven’t won until this moment. The signs of victory are there…”

Miles remain to achieve it, things heading in the right direction, a hopeful sign. Assad thanked Russia, Iran and Hezbollah for their invaluable contribution to combatting foreign-supported terrorism.

Syria is fighting against and defeating “the fiercest terroristic organizations supported by the strongest and richest countries in the world,” Assad explained.

Russia especially “never stopped supporting the Syrian army or offering whatever it needs for it to carry out its tasks in combating terrorism.”

Assad blasted Turkey’s Erdogan as an invader, his support for terrorists exposed, an adversary not to be trusted. He called Syrian territorial integrity “not up for debate or discussion.”

America’s longest war in modern times continues endlessly in Afghanistan, accomplishing only greater carnage and human misery the longer it’s waged.

On Monday evening, Trump is expected to announce the deployment of around 4,000 more US combat troops to the country, according to CBS News.

The network cautioned that plans could change before he delivers his Monday evening address. He delegated warmaking authority to generals, letting them decide on theaters to engage in, troop deployments and related issues.

Ahead of his address, commander of US forces in Afghanistan General John Nicholson Jr. said

“I assure you we are with you in this fight. We are with you and we will stay with you,” remarks made to Afghan commandos.

Deploying more US forces perpetuates the illusion of a winnable war lost years ago – well known in Washington and the Pentagon without acknowledging it.

America targeted the country for its strategic importance, a geopolitical prize, straddling the Middle East, South and Central Asia, in Eurasia’s heartland close to Russia.

Afghanistan serves as a US land-based aircraft carrier, part of its plan to encircle Russia and China with military bases.

Permanent occupation is planned to exploit regional oil, gas and other resources, including significant Afghan riches.

It’s also about maintaining the country as the world’s largest opium producer, used to produce heroin, flooding world markets with it, the CIA and Wall Street profiting from it.

It’s virtually inconceivable for Trump to announce withdrawal, ending 16 years of war.

It continues endlessly despite being unwinnable – a forever war like in other US conflict theaters, benefitting America’s military/industrial complex hugely, profiting from naked aggression.

Australia's Pine Gap fills America’s espionage requirements

Target Finding for the Empire: The Pine Gap Joint Defense Facility, America’s Spy Hub in the Heart of Australia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Global Research, August 21, 2017

“The tasking we get at Pine Gap is look for this particular signal coming out of this particular location. If you find it, report it, and if you find anything else of interest, report that as well.” David Rosenberg, former NSA Team leader, weapon’s analysis at Pine Gap, Aug 20, 2017

At times, there is a lag between the anticipation and the revelation, the assumption that an image might be as gruesome, or perhaps enlightening, as was first assumed. Nothing in the latest Edward Snowden show suggests anything revelatory. They knew it, as did we: that the US military satellite base spat on a bit of Australian dust in a part of the earth that would not make Mars seem out of place, is highly engaged.

Radio National’s Background Briefing made something of a splash on Sunday, with some assistance from the Edward Snowden National Security Agency trove.[1] The documents do much in terms of filling in assumptions on the geolocating role of the facility, much of which had already had some measure of plausibility through the work of Richard Tanter and the late Des Ball.

As Tanter puts it,

“Those documents provide authoritative confirmation that Pine Gap is involved, for example, in the geolocation of cell phones used by people throughout the world, from the Pacific to the edge of Africa.”[2]
“NSA Intelligence Relationship with Australia,” by way of example, discloses the NSA term for the Pine Gap facility, ironically termed RAINFALL. “Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap (RAINFALL) [is] a site which plays a significant role in supporting both intelligence activities and military operations.”

Another document supplies some detail as to the role of the facility, confirming that it does beyond the mundane task of merely collecting signals. It also does the dirty work analysing them.

“RAINFALL detects, collects, records, processes, analyses and reports on PROFORMA [data on surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and fighter aircraft] signals collected from tasked target entities.”

Pine Gap has always generated a gaping accountability gap of its own, and these Snowden treats affirm the point. Rather than being an entity accountable to the queries and concerns of the local indigenous population; rather than supplying the local members of parliament from the Senate and the lower house briefings about its activities, Pine Gap is hived off from usual channels, a reminder about how truly inconsequential democracy is in the Canberra-Washington alliance.

Pine Gap has always had its platoons of unflinching apologists, and a common theme, apart from the worn notion that the US security umbrella prevails with fortitude, is that the base is genuinely good. In a Central Intelligence Agency’s National Intelligence Daily (Feb 13, 1987), the agency notes with approval the forthcoming Australian Defence white paper indicating strong “support or US-Australian joint defence facilities.”[3]

The publication would dispel any wobbliness on Australian military commitments, a point alluded to by the then minister for defence, Kim Beazley. A further point was to note the “defensive” nature of the facilities, opposition to those “left-wing groups to the contrary.”

So what if Australians in the Northern Territory are ignorant that the communications facility pinpoints targets for drone strikes? We can be assured that these are legitimate, vetted and, when struck, obliterated with fastidious care.

Much of this dressed up bunk is based on the notion, sacrosanct as it is, that drone strikes work. They certain do on a few levels – in galvanising more recruits and liquidating more civilians. Like any military weapon, the hygienic notion of the engineered kill, the surgical operation on the battlefield, is fantasy. If the target so happens to be embedded in an urban setting, one filled with non-combatants, the moral calculus becomes less easy to measure.[4]

The other through-the-glass-darkly feature of the Pine Gap facility lies not only in its geolocation means, but its value as a target. Having such conspicuous yet inscrutable tenants places Australia in harm’s way, a loud invitation to assault.

The CIA was already cognisant of this point in 1987, identifying awareness on the part of Australian defence officials that “the joint facilities would be attacked in a US-Soviet nuclear exchange but argues that removal of the US presence would increase the likelihood of superpower conflict.”[5] The end of the Cold War does little to dispel the significance of Pine Gap as a target of considerable interest.

Where to, then? A firm insistence, for one, that Australia detach itself from the tit of empire, the bosom of Washington’s military industrial complex. This requires something virtually outlawed in Canberra: courage. It has fallen upon such delightfully committed if motley outfits as the Independent and Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN), an organisation of calm determination committed to seeing Australia as something more than the grand real estate for empire.

With each disclosure, with each revelation about Australia’s all too willing complicity in facilitating strikes against foreign targets, many in countries Australians would barely know, the will to change may be piqued. They most certainly will once Australian officials face their first war crimes charges over the use of drones, aiding and abetting their US counterparts in the whole damn awful enterprise.[6]

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-20/leaked-documents-reveal-pine-gaps-crucial-role-in-us-drone-war/8815472

[3] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00091R000400020008-4.pdf

[4] http://www.drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[5] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00091R000400020008-4.pdf

[6] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-may-be-complicit-in-killing-its-own-citizens-and-many-others-20140602-zrv05.html

Findings of Inquiry into Israeli attack on The USS ‘‘LIBERTY’’

The control of the U.S. government that’s exercised by Israel’s government can be amply demonstrated by the inaction of US govt over the attack of Israel on USS Liberty.

In 1967, Israel unprovokedly attacked the USS Liberty, slaughtering 34 of our sailors and injuring 172 others; here, with my emphasized parts highlighted in boldface, is an excerpt from the long-suppressed official investigation into it:

***

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2004/10/11/CREC-2004-10-11-pt1-PgE1886-3.pdf

FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ‘‘LIBERTY’’

1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against the USS Liberty, the world’s most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 172 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294); 

2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty’s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels; 

3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty’s firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty’s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded; 

4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967; 

5. That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States; 

6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack; 

7. That although the Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship’s Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with ‘‘court-martial, imprisonment or worse’’ if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government; 

8. That due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people; 

9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack; 

10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.

The Saudi-Israeli Alliance Against Shia Iran

The Saudi-Israeli Alliance

By Eric Zuesse

Two of the U.S. government’s supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the ‘news’media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel.

Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist-Sunni dictatorship in which the royal Saud family actually own the country including its oil company, which is the world’s largest, and in which country the nation’s center of its Shia population is bombed to smithereens if and when that ruling family’s appointed king gets the whim to do so, which he recently did — but the U.S. press didn’t even report it, because ‘Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States.’

Israel is the apartheid regime of official Jews against official Palestinians (non-Jewish native Arabs in that land), and it’s ruled on behalf of U.S. and American billionaires, some of whom aren’t even Jewish themselves but merely far-rightwing American billionaires (some of whom call themselves liberals, even while they support their own selective type of racism). Those billionaires (regardless of their religion) own the ‘news’media and most of the successful politicians, not only in Israel, but also in America. Some of them have dual citizenships, they’re citizens simultaneously in both countries — something that shouldn’t even be allowed, anywhere, because it means, by definition, split loyalties, which makes any such person an alien agent; and any refusal by such a person to cancel the other citizenship ought to be taken to constitute a hostile act. Every nation has legitimate national-security concerns — especially when a dual citizen is a billionaire and consequently far more powerful than a mere regular citizen is: the billionaire can buy favorable press-coverage for any political agent he chooses.

The Saud family and the Israeli government are deep allies of one-another, especially because both of them aim to conquer or destroy the Shia nation of Iran and Shia Muslims in general, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

The alliance between the Saud family and the Israeli government has an enormous impact shaping U.S. foreign policies toward Iran and toward any ally of Iran such as Syria, and even toward allies of allies of Iran, such as Russia (which is allied with Syria). Also affected, but to a lesser extent, are U.S. policies regarding allies and enemies of the countries that are within the circle of those nations of first concern; for example, Pakistan is very tightly allied with Saudi Arabia, while in the neighboring and increasingly fundamentalist-Hindu nation India, “educated, well off/cultured Hindus are falling easy victims to Islamophobia”, and, as a result, “civil war for a Muslim-free India” is drawing closer, so that, even if today’s tensions between Pakistan and India don’t produce a war between those two, India could become more favorable toward Shiite Iran, because most of India’s Muslims are Sunnis and thus are favorably inclined toward Saud-allied Pakistan, where the relatively few (Pew estimates at only 6% of Pakistan’s Muslims are) Shiites have commonly complained of persecution that’s by, or permitted by, the government. Thus, the internal Muslim, Sunni-v-Shiite, competition, has intensified not only Russia-v-U.S. tensions, but also India-v-Pakistan tensions. And, so, when the nation of Saudi Arabia was created in 1744 by an eternal pact between the Saud family and the Wahhab clergy to eliminate Shia Islam, that aggressive intent exists today, and is now clearly being spread even outside the Islamic world, and so it affects big-power relations, especially between U.S. and Russia.  

Both the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli aristocracy who control Israel’s government, are obsessive in their shared hatred of Iran. (The origins and reasons behind those hatreds are vastly different in Israel than in the Saud family, but the hatreds have the same target: Shia. This shared obsession is sufficient in order to unite them.)

The Saud family have one essential tool to control the U.S. federal government, and it’s their ally Israel’s government, which controls the U.S. government to do everything possible to weaken if not obliterate Iran. Whereas European nations aren’t rabidly anti-Iranian, the U.S. government is, and one big reason for that is Israel’s control over the U.S. Congress, and over most of America’s ‘news’media.

On 30 September 2016, I headlined «Why Does U.S. Gov’t. Donate $38B to an Enemy Nation?» and provided my answer to that title-question. But, regardless, the fact is that the U.S. government’s subservience to the government of Israel is recognized by some Americans, and it’s acceptable to most Americans, since there is no well-funded organized movement in the U.S. to oust from Congress all of the Senators and Representatives who have voted for the continuation of America’s formerly $3 billion-per-year and now $3.8 billion-per-year annual donation to that apartheid enemy nation.

On 15 August 2017, Philip Giraldi at unz dot com, headlined «Israel's Chorus Sings Again: Less than total loyalty to Israel is un-American», and he opened:

Congress is on a one-month summer recess. You would think that given the recent turmoil over the bill to eliminate Obamacare and the upcoming debate over tax policy the nation’s legislators would be back in their home districts talking to the voters. Some are, but many are not. «More than fifty» Congressmen are off on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to demonstrate that «there is no stronger bond with any ally we have.» Yes indeed, a congress which cannot pass legislation to benefit the American people finds that it has only one voice when it comes to our troublesome little client state that also doubles as the leading recipient of U.S. tax dollars in the world.

How do they do it? They do it by relentless courting of the congress critters and media talking heads, all of whom know how to repay a favor. Some readers might be asking how Congress (spouses included) can accept these free trips from a foreign government? The current trip is estimated to be costing $10,000 per person. Well, the answer is that they can’t do it directly, which would be illegal, so the clever rascals at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have created an «charitable» foundation that pays the bills. It’s called the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF is a tax exempt 501(c)3 foundation that had income of more than $80 million in 2015. As it is tax exempt that means that its activities are, in effect, being subsidized by the U.S. Treasury so the congressmen are being «charitably educated» while they are also being wined and dined and propagandized in part on the taxpayers’ dime. 

If this were instead a Saud-run working vacation for members of the U.S. Congress, it would be far more repulsive to America’s voters than it is when Israel’s government does this. Whereas America’s old right, like the KKK, have knee-jerk hatred of Jews, America’s new right, like Southern Baptists and the rest of America’s fundamentalist Christians, support Israel because ‘God gave it to the Jews’. Plus, most Jews are likewise knee-jerk supporters of Israel’s government against Palestinians. And, most liberals also have been that, because Jews generally are voters for Democratic Party candidates. Thus, a huge solid political base exists in the U.S. for continuation of the U.S. government’s donations to, and alliance with, the government of Israel, notwithstanding Israel’s slaughter of America’s sailors on the USS Liberty, and the treason of Israel’s spy in America Jonathan Pollard, and any other warring by Israel against the U.S. But it doesn’t exist for continuation of the U.S. government’s alliance with the Sauds. The Saud family is the wealthiest on the planet. They can afford to pay — in favors if not in cash — for Israel’s government to carry their PR water in Washington DC. Thus: Israel does the lobbying and PR work for the foreign policies of the Saud family, in Washington, and the Palestinians obtain an outsized proportion of their Muslim support from Shia Muslims instead of from Sunni Muslims.

Back on 21 August 2012, the New York Times headlined «Skinny-Dipping in Israel Casts Unwanted Spotlight on Congressional Travel». Little has changed, except that a Republican is the President now, and a Democrat was the President then. In foreign policies, the U.S. President does whatever the U.S. and Israeli billionaires allow him to do, and that doesn’t change much over the decades — say, ever since 1967, at least. Americans are sympathetic to the apartheid racist nation of Israel, but not to the outright dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. So: the excuses to overthrow Iran’s government are in line with Israel’s stated fears against Iran but not with the Sauds’ stated fears against Iran. Israel’s government is thus the front-man in the operation.

On the Sauds’ side of this Israel-Saud control of the U.S. government, that control is practiced almost entirely behind-the-scenes. But it’s just as real. Their attacks against the United States included the ones on 9/11, which however relied heavily upon inside participation by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as by a few others in the U.S. government at the time — but the U.S. government has consistently blocked this information from reaching the U.S. public. The Sauds control the foreign policies of the United States government even more than does the government of Israel, and much more quietly, because the Sauds have virtually unlimited wealth at their disposal.

The coup de gras of all this, is that Iran — the nation that the U.S. aristocracy raped in 1953 and that both the Sauds and Israel want to destroy — is the nation (and the only nation) that in U.S. courts has been blamed for having been behind the 9/11 attacks and has been fined $10.5 billion to restitute victims of the 9/11 attacks, which Iran wasn’t at all involved with and which was a 100% Sunni operation (but with inside help from a few American insiders — none of them Shia).

These things might seem impossible, at least in the view of almost all Americans, whose ‘news’ that we read, see, and hear, doesn’t include much, if any, of these facts. But they’re not just true, they’re easy to explain, once one recognizes that the U.S. isn’t a democracy but a dictatorship. And, of course, being a dictatorship, our press doesn’t report to the public such facts, as that the Sauds (in conjunction with U.S. insiders) did the 9/11 attacks, and that in 1967, Israel intentionally targeted and attacked the USS Liberty and almost succeeded at sinking it, and that all of this has been covered-up by the U.S. President at the time, and by all subsequent U.S. Administrations. Facts such as these, indicate what type of bipartisan dictatorship this country really is, which is the sort of information that such a dictatorship would most prohibit its public from knowing — much less, from understanding. But it’s all documented, right here, in the links, and in the links within the links, in this article. And that’s just some of the evidence for it. (There is much more.)

ACLU wins CIA Torture Case!

This was an out-of-court settlement which means the criminal psychologists go scot-free. There must have been some financial arrangements not disclosed -- which will basically be drawn from tax payers money! And the CIA & USA govt would continue their criminal activities in renewed vigour without any repercussion...

The CIA Torture Case: On Eve of the Trial, Psychologists Agree to Settlement in ACLU Case on Behalf of Three Torture Victims

By American Civil Liberties Union

Featured image: Drs. James Mitchell (left) and John Bruce Jessen (right)

NEW YORK — In a first for a case involving CIA torture, the American Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement today in the lawsuit against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the agency’s brutal program. A jury trial was scheduled to begin on September 5, after the plaintiffs successfully overcame every attempt by the psychologists to have the case dismissed.

The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and the family of Gul Rahman, who froze to death in a secret CIA prison. The three men were tortured and experimented on using methods developed by the CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen.

“This is a historic victory for our clients and the rule of law,” said ACLU attorney Dror Ladin. “This outcome shows that there are consequences for torture and that survivors can and will hold those responsible for torture accountable. It is a clear warning for anyone who thinks they can torture with impunity.”

The full terms of the settlement agreement are confidential.

“We brought this case seeking accountability and to help ensure that no one else has to endure torture and abuse, and we feel that we have achieved our goals,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement praising the settlement. “We were able to tell the world about horrific torture, the CIA had to release secret records, and the psychologists and high-level CIA officials were forced to answer our lawyers’ questions. It has been a long, difficult road, but we are very pleased with the results.”

Until now, every lawsuit trying to hold people accountable for the CIA torture program has been dismissed at initial stages because the government successfully argued that letting the cases proceed would reveal state secrets. But unlike previous cases, this time the Justice Department did not try to derail the lawsuit. The defendants attempted to dismiss the case multiple times, but the court consistently ruled that the plaintiffs had valid claims.

“Government officials and contractors are on notice that they cannot hide from accountability for torture,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Our clients’ groundbreaking case has changed the legal landscape. It showed that the courts are fully capable of handling lawsuits involving abuses committed in the name of national security.”

The case was filed in October 2015, basing its legal claims on the declassified facts in the executive summary of the Senate report on CIA torture. During the lawsuit’s discovery process, dozens of new documents detailing the torture program were unearthed, and the case forced former senior CIA officials Jose Rodriguez and John Rizzo — in addition to Mitchell and Jessen themselves — to testify about torture during depositions.

“Thanks to our clients’ commitment and bravery their stories are public, as are new details about the design and implementation of the CIA torture program,” said ACLU attorney Steven Watt. “This settlement is a testament to their perseverance and will help them heal.”

In the court’s ruling earlier this month sending the case to trial, the judge wrote,

“The evidence would support a finding Defendants designed the [enhanced interrogation techniques] to be used on detainees, and thus they clearly had knowledge they would be so used.”

In addition to torturing prisoners themselves, Mitchell and Jessen trained other CIA personnel in their methods. In 2005, they founded a company that the CIA contracted with to run its entire torture program, including supplying interrogators for the agency’s secret “black site” prisons. The government paid the company $81 million over several years.

“I am so glad to help our clients make a difference through this case,” said Lawrence Lustberg of the law firm Gibbons PC. “We have long partnered with the ACLU in torture transparency and accountability litigation, and it is deeply satisfying to have come this far.”

The plaintiffs sued Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute — which allows federal lawsuits for gross human rights violations — for their commission of torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; nonconsensual human experimentation; and war crimes.

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to the following joint statement:

“Drs. Mitchell and Jessen acknowledge that they worked with the CIA to develop a program for the CIA that contemplated the use of specific coercive methods to interrogate certain detainees.
“Plaintiff Gul Rahman was subjected to abuses in the CIA program that resulted in his death and in pain and suffering for his family, including his personal representative Obaidullah. Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud were also subjected to coercive methods in the CIA program, which resulted in pain and suffering for them and their families.
“Plaintiffs assert that they were subjected to some of the methods proposed by Drs. Mitchell and Jessen to the CIA, and stand by their allegations regarding the responsibility of Drs. Mitchell and Jessen.
“Drs. Mitchell and Jessen assert that the abuses of Mr. Salim and Mr. Ben Soud occurred without their knowledge or consent and that they were not responsible for those actions. Drs. Mitchell and Jessen also assert that they were unaware of the specific abuses that ultimately caused Mr. Rahman’s death and are also not responsible for those actions.
“Drs. Mitchell and Jessen state that it is regrettable that Mr. Rahman, Mr. Salim, and Mr. Ben Soud suffered these abuses.”

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Shamsi and Ladin of the ACLU National Security Project and Watt of the ACLU Human Rights Program; Emily Chiang of the ACLU of Washington; Lustberg, Kate Janukowicz, Daniel McGrady, and Avram Frey of the law firm Gibbons PC; Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP, Los Angeles; Anthony DiCaprio of the Law Office of Anthony DiCaprio; and Jeffry Finer of the Center for Justice, Spokane, Washington.