03/02/16 – Gareth Porter – The Scott Horton Show

I love Bitcoin, but there's just something incredibly satisfying about having real, fine silver in your pocket.
That's why Commodity Discs are so neat.
They're one-ounce rounds of fine silver with a QR code on the back.
Just grab your smartphone's QR reader, scan the coin, and you'll instantly get the silver spot price in Federal Reserve Notes and Bitcoin.
And if you donate $100 to The Scott Horton Show, he'll send you one.
Learn more at Facebook.com slash Commodity Discs.
CommodityDiscs.com.
Hey, I'm Scott.
Oh, headphones on.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Of course, on the line, I've got the great Gareth Porter, as is often my want.
Middle East Eye, that's where he's writing this time, Middle East Eye.
And we're running it at AntiWar.com, of course.
Plan B and the Bankruptcy of U.S.-Syria Policy.
Welcome back to the show, Gareth.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine.
Thanks, Scott.
People should buy your book, Manufactured Crisis, The Truth Behind the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Don't you agree?
I agree.
I agree.
I think it would be very instructional.
Instructive.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Yeah, that's called Manufactured Crisis, y'all.
I think you should read it, too.
Yeah.
So here's the thing, man.
We've gotten into the Plan B and all this and that.
First, what about this ceasefire, man?
It's working a little better than you thought, or no?
It is working.
It appears better than I anticipated, although, you know, I certainly felt that there was a...
It's only Wednesday, you know.
Right.
And there's a degree of inherent uncertainty in the situation because you're dealing with dozens of armed groups with varying degrees of, you know, affiliation with or affinity for al-Qaeda's group in Syria, al-Nusra Front, some of which might be more interested in taking this opportunity to make a decision than others.
But I definitely didn't anticipate that this would stop much fighting outside, you know, the areas that are not directly connected with the Northern Syria Front.
In other words, I felt that, you know, we know that the bombing is going to be resumed if it hasn't already been, you know, it has been resumed already in northwest Syria, in Aleppo and Idlib provinces.
And so I didn't anticipate there was going to be much of any change in the situation there.
Now, apparently, you know, it's not clear exactly what's going on, but there's less fighting than, you know, one would have thought.
All right, now, so here's one thing that I still don't understand is and we talked about this a little bit before, but I guess I don't really remember what you said about it.
I can understand how the Russians, the Iranians, the Assad government, Hezbollah, they can come to a consensus that, hey, Putin's government has decided we're doing the ceasefire thing, everybody.
And so they pretty much all go along with that.
I even read a thing that said the Iranians were leaving.
But then so, OK, that all makes perfect sense to me.
But then so how easy is it?
Is it now apparent that it's easier than I would have thought or that you would have expected for the CIA or maybe for America to have Saudi have Arar al-Sham turn it off, at least for a little while, and the other various, you know, so-called mythical moderate groups that they support?
Because I always thought that, yeah, sure, you can give these guys guns and money, but you can't tell them when to stop fighting, can you?
But apparently they can.
To a degree.
Yeah, I mean, there are several, you know, there are several different aspects of the question that have to be looked at.
And, you know, one of them is, is just, you know, how far the writ of Al-Nusra Front goes in terms of of these groups.
Arar al-Sham, as I said, said in my piece, certainly has up to now been so closely aligned with and cooperating with Al-Nusra Front that that they would be following the same line.
They have followed the same line politically, denouncing the ceasefire.
But, you know, I mean, we just don't know enough about the other groups and what their calculus is at this point.
And also, you know, whether they are, in fact, being allowed by Al-Nusra Front to see what happens, how long this could last.
You know, we're just too many uncertainties for me to give a very good answer.
I'm sorry.
I can't do any better than that.
Yeah.
No, I got you.
That's all right.
All right.
And then the other thing is, I guess I wanted to accentuate this point in before we go on to the Plan B stuff in your in your article here, really, this point from Reuters.
And you know what?
This was highlighted, I guess, in a Washington Post piece as well.
And, you know, these are rare little gems that we got to take note of when they surface, where they really basically, you know, come out and admit that the Americans were pushing for and what was delaying the deal was they were trying to get the Russians to agree to not bomb Al-Nusra.
And then finally, America gave in on that.
Absolutely.
This is a point that I emphasize in my piece that that this was indeed the U.S. strategy.
This was this is what Kerry wanted, that the Russians would agree not to bomb Al-Nusra front.
I think the language was until the groups are sorted out, quote unquote, which is funny because, you know, they could have said that exact same thing the other way and just said, please don't bomb any of our, you know, Arar al-Sham or any of these other so-called mythical modern groups as long as they're near Al-Nusra.
But they went ahead and went for it and said, don't target Al-Nusra.
And although they finally backed down from that.
But that fact underlines the reality that all across northern Syria, northwest Syria, in fact, the the U.S. supported groups are indeed commingled with Al-Nusra front troops.
It was a fact that the U.S. knew perfectly well and could not, you know, really deny in their discussions with the Russians.
Right.
I mean, they can lie to us all day.
But when it comes to actually negotiating with the Russians who aren't putting up with the pretense, what are they supposed to do?
Right.
Exactly.
And in the end, of course, Kerry gave in and said, OK, you have the right to go ahead and bomb the sites where, you know, these troops will be commingled.
And as I point out in my piece, I mean, that that decision then was followed immediately by the most interesting.
Well, I guess I didn't really get into this in the piece.
But what what I find so interesting is that it was at that point that the news media began to report for the first time that indeed the the U.S. supported military organizations fighting the Assad regime were indeed commingled with Al-Nusra front troops.
And it was all over the media after that.
So the signal was obviously given, the dog whistle was blown that it was OK to report this now.
And why is that?
Well, I'm guessing that John Kerry felt that it was less embarrassing to have it be known that this was the reason that the agreement was reached, that the Russians could go ahead with that, because there was no denying that, in fact, these groups are so closely, you know, located, co-located with Al-Nusra front troops.
But that being said, I mean, the Russians really haven't been bombing them, though, right?
Well, yeah, again, that that does appear to be the case.
They appear to have decided to wait a bit longer.
I mean, I can't believe that it's going to last much longer, but, you know, that that is the initial indication.
Yeah.
All right.
And now I just want to say for the footnote there, since I mentioned the Reuters piece, it's Syrian opposition says temporary truce possible.
The deal seems far off.
It's from the 20th, but just has that footnote in there.
All right.
Now, well, we're about out of time for this segment, Gareth.
So let me just mention this important news story that I was reading this morning about the Mosul Dam.
And there's been quite a few stories about this.
And I've been ignoring it.
But the one in The Guardian makes it really clear that they can't open the damn door at all.
And so the pressure behind the dam is just building up and up and up and up and up.
And then we already know, I think, about the bad rockets based on the rest of it.
They're saying millions of lives are at stake.
And according to The Guardian piece, it sounds like a pretty serious thing.
That's in what's now Eastern Islamic State.
But anyway, we'll be right back with Gareth Porter on his new Middle East eyepiece right after this.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
If this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
The Ciceronian Society is an interdisciplinary group devoted to the timeless themes of place, tradition and things divine.
You are invited to their sixth annual conference to hear two days of papers on important thinkers from Plato and St.
Benedict to John Locke, Hayek and Henry David Thoreau.
The conference is March 10th through 12th in historic Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, less than two hours from D.C. and Baltimore.
Register at Ciceronian Society dot com.
All right, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton, it's my show, Scott Horton Show.
Anyway, yeah, sorry for that little diversion there, but I think maybe that's important, that Mosul Dam thing.
Did you have a comment on the Mosul Dam thing there, Gareth?
I saw the same story and it is indeed extremely, it seems like an extremely dangerous situation.
You know, the terrible cost of such a, you know, a development of as is contemplated here as a possibility.
I mean, it's almost beyond belief.
I mean, unimaginable.
But it could happen, apparently.
Yeah.
I mean, yeah, I have no way to verify how many, you know, cubic feet of water we're really talking about here or whatever.
But the way they put it is that Mosul, Samarra and Baghdad could be completely flooded.
A million people, an entire George W.
Bush, you know, half a genocide worth of people could be killed, I guess, in a day or a week from the collapse of this dam.
And and again, it's the the doors are jammed, whatever they call them.
The gates where you let out a little bit of water are jammed shut.
And here comes the snowmelt.
And oh, man, very frightening.
All right.
Well, so we'll see about that.
All right.
So anyway, back to your story here.
It's the heroic Gareth Porter, everybody.
Middle East Eye is where he's writing here.
MiddleEastEye.net and it's at AntiWar.com today, of course, as well.
Plan B and the bankruptcy of U.S.-Syria policy.
And you're talking about John Kerry here.
Something unfortunate about us is we have John Kerry for Secretary of State.
And you're referring to a few different sources here.
CBS, CNN, some congressional testimony trying to parse what it is that Kerry is getting at when he talks about further intervention by the U.S. in the region, Gareth.
Right.
And, you know, there are two different ways that this mention of the so-called Plan B has been interpreted.
I mean, the more alarmist view is that, you know, something's in the wind here involving new escalation of military involvement.
By the United States and its allies.
The the other view which I put forward in this up in this article, however, is, I think, more specifically, one that is supported by a lot of details that we now know about what was going on here.
And that is that what's really happening is that within the Obama administration, there is the usual catfight between people who want to do more to get involved in Syria somehow militarily, paramilitarily, and those people who want to keep the reins on.
This has been a case, of course, ever since 2011, 2012.
And it's still the case today.
And, you know, it appears very much as though Kerry himself is the guy who's pushing for doing more.
And it's the Pentagon and the military leadership who are very much skeptical about that idea.
That's why you get a CNN report where a senior official clearly talking to Barbara Starr, the Pentagon correspondent, and therefore presumably at the Pentagon, is basically pouring cold water on this idea that there is a military option that could be put into effect to try to do something about the military reverses that have taken place in northern Syria in recent weeks.
And at the same time, you have Kerry going out of his way to suggest that he has been a supporter of strong U.S. support for the anti-Assad forces and intimating that, you know, that what he what he's talking about here, Plan B, would be more confrontational, would be military-like.
Someone sounding very much like Kerry, let's put it that way, was talking about being more confrontational.
And of course, Kerry's the one who has the personal political interest here in looking better by having the United States appear to be more supportive of the anti-Assad forces because he's the one who's in the limelight and he's the one who's been trying to push for negotiations.
So it looks to me like a classic case of internal struggle over policy and posturing, particularly by Kerry, to to try to make it look like there's something that's going to be done when, in fact, it doesn't look at all realistic that there are options that could be that could be actually carried out here that would make a difference.
Yeah, well, you know, we can hope that they're coming to that conclusion, that they really do see how stuck they are.
All their various bluffs have been called and, you know, it's getting to the point, it's hard to really characterize this in context, but it's getting really to the point of absurdity when you have Pentagon-backed Kurdish forces fighting CIA-backed jihadists in the middle of this thing.
At some point, I mean, doesn't that mean that there was a fight in a hallway somewhere in D.C. about this or something, you know what I mean?
I think it does mean that there are different interests at play and that a policy that was put into effect some time ago, you know, to support the YPG against ISIS and in some cases as well against al-Nusra Front and its allies was put into effect.
And now, you know, that has become a problem that the Turks, of course, are contesting very strongly.
And, you know, I think there are obviously other people within the administration who don't like that and who are trying to get it changed, or at least we know there are people outside the administration who don't like it and are trying to get it changed.
It is more speculative whether there's an effort now to try to change that.
I'm not sure about that at all.
But I think the point that really needs to be emphasized here is that the three options that were mentioned in my article are options which this unnamed Pentagon official laid out on the table, put out and talked about to CNN.
And this is extremely unusual when you have a sort of crisis situation or crisis atmosphere in a foreign country where the United States is at least partially involved militarily, that you have somebody saying, oh, we're talking about new options here to do something about the situation.
And here's somebody at the Pentagon saying, OK, here's the three options that we're talking about in detail.
And essentially, you know, these three options are simply not, you know, there's no realistic possibility that they could be adopted and be effective.
And I think that's why the Pentagon official is really talking about them in detail.
I mean, specifically, the no-fly zone, he described as not off the table, but on the edge of the table, meaning I think that somebody is still advocating it, maybe John Kerry himself, because he did advocate it in the past.
And, you know, it's there's not much chance that it's going to be accepted because the Pentagon is still opposed to it.
Basically, putting more special forces in, that's not really a viable option.
Stop at the no-fly zone for a sec there real quick.
Are they just talking about Assad's helicopters in his barrel bombs or they're saying, yeah, let's shoot down MiGs?
Well, if you actually if you're serious about doing a no-fly zone, then you're talking about shooting down MiGs.
How else would you do it?
I mean, first of all, before you start shooting down the MiGs, you have to target the entire Russian radar system in Syria.
Well, I'm only clarifying because that's what Chris Christie said.
But Hillary Clinton, when she says no-fly zone, she she at least pretends that she's not talking about war with Russia over Syria.
Is she right?
I mean, when she when she, of course, began to talk about no-fly zone, that was before the Russians were in there.
All right.
But she ain't stopped yet.
But she hadn't acknowledged that that's who she'd have to be shooting.
She has not acknowledged it.
But it's really stupid of her to think that she could get away with it without acknowledging that.
I mean, you know, that's that's I mean, if I were Bernie Sanders, I'd be roasting her over that.
Right.
And then I'm sorry.
And then increased support for the mythical moderates.
Yeah, I mean, here here is the situation there.
I mean, how are you going to do it?
I mean, are you going to airdrop have U.S. planes airdrop this?
Well, that means that you're going to encounter Russian planes because you're going to go into the areas where the troops that we want to support are located and that's where the Russians are operating.
So you have the same problem, essentially.
Right.
All right.
Well, so and then was that all three or was there one more?
Well, I was going to mention the special forces option, but you know, right in with it.
Yeah, go ahead.
That's simply a problem of, you know, sending sending special forces into Idlib or Aleppo province provinces to fight on this front or I'm sorry, not to fight on this front, but to fight the Assad forces in Hezbollah.
That's pretty far reaching.
I mean, that's again, this is this is you're talking about this is what the general said to Barbara Starr was look, Barbara, what are we going to do?
Put special forces in with the Kurds, but then expand their mandate from fight Islamic State to fight everybody to I mean, that would be the implication.
He didn't really go into it in that detail, but that's the implication of putting more special forces in there in order to try to reverse somehow the the military victories that or progress, at least that the Russians and their allies have made in in northern Syria.
Right.
Hey, Gareth, let me ask you one more thing.
They say they there are all these different stories about bin Laden's documents that they released and and some of them even seem to be spinning toward the see Al Qaeda really is more moderate than the Islamic State.
Never mind 9-11 or any of that stuff.
But the Islamic State bin Laden, you know, I don't know if they're really trying to spin it that way, but it seemed like they were trying to create some room for that.
But I haven't seen that.
There's a new story out today or.
Well, there are a lot there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, if you just search bin Laden in your Google News, you get a bunch of stories and a lot of them are highlighting his warnings about Zarqawi's brutality.
And that's not what he wanted, which, of course, is not really new news, but it's just, you know, it could be useful for them.
But here's what's more interesting about it to me.
It seems like and this is Nancy Yousef's article in The Daily Beast, and I really like her.
And she says, you know, bin Laden, more an Islamic State would fail.
And this is the whole near enemy, far enemy fight.
We got to, they argued, bleed the American empire all the way to bankruptcy and force them all the way out of the region first.
And only then can we create an Islamic State and overthrow Egypt and Saudi and have our way.
Otherwise, the Americans will destroy it because they got the money in the bombs.
Let's face it.
So far enemy first.
And then this is, you know, the doctrinal fight split other than the personality split with the Islamic State is that it's too soon.
You're supposed to just keep fighting for now, which is what Golani is doing.
So, yeah, that goes against any effort to sort of prettify Al Qaeda and Mr. Front.
Yeah.
Yeah, I would think so.
Well, and but the point I'm arguing is really besides all that, the real thing I'm getting at is if America allied with the Kurds and the Iranians, the Shiite militias, like the bottom brigade and all that eventually do end up sacking Mosul, sacking Fallujah and Raqqa and and driving these guys out of power.
Don't they then just prove bin Laden and Zawahiri right that, nope, you got to keep attacking the Americans.
And don't we just take what is what Baghdadi, in a sense, has made a very local issue out of America's intervention there.
He's turned all that attention kind of inward.
And it seems like America's strategy is actually to break that apart and turn all those forces that he's arrayed back against us again.
That would be it.
Yeah, that would be the logical implication.
Should that happen?
Yeah, that that would that would present the the new a new situation in that debate.
But of course, if that happens, then the two sides would no longer be debating because one side wouldn't exist anymore.
Well, they wouldn't have power anymore, but they would still just they just be Al Qaeda in Iraq again.
It would be they would be present elsewhere.
You're right.
Yeah.
And they would have all that much more motive to attack Americans is the point I'm making.
That's true.
Yeah.
Maybe at some point we should just call it off.
That's all.
All right.
I was just wondering what what you thought about that.
Thanks very much.
Appreciate it.
That's right.
I think you're right.
That's a good point.
OK, cool.
Well, appreciate it.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for Liberty dot me, the great libertarian social network.
They've got all the social media bells and whistles.
Plus, you get your own publishing site and their classes, shows, books and resources of all kinds.
And I host two shows on Liberty dot me.
I on the empire with Liberty dot me's chief liberty officer Jeffrey Tucker every other Tuesday and the future freedom with FFF founder and president Jacob Hornberger every Thursday night, both at 8 Eastern.
When you sign up, add me as a friend on there.
Scott Horton, Liberty dot me.
Be free.
Liberty dot me.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State and The War State.
Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War Two.
This nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone.
We are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon dot com and Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin.
It's Scott Horton dot org or the war state dot com.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
You're like me.
You need coffee.
Lots of it.
You probably prefer taste good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee Company at Darren's Coffee dot com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world.
All specialty premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren's Coffee dot com.
Use promo code Scott and get free shipping.
Darren's Coffee dot com.