"Toner then admitted that the US is still in the 'process to start the process,' stressing that this was 'an urgent issue' that 'has gone on too long.'" ('Assad doesn't have to leave tomorrow, can be part of transitional process' -- US State Department, RT)
"A process to start the process"?? Hello?
Toner is backpedaling so fast he's not even sure what he's saying. Clearly, the administration is so flustered by developments on the ground in Syria, and so eager to stop the killing of US-backed jihadis, that they sent poor Toner out to talk to the media before he'd even gotten his talking points figured out. What a joke. The administration has gone from refusing to meet with a high-level Russian delegation just last week (to talk about coordinating airstrikes in Syria), to completely capitulating on their ridiculous "Assad must go" position today. That's quite a reversal, don't you think? I'm surprised they didn't just run a big white Flag up over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. while the Marine Band played Taps.
But don't think that this latest humiliation will derail Washington's plan for destroying Syria as a functioning, sovereign state and carving it into a million powerless statelets that pose no threat to Big Oil's pipeline corridors, or US military bases, or Israel's sprawling Zionist Valhalla. Because it won't. That plan is still right on track despite Putin's efforts to crush the militants and defend the borders. The latest iteration of the Syria dissolution strategy was articulated by Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass who said:
"...the United States and others should pursue a two-track policy. One track would channel steps to improve the balance of power on the ground in Syria. This means doing more to help the Kurds and select Sunni tribes, as well as continuing to attack the Islamic State from the air.
"Relatively safe enclaves should emerge from this effort. A Syria of enclaves or cantons may be the best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future. Neither the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government that controls all of the country's territory; what is essential is to roll back the Islamic State and similar groups.
"The second track is a political process in which the US and other governments remain open to Russian (and even Iranian) participation. The goal would be to ease Assad out of power and establish a successor government that, at a minimum, enjoyed the support of his Alawite base and, ideally, some Sunnis." (Testing Putin in Syria, Richard Haass, Project Syndicate)
Topple Assad and partition the country. Destroy Syria once and for all. That is Washington's operating strategy. It's a plan that was first proposed by Brooking's analyst Michael O'Hanlon who recently said:
"...a future Syria could be a confederation of several sectors: one largely Alawite (Assad's own sect), spread along the Mediterranean coast; another Kurdish, along the north and northeast corridors near the Turkish border; a third primarily Druse, in the southwest; a fourth largely made up of Sunni Muslims; and then a central zone of intermixed groups in the country's main population belt from Damascus to Aleppo...
"Under such an arrangement, Assad would ultimately have to step down from power in Damascus... A weak central government would replace him. But most of the power, as well as most of the armed forces. would reside within the individual autonomous sectors -- and belong to the various regional governments...
"American and other foreign trainers would need to deploy inside Syria, where the would-be recruits actually live -- and must stay, if they are to protect their families. (Syria's one hope may be as dim as Bosnia's once was, Michael O' Hanlon, Reuters)
Once again, the same theme repeated: Topple Assad and partition the country. Of course, the US will have to train "would-be recruits" to police the natives and prevent the buildup of any coalition or militia that might threaten US imperial ambitions in the region. But that goes without saying. (By the way, Hillary Clinton has already thrown her support behind the O'Hanlon plan emphasizing the importance of "safe zones" that could be used to harbor Sunni militants and other enemies of the state.)
John "Wacko" McCain has been the most strident proponent of the plan to break up Syria. Here's part of what he said on the topic:
"We must act now to defend civilian populations and our opposition partners in Syria...we must establish enclaves in Syria where civilians and the moderate opposition to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and ISIS can find greater security. These enclaves must be protected with greater American and coalition airpower and likely foreign troops on the ground. We should not rule out that U.S. forces could play a limited role in this ground contingent...
"We must back up our policy in ways that check Putin's ambitions and shape his behavior. If Russia attacks our opposition partners, we must impose greater costs on Russia's interests -- for example, by striking significant Syrian leadership or military targets. But we should not confine our response to Syria. We must increase pressure on Russia elsewhere. We should provide defensive weapons and related assistance to Ukrainian forces so they can take a greater toll on Russian forces." (The Reckless Guns of October, Daniel Lazare, Consortium News)
Sure, let's Kick-off World War 3. Why not?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
