Part of long-planned attempt to spur defections, divide and destroy Syria, as articulated in Brookings Institution’s “Assessing Options for Regime Change.”
While the idea of a buffer zone is meant to look like a knee-jerk reaction to recent escalations, in reality this has been planned since at least March 2012, where the idea was proposed by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution in their “Middle East Memo #21” “Assessing Options for Regime Change” where it stated specifically (emphasis added):
“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” –page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: The Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Brookings continues by describing how Turkey’s aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border in coordination with Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:
In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. –page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Foreign troops in Jordan, including US troops, may be playing a role in providing additional pressure south of Syria while Turkey attempts to pressure Syria from the north. The idea is to stretch out Syrian forces, relieving NATO-backed terrorists operating within the country. Of course, while the Western media claims these are merely troops helping with “humanitarian” concerns, they are undoubtedly doing all in their power to present Syria with a credible threat to force Syria to divide its troops, while attempting to stoke paranoia and panic in the minds of Syrian officers and politicians the West hopes to lure into defecting.
In response, Syria and its allies must provide a mutually convincing deterrent against this build-up and the threat it is meant to generate. With the fact that the West is openly arming, funding, and backing terrorists groups linked directly to Al Qaeda, not only in Syria, but in Libya, as well as their recent announcement of the delisting of terror group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), it would not be difficult for Syria’s allies to build up international support to send a monitoring group, only upon Damascus’ request, to address in reality the humanitarian concerns on Syria’s borders the West is only feigning to address. The presence of this monitoring group, which might include armed elements, would raise the stakes for Western policy makers and their proxies, and would discourage the influx of weapons and foreign fighters that have been costing Syrians their lives for over a year.
US policy openly states that it would prefer “bleeding” Syria to death over the long term, even if it could not succeed in exacting regime change, thus betraying their narrative of attempting to end a “humanitarian” crisis.
On pages 8 and 9, the US Brookings Institution’s “Middle East Memo #21” “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it specifically states:
“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.” –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Clearly, the West’s “humanitarian concerns” are a poorly dressed pretext for the absolute destruction of Syria through the intentional prolonging of violence and its ravaging effects for as long as possible. Clearly those implicated in this conspiracy demonstrably being carried out by the US, UK, France, NATO and its Persian Gulf allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, should play no further role in attempting to resolve violence in Syria they admit to starting and seeking to indefinitely perpetuate. This role should be granted instead to a growing, multipolar effort being led by Russia, Iran, and China.
The failure of international law is now on full display in Syria. With Western nations clearly dominating the United Nation’s agenda, and the supranational institutions that surround it, overt criminal conspiracies have been allowed to unfold not only without consequence, but without even simple condemnation. The US in particular, through its policy think-tank Brookings Institution, has put to paper designs to perpetuate a humanitarian catastrophe indefinitely – not to protect civilian life, but simply to achieve a self-serving geopolitical objective – “to keep a regional adversary weak.” An alternative must be found, one based on the unwavering primacy of national sovereignty, not international law, where extraterritorial transgressions like those committed by the West toward Syria can never be justified nor tolerated.