I am offering this collection of alternative reporting and opinion on the conflict in Syria because U.S. mainstream media tends to rely exclusively on government sources. By refusing to challenge the administration\u2019s assertions about Syria, or question the motives and allegiances of elected and appointed officials, mainstream journalists fail the public.<\/p>\n

MSNBC, the most \u201cprogressive\u201d of our TV options, has, mostly, but not exclusively, become the mouthpiece of liberal hawks who rehash White House talking points. Taking their cues from Obama, they agree that the “humanitarian” war with Syria is necessary and inevitable.\u00a0Few in the mainstream media will question U.S. policy in the Middle East (rooted in notions of American hegemony and access to oil) or investigate who used chemical weapons in Syria (the White House has not offered adequate proof that Assad deployed them), or challenge the false premise that we only have two choices: \u201cwe do nothing\u201d or \u201cwe bomb.<\/p>\n

There are many intelligent, serious journalists outside the mainstream who are not compromised by corporate agendas (often linked to war profits) or the need to maintain access to the White House press room. If you care to read further, please click on the titles for access to the complete articles.<\/p>\n

The Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapons<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

“The 2011 uprisings, it would seem\u2014triggered by\u00a0\u00a0a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts<\/a>\u00a0which led to massive food price hikes\u2014came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the\u00a0\u00a0private intelligence firm Stratfor<\/a>\u00a0including notes from\u00a0\u00a0a meeting with Pentagon officials<\/a>\u00a0confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”<\/p>\n

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to\u00a0\u00a0retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark<\/a>, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9\/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the\u00a0region’s vast oil and gas resources<\/a>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed<\/strong> is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development. He writes for <\/span><\/em>The<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/em>Guardian<\/span><\/strong> on the geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises.<\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Russia says it’s compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It warned that what it called the current \u201chysteria\u201d about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the United States invasion of Iraq.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Russian report is specific,\u201d the ministry statement said. \u201cIt is a scientific and technical document.\u201d<\/p>\n

The statement also noted that the attention paid to the Aug. 21 attack had diverted attention from the investigation into the March 19 incident, which was the reason U.N. investigators were in Syria when the more recent attack took place.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately, that investigation still essentially has not begun,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n

There was no immediate comment from the United States. Independent chemical weapons experts contacted by McClatchy<\/em> said they had not had time to read the Russian document, which was released as Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to make the Obama administration\u2019s case for a retaliatory strike on Syria as punishment for the attack.<\/p>\n

\n

Matthew Schofield\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0is a national security correspondent for <\/em>McClatchy Newspapers<\/strong>, based in Washington, D.C..<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Assad Baits Obama as the World Waits<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

“President Assad, in an interview with Paris\u2019s Le Figaro<\/em> newspaper, said: \u201cThe Middle East is a powder keg and the fuse is getting shorter. We shouldn\u2019t just talk about a Syrian response, but what will happen after the first strike. Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists.\u201d<\/p>\n

The interviewer asks, \u201cWould Syria attack Israel?\u201d The president replies, \u201cYou surely don\u2019t expect me to tell you what our riposte would be?\u201d<\/p>\n

The question remains what the U.S. should do. Vali Masr, head of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says in a New York Times<\/em> op-ed that America\u2019s strategic interest is to \u201cmortally wound\u201d the Assad regime, and then immediately \u201ctake decisive action\u201d to assure that Syria does not \u201cbecome a haven for Al Qaeda.\u201d Unless he knows forms of decisive action the rest of us do not, that means occupation with ground troops and those military measures that have, in the past decade, proven so successful in pacifying and eliminating terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.\u00a0He says, though: \u201cThat is what the world needs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another commentator at the Times<\/em>, Ross Douthat, joins the multitude of American and foreign analysts who tell us that American military power must be used to create and sustain \u201ca stable, rule-based, multilateral world order.\u201d Thank you, Mr. Douthat.”<\/p>\n

William Pfaff<\/strong> believes\u00a0that the idea of total and redemptive transformation of human society through political means is \u2018the most influential myth of modern political society from 1789 to the present days.\u2019 Pfaff is especially wary of its na\u00efve American version, which, \u2018although rarely recognized as such, survives, consisting in the belief that generalizing American political principles and economic practices to the world at large will bring history (or at least historical progress) to its fulfillment.\u201d This article appeared in\u00a0<\/em>Truthdig<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lessons from Today’s Senate Hearing on Syria<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Lesson #1: We\u2019re going to war so we don\u2019t lose some friends<\/strong><\/p>\n

“John Kerry twice said that if we don\u2019t bomb Assad we\u2019ll lose friends and\/or allies.\u00a0\u201dIf we fail to act we\u2019ll have fewer allies.\u201d<\/p>\n

That admitted something that has been acknowledged \u2014 usually not in print \u2014 in DC. We\u2019re doing this not to retain our general credibility, but to retain \u201ccredibility\u201d with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Credibility with Saudi Arabia is important, I presume, because they continue to sell oil in dollars and buy lots of military toys \u2014 including\u00a0$640 million of cluster bombs<\/a>\u00a0that undermine everything the Administration says about humanity.<\/p>\n

Credibility is important with Israel because if they don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll attack Iran if they need us to, they\u2019ll just attack on their own.\u00a0Here\u2019s\u00a0confirmation<\/a>\u00a0of something that had already been confirmed but somehow is getting trotted out again today: the US had to stop Israel from unilaterally attacking Iran last year. (Update: As Max Blumenthal\u00a0notes<\/a>, AIPAC\u2019s statement in favor of war mentions Iran more than Syria.)”<\/p>\n

Emptywheel<\/strong>\u00a0(a.k.a. Marcy Wheeler<\/strong>). Her reputation as a blogger stems from her analysis of the outing of the\u00a0covert CIA identity\u00a0of Valerie E. Wilson, also known as\u00a0Valerie Plame, and the\u00a0Bush\u00a0administration’s justification for\u00a02003 invasion of Iraq\u00a0and the\u00a0Iraq War. Wheeler contributed to Jane Hamsher’s <\/em>FireDogLake, between early December 2007 and July 2011. In July 2011, she established an independent blog, <\/em>Emptywheel.com<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defending the indefensible in Syria: There is neither any justification for the West’s imminent military intervention nor any substance to its claim that the assault will be limited and short-lived.<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“Unilateral intervention predicated on the use of WMDs by a regime finds no backing in international law. Whether the West likes it or not, there is no alternative to legitimizing the use of force in Syria but through express sanction from the UN Security Council. The Obama administration\u2019s attempts to circumvent the UN Charter in this regard represent one of the greatest threats to the comity of nations since the Second World War. As Ian Hurd, a political scientist at Northwestern University, notes<\/a>, the United States has always been careful to justify its aggression under the Article 2(4)<\/a> of the Charter, which generally prohibits unauthorized intervention. . . .<\/p>\n

Hans Blix, head of the 2003 UN inspection team in Iraq, rightly suggested in an interview<\/a> to Huffington Post<\/i> recently, \u201cpolitical dynamics are running ahead of due process.\u201d Those who assert the United States and its allies have been reluctant to intervene in this conflict perhaps suffer from selective memory loss. As early as October 2011<\/a>, and in July 2012<\/a>, the West put forth draft resolutions in the Security Council that invoked Chapter VII measures under the UN Charter \u2013 their passing would have effectively allowed for military intervention in Syria.”<\/p>\n

Arun Mohan Sukumar<\/strong> works on the editorial board of <\/em>The Hindu<\/strong> as Assistant Editor, and writes for the newspaper on law and foreign policy, broadly defined. He is a lawyer and attended graduate school as a Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He has worked as a law clerk for India\u2019s Supreme Court.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Syria and the Waning of American Hegemony<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

“Since conflict started [in Syria] two and a half years ago, Washington has had openings for a negotiated resolution. This, though, would entail power sharing between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and oppositionists and cooperation with Russia, Iran, and China to fix a settlement. Instead, Obama doubled down on reasserting American hegemony.<\/p>\n

When unrest began in Syria in March 2011, Obama and his team were desperate to show\u2014after the loss of pro-Western regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, and near misses in Bahrain and Yemen\u2014that the Arab Awakening did not just threaten authoritarian orders that subordinated their foreign policy to Washington. They wanted to show that leaders committed to foreign policy independence\u2014like Assad\u2014were vulnerable, too. They also calculated that Assad’s ouster would tilt the regional balance against Tehran, generating leverage to force Iran’s surrender of its right to an internationally safeguarded but indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What Obama’s strike will achieve:<\/p>\n

Obama’s strike will further accelerate erosion of America’s position in the Middle East. Assad will emerge with greater political support, not less; Russian and Chinese influence will be enhanced. While backing Assad has cost Iran and Hezbollah some of the popularity they accrued with Sunni Arab publics from their long records of “resistance” to Israel and America, both judge that, if either America or Israel becomes militarily involved in Syria, this will undercut Saudi-sponsored narratives depicting the conflict in sectarian terms, transforming it into more Iranian-led resistance. Obama is about to oblige them\u2014ushering in a regional balance increasingly tilted against the United States.”<\/p>\n

Flynt Leverett.<\/strong> From 1992 to 2003, he served as Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council, on the Secretary of State\u2019s Policy Planning Staff, and as a CIA Senior Analyst. This article appeared in <\/em>The Huffington Post<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hillary Leverett.<\/strong>\u00a0In the George W. Bush Administration, she worked as Director for Iran, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council, Middle East expert on the Secretary of State\u2019s Policy Planning Staff, and Political Advisor for Middle East, Central Asian and African issues at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. In the Clinton Administration, Leverett served in the same capacity and was, in addition, Associate Director for Near Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council, and Special Assistant to the Ambassador at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I am offering this collection of alternative reporting and opinion on the conflict in Syria because U.S. mainstream media tends to rely exclusively on<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":25916,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[128,384,10,265],"tags":[698,2485,1757,2497],"yoast_head":"\n