By
Finian CUNNINGHAM
17 Years After 911, US Backs Al Qaeda in Syria
The
September 11 terror incidents in 2001 are said to be the biggest-ever
deadly attack on US soil. Shamefully, exactly 17 years later, the US
president and Pentagon military chiefs are threatening to go to war in
Syria – to defend the same ilk of terrorists.
“Shamefully” is perhaps not the most fitting word here. “Consistently” would be more appropriate.
Officially,
the spectacular plane-crashing mayhem 17 years ago in New York City was
due to 19 Arab hijackers affiliated with the Al Qaeda terror network.
That
account of the world-changing event has been hotly disputed, with many
respected authors and organizations claiming that evidence shows the US
intelligence agencies are implicated in an inside job. The death of some
3,000 American citizens was hence exploited as a pretext for launching a
series of US overseas wars, whose hidden agenda was for promoting
imperialist objectives.
In
any case, the official story is that Al Qaeda operatives hijacked four
airliners on the morning of September 11, 2001, and flew them into the
twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, as well as into the
Pentagon building near Washington. The fourth plane crashed in a rural
area in Pennsylvania, allegedly after passengers challenged
the terrorist pilots.
The
Al Qaeda terror network, with its ideological links to Saudi-sponsored
Wahhabism, was declared “enemy number one” by then President George W
Bush, who proceeded to launch wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly
to avenge the 911 atrocity perpetrated against
American civilians.
The
so-called “war on terror” has since become a much-overused blank check
for successive US governments and their NATO allies to launch wars
anywhere in the world to “defeat terrorists”. It has been used to
justify increasing Western state surveillance powers against its own
citizens in the name of counter-terrorism.
To
be sure, the official story on 911 and subsequent US and NATO military
rampaging around the globe has been challenged by skeptics and critics.
One
of the key lines of contesting the official narrative is the documented
evolution of the Al Qaeda terror franchise, which grew out of US
sponsorship of motley radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan during the
1980s. That covert ploy was to give then occupying Soviet troops “their
Vietnam”. American and British military intelligence along with lavish
Saudi funding created the Frankenstein Monster of Islamic terrorism that
mutated and spread across the Middle East and beyond.
So,
the very notion that, post-911, the American creators of the terrorist
monster would serve to protect the civilized world from their own
creation was always a deeply suspect proposition.
The
truth is that the US never stopped colluding with these terror groups
since the days of the putative Afghan Vietnam for the Soviet Union.
The 911 incidents may have been some form of “blowback” or, plausibly,
it was American intelligence handlers contriving a plot which would give
imperialist planners their much-desired “new Pearl Harbor” – a blank
check to declare war on the planet for the benefit of advancing US
strategic interests.
Granted,
the success of that nefarious covert scheme is questionable given the
unforeseen huge financial and social costs to American society, as well
as from general bedlam undermining global security.
For
observers willing to see, it seems indisputable that there is something
of a symbiotic relationship between Islamist terror proxies and the US
imperialist state. The official “enemy” is a boon for justifying
oppressive state powers against citizens; it serves as a pump for
bloated budgets to the military-industrial complex at the heart of the
American capitalist economy; and this enemy can also serve as target
practice for illegal military intervention in foreign countries – US
interventions that would otherwise be seen for what they are, as
“criminal aggression”.
Further,
the terror proxies continue to serve as a cat’s paws for US
imperialism, as in the earlier formation in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union. Rather than direct large-scale American military
involvement, the Al Qaeda brigades are deployed to do Washington’s dirty
work. Syria is emerging as the new Afghanistan.
Officially,
the Pentagon and US corporate news media scoff at these claims of
collusion with terrorists. “We are bombing Syria to defeat terrorists,”
so goes the mantra. Substitute any number of countries for “Syria”, as
required.
Well,
if that’s the case why have senior US military people like Michael
Flynn admitted that the former Obama administration deliberately
cultivated the terror brigades in Syria? Why have hundreds of millions
of dollars gone into forming a non-existent “moderate rebel army” in
Syria only for the American weaponry to end up in the hands of terror
groups like Nusra Front?
What
about credible reports of US military helicopters airlifting Nusra
commanders out of harm’s way to other, safer parts of Syria? Similar
reports of airlifting, or airdropping weapons, have come out of
Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is still “fighting terrorists” – 17
years after 911.
It
has taken a painfully long time over the eight years of war in Syria to
uncover the full and real extent of criminality by the US and its
British and French allies, along with the Saudis, Turks and Israelis.
But
now we are coming full circle. President Donald Trump and his officials
are warning that they will launch military strikes on Syria if the
Syrian army and its Russian and Iranian allies proceed with the
offensive to retake Idlib province. The northwest province is the
last-remaining stronghold of anti-government militants. These militants
are not the illusory “moderate rebels” the Western media have long
bamboozled the public with. The militants comprise Nusra Front, Ahrar al
Sham, Islamic State, and other self-professed Wahhabi jihadists of the
Al Qaeda franchise. The myriad, mercurial names are merely part of the
US cynical cover.
Trump
– the supposed non-interventionist president – has even discarded the
earlier ruse of invoking “chemical weapons” as a pretext for a US
military attack on Syria. He and his officials are simply saying that
any offensive by the Syrian army to retake all of its territory is an
“unacceptable escalation” that will be met with a US military response.
There
is no other credible rationale for such military deployment by
Washington in Syria. The Western media are as usual riding shotgun with
the mendacity, claiming that the Syrian army offensive will trigger a
“humanitarian crisis”, rather than reporting the salient fact that the
offensive is aimed at eradicating the most vile terror groups from that
country.
In
Syria, today, 17 years after 911, the real relationship between US
authorities and terrorism is on display. The United States of Anarchy.
Liberteon.jpg){kind=link}