War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

[don]

The Arab agenda in Syria
By Pepe Escobar

Here's a crash course on the "democratic" machinations of the Arab League - rather the GCC League, as real power in this pan-Arab organization is wielded by two of the six Persian Gulf monarchies composing the Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf Counter-revolution Club; Qatar and the House of Saud.

Essentially, the GCC created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it. It's telling that Syria's neighbor Lebanon did not.

When the over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report ... surprise! The report did not follow the official GCC line - which is that the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

The Arab League's Ministerial Committee had approved the report, with four votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against; guess who, Qatar - which is now presiding the Arab League because the emirate bought their (rotating) turn from the Palestinian Authority.

So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.

Until it was leaked. (report can be found at: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf)

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

Once again, the official NATOGCC version of Syria is of a popular uprising smashed by bullets and tanks. Instead, BRICS members Russia and China, and large swathes of the developing world see it as the Syrian government fighting heavily armed foreign mercenaries. The report largely confirms these suspicions.

The Syrian National Council is essentially a Muslim Brotherhood outfit affiliated with both the House of Saud and Qatar - with an uneasy Israel quietly supporting it in the background. Legitimacy is not exactly its cup of green tea. As for the Free Syrian Army, it does have its defectors, and well-meaning opponents of the Assad regime, but most of all is infested with these foreign mercenaries weaponized by the GCC, especially Salafist gangs.

Still NATOGCC, blocked from applying in Syria its one-size-fits-all model of promoting "democracy" by bombing a country and getting rid of the proverbial evil dictator, won't be deterred. GCC leaders House of Saud and Qatar bluntly dismissed their own report and went straight to the meat of the matter; impose a NATOGCC regime change via the UN Security Council.

So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions".

But BRICS members Russia and China see it for what it is. Another BRICS member - India - alongside Pakistan and South Africa, have all raised serious objections to the NATOGCC-peddled draft UN resolution.

There won't be another Libya-style no fly zone; after all the Assad regime is not exactly deploying Migs against civilians. A UN regime change resolution will be blocked - again - by Russia and China. Even NATOGCC is in disarray, as each block of players - Washington, Ankara, and the House of Saud-Doha duo - has a different long-term geopolitical agenda. Not to mention crucial Syrian neighbor and trading partner Iraq; Baghdad is on the record against any regime change scheme.

So here's a suggestion to the House of Saud and Qatar; since you're so seduced by the prospect of "democracy" in Syria, why don't you use all your American weaponry and invade in the dead of night - like you did to Bahrain - and execute regime change by yourselves?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html

[don]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Run-up to proxy war over Syria
By M K Bhadrakumar

If a date needs to fixed marking the end of "post-Soviet era" in world politics, it might fall on February 4, 2012. Russia and China's double veto of the Arab League resolution on Syria in the United Nations Security Council constitutes a watershed event.

Curiously, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Anders Fogh Rasmussen chose the same day as the veto in New York to snub Russia; saying that that the alliance would have the first elements of the US's missile defense system (ABM) up and running in Europe by the alliance's summit in May in Chicago, no matter Moscow's objections.

The first double veto by Russia and China on the Syrian issue in the United Nations Security Council last October was a coordinated move that sought to scuttle a resolution that might be seized by the Western alliance to mount a military operation in Syria. But the repeat double veto on a motion pressing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to abandon power conveys a much bigger meaning.

Makings of proxy war

The Syrian situation has evolved since October and has surged as a geopolitical struggle over the future of the Iranian regime, control of the Middle East's oil and the perpetuation of the West's preponderant influence in that region. Russia and China sense that they could be booted out of the Middle East.

With the double veto, the only option available for the US and its allies in Syria is to flout both international law and the UN charter and overthrow the regime in Damascus. Indeed, the option exists to backtrack from the path of covert intervention, but it is a remote possibility. According to former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine:

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi's army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

Giraldi adds that the CIA analysts themselves are "skeptical regarding the approach to war", as they know that the frequently cited United Nations account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. The CIA has "refused to sign off on the claims" of mass defections from the Syrian Army. Likewise, accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers "appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently".

If Washington knows the ground realities in Syria, Moscow and Beijing know them, too. Thus, a test of will is developing over Syria. The US and its allies and Turkey can raise the pitch of the overt operations. But Russia can also raise the political and military 'cost' of the covert war. Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said over the weekend that Moscow will "do its utmost to avert a heavy-handed interference in Syria", although it "cannot prevent a military intervention in Syrian affairs if this decision is made by any country."

On the other hand, the West does not accept Russia as an arbiter in Syria and is bent on frustrating Moscow's repeated attempts to bring the Syrian factions and government to political dialogue. Moscow senses that President Bashar Al-Assad's political standing is weakening while the West calculates that the Russian stance becomes increasingly untenable.

The West has chosen to ignore China's stance. Obviously, the West is dismissive about the dragon's pretensions in the Middle East, whereas it takes the bear seriously, given its vast experience historically in the affairs of that region. So, the West's propaganda barrage is pitting Russia as a hurdle to democratic reforms and change in the Middle East. The US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice chose her words carefully while grandstanding that she felt "disgusted" at Russia's veto.

Russia is determined not be drawn into proxy wars which are a drain on resources, but the West is comfortable since the fabulously wealthy Qatari emir is prepared to bankroll operations. Again, ditching a traditional ally in the heat of the night could seriously dent Russia's image in the Middle East at a historic juncture where a renewed geopolitical struggle is just about commencing, which would have long-term global impact. Keeping Russia, an energy powerhouse, from developing bonhomie with the oil-rich Persian Gulf oligarchies has been a priority in Western strategies through the past several decades.

To be sure, Lavrov and the head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Mikhail Fradkov are proceeding to Damascus on Tuesday. The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday, "Russia, in consultation with other countries, is firmly set to seek the quickest stabilization of the situation in Syria along the paths of the quickest implementation of long-overdue democratic transformations."

The statement welcomed a continuance of the Arab League observer-mission to Syria, "which has proved its efficiency as a factor in de-escalating the violence." The sense of urgency is palpable, but the West is certain to block Lavrov's mission.

But the West is also unsure about pushing the envelope since its proxy, Burhan Ghalioun of the so-called Syrian National Council (a Syrian exile and academic in Sorbonne University) as yet finds little acceptance within Syria. Even his return to Damascus is problematic. And all this while the civil war is spreading inside Syria. Thus, the situation is fast acquiring the makings of a Cold War-era proxy war.

The backdrop is also fraught with disturbing parallels. China has come under US pressure with the latter's declaration of its "strategic turn" to Asia.

'Russia-China concerns'

Following the setting up of a US military base in Australia, Washington is currently engaged in talks with Manila to increase the American military presence in Southeast Asia. Manila is open to hosting American ships and surveillance aircraft, holding joint military exercises and asking the US back two decades after American forces were evicted from the Subic Bay, their biggest base in the Pacific.

At the annual Munich security conference over the weekend, Beijing registered its displeasure. Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun warned "countries outside Asia" to desist from attempts to "deliberately highlight the military and security agenda, create tension or strengthen military presence or alliance" in the region or "impose their will on Asia". He asserted, "The Asian way should be respected" and he warned against "any attempt to twist international rules." Zhang underlined that the rise of Asia "signals a move towards greater balance in the international power structure."

Significantly, the Beijing newspaper, The Global Times also pointed out recently that the US's belligerent projection of military might increasingly leaves Beijing and Moscow with no choice but to react. It said:

So far Moscow and Beijing are relatively restrained, though NATO seeks to expand its strategic presence in East Europe and US strengthening its military alliances in Asia. But the two cannot fall back forever. For Beijing and Moscow alike, ties with the US have been stressful. The two don't want to set off external doubts in their heated relations. But in both countries, an increasing number of people now advocate a Moscow-Beijing 'alliance'. The two do have countermeasures against the US, and they are capable of deterring US allies. If they are really determined to join hands, the balance of power on many world issues will begin to shift.

Equally, Moscow's ties with the West have deteriorated. The US-Russia talks on the ABM are in deadlock. Washington rejects Moscow's plea for a legally binding guarantee that the US's ABM deployments in Europe will not impact Russia's strategic deterrent.

Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's deputy prime minister, said in Moscow recently that the US and its NATO allies at present have 1,000 missiles capable of intercepting Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles, covering all European Russia up to the Ural mountains. He said:

There are no guarantees that after the first, second, and third phases [of the US' ABM project] are completed, there will be no fourth, fifth and sixth. Do you really think they will halt all their technologies after 2020? That's nonsense! They will go ahead with developing and boosting technical parameters of their interceptor missiles and performance capabilities of their warning [missile defense] systems ...

The fact that the missile defense system can hit strategic missiles and the fact that those bases and fleet are deployed in northern seas demonstrate the obvious anti-Russian nature of the [US] missile defense.

Clearly, the Russian and Chinese double veto on the Syrian resolution represents a coordinated move to challenge the US on its triumphalist march from Libya toward Syria and Iran. Lavrov spoke to his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechen just before the voting in the Security Council. While casting his veto, Chinese ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said, "China supports the revised proposals raised by Russia."

Xinhua news agency commented that the double veto "aimed at further seeking peaceful settlement" in Syria and "preventing possible drastic and risky solutions". It pointedly explained the "Russia-China concerns" over Syria. The Chinese commentaries highlight that "globalization has dedicated a new logic in international relations" and Syria is a key theater for the West's agenda to make the Middle East their sphere of influence.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NB07Ad01.html

[Prazak]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

Once again, the official NATOGCC version of Syria is of a popular uprising smashed by bullets and tanks. Instead, BRICS members Russia and China, and large swathes of the developing world see it as the Syrian government fighting heavily armed foreign mercenaries. The report largely confirms these suspicions.

Really? So it's heavily armed foreign mercenaries that are shelling Homs at the moment?

Here's what a recently murdered journalist had to say about it in her last interview:

Anderson Cooper: The regime in Syria claims they're not hitting civilians, that there is no armed conflict, that there is no war inside Syria, that they are basically just going after terrorist gangs.
Marie Colvin: Every civilian house on this street has been hit. We're talking about a very poor popular neighborhood. The top floor of the building I'm in has been hit, in fact, totally destroyed. There are no military targets here. There is the Free Syrian Army: Heavily outnumbered and out-gunned -- they have only Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades. But they don't have a base. There are more young men being killed, we see a lot of teen-aged young men, but they are going out to just try to get the wounded to some kind of medical treatment. So it's a complete and utter lie that they're only going after terrorists. There are rockets, shells, tank shells, anti-aircraft being fired in parallel lines into the city. The Syrian Army is simply shelling a city of cold, starving civilians.
Full link here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/22/world/...ipt/index.html

Indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets is a war crime, however the BRICS members, and their puppet journalists, wish to characterize it.

[KGW]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Prazak, you totally discount the two aforementioned pieces? In favor of CNN? NATO assures us they never target civilians: they are just collateral damage. Have you ever been around the discharge of heavy weapons? Kill radius, even with extremely accurate weapons, is large. I have no doubt there are those who are not in the fight who are dying. . .The Syrian regime is under foreign-supported attack, in the attempt to pressure Hezbollah and Iran. You would do better to point your fingers at those who are supporting the violence against the Syrian state.

[Prazak]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Prazak, you totally discount the two aforementioned pieces? In favor of CNN? NATO assures us they never target civilians: they are just collateral damage. Have you ever been around the discharge of heavy weapons? Kill radius, even with extremely accurate weapons, is large. I have no doubt there are those who are not in the fight who are dying. . .The Syrian regime is under foreign-supported attack, in the attempt to pressure Hezbollah and Iran. You would do better to point your fingers at those who are supporting the violence against the Syrian state.

CNN did not opine, it conducted an interview with an eyewitness reporting that the Syrians are simply shelling a civilian city indiscriminately. And she's not the only such eyewitness. Did you listen to what she had to say (hours before she herself was killed) or did you dismiss it because the CNN logo was present?

The concept of collateral civilian damage in attacking a legitimate military target is one thing, and there are plenty of arguments under the laws of armed conflict over what is and isn't an acceptable level in particular cases. There is, however, no argument when civilian populations are attacked indiscriminately. Don't confuse the two.

It is also irrelevant whether or not one believes NATO's assurances regarding their own targeting. (I found it difficult to believe, for example, that China's embassy in Belgrade was bombed by accident back in 1998.) How does that affect how we characterize Syria's indiscriminate targeting of one of its own population centers.

And yes, I have been in a war zone and around discharges of heavy weapons, if that matters at all to the discussion of what Syria is doing to its own civilian population.

[Shakespear]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

CNN did not opine, it conducted an interview with an eyewitness reporting that the Syrians are simply shelling a civilian city indiscriminately. And she's not the only such eyewitness. Did you listen to what she had to say (hours before she herself was killed) or did you dismiss it because the CNN logo was present?

Go and check how many journalists have died and WHERE/WHEN.

Credibility of CNN , BBC and other MSM has evaporated a long time ago, but there are always fresh new viewers to "enjoy" the factual reports. I am enjoying comic books rather than watching that circus.

[Prazak]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Go and check how many journalists have died and WHERE/WHEN.

Credibility of CNN , BBC and other MSM has evaporated a long time ago, but there are always fresh new viewers to "enjoy" the factual reports. I am enjoying comic books rather than watching that circus.

So you're saying that just before Marie Colvin was herself killed she went on the air on CNN for an interview in which she lied about the indiscriminate shelling of Homs? That her report was merely propaganda to be "enjoyed" by the viewers?

I'm a pretty cynical guy, but that's far, far too cynical, my Polish friend.

[don]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Modern states, since their inception, have exercised the right to defend their sovereignty. The attempts to trump sovereignty with human rights have enjoyed success mainly in the employ of Great Powers advancing their own agendas. When human right violation charges are leveled at Great Powers they're often portrayed as a joke.

[Shakespear]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

"cynical guy" are the people that start these "liberation" movements. Just look at the map of this region, the world oil production curves, and all becomes quite clear. No one was coming to Sudan to rescue the civilians under attack in the desert, no one is coming to Bahrain to save those people. So I am sorry. CNN just does not do it for me.

The lady was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is sad.

However you ran right past my point. Look at the track record of journalists being killed. What, Nothing there?

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/201...-IMPUNITY.html
http://www.metafilter.com/24238/Pentagon-threatens-to-target-journalists-in-Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3227819.stm

You're not safe,' Pentagon warns journalists

CBC | April 09, 2003

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials were unrepentant Tuesday over the killing of three journalists in Baghdad, telling reporters that people in war zones are "not safe."
Three cameramen – one working with Reuters news agency, another with a Spanish television channel and a third from the Ukraine – were killed when a tank shell hit the Palestine Hotel, where many journalists have been staying since before the war began.

In a separate incident, a journalist with Arab satellite news channel Al-Jazeera was killed when the broadcaster's downtown office was hit in a U.S. bombing. U.S. forces said in both cases they were returning fire, although journalists at the Palestine Hotel said there was nobody shooting from the hotel.

• RELATED: Journalists killed in tank fire on hotel

"I can tell you that we've never seen anybody with a gun inside our hotel," freelance reporter May Ling Welsh told CBC News. Maj.-Gen. Stanley McChrystal of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff told a Pentagon briefing that the U.S. forces have been showing "extraordinary restraint" as they fought their way across Iraq and into Baghdad. He said they try to minimize civilian deaths, but troops on the ground have the right to defend themselves. Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said she has had many conversations with journalists in which she warned them about the risks of covering a war. "War is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous business, and you are not safe when you're in a war zone," Clarke said. Severine Cazes, a spokesperson for the group Reporters Without Borders says the military knows where reporters are, even using the global positioning system to identify news organizations. "The Al-Jazeera channel made a point since the beginning of the war to inform regularly the U.S. military of the places where its teams are operating in Iraq in order to ensure their safety," said Cazes.

Press watchdog accuses US army over Baghdad deaths

London Guardian | April 9, 2003

The international press watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres has accused the US military of deliberately firing on journalists after attacks on Baghdad killed three cameramen. The RSF secretary general, Robert Menard, called on the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to provide proof that the offices of Arabic TV station al-Jazeera and the Palestine Hotel, which was well-known as the base for most of the foreign media in the Iraqi capital, were not targeted on purpose. Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Tele 5 were killed yesterday by an explosion at the hotel, thought to have been caused by US tank fire. Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayyoub was also killed yesterday when two bombs dropped during a US air raid hit the TV station's Baghdad offices. Ayyoub was broadcasting live to the satellite station's 7am bulletin when American aircraft fired two missiles at the bureau building, killing him and injuring a colleague. The attack on the building, which is in a residential area, has fuelled suspicions that al-Jazeera was attacked deliberately despite repeated reassurances that its journalists were not a target. Al-Jazeera had earlier sent its location co-ordinates to the Pentagon. "We are appalled at what happened because it was known that both places contained journalists," said Menard. "Film shot by the French TV station France 3 and descriptions by journalists show the neighbourhood was very quiet at that hour and that the US tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire," he added referring to the attack on the Palestine Hotel. "This evidence does not match the US version of an attack in self-defence and we can only conclude that the US army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists. "US forces must prove that the incident was not a deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad." The RSF chief also accused the US of adopting an "increasingly hostile" attitude to journalists who are not embedded with troops. "We are concerned at the US army's increasingly hostile attitude towards journalists, especially those non-embedded in its military units," Menard said. "Army officials have also remained deplorably silent and refused to give any details about what happened when a British ITN TV crew was fired on near Basra on March 22, killing one journalist and leaving two others missing. "Very many non-embedded journalists have complained about being refused entry to Iraq from Kuwait, threatened with withdrawal of accreditation and being held and interrogated for several hours. One group of non-embedded journalists was held in secret for two days and roughed up by US military police." Menard's comments echoed those of other bodies that campaign on behalf of press freedom, including the International Federation of Journalists, which has also accused the US military of targeting non-embedded journalists and called for an inquiry into the death of the three cameramen who died yesterday. The press watchdog Journalists has also written to Mr Rumsfeld demanding an investigation into the Baghdad attacks.

U.S. Faulted For Media Deaths

CBS | April 9, 2003

The U.S. military came under criticism for U.S.-led military strikes in the Iraqi capital that hit the hotel housing hundreds of journalists and an Arab television network, killing three journalists and injuring three others.

Two Arabic-language television networks — Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi — said their offices were intentionally targeted by American-led forces — claims military officials denied on Tuesday.

"This coalition does not target journalists," Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said in Qatar.

Early Wednesday, Abu Dhabi satellite television announced that it had been unable to broadcast live video from Baghdad overnight because American tanks were posted outside its offices, which are alongside those of Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera also did not broadcast live scenes of Baghdad overnight.

Earlier, the Abu Dhabi channel appealed to the International Committees of the Red Cross for help in evacuating its offices.

An American tank on Tuesday fired on the Palestine Hotel, where foreign journalists have been covering the war from balconies and the roof.

Less than half a mile away, a reporter for Al-Jazeera television was killed when U.S.-led forces bombed his office. Nearby, coalition artillery battered Abu Dhabi's Baghdad office, trapping more than 25 reporters who phoned for help from the basement.

"I'm astonished and shocked," Nart Bouran, news director of Abu Dhabi, speaking from the network's headquarters in the United Arab Emirates, said Tuesday. "We've been in this office for more than 2½ years. Anyone going into military operations would have known our location."

Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal said the U.S. military has long known the map coordinates and street number of his network's office. Witnesses "saw the plane fly over twice before dropping the bombs. Our office is in a residential area, and even the Pentagon knows its location," Hilal said in Qatar.

Military officials offered different explanations for the attacks.

Brooks initially said the hotel was targeted after soldiers were fired on from the lobby. Later, he told reporters, "I may have misspoken."

U.S. Army Col. David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which deployed the tank, said Iraqis in front of the hotel fired rocket-propelled grenades across the Tigris River. Soldiers fired back with a tank round aimed at the Palestine Hotel after seeing enemy "binoculars," Perkins said.

More than 50 news cameras were set up on hotel balconies when the tank fired, according to Associated Press photographer Jerome Delay. "How can they spot someone with binoculars and not (see) cameras?" he asked.

Journalists said they heard no gunfire coming from the hotel or its immediate environs. They had been watching two U.S. tanks shooting across the al-Jumhuriya bridge when one of the tanks rotated its turret toward the hotel and fired.

The round pierced the 14th and 15th floors of the 17-story hotel, spraying glass and shrapnel across a corner suite serving as Reuters' Baghdad bureau.

Killed were Taras Protsyuk of Ukraine, a television cameraman for the Reuters news agency, and Jose Couso, a cameraman for Spain's Telecinco television. Spain asked its journalists to leave Baghdad following Couso's death.

Tareq Ayyoub of Jordan died at al-Jazeera's office, located in a residential neighborhood fronting the Tigris. In all, 10 journalists have been killed in combat situations since war began March 20.

Ayyoub's widow, Dima Tahboub, speaking with Al-Jazeera by telephone from Amman, appealed to God "to accept him as a martyr."

The wounded, all Reuters employees, were identified by the company as TV technician Paul Pasquale of Britain, Gulf Bureau Chief Samia Nakhoul of Lebanon and photographer Faleh Kheiber of Iraq.

Pasquale underwent surgery Tuesday at a Baghdad hospital for serious leg injuries, according to colleagues. Nakhoul suffered shrapnel wounds and may require surgery.

Further details weren't immediately available.

"Clearly the war, and all its confusion, has come to the heart of Baghdad," said Reuters Editor in Chief Geert Linnebank. "But the incident nonetheless raises questions about the judgment of the advancing U.S. troops who have known all along that this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in Baghdad."

In a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said it believed the attacks violated the Geneva Conventions concerning likely harm to civilians.

In Belgium, the International Federation of Journalists said it appeared Tuesday's attacks may have deliberately targeted journalists. "If so, they are grave and serious violations of international law," said Secretary-General Aidan White. He also said Iraq, accused of using civilians as human shields during U.S.-led bombing attacks, may also be guilty of war crimes.

Human rights groups have also suggested U.S. attacks on Iraqi state television violated the rules of war. But Central Command says the station was a legitimate target because it was allegedly broadcasting instructions to troops.

Film Transcript from media critic and filmaker Danny Schechter about "Fishy deaths of unembedded reporter"

Narrator: Journalists and media workers were targeted in Iraq. Was it deliberate? To keep the story on message by intimidating un-embedded journalists. How did the media in the street challenge these killings? Some were killed by so-called friendly fire. Others victims of calculated attacks, missiles, tank shells, and bombs dropped on or near journalists. Some media critics concluded it was intentional, although the Pentagon denied it. Before the war, the BBC's Kate Adey reported she was told by the Pentagon that independent journalists could be targeted.

Reporter: : The 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel was the target. A U.S. tank shelled the Palestine Hotel, which was crowded with journalists, killing two cameramen. One works for a Spanish network, and the other one works for Reuters.

Narrator: Now another incident. Look at this. An American tank on the bridge across from the Palestine hotel in Baghdad. A soldier claimed his tank was fired on. Listen carefully. There are no sounds.

Samia Nakhoul: We moved to the Palestine Hotel because the Pentagon asked our organizations to let us leave because it was a target and when we moved to the Palestine Hotel our organization told the Pentagon we were at the Palestine Hotel. So did every news organization.

Narrator: Again, minutes later no sounds were heard, no one firing at U.S. soldiers. Suddenly without provocation –

Samia Nakhoul: We saw an orange glow, and this was the tank shell that hit our office. And you can imagine the panic, the wounded – it was me and another photographer. I can't imagine that they would target journalists. You know, I couldn't believe why would they target us? What have we done to them?

Narrator: After the war press freedom groups were still demanding a real investigation. The Pentagon's Victoria Clark told me there was a report that showed that the soldiers were acting in self-defense.

Narrator: Was there any attempt to find out the facts independently or a thorough investigation?

Samia Nakhoul: No – the Pentagon never interviewed me personally on it. I don't think any of my colleagues were interviewed by the Pentagon.

Narrator: Samia's organization, Reuters, demanded an independent investigation, but most media companies didn't even press on this issue. No one was held accountable. It was all passed off as an accident, the fog of war and all that.

[oddlots]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

You would do better to point your fingers at those who are supporting the violence against the Syrian state.

That, given the current situations is one of the most morally obtuse statements I've ever read. The violence against the Syrian state? You mean the kalashnikov fire from army defectors who refused to fire on unarmed civilians ranged against artillery and tanks? That violence?

(And please don't bore me with the question of the killing of security forces that have been consistently under-reported in the West. I concede that and don't think it changes anything here. There is simply no unified opposition so you cannot treat it as such.)

What I don't get about this argument is how looking askance at Western motives for selectively supporting uprisings in the ME somehow bleeds into viewing these regimes as something approaching legitimate and its opponents as not. That seems insane to me. This view of citizens revolting against an honestly horrific regime simply as dupes strikes me as one of the most morally perplexing opinions I've ever seen on this site. It's one thing to try and rebalance a skewed, partial or simplistic view, another to "overshoot" and somehow legitimate unthinkably vicious acts against unarmed civilians

[FRED]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Just here to note that politically contentious threads that six years ago belonged in Political Abyss on our forums now reside front and center.

Wonder why gold is $1,750 versus $550 as then?

[Prazak]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

"cynical guy" are the people that start these "liberation" movements. Just look at the map of this region, the world oil production curves, and all becomes quite clear. No one was coming to Sudan to rescue the civilians under attack in the desert, no one is coming to Bahrain to save those people. So I am sorry. CNN just does not do it for me.

The lady was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is sad.

However you ran right past my point. Look at the track record of journalists being killed. What, Nothing there?

No, you were implying that her reporting was propaganda simply because it took place on CNN. That does her a grave disservice.

And what do the deaths of three journalists in Iraq (which I wouldn't call a "track record") have to do with this woman's death? Shall we excuse the death of every journalist because of the event you cited in Iraq?

I grant that the U.S. has been, and is here, involved in turning a rag-tag opposition into something more militant. So what, the mass protests we saw against Assad are illegitimate because they have received support from the U.S.? Is every uprising necessarily illegitimate once it has been supported by the U.S.? When a dictator then indiscriminately bombs a city and its civilian inhabitants it is therefore the U.S. who is the cynical party for having supported those who are rebelling?

I grant that the world turned a blind eye to Sudan, and to Bahrain -- and to many other places before that, and no doubt to many other places in future conflicts. But how does that excuse the Syrian Army's indiscriminate targeting of civilians? Should the world have accepted massacre in Bosnia because it was feckless in Rwanda?

Not everything can be excused by reference to third parties. Not everything is a "comic book" just because it is covered by CNN.

[Prazak]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

That, given the current situations is one of the most morally obtuse statements I've ever read. The violence against the Syrian state? You mean the kalashnikov fire from army defectors who refused to fire on unarmed civilians ranged against artillery and tanks? That violence?

(And please don't bore me with the question of the killing of security forces that have been consistently under-reported in the West. I concede that and don't think it changes anything here. There is simply no unified opposition so you cannot treat it as such.)

What I don't get about this argument is how looking askance at Western motives for selectively supporting uprisings in the ME somehow bleeds into viewing these regimes as something approaching legitimate and its opponents as not. That seems insane to me. This view of citizens revolting against an honestly horrific regime simply as dupes strikes me as one of the most morally perplexing opinions I've ever seen on this site. It's one thing to try and rebalance a skewed, partial or simplistic view, another to "overshoot" and somehow legitimate unthinkably vicious acts against unarmed civilians

I wish I had been able to say that as succinctly and eloquently as you did.

[don]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Moscow stirs itself on Syria
By M K Bhadrakumar

With the "Friends of Syria" (FOS) grouping sponsored by the Western powers and their Arab allies scheduled to hold its first meeting in Tunis on Friday, Russian diplomacy has shifted gear into a proactive mode. The Kremlin was a beehive of diplomatic activity on Wednesday.

The venue of the birthplace of the "Arab Spring" for the FOS to gather might, prima facie, give an impression that the name of the game is high-flown rhetoric and nothing more.

But that is not how Moscow views the developing paradigm.

Moscow senses that the final assault on Syria by the United States may not far off, although the US propaganda makes it out to be that the Barack Obama administration is on the horns of a dilemma, torn apart by an existential angst.

Moscow has point-blank turned down the "invitation" to be part of the FOS. The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Tuesday:

Officially we were not informed who will take part in the [FOS] conference or what the agenda will be. Most importantly, it is unclear what the actual goal of this initiative is ... Serious questions arise about the final document of the meeting. According to some information, a small group of countries, without knowledge of others, will be asked to simply stamp a document that is already in the process of being written ... it seems that we are talking about slapping together some kind of international coalition as was the case in organizing the Libya Contact Group in order to support one side against the other in an internal conflict. Russia is for all members of the world community to act as friends of all Syrian people and not only part of it.

That statement may leave the impression that Moscow retains the option to review its association with FOS at some future stage. But its most important salient is the analogy drawn with the West's Libyan intervention and the uncanny resemblance between the Libya Contact Group and the FOS in the making.

Against the backdrop of the Libyan analogy, the Kremlin swiftly moved into the diplomatic arena on Wednesday. President Dmitry Medvedev phoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Saudi monarch King Abdullah and the Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

The conversation with Abdullah apparently didn't go far as the terse Kremlin announcement suggests. The state-owned Saudi Press Agency's account claims that Abdullah rebuffed Medvedev virtually by insisting that any dialogue about the Syrian situation is "futile". He said Moscow should have "coordinated with Arabs ... before using its veto [in the UN Security Council]." Abdullah was quoted as saying, "But now, dialogue about what is happening [in Syria] is futile."

Abdullah made it clear that Riyadh has a closed mind on Syria and nothing short of a regime change in Damascus will satisfy the House of Saud.

Medvedev, however, held productive discussions with Maliki and Ahmadinejad. Interestingly, Moscow has sized up Baghdad as a meaningful interlocutor in the Syrian crisis in so short a time after the pullout of the United States' troops from that country.

The Russian initiative to Baghdad is tantamount to an acknowledgement both of Iraq having got back its sovereignty after eight years of foreign occupation and its relevance and its capacity to play a role in the Syrian crisis, as well as a reminder to those who forgot that Iraq along with Syria were two staunch allies of the former Soviet Union in the Middle East.

The Kremlin account of the conversation between Medvedev and Maliki said:

The main subject of discussion was the situation in the Middle East, in particular in Syria, with the emphasis on not allowing outside intervention in Syria's affairs and the need to end the bloodshed as soon as possible and launch a comprehensive dialogue in the country itself between all sides in the conflict. Both leaders stressed that political and diplomatic efforts to stabilize the situation in Syria are the only option and noted the counterproductive impact of economic sanctions against Syria, which only aggravate the Syrian people's social and economic problems. [Emphasis added.]

Medvedev and al-Maliki "stressed the importance of continued coordination through bilateral and multilateral contacts in order to guarantee regional peace and security". Interestingly, the two leaders have agreed to expand and deepen the bilateral ties, which, incidentally, had a big security content in the Soviet era.

The stunning development, however, was Medvedev's phone call to Ahmadinejad on Wednesday. Interestingly, it was made on the day after International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors concluded in Tehran what appears to have been an inconclusive mission.

Moscow has been chary of openly displaying a strategic understanding with Tehran on major regional problems lest it got unwittingly entangled in the US-Iran standoff. This political reserve conditioned Moscow's lukewarm attitude to Iran's persistent requests for membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Thus, whichever way one looks at it, Moscow crossed the Rubicon on Wednesday to touch base with Ahmadinejad on the Syrian crisis, which Russian commentators increasingly flag as the most critical international issue today, which is reaching "boiling point".

The Russian media account of the Medvedev-Ahmadinejad conversation claimed the two leaders "spoke out" against foreign interference in Syria, while the Kremlin statement said they "urged the resolution of the current crisis by Syrian people using only peaceful means and without any foreign interference. The sides agreed that the main goal today ... is to prevent a civil war in the country, which may destabilize the situation in the whole region."

The Iranian account was more forthcoming.

"Given their common views and positions, Iran and Russia must make more effort to help establish peace in the region and prevent foreign intervention," Ahmadinejad said.

Medvedev, for his part, said certain trans-regional powers seek Syria's disintegration, which is a threat to Middle East security. The Russian president added that Iran and Russia can cooperate to peacefully resolve the crisis in Syria.

Significantly, Moscow wrapped up its diplomatic initiatives on Wednesday with the Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov also making a demarche with the US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul at a meeting in the foreign ministry in Moscow over the Iran situation.

Rybakov voiced Moscow's "strong objection" to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US against Iran and pointed out that such political pressure only impeded a "negotiated solution to the West's standoff with Iran" and complicated Iran's talks with the P5+1 - "Iran Six" - the US, Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany.

The demarche comes at a point when Russian commentators - like their Chinese counterparts - are increasingly placing the Syrian crisis and the situation around Iran as two vectors of the same matrix. It will bear watch how the Russian-Iranian strategic understanding over Syria develops.

A Russian commentary on Wednesday analyzed that the co-relation of forces in the heart of the Middle Eastern region is changing dramatically:

Syria is developing a special relationship with Iraq, which sympathizes with Syria's efforts to stabilize the domestic situation. It is quite probable that with the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Iran, Iraq and Syria will at some point naturally form a loose, tripartite alliance in the Middle East. Given that the majority of the Iraqis are Shiite and Iran's growing influence in Iraq in the last few years, such a scenario is by no means improbable.

The Kremlin diplomatic initiatives on Wednesday seems to have factored in the emergent regional scenario.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB24Ak03.html

[KGW]

Re: War in the Dollar Zone: the Syrian Gambit

Surprised?

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

Libya 2.0
By AP February 23, 2012 “AP” – -THE US has opened the door to military assistance for Syria’s rebels as intelligence sources revealed the Free Syrian Army is acquiring sophisticated weapons systems, including Russian anti-tank missiles, from sympathisers and officers in President Bashar al-Assad’s military. In co-ordinated messages yesterday, the White House and State Department said they still hoped for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by Mr Assad’s regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration’s previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear what, if any, role the US might play in providing such aid. “We don’t want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarisation of Syria, because that could take the country down a dangerous path,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “But we don’t rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken.” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language. “We don’t believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarisation of Syria,” she said. “What we don’t want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can’t get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures.” The escalating daily death toll and the failure of diplomacy to end the crisis is spurring greater international interest in the possibility of providing the FSA with logistical support to hasten the collapse of the regime. Two influential US senators, including John McCain, have declared support for arming the Syrian rebels, citing Iranian and Russian material backing for the regime. The rebel force, which is growing in size and claiming responsibility for a rising number of attacks against the Syrian army and intelligence services, lacks weapons and ammunition. “If we had what we need, we could finish off the regime in 10 days,” said Khaled, a sniper with the FSA’s Tel Kalakh Martyrs’ Brigade. “Every time we fire a shot, we have to think carefully about where that bullet is going.” The insurgency campaign mounted by the FSA, which includes assassinations, roadside bomb attacks, ambushes and crowd protection, is reshaping the 11-month struggle. What began as protests against the regime has turned into an armed struggle in which more than 6000 people have died and which has brought the country to the brink of a sectarian civil war. Critics point to the logistical difficulties of supplying weapons to the FSA and the lack of clarity over the composition of the rebel force. A declaration of support for the uprising by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qa’ida, has triggered alarm that the struggle may attract jihadist militants. Small quantities of individual weapons are smuggled from Lebanon. Larger amounts are crossing from Iraq into the hands of Sunni tribes and Kurdish groups in eastern Syria, according to Western intelligence sources. The weapons are being stockpiled in the east because of difficulties in transporting them undetected across hundreds of kilometres of desert to the protest hubs in the western half of the country. The Turkish border is regarded as the most favourable transit point for smuggled arms. Turkey has come out strongly against the Assad regime and hosts the leadership of the FSA. Furthermore, much of Syria’s northern Idlib province is under the control of rebel groups, according to opposition activists and FSA fighters. The 300 to 400 fighters of the Tel Kalakh Martyrs’ Brigade are based in the eponymous town, 3km north of the Lebanese border near Homs. The brigade is split into combat units of between six and 10 fighters, each equipped with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and a light machine gun, alongside individual weapons. Khaled, a former soldier in an air defence regiment who deserted in October, said one of the main sources of weapons for the FSA was the Syrian army. “We have some senior officers who are with us either because they believe in our cause or because we can bribe them. They are our only way of getting more advanced weapons, such as Kornets,” he said, referring to the Russian anti-tank missile. Hezbollah used Kornet missiles to deadly effect against Israel’s top Merkava tanks in Lebanon during the 2006 war. The Syrian army has begun deploying its more heavily armoured T-80 tanks. A video recently posted on YouTube shows a burning T-72 tank said to have been destroyed by the FSA in Zabadani. The clip shows what appears to be a Kornet or the shorter-range Metis anti-tank missile, one of 60 the FSA claimed it had seized from a captured military depot. Additional reporting: The Times.