Who Are the Syrian Rebels Supported by the US and its Allies?

Here are a few videos revealing the nature of the Syrian Rebels (closely linked to Al Qaeda)Supported by the US and its Allies?

CAUTION: Graphic content!

1- A Syrian rebel kills a soldier and eats his heart! Glenn Beck:THIS is who the US is helping in Syria

2- Syrian Rebels Execute 7 Army Officers: Brutality of Syrian Rebels

3- Syrian rebels Execute 51 Soldiers

4- Free Syrian Army (FSA )War Crimes: Execution of captured soldiers

(...to be continued)
 

 

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo (March 2012) (By: Daniel Byman, Michael Doran, Kenneth Pollack, and Salman Shaikh) lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so. These are:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;

2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;

3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;

4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;

5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and

6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

 The memo considers option 6 as the Goldilocks Solution

 Option Six: International Intervention: The Goldilocks Solution?

One variant on the invasion option that bears separate consideration because it could prove to be an attractive alternative is for NATO to invade Syria with Arab League diplomatic support and ideally some Arab military participation. UN authorization would be desirable, but given Russian opposition would probably not be forthcoming. Invading forces would depose the Asad regime, impose a ceasefire on the warring parties, and provide security for a long term, international effort to rebuild Syria. The closest model here would be the NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1995—although it would differ in at least one critical respect since there would be no Dayton Peace Accords to precede it.

 In a nutshell, NATO would have to agree to mount the invasion and then provide the military means to enforce the peace and protect a UN-led multilateral effort to rebuild the country. A key consideration would have to be that the UN would lead the kind of reconciliation talks between Sunni and Alawi in Syria that never occurred in Iraq. Likewise, NATO forces would have to remain for as long as necessary, even if in diminishing numbers, to ensure the Alawis and Syria’s other minorities that they would not be oppressed by the majority Sunni community (again, as NATO did in Bosnia, but the United States did not do for long enough in Iraq). In essence, NATO would depose the Alawis and other minorities and then work to protect them from a possibly vengeful majority.

 Four conditions would have to be met for this model to be workable:

 1. Turkey would have to be willing to provide the logistical base and much of the ground troops for the operation. Turkey is best placed of any country to intervene in Syria: it has a large, reasonably capable military; it has vital interests in Syria; and its interest is in seeing peace and democratic transition. However, this condition may pose difficulties because the Alawis do not trust the Sunni Turks, and Ankara might like to see a Muslim Brotherhood-led government take power in Syria. Turkey would also be reluctant to spearhead an invasion because it would not want to significantly change Syria’s Kurds’ status, fearing unrest in Turkey itself. Of equal or greater importance, the long-term occupation and reconstruction of Syria would likely be well beyond Turkish resources alone. Thus, while Turkey would need to be a key player—perhaps the key player, as Australia was in the similar intervention in East Timor—it cannot be the only player; it will need financial help and multilateral assistance and cover.

 2. The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

 3. The United States will have to be willing to provide critical logistical, command and control, and some combat components. As always, there are certain things, particularly leadership, strategic direction, mobility assets, and certain precision strike capabilities that only the U.S. armed forces know how to provide and that if Washington is not willing to offer, the operation would likely falter. Along similar lines, if the United States does not furnish some ground forces, no one else will either, and American troops may be critical to reassure the Syrians that the Turks will not run amuck—something they will fear regardless of whether it is a reasonable concern. In addition, as noted, because of the United States’ experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a lot of Americans with useful skills who can contribute to pacification and reconstruction in Syria.

 4. The operation must be conducted under a multilateral—if not international framework. NATO participation (as in Libya, Bosnia, and Kosovo) is essential because it creates the appropriate framework both for Turkish intervention and for Western assistance alongside Turkey. Arab League participation would be extremely helpful both as a source of additional (Arabic-speaking) ground troops and to legitimize the invasion in the eyes of both the Syrian people and the wider region. Ideally, the UN Security Council would authorize the mission, or at least provide a special representative of the secretary-general to internationalize the reconstruction effort, bringing in scores of other countries and non-governmental organizations that have resources and skills that will be sorely needed for that effort. If the United States is willing and able to secure these various conditions, the international intervention approach has numerous benefits.

Of greatest importance, it would cost the United States much, much less than mounting an invasion itself, but would have far, far greater certainty of achieving American goals than any of the other options. However, securing any of these four conditions could prove impossible. The Russians have shown every sign that they would fight tooth and nail to prevent any UN mandate for such an operation. It is also not clear that the Turks are ready to make so large a commitment (although the worse things get in Syria, the more likely they probably would be since their own list of options looks even less appealing than our own). Western Europe and the United States are mired in severe economic difficulties, and the only time that the Arab states were willing to pick up the tab for a major Western military operation in the Middle East was the 1991 Gulf War. Thus, as attractive as this option might be, it will ultimately prove very hard to implement.

 

The memo lays down the following conclusion

Conclusion

No option for U.S. policy for Syria is simple or costfree. All are flawed, some quite deeply. A number of the easiest options to implement, such as diplomacy and coercing regime change, also are the most likely to fail or succeed incompletely. Others, like having opposition forces act alone or with U.S. support, might put more pressure on Asad but are potentially costly and by no means guaranteed of success. For now, some options—particularly an American invasion—are not in the cards politically in the United States and are not being called for by Syrians, regardless of their (debatable) desirability. Recognizing a range of options is vital, however, because in practice many of the options slip easily into one another and, indeed, policymakers are likely to mix components of each. The diplomatic approach, for example, could bolster all of the other options: the United States will want to build coalitions, try to flip the Russians, and otherwise use its diplomatic power if is trying to coerce or use force to get Asad out. Similarly, all the military options would be enhanced if the United States also continued economic pressure on the Asad regime. Such mixes may mitigate some of the problems described with each option above, yet trying to mix and match aspects of different options will often bring on new sets of costs and disadvantages.

Some of the options can be considered steps on an escalation ladder—some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.

Several steps are vital for almost any conceivable effort to oust Asad. The United States will want to build within the “Friends of Syria” a smaller contact group, regardless of which approach is taken. Indeed, should Asad not fall, this group would also be vital for containing the spillover from a Syrian civil war. In addition, the United States will want to expand ties to the Syrian opposition and try to push them to be more cohesive. A stronger opposition will not only bolster the policy options, it will be critical to the shared goal of all the options. It is the opposition that will play a greater role even if there is only limited regime change, and of course would be the government of Syria should Asad and his henchman fall completely. Finally, U.S. regional allies, particularly Turkey, are vital. They will play a major role in determining how tight sanctions are and the degree of isolation felt by the regime. Because of their proximity to Syria, they are also essential to various military options, even if they themselves do not take the lead.

 Policymakers should recognize, however, that diplomacy and coercion alone may not topple Asad. The options in this paper offer alternatives for escalation and, at the same time, reasons that escalation would be costly and risky. In the end, policymakers may decide that the price for removing Asad is too high and the consequences for Syria’s long-term stability too uncertain. If so, they must focus on the problem of a weakened but defiant Asad who is also more dependent on Iran. This would require thinking through how to structure sanctions on Syria and regional diplomacy to limit the humanitarian impact on the Syrian people while still maintaining pressure on the Syrian regime.

Whether Asad stays or falls, the civil war in Syria may spill over into neighboring states, which requires efforts to shore them up and try to reduce the scale and scope of the civil conflict. So even as the United States pursues regime change, it must also work to bolster neighboring states to care for refugees, prevent terrorism, and refrain from self-defeating interventions.

 As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act—even failing to decide—is an action and a decision. Not choosing to intervene is the same as choosing not to intervene, and it would be far better that whatever course the United States follows, that it be the product of a conscious decision so that we can pursue it properly, rather than the outcome of a paralyzing indecision that prevents Washington from doing anything to protect this country’s many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria.

 

Read the full memo

PS: In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment. Saban has stated of himself, “I’m a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel”, and was described by the New York Times as a “tireless cheerleader for Israel.” The Centre is directed by AIPAC’s former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.

Former head of CIA in 2006: we will use Islamists to subvert régimes in Egypt, Libya, and Syria

James Woolsey, former head of CIA and eminent member of JINSA (the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs), announces in 2006 the intention to use Islamists to subvert régimes in Egypt, Libya, and Syria.
 

رئيس وكالة المخابرات الأمريكية CIA السابق "جيمس وولسي" يعلن في 2006:
سنصنع لهم إسلاماً يناسبنا ثم نجعلهم يقومون بالثورات ثم يتم انقسامهم على بعض لنعرات تعصبية . ومن بعدها قادمون للزحف وسوف ننتصر".( لاحظ كيف ذكر سوريا و ليبا و مصر و قادما السعودية وكل ما يعرف بدول "الربيع العربي ")

Articles on Syrian Crisis

French Foreign Minister: Fall of Syrian Government “Unavoidable”

Syrian Rebels are Foreign-backed Terrorists

Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels

U.S. Moves Closer to Arming Syrian Rebels

Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons, blame Damascus – report

Russia accuses Syrian rebels of using “tactics of terror”

Obama approves non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels

CIA, Mossad Backed Rebels Attack Syrian Television Station, Kill 7

Report: France, US arming Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles

Britain in secret talks with Syrian rebels

Arab Spring Or "Post-Modern Coup D’états"

 Revolution vs. Counterrevolution: Whatever Happened to the Arab Spring?

by ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH,Counterpunch WEEKEND EDITION APRIL 13-15, 2012

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/13/whatever-happened-to-the-arab-spring/

Within the first few months of 2011, the U.S. and its allies lost three loyal “friends”: Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Zine el-Abbidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Saad Hariri in Lebanon. While Mubarak and Ali were driven out of power by widespread popular uprisings, Hariri was ousted by the parliament.

Inspired by these liberating developments, pro-democracy rebellions against autocratic rulers (and their Western backers) soon spread to other countries such as Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

As these revolutionary developments tended to politically benefit the “axis of resistance” (consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas) in the Middle East, the US-Israeli “axis of aggression” and their client states in the region mounted an all-out counterrevolutionary offensive.

Caught off-guard by the initial wave of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, the US and its allies struck back with a vengeance. They employed a number of simultaneous tactics to sabotage the Arab Spring. These included (1) instigating fake instances of the Arab Spring in countries that were/are headed by insubordinate regimes such as those ruling Iran, Syria and Libya; (2) co-opting revolutionary movements in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen; (3) crushing pro-democracy movements against “friendly” regimes ruling countries such as Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia “before they get out of hand,” as they did in Egypt and Tunisia;  and (4) using the age-old divide and ruletrick by playing the sectarian trump card of Sunnis vs. Shias, or Iranians vs. Arabs.

 1. Instigating Fake Arab Springs, or post-modern coup d’états 

Soon after being caught by surprise by the glorious uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the counterrevolutionary forces headed by the United States embarked on damage control. A major strategy in pursuit of this objective has been to foment civil war and regime change in “unfriendly” places, and then portray them as part of the Arab Spring.

The scheme works like this: arm and train opposition groups within the “unfriendly” country, instigate violent rebellion with the help of covert mercenary forces under the guise of fighting for democracy; and when government forces attempt to quell the thus-nurtured armed insurrection, accuse them of human rights violations, and begin to embark openly and self-righteously on the path of regime change in the name of “responsibility to protect” the human rights.

As the “weakest link” in the chain of governments thus slated to be changed, Gadhafi’s regime became the first target. It is now altogether common knowledge that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, the rebellion in Libya was nurtured, armed and orchestrated largely from abroad. Indeed, evidence shows that plans of regime change in Libya were drawn long before the overt onset of the actual civil war [1].

It is likewise common knowledge that, like the rebellion in Libya, the insurgency in Syria has been neither spontaneous nor peaceful. From the outset it has been armed, trained and organized by the US and its allies. Similar to the attack on Libya, the Arab League and Turkey have been at the forefront of the onslaught on Syria. Also like the Libyan case, there is evidence that preparations for war on Syria had been actively planned long before the actual start of the armed rebellion, which is branded as a case of the Arab Spring [2].

Dr. Christof Lehmann, a keen observer of geopolitical developments in the Middle East, has coined the term “post-modern coup d’états” to describe the recent NATO-Zionist agenda of regime change in the region. The term refers to an elaborate combination of covert operations, overt military interventions, and “soft-power” tactics a la Gene Sharp:

“A network of think tanks, endowments, funds and foundations, which are behind the overt destabilization of targeted sovereign nations. Their narratives in public policy and for public consumption are deceptive and persuasive. Often they specifically target and co-opt progressive thinkers, media and activists. The product is almost invariably a post-modern coup d’état. Depending on the chosen hybridization and the resilience of government, social structures and populations perceived need for reform, the product can be more or less overtly violent. The tactics can be so subtle, involving human rights organizations and the United Nations that they are difficult to comprehend. However subtle they are, the message to the targeted government is invariably ‘go or be gone’” [3].

It is no secret that the ultimate goal of the policy of regime change in the Middle East is to replace the Iranian government with a “client regime” similar to most other regime in the region. Whether the policy will succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government and embarking on a military strike against Iran remains to be seen. One thing is clear, however: the ominous consequences of a military adventure against Iran would be incalculable. It is bound to create a regional (and even very likely global) war.

 2. Co-opting the Arab Spring (in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen) 

When the Arab Spring broke out in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, the US and its allies initially tried to keep their proxy rulers Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali and Abdullah Saleh in power as long as possible. Once the massive and persistent uprisings made the continued rule of these loyal autocrats untenable, however, the US and its allies changed tactics: reluctantly letting go of Mubarak, Ali and Saleh while trying to preserve the socioeconomic structures and the military regimes they had fostered during the long periods of their dictatorial rule.

Thus, while losing three client dictators, the US and its allies have succeeded (so far) in preserving the three respective client states. With the exception of a number of formalistic elections that are designed to co-opt opposition groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and give legitimacy to military rulers, not much else has changed in these countries. In Egypt, for example, the NATO/Israel-backed military junta of the Mubarak era, which now rules Egypt in collaboration with Muslim Brotherhood, has become increasingly as repressive toward the reform movement that gave birth to the Arab Spring as it was under Mubarak.

Economic, military and geopolitical policies of the new regimes in these countries are crafted as much in consultation with the United States and its allies as they were under the three autocratic rulers that were forced to leave the political scene. The new regimes are also collaborating with the US and its allies in bringing about “regime change” in Syria and Iran, just as they helped overthrow the regime of Gadhafi in Libya.

 3. Nipping Nascent Arab Springs in the Bud

A third tactic to contain the Arab Spring has been the withering repression of peaceful pro-democracy movements in countries headed by U.S. proxy regimes in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other kingdoms in the Persian Gulf area before those movements grow “out of hand,” as they did in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Thus, in collaboration with its Western patrons, Saudi Arabia has over the past year cracked down viciously against peaceful protesters not only within its own borders but also in the neighboring country of Bahrain. Leading the invasion militaries of the Persian Gulf kingdoms into Bahrain last spring, the armed forces of Saudi Arabia continue with the support of Western powers to brutalize peaceful pro-democracy protesters there.

While the Saudi, Qatari and other Persian Gulf regimes have been playing the vanguard role in the US-Israeli axis of aggression against “unfriendly” regimes, NATO forces headed by the Pentagon have been busy behind the scene to train their “security” forces, to broker weapons sale to their repressive regimes, and to build ever more military basses in their territories.

“As state security forces across the region cracked down on democratic dissent, the Pentagon also repeatedly dispatched American troops on training missions to allied militaries there. During more than 40 such operations with names like Eager Lion and Friendship Two that sometimes lasted for weeks or months at a time, they taught Middle Eastern security forces the finer points of counterinsurgency, small unit tactics, intelligence gathering, and information operations—skills crucial to defeating popular uprisings. . . . These recurrent joint-training exercises, seldom reported in the media and rarely mentioned outside the military, constitute the core of an elaborate, longstanding system that binds the Pentagon to the militaries of repressive regimes across the Middle East” [4].

These truly imperialistic policies and practices show, once again, that the claims of the United States and its allies that their self-righteous adventures of “regime change” in the Greater Middle East are designed to defend human rights and foster democracy are simply laughable.

 4. Employment of the Divide and Conquer Tactic: Sunni vs. Shia

One of the tactics to crush the peaceful pro-democracy movements in the Arab-Muslim countries ruled by the US client regimes is to portray these movements as “sectarian” Shia insurgences. This age-old divide-and-rule tactic is most vigorously pursued in Bahrain, where the destruction of the Shia mosques is rightly viewed as part of the regime’s cynical policy of “humiliating the Shia” in order “to make them take revenge on Sunnis,” thereby hoping to prove that the uprising is a sectarian one [5].

Quoting Nabeel Rajab, who describes himself as secular with both Sunni and Shia family relatives, reporter Finian Cunningham writes: “The government is attempting to incite divisive sectarian tensions, to intimidate Sunni people into not supporting the pro-democracy movement because it is being presented as a Shia movement.”

Cunningham further writes: “The targeting of the Shia is a tactic by the regime to distort the pro-democracy movement from a nationalist one into a sectarian one. It is also a way of undermining international support for the pro-democracy movement by trying to present it as an internal problem of the state dealing with ‘troublesome Shia’. In this way, the Bahraini uprising is being made to appear as something different from the uprisings for democracy that have swept the region” [5].

In brief, the magnificent Arab Spring that started in Egypt and Tunisia in the early 2011 has been brutally derailed, distorted and contained by an all-out counter-offensive orchestrated by Western powers and their allies in the Greater Middle East, especially Israel, Turkey and the Arab League. How long this containment of democratic and national liberation aspirations of the Arab/Muslim masses will continue, no one can tell. One thing is clear, however: the success of the Arab (or any other) Spring in the less-developed, semi-colonial world is integrally intertwined with the success of the so-called 99% in the more-developed, imperialist world in achieving the goal of defeating the austerity policies of the 1%, reallocating significant portions of the colossal military spending to social spending, and enjoying a standard of living worthy of human dignity.

In subtle and roundabout ways, imperialist wars of choice and military adventures abroad are reflections, or proxies, of domestic fights over allocation of national resources: only by inventing new (and never ending) enemies and engaging in permanent wars abroad can the powerful beneficiaries of war and militarism fend off the “peace dividends” and enjoy the substantial “war dividends” at home.

In the fight for peace and economic justice, perhaps the global 99% can take a cue from the global 1%: just as the ruling 1% coordinate their policies of military aggression and economic austerity on an international level, so can (and should) the worldwide 99% coordinate their response to those brutal policies internationally. Only through a coordinated cross-border struggle for peace and economic justice can the workers and other popular masses bring the worldwide production of goods and provision of services to a standstill, and restructure the status quo for a better world—a world in which the products of human labor and the bounties of Nature could benefit all.

© Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. He is the author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave – Macmillan 2007) and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.

References:

[1] Michel Chossudovsky, “When War Games Go Live.”

[2] See, for example, Dr. Christof Lehmann, “The Manufacturing of the War on Syria.”

[3] Dr. Christof Lehmann, “The National Counsel of Syria and U.S. Unconventional Warfare.”

[4] Nick Turse, “Did the Pentagon Help Strangle the Arab Spring?”

[5] Finian Cunningham, “Bahraini Rulers Play sectarian card in Bid to Trump Pro-democracy Movement.”

US Marines Urinating On Dead Bodies Caught on Video!

A video of four US Marines urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan was leaked on youtube (see the video here; see CNN's video here).

Not shocking enough? Well, if you said yes, then you were right!

At some point, one of the "Marines" addresses the dead body he is "relieving" himself onto and says: "Have a great day buddy!". The he asks his colleague: "Got it on Video?". That colleague answers with a "Yup!". Than we hear " I see you zoomed in on one of our ---- ". 

The clan is joyful. Its joy is underlined by one last comment of theirs describing the urination process: "Golden...like a shower!".

Off course, Washington officially condemned the act. I mean, come on, the "Marines" did not give Hillary any chance. She would have loved to use the "exhausted" or "stressed" excuse to save their pitiful heads (would loved to say "asses" instead). But the conversation among the urinating buddies caught on video gave that option the "kiss of death".

By the way, did anyone see Hillary's reaction as she receives the news on Qaddafi's death. Now, that was a "hilarious" moment for a blood-thirsty Hillary! (here and more importantly here).

Syria and the Escalation Towards a Broader Middle East War

PART III- The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists To Wage NATO’s Humanitarian Wars

By Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 2nd, 2011

What triggered the crisis in Syria?

It was not the result of internal political cleavages, but rather the consequence of a deliberate plan by the US-NATO alliance to trigger social chaos, to discredit the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and ultimately destabilize Syria as a Nation State.

Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence have conducted terrorist attacks on government buildings and acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers have targeted the police, the armed forces as well as unarmed civilians.

The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a “humanitarian” military intervention, under NATO’s “responsibility to protect” mandate.

The Nature of the Syrian Political System

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization (IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement, http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2006/051406.htm, 2006).

Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF “economic medicine” has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.

But the “pro-democracy” movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the “international community” did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society. The protests largely dominated by Islamists represent a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are of a sectarian nature. They do not address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment. The majority of Syria’s population (including the opponents of the Al Assad government) does not support the “protest movement” which is characterized by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.

Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.

Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.

The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US “democracy”.

The role of the US-NATO- Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several “progressive voices” have accepted the “NATO consensus” at face value: “a peaceful protest” which is being “violently repressed by the Syrian police and armed forces”.

The Insurgency is integrated by Terrorists

Al Jazeera, the Israeli and Lebanese press confirm that “the protesters” had burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Daraa in mid-March, while at the same time claiming that the demonstrations were “peaceful”. Terrorists have infiltrated the civilian protest movement. Similar acts of arson were carried out in late July in Hama. Public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire.

This insurgency is directed against the secular State. Its ultimate object is political destabilization and regime change. The hit squads of armed gunmen are involved in terrorist acts directed against both Syrian forces and civilians.

Civilians who support the government are the object of threats and intimidation. Pro-government civilians are also the object of targeted assassination by armed gunmen: In Karak, a village near Dara’a, Salafis forced villagers to join anti-government protests and remove photos of President Assad from their homes. Witnesses reported that a young Muslim man who refused to remove a photo was found hanged on his front porch the next morning.

“People want to go out and peacefully ask for certain changes, but Muslim Salafi groups are sneaking in with their goal, which is not to make changes for the betterment of Syria, but to take over the country with their agenda,” (International Christian Concern (ICC), May 4, 2011, emphasis added).

In late July, terrorists attacked a train travelling between Aleppo and Damascus: “The train was carrying 480 passengers… The terrorists dismantled the rails which caused the accident… The leading carriage was burnt… Other carriages were derailed and turned over onto their sides… (quoted in Terrorists attacked a train traveling from Aleppo to Damascus – YouTube, Truth Syria). Most of the passengers on the train “were children, women and patients who were traveling to undergo surgeries” (Saboteurs Target a Train Traveling from Aleppo to Damascus, Driver Martyred – Local – jpnews-sy.com, July 24, 2011).

The Recruitment of Mujahideen: NATO and Turkey

This insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda. Recent developments point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command.

According to Israeli intelligence sources: NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. Instead of repeating the Libyan model of air strikes, NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011).

A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing “the form this intervention would take”.

Shift in Turkey’s Military Command Structure

In late July, the Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force. General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

These developments are of crucial importance. They point to a shift within Turkey’s military high command in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including enhanced support to the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.

Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels “have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border” (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011).

The delivery of weapons to the rebels is to be implemented “overland, namely through Turkey and under Turkish army protection….Alternatively, the arms would be trucked into Syria under Turkish military guard and transferred to rebel leaders at pre-arranged rendez-vous” (Ibid).

These various developments point towards the possibility of the direct involvement of Turkish troops in the conflict, which could potentially lead to a broader process of military confrontation between Syria and Turkey, as well as the direct involvement of Turkish troops inside Syria.

A ground war involving Turkish troops would involve sending troops into Northern Syria and “carving out a military pocket from which Syria’s rebels would be supplied with military, logistic and medical aid” (Assad may opt for war to escape Russian, Arab, European ultimatums, http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011).

As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channeled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia. “Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria” (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).

Recruiting Thousands of Jihadists

NATO and the Turkish High command, also contemplate the development of a jihad involving the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war: Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria (Ibid).

This recruitment of Mujahideen to fight NATO’s humanitarian wars (including Libay and Syria) is well underway. Some 1500 jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj: “Most of the men have been recruited from Afghanistan. They are Uzbeks, Persians and Hazaras. According to the footage, these men attired in the Uzbek-style of shalwar and Hazara-Uzbek Kurta were found fighting in Libyan cities” (The Nation, Pakistan, The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by the Islamic brigades together with NATO Special Forces is slated to be applied in Syria, where Islamist fighters supported by Western and Israeli intelligence have already been deployed).

The Triggering of Factional Divisions within Syrian Society

Syria is a secular state where Muslims and Christian have shared a common heritage from the early Christian period and have lived together for centuries.

Covert support is channeled to the jihadist fighters, who in turn are responsible for acts of sectarian violence directed against Alawite, Christians and Druze. In early May, as part of the anti-government “protest movement”, armed gunmen were reported to have attacked Christian homes in Daraa in Southern Syria: In a Christian village outside of Dara’a, in southern Syria, eye witnesses reported that twenty masked men on motorcycles opened fire on a Christian home while shouting malicious remarks against Christians in the street. According to another ICC source in Syria, churches received threatening letters during the Easter holidays telling them to join Salafi protestors or leave.

Last week in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, Salafis chanted, “Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut!” according to an ICC source and Tayyar.org, a Lebanese news agency. Christians in Syria are concerned that the agenda of many hard-line Islamists in Syria, including the Salafis, is to take over the government and kick Christians out of the country. “If Muslim Salafis gain political influence, they will make sure that there will be no trace of Christianity in Syria,” a Syrian Christian leader told ICC. “We want to improve life and rights in Syria under this president, but we do not want terrorism. Christians will be first to pay the price of terrorism. … What Christians are asking for is the realization that when changes are happening, it should happen not under certain agendas or for certain people, but for the people of Syria in a peaceful way under the current government.” Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “Unlike in Egypt, where Christians predominantly supported the revolution that removed President Hosni Mubarak from power, Syrian Christians have desired peace while demanding greater freedoms under the current government. Christians anticipate that only chaos and bloodshed will follow if Salafi demands are met. We urge the U.S. government to act wisely and carefully when developing policies that have deep political ramifications for Syria’s minorities by not indirectly supporting a foothold to be used by Salafis to carry out their radical agenda” (Syrian Christians Threatened by Salafi Protestors, Persecution News, International Christian Concern (ICC), May 4, 2011)

The attacks on Christians in Syria are reminiscent of the death squadron killings directed against Chaldean Christians in Iraq. 

© Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research.

In 2001: The US Had Already Decided to Take Down The Governments of 7 Countries In 5 Years

The following is a tapped lecture by, retired four-star US General Wesley Clark given in 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California. Clark babbles about a lot of issues; after all, he is a former presidential candidate, and more importantly, he is marketing a new book. However, he admits to the following: 

• In 2001 the US had already taken the decision to take down the governments of 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) in 5 years.
• The US was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from the project for a new American century. They want to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, and make it under their control.

Below is a transcript of this lecture. In my humble view, General Clark’s abilities to understand history strike me as, dangerously handicapped and limited to the “face value” of events he lived or learned about. This shows lucidly when he analyzes the Cold war and the reasons underlying the fall of the Soviet Union (Highlighted in Blue: bogus, superficial, pure American). It also shows when he naively dismisses the creation of the Israeli State as the root of all evil, when he judges the invasion of Afghanistan as a right decision, and when gives his opinion about Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah, Syria, and Israel (Highlighted in Bold Fuchsia: completely bogus and false; no understanding whatsoever about the great and real Zionist threat embodied in the State of Israel). Stuff highlighted in Bold Red is just amazing to read!

There is also a shorter version of this video (its beginning and end are indicated in the text). Enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

START OF LECTURE

THE COLD: REASONS WHY THE US WON 

The beginning of this problem with Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror and all of that...it's not with the birth of Mohammed, and it's not with the founding of the state of Israel. It's actually 1989, it was the year of miracles in Europe.

It was the year in which the Berlin Wall came down. It was the year in which the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe collapsed. It was the year in which we are generally credited with having won the Cold War. We won the Cold War with an integrated civil, political, diplomatic, economic and military strategy that was calling upon all of America's resources and strengths to contain the expansion of communism and deter the use of Soviet military power.

...The strategy was actually formulated in the late 40's by Harry Truman and it was carried by Eisenhower...Republicans always believe we should have more weapons and talk tougher and threaten more people...Democrats always said, can't we be nicer and have more negotiations and can't we sign more treaties...but those abroad common agreement, that this was America's purpose in the world...And so Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Reagan all carried this strategy forward until the Soviet Union collapsed.

....It was unthinkable to us that we would win...the Berlin Wall was down. We couldn't believe it. And within two years the Soviet Union had collapsed. We won the greatest victory of the 20th Century. We won it without ever having fought the Russians directly.

REASONS WHY THE US WON THE COLD WAR

We won it (the Cold War) because we:

• Built our economy and Eisenhower said America's greatest strength was our economic strength.
• Took our military and trained them, but we told them that their real purpose was to deter war, not to fight war.
• Took our educational system and we tried to sharpen it for training and teaching and science and education and technology to compete with the Soviets on Sputnik and the race to the moon.
• Took our young people and we appointed the football coach from Oklahoma to be the Presidential Physical Fitness Advisor for America.
• (Encouraged) young people to be physically fit and get a presidential physical fitness badge
• Did a lot of things to try to harness America:. 
• Brought tens of thousands of young people here to study and see our ideas. 
• Sent American companies abroad.
• Encouraged them to hire local people and then bring them back here for training. Those multinational corporations were America's eyes and ears and ambassadors on the world. 

All of that was designed to contain the spread of communism and deter the Soviet Union and it worked.

THE COLD WAR IS OVER: IT IS THE END OF HISTORY

But when we won the Cold War, we lost our strategy. We had no adversary:

• We lost our purpose in the world. 
• We lost the organizing principles that held the American society together and focused just on the outer world
• We lost the organizing principles that kept the NATO alliance together. 
• We were in a new world. It was so new that Harvard historian Francis Fujiyama it the end of history. 
• George Bush proclaimed a new world order. 

SIX DAYS, FIVE WARS

...Suddenly I was told I was going to go to Washington, get a third star and be the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, the highest military staff in the country. My job was to integrate military thinking with diplomatic and political strategy.

...When I went up there. I didn't know what we were doing because there was no Soviet threat, there was no organizing principle...

...So the 2nd day, I was there...and somebody said, bad news in Africa, we just had a shoot down of an aircraft by a missile that shot-down the presents of Rwanda and Burundi...it turned out it was a French missile and not an American missile...I said well, who are these people on Rwanda and Burundi. They said [...] we don't have time to brief you on it right now, but we will get on your calendar and come back and give you the run down next week...I had already learned, when every time I went to Shalikashvili's office, he had CNN on continuously.

...I realized - my learning experience was if you ever want to find out what's happening, you don't ask the National Military Command Center, you watch CNN.

...So I was leaving office...on a Friday night (4th day)…I was looking on the CNN screen, there is fighting, there are soldiers, they are in Africa...I said what is this, a war movie or what?...My assistant said, oh no it's some action in Kigali or someplace...I think it's a French and maybe it's the Belgians.

...So I quickly called the National Military Command Center and said I am the new J5, I am supposed to know everything, what's going on in the world and looks like we got a battle going on in Africa, what's that about? They said, sir we don't know anything.

I said did you look at CNN, they said, no sir. So I called the European Command Center in Stuttgart, Germany...they are supposed to keep up with Africa. I said, what's going on, they said, we don't know anything about it. So I had to call the embassies...we were up all night with the State Department trying to figure out what the French and Belgians were doing.

Saturday morning (5th day), I had a nine o'clock meeting with Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and they said, if you impress Perry you may get to go with him on a trip to Korea. So I went in there and...I discovered we were about to go to war with North Korea.

It seemed like President Clinton had been there in October of 93...the North Koreans [...] told (that there's) no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. He got home, the CIA said, well Mr. President there has been a slight problem, it seemed like we may have misled you...there is this Korean reactor and they can take the fuel rods out of it and if they reprocess them, they could extract plutonium from the spent fuel and that could make a nuclear weapon and there could be enough plutonium to make two nuclear weapons...And so we were going to threaten them and we were going to take them to the UN. And they (North Koreans) said, if you take us to the UN and put sanctions on us, we will consider it as act of war. And so the generals in Korea called us to say they say it's a act of war, it's going to be an act of war.

And on Sunday (6th day) I got called into a meeting in the White House...there was the Secretary of State Warren Christopher...and there was Madeleine Albright on a TV screen from New York, she was the UN Ambassador and Sandy Berger, the Deputy National Security Advisor, Tony Lake, the National Security Advisor and Bill Perry was there again and Shalikashvili, my boss was there and several other people, Vice President's National Security Advisor, and they are arguing about the Air Rules of Engagement for flying combat air patrols over Bosnia. And they are talking about what are the criteria which enable them to shoot Serb aircraft...I am sitting there trying to follow this conversation. I got a little stenographer's notebook. I am thinking I have to copy everything down, I couldn't follow it, they couldn't follow it, they want an aviator in the room, no body understood the technology, we spent three hours there on a Sunday afternoon and we ended with nothing. That was my first weekend.

And on Monday morning (6th day), a guy came in, knocked on the door, he was a one star general...he said, I have to report something to you, I am not allowed to tell you this because it's classified information and it's compartmented. But I and I am representing you in this compartmented program, but I feel like how to tell you any way we are planning an invasion of Haiti.

And you know, here I come up, here it's the end of the Cold War, I don't know why we have armed forces left and we are about to go to war with North Korea, we are fighting the war over the Balkans and we are going to invade Haiti. And it was crazy. 

And it was a joke, because there was no strategy. And so we tried to create a strategy. We worked really hard to do it. And we labored for year and a half to create. I mean - What do you do after deterrence and containment? There was no obvious threat, we knew that there was a threat of regional war, there was a threat of terrorism, there was a threat of nuclear proliferation, there was a threat of Russia should be become hostile, but there was no obvious immediate threat that you could sort of run up the flag and say, look out here come here they come again, you know. And so how could you use that to mobilize resources, build alliances, so we really puzzle over this. 

...What would be the 2000 election themes? What would be the top five issues? It was like the economy, education, social security reform, and may be trade and that was it. There was nothing about national security, nothing, no significant foreign policy issues. Now, everything was going great.

AND THEN 9/11 HAPPENED  (Shorter video version starts here)

And then 9/11happened...what happened in 9/11 is we didn't have a strategy, we didn't have bipartisan agreement, we didn't have American understanding of it...we had instead a policy coup in this country...a policy coup. Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.

I went through the Pentagon ten days after 9/11...An officer from the Joint Staff called me into his office and said, I would want you to know we are going to attack Iraq. And I said, why? He said, we don't know. I said, will they tie Saddam to 9/11? He said, no...but I guess, they don't know to do about terrorism and so the they think they can attack states and they want to look strong...I guess they think if they take down a state, it will intimidate the terrorists and you know what its like that old saying, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to be a nail. 

...I walked out of there pretty upset and then we attacked Afghanistan. I was pretty happy about that, we should have. 

And then I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer.  I said why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq. He said, oh sir...it's worse than that...I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran; seven countries in five years. 

...I was so stunned by this, I couldn't begin to talk about it. And I couldn't believe it would really be true, but that's actually what happened. 

These people took control of the policy in the United States...then it came back to me, a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz...he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, it's the number three position of the Pentagon…and I said to Paul, Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. 

And he (Paul Wolfowitz) said: "well yeah...not really...the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't...But one thing we did learn...we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us...we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us". 

It was a pretty stunning thing, I mean the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, it's not to sort of deter a conflict, we are going to have invade countries...

This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. They wanted at us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.

It went back to those comments in 1991. Now did anybody tell you that, was there a national dialogue on this? Did senators and congressman stand up and denounce this plan? Was there a full-fledged American debate on it? Absolutely not; and there are still isn't, and that's why we are failing in Iraq, because Iran and Syria know about the plan. All you have to do is read the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and he blabber mouthed it out all over the world, Richard, the same way. They could hardly wait to finish Iraq, so they could move in to Syria. It was like a lay down, oh our legions are going to go in there. 

This wasn't what the American people voted George Bush in to office, well they didn't actually vote him to office, but it wasn't what many of the people who it wasn't what he campaigned on. He campaigned on a humble foreign policy, the most arrogant foreign policy in American history. He campaigned on no peace keeping, no nation building and here he is with Afghanistan and Iraqis; astonishing.

So the root of the problem is not how many troops are in Iraq, please believe me, don't be mad if you are a Democrat at your Democratic congressmen because they can't reduce the troops and frustrate the president. That's not the issue. And if you are Republican don't be mad at the Democrats because they are fussing with the troops. 

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, if you are an American you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region, what is our aim, what is our purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue (Shorter video version ends here) , for lack of an effective strategy we are going to lose in this regional battle.

They have to do with strategy, whether you talk to or isolate Iran, whether you punish or reform Syria, whether you aid or condemn Lebanon, how you motivate Egypt, how you deal with Saudi Arabia, those are key elements in a strategy and there has to be a purpose for it and none of that has been laid out in any coherent way. 

No, its all about politics, it's what Karl Rove said in January 2002, in Las Vegas, Nevada, he said, "We going to run this President as a War President." And you know what? They are succeeding. The Democratic challenge to Iraq was in my view misplaced.

AND NOW THE RHETORIC IS HEATING UP AGAINST IRAN 

...And now the rhetoric is heating up against Iran. So where is this going to go? Likely to a strike against Iran it could be strike against nuclear, could be built as a strike against Iran because there are aiding and abetting the insurgents who were fighting and killing Americans. And how many Democratic congressmen do you think will be able to take a strong and principle stand against this? 

Well the answer is: Any Democrats who want to stand up and say, "No, I believe Iran has a perfect right to kill and attack American soldiers." Or any congressmen who wants to say, "No, I have I favor Iran getting a nuclear weapon." So, do you see he is kind of he owns the playing field, the President does. It’s not about strategy, it's about politics. It's about election politics. I am sorry to say, I am so disappointed, we can't seem to control the dialogue.

And I am out here tonight begging you to help us get this dialogue reoriented in the right direction before it's too late and we are engaged in another and deeper war with more costs, another unnecessary war in this region. 

What should we be doing? We should send a diplomatic region mission to the region. I would put Richard Holbrooke over there in a heartbeat. Put him on a golf stream gave him a General, gave him a couple of assistance. So I said, "Dick, see you come back when you got it sorted out. I am giving you two months. Go visit every leader in the good, we will give them this; if they are bad, we are going to do this. And see if you can get make some sense out of this and build some coherence." 

Iran cannot tolerate a hostile Iraq. We did them a great favor. But Iran is torn between whether they want to be revolutionary power and up and everything, or whether they want to be recognized and admitted to the world community as a major regional power. They just don't know. They got an ongoing debate and like any you know, good group, they are going to push in both directions as far as they can until they run to an obstacle, because they like to have it both ways.

Syria, well, they like to modernize they like to end the conflict with Israel, but on the other hand they don't have the economic resources, they are under threat, they are trying to maintain alliance with Iran; so they don't get pushed aside. They are at odds with the Saudi's. There is no one to make peace. 

Lebanon, completely ripped apart by internal conflict. Israel, the Palestinians you know about Hezbollah in the north but did you know that the Hamas movement is heavily infiltrated by Iran and is preparing in Gaza, the same kind of fortifications that the Israelis went against in south Lebanon. 

AMERICA HAS GOT ITS OWN CHALLENGES

So, there are a lot of problems in this region, before we use force or threaten force we should talk to people in the region. There is no guarantee, but if it were up to me I would pull out two brigades right now, I would that diplomatic mission over and I'd talk about a big regional strategy.

We have got to extricated our resources and change our focus from the Middle East to the broader world around us because while we are bogged down in terrorism, China and India are growing. They are growing at 10 percent; or in the case if India, nine percent a year. They are developing new technologies new challenges new relationships and we are both customers and competitors of these countries.

And we have got our own challenges. We have got to fix education in this country and healthcare and a business environment and re-ignite American technological ingenuity. We have got to have an energy policy that make sense and gives us greater flexibility and freedom from dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian Oil. We have got to deal with problems that are too big for any one nation to handle but there are national security problems like global warming and climate change. 

All of that is being impacted by the politically driven excessive focus on war in the Middle East. We need a real American strategy. And to get that strategy, its about who we are as Americans. Are we dividers or uniters, bullies or people who outreach and make friends? Do we fear others or do we welcome others?

Do we build fences around America or build bridges to invite others into see us? Who are we as a nation? I think we are open.

I think we are a nation of immigrants. I think we are a nation of incredible energy, courage, stamina, endurance don't ever sell America short. I want you to read my book. I want you to figure out who we are as Americans and I want you to help me open up this debate into a true dialogue about America's future, not just an argument about 10,000 US Troops in Iraq. Thank you.

END OF LECTURE