Intervention's Pitfalls

America has a long history of intervening secretly in what the Soviet Union used to call the "internal affairs" of other countries. A lot of times those interventions seemed to work out well at the time, but ended up backfiring (see Iran). At other times they simply went badly awry, as in the Bay of Pigs.

[...]

Today the National Endowment for Democracy represents an attempt to get away from the seamier side of such interventions and to support civic organizations abroad. But today the Washington Post reports, on the basis of leaked classified cables, that America has secretly been backing the Syrian opposition. Apparently the State Department has financed Syrian groups and television programs attacking the Assad regime. U.S. diplomatic cables, the  v says, reveal that the State Department has disbursed at least $6 million to a group called the Movement for Justice and Development--a grouping of Syrian exiles living in London.

The import of this move seems clear: President Obama is supporting, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush did, regime change in Syria.

  National Interest

Secret or not, I doubt there is anyone not willfully ignorant who didn’t imagine it was happening.

[One] problem is that by intruding into Syrian domestic politics, the administration legitimizes the regime's claims that it is fighting foreign enemies intent on subverting the home land.

[...]

[The] GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it.

[...]

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

Once again, the official NATOGCC version of Syria is of a popular uprising smashed by bullets and tanks. Instead, BRICS members Russia and China, and large swathes of the developing world see it as the Syrian government fighting heavily armed foreign mercenaries. The report largely confirms these suspicions.

  Asia Times

Admittedly, I only scanned the leaked report, but I’m not sure it should be interpreted precisely that way. It does indeed mention an “armed entity” that is responsible for much of the loss of life of innocent Syrians, but, while noting that the Syrian government has been cooperative with the GCC, at the same time, it indicates that this “armed entity” is a reaction to the Syrian government’s "excessive use of force" against protestors, and admits that Syrian citizens have also taken up arms against the government. We do not know whether they were encouraged by any outside entity, but one can easily imagine that they didn't need to be and are driven by the same forces that have been propelling what is being called "the Arab Spring".  It doesn't seem likely that any outside forces are entirely to blame (or credit) for that, since outside forces have been working toward fomenting public uprisings for decades.

The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests [...] demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.


[...]


The Mission noted that the Government strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The Government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.


In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.


Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.


[...]


The Mission arrived in Syria after the imposition of sanctions aimed at compelling to implement what was agreed to in the Protocol. Despite that, the Mission was welcomed by the opposition, loyalists and the Government. Nonetheless, questions remain as to how the Mission should fulfill its mandate. It should be noted that the mandate established for the Mission in the Protocol was changed in response to developments on the ground and the reactions thereto. Some of those were violent reactions by entities that were not mentioned in the Protocol.

But, back to the Asia Times article:

GCC leaders House of Saud and Qatar bluntly dismissed their own report and went straight to the meat of the matter; impose a NATOGCC regime change via the UN Security Council. So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya.

Which, of course, is its ultimate goal if the unnamed “entities” cannot effect the regime change on their own. The only thing standing in the way of NATO’s military intervention – and it’s a big thing – is the block of Russia and China which does not support intervention. In fact, they don’t even support a condemnation of the Syrian government’s crackdown.

"Russia and China will, I think, come to regret this decision which has aligned them with a dying dictator, whose days are numbered, and put them at odds with the Syrian people and the entire region," [UN envoy Susan] Rice told CNN television.

[...]

China and Russia "have, by their actions, by their veto, dramatically increased the risk of greater violence and we've seen the manifestations of that and indeed increase the risk of civil conflict," the UN envoy said.

  Hindustan Times

Ah, yes. Everyone GOOD is aligning against the EVIL DICTATOR, while everyone BAD can be identified by support of same.

"Whose days are numbered."  "The risk of greater violence." Gee, where have we heard that before?

US President Barack Obama on Saturday accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government of murdering civilians in an "unspeakable assault" in Homs, and demanded that Assad step down.

"Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately," Obama said in a statement.

Rice vowed on Monday that the international effort to reach a common stand on the Syria crisis would go forward.

"The United Nations will continue on this issue," she said.

So now Assad has the same “offer” that Qadafi turned down. And we know what happened to him.

She added that the vote on Saturday, which came just hours after Syrian forces bombed the city of Homs, killing hundreds of civilians, "put a stake in the heart of efforts to resolve this conflict peacefully."

Peacefully by means of supporting unnamed armed entities.

The Libyan “National Transitional Council” announced its support to the Syrian rebels, and sent 600 fighters to the Turkish border. Financed and supported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, the “Free Syrian Army” is intent on sparking a sectarian war, pitting Sunnis against Alawites and Christians. Their “Abu Bakr Brigade [...] originated in Libya, and is said to be recruited from Al Qaeda.

  Justin Raimondo

I don’t know how much finance might be involved but the US and, indeed, the entire UN have pledged support to the NTC, which at least by extension considering the 600 fighters, means supporting the Syrian rebels.

The Egyptians see what is going on in Syria, and are trying to prevent the US-sponsored chaos from spreading.

[...]

The arrest and pending trial of foreign “democracy activists” in Egypt on charges they violated laws prohibiting funding by foreign governments of NGOs has caused an uproar in Washington. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton has publicly warned Cairo this endangers the $1.55 billion in aid the US is supposed to shell out this year, but the Egyptians don’t seem all that impressed.

[...]

“Democracy promotion” sets the stage for military intervention by first providing the rationale for regime-change and secondly providing the personnel. The Syrian rebel radio station, headquartered in London, has received millions of our tax dollars, while our spooks have been training and arming them.

And it’s difficult to think of any pro-democracy groups in foreign countries without thinking of how al Qaeda got its start.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.