Monday, 17 December 2012 10:10

Obama Surrounds Syria with U.S. Troops; Regional War Nears

Written by 

In a move that analysts said put the U.S. government even closer to overt military intervention in Syria and potentially a broader regional war, the Obama administration and the German government announced the deployment of missiles and more American troops along the Syrian border — this time in Turkey. While lawmakers in Germany voted in favor of the effort, Obama, as has become typical, did not bother to obtain approval from Congress as required by the Constitution.

Analysts and even the Iranian regime’s top military brass say the escalation may be just a prelude to a potential “world war.” At the very least, though, Obama’s latest unconstitutional decision to deploy American forces, according to analysts, amounts to throwing fuel on the fire in the long-running conflict pitting the Western establishment, Sunni Arab despots, and Islamic extremists against secular Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

As in the Libya fiasco, the U.S. government and various European powers have been vigorously supporting a motley coalition of so-called “rebels.” Many of those fighters are known to be foreign jihadists seeking an Islamic theocracy, and more than a few are self-styled al-Qaeda terrorists. However, the upper echelons of “Syrian opposition groups” are packed with shadowy figures with well-documented links to the Bilderberg meetings, the global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, and other elements of the global establishment.  

Western officials implausibly claimed that the latest troop deployment was defensive, aimed at protecting the powerful Islamic government in Turkey, which is a member of NATO, from an attack by the embattled Syrian regime. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at an American Air Force base less than 100 miles from Syria after signing an “order” purporting to authorize the scheme, alleged that the military contingent would be "dealing with threats that come out of Syria." 

Without mentioning the elephant in the room — the fact that the Constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress for the administration to fight wars — Panetta attempted to justify his lawless actions. Among the “threats” he cited as justification: potential Syrian military strikes aimed at Turkey, which analysts say would be highly unlikely assuming Assad has common sense, and ongoing fighting between the regime in Damascus and the Western-backed Islamist rebels seeking to overthrow it.  

"We can't spend a lot of time worrying about whether that pisses off Syria," Panetta declared, seemingly attempting to sound tough after he signed the deployment “order” en route to Turkey from Afghanistan, where the unconstitutional U.S. government occupation is now expected to last far beyond the 2014 withdrawal deadline repeatedly promised by the Obama administration. Apparently, however, Panetta spent more time thinking about whether the lawless action would anger the Syrian regime than he did considering whether or not the deployment was lawful or constitutional. Of course, it is not.

Panetta, who has a dubious history of far-left sympathies highlighted by The New American, also sparked national criticism when he declared before Congress that “international" so-called "authorities" would decide when to deploy American troops. U.S. lawmakers, the defense chief said, might be informed of the decision afterwards. More than a few critics equated the statements with treason, pointing to the Constitution, which grants all powers over the initiation of war to Congress.

Again without asking Congress, the Obama administration also announced publicly in October that it was deploying U.S. troops in Jordan along Syria’s southern border, sparking fears among analysts and lawmakers that the president was plotting to spark another all-out war in the region. With American troops now openly stationed along Syria’s northern and southern borders, however, one tiny incident — real or staged — could spark a full-blown American invasion. Chemical weapons, which the U.S. government is now training “rebels” to “secure,” may well provide the official excuse.

Like Panetta, NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed the latest deployment was to defend Turkey against a potential attack, omitting the fact that the Syrian regime would almost certainly not strike Turkey even though the Islamist government in Ankara is helping Western powers and jihadists wage war on Damascus. “To the Turkish people we say: We are determined to defend you and your territory,” Rasmussen declared in Brussels. “To anyone who would want to attack Turkey we say: Don't even think about it."

The Islamic dictatorship in Iran, meanwhile, like the Russian government in public statements saying the deployment increases the risk of conflict, is not buying NATO’s claims. Instead, the Iranian regime expressed fears that despite all talk of “human rights,” “democracy,” and “defending” Turkey, Western powers were actually attempting to kick off a major conflict at all costs, hoping to topple the Syrian regime before moving in on Iran for “regime change” there. Iranian officials also issued veiled threats in response to the deployment.

“Each one of these Patriots is a black mark on the world map, and is meant to cause a world war,” said Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, calling on officials in Turkey and Western countries to reconsider the decision before it is too late. “Unfortunately, one by one, the Western countries are approving deployment of Patriot missiles to Turkey’s border with Syria while they are planning a world war, which is very dangerous for the future of humanity and Europe itself. The wise and the elite in Europe, the U.S. and Turkey should dismantle the Patriots and take them away from the region before a fire breaks out.”

Some analysts say that despite public statements, the Russian government appears to have quietly approved of the international scheme to oust Assad and replace him with a new regime. In the war on Libya, which bears striking resemblance to the current operation in Syria, Russian officials could have prevented the “regime change” operation simply by vetoing the United Nations resolution purporting to authorize it. It seems the brutal Syrian regime, once an ally of the U.S. government — like Moammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and countless others — is now virtually alone in its battle for survival.

The surface-to-air “Patriot” missiles being deployed to Turkey can shoot down airplanes or short-range ballistic missiles, with unproven claims that Assad had fired Scud-type artillery at “rebels” being used to bolster the argument in favor of deployment. The hardware will be manned by a contingent of around 1,000 Western soldiers, with at least 400 Americans, 400 Germans, and potentially a contingent of over 350 Dutch troops as well.

It was not immediately clear how soon the NATO soldiers or equipment would arrive in Turkey, but Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said last week that the three governments were working with Turkish officials “to ensure that the Patriots are deployed as soon as possible.” The U.S. government also operates an Air Force base in Incirlik, Turkey, less than 100 miles from the Syrian border, which analysts say would almost certainly be used as part of the broader operation to depose the Syrian regime.

While much of the establishment press continues to parrot claims by “anonymous officials” that Assad’s decades-old tyrannical dynasty is crumbling, whether or not that is true remains difficult to determine. The same allegations were made about Libyan despot Moammar Gadhafi for months until his convoy was finally hit by NATO missiles. Once captured, he was tortured and summarily executed by Western-backed “rebels.”

Today, Libya remains a devastated warzone run by Islamists, assorted militias, NATO-sponsored leaders, al-Qaeda terrorists, and former Gadhafi officials who cooperated with Western governments and Sunni Arab regimes in the “revolution.” Analysts say Syria will likely end up facing a similar situation if and when the Assad regime collapses. After that, the regime in Tehran will almost certainly be next in the crosshairs.

Photo of Patriot missile battery

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Related articles:

U.S. to Send Missiles, Troops to "Defend" Turkey From Syria   

Without Asking Congress, Obama Puts U.S. Troops on Syria Border

U.S. to Recognize One Syrian Rebel Group, Blacklist Another

Libya: Now What?

Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Linked to Bilderberg, CFR, Goldman Sachs & George Soros

Leon Panetta and the Institute for Policy Studies

Obama Adm. Will Seek "International Permission" for Going to War

1 comment

  • Comment Link REMant Monday, 17 December 2012 14:51 posted by REMant

    I think Mr Newman is making a bit too much of this, altho I don't doubt the desire on the part of NATO to do more, the conspiring, or the probable result. We are obligated by treaty to aid in Turkey's defense and the Patriots are no doubt to defend against missiles, while the flotilla is aimed at eliminating the Syrian AF should it appear the WMD are being used. The latter is the apparent "red line." The admin certainly does seem to have a problem understanding sovereignty.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in