Turkey Plays Lee Harvey for NATO Plotters

The NATO powers and Gulf monarchies don't have the tools they did when they wrecked Libya. For Syria, they need something special. A manufactured incident between Syria and Turkey followed by a Turkish attack on Syria will do nicely. This is the way the world works. Np messy requirements like showing the target nation is an imminent danger to the NATO countries. Just pick a target and get someone else to do the dirty work. It's called a "patsy" war.

Michael Collins

(Washington, DC 10/6) The United States and European Union are setting the stage for a Syrian invasion. (Image)

Turkey is the fall guy.

The Turkish parliament provided Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan with a broad authorization "to make the necessary arrangements for sending the Turkish Armed Forces to foreign countries" Hurriyet, October 4, 2012. The vote was on party lines with the dominant AKP party forming a majority. Muharrem İnce of the CHP opposition party said: "This motion has no limits. You can wage a world war with [it]."

The warning about the road to war may be near reality. McClatchy Newspapers just reported the following:

ISTANBUL -- One day after winning blanket authority to send forces into Syria, Turkey’s prime minister warned Friday that his country is "not far from war" and said that it would be a “deadly mistake” for the Syrian government to test Turkey’s will. McClatchy Newspapers, October 6, 2012

There is little doubt about which foreign country the president plans to invade. The resolution begins with these words: "The negative impact of the ongoing crisis in Syria on our national security, as well as on regional stability and security, is increasingly being seen." Never mind that the negative impact was brought on by Turkey's role as a supplier and conduit for foreign fighters now ravaging the two major cities of Syria.

The parliament also ignored the fact that the Turkish people they allegedly represent are overwhelmingly opposed to any action in Syria. Only 18 percent of the Turks polled support current policy in Syria according to a recent poll. It is fair to assume that fewer still would favor an outright invasion.

Why are war powers necessary?

A Syrian artillery shell landed in the Turkish border city of Akakale. The Turkish government claimed it killed five soldiers. The Syrians promptly apologized. That was a generous move given the fact that Turkey has been funding, training, and transiting foreign fighters into Syria for months in alliance with NATO and the Gulf oil oligarchs.

If any nation had real cause for serious anger, it would be Syria. Under Erdogan's rule, Turkey is an imminent threat to Syria's survival as a sovereign state. Just north of the Syrian border, the Turkish city of Adana is the launching platform for supplies and personnel that have devastated Syria's two major cities, Damascus and Aleppo.

The Libyan model of false flags, false reports, and subsidized rebels wasn't doing the trick with the next victim of the co-opted Arab Spring. Free Syrian Army (read Libyan rebels) looked too much like a terrorist organization to gain much sympathy. Then we heard the inconvenient truth about the presence of al Qaeda fighters and a contingent from the new Libyan state. As a result, the Syrian Transition Council became so toxic that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused an invitation to a meeting several weeks ago. From the very start, Russia and China vetoed UN resolutions that would have legitimized full scale NATO assistance to the rebels and their partners, the foreign fighters.

Despite all of this, the minute an excuse emerged to rattle swords and plan an invasion, NATO was right there with full support for Turkish belligerence. The British and French, along with the U.S. state department chimed in demanding a "firm" response to Syria.

What to do? How about a patsy war?

The Libyan formula for regime change is failing. Assad may survive. So horrifying to the Western powers and Gulf monarchs, that possibility spurred President Barack Obama to urge action by Erdogan a month or so ago. Obama's pose for a White House photograph of his call to Erdogan says it all. Time to step up to the plate Recep is the clear message. 

Why are the NATO powers supporting regime change? Let's see, oh yeah, they want to bring democracy to Syria. Those who accept that excuse may be interested in this proposition. The real reasons are somewhat more complex. Saudi Arabia is obsessed with the impact of Shia unrest in its oil providences bordering Shia Iraq. Qatar, full partner in the Libya aggression, wants Assad out to clear the way for a major pipeline deal. The NATO countries are major oil addicts. Hence, they want to keep their dealer happy. In addition, the NATO nations win big over energy hungry China and oil and gas rich Russia in the new great game to corner dwindling energy supplies.

The Saudi's and Qataris are not much at military operations. But they have deep pockets. Without their money as direct aid to the foreign fighters and rebels in Syria, there is no revolution. Without pleasing those two oil monarchies, the NATO nations risk losing their daily oil fix.

Epic cynicism

The rhetoric and behavior by those who will say and do anything to get their way represents cynicism on an epic scale.

Until the last two or so years, Erdogan and the AKP Party had a foreign policy doctrine that stressed zero problems with neighbors. Turkey acted as an intermediary between the West and Iran on delicate nuclear power negotiations. It developed a close relationship with Iraq. Most remarkably, Erdogan reached important agreements with Syria's Assad, offered to help in negotiations with Israel on Syria's behalf, and proposed a strong alliance with the Assad regime.

Today, Turkey's policy is insults and attacks on its neighbors. The Turkish foreign minister blamed Iran for the problems in Syria. In a massive show of disrespect to Iraq, the Turkish foreign minister recently visited Kirkuk, the capital of the Kurdish section of that country, without announcing the trip to Iraq's central government. The union with Syria is clearly dead, unless union comes through conquest.

Erdogan has offered up his country as the patsy for the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and NATO. That alliance didn't have the room to drag the Syrian rebels across the finish line due to the blocking action of Russia and China in the United Nations. Turkey is their solution to get the war they want.

The entire effort by other nations to topple the government of Syria is a war crime. Syria represents no danger to the hostile nations, no imminent threat.

To show how lawless international relations are at this point, recall that President George W. Bush needed to create the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With that fiction established as fact, the Bush administration then had the permission it thought necessary to invade Iraq.

By the new lower standards, the United States and the NATO nations feel no need to offer proof that the nations they want to bump off are an imminent danger. These new world leaders simply create internal disruption and death in the target nations, call it a civil war, and then either get the UN or a patsy like Erdogan to do the dirty work.

There are two factors that may prevent Turkey from attacking Syria and the consequent bloodbath. As limited as Erdogan is as a thinker and leader, he must know that 18% support for his policies presents a huge risk if he escalates those policies to full scale war. President Obama has his reelection at risk if war breaks out in the Middle East. More than 60% of citizens oppose military support or intervention in Syria.

Image this question at the next debate: "Mr. President, do you think that Hillary Clinton's constant demands to oust Syrian president Assad have anything to do with the catastrophe in Syria?"

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party