C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 1 of 13 08/11/2015

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-122-

Caliphate-al-Zawahiri-10-24-Russia

Russia’s intervention in Syria has derailed US regime-change efforts aimed at Damascus. It also threatens America’s secondary objective of dividing and destroying Syria as a functioning, unified nation-state. Long sought after “buffer zones” also sometimes

referred to as “free zones” or “safe zones” still stand as the primary strategy of choice by the US and its regional allies for the deconstruction of Syria’s sovereignty and the

intentional creation of a weak, failed state not unlike what the US and NATO left within the borders of Libya since 2011.

And while the US seeks to sell its “buffer zone” strategy under a variety of pretexts – from

protecting refugees to fighting the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL) – it is admittedly a tactic aimed instead at America’s true objectives in Syria – the destruction of its

government, the division of its people, and the eradication of its sovereignty. Washington Post has published an article explaining the move in detail titled, “Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles.” In it, it states openly that ISIS is

being supplied via Turkey. It states specifically that: They will increase air operations in northern Syria, particularly in the Turkish border area to cut the flow of foreign fighters,

money and materiel coming in to support the Islamic State. Mr Gurcan cites a well-informed Turkish authority saying many of these Syrian

opposition “groups are trying to sign non-hostility pacts with Isis” – pacts that say they

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 2 of 13 08/11/2015

will not fight Isis unless attacked by them. Governments pretending to distinguish

between “moderate opposition” and Isis in Syria should keep this in mind With US-backed militias already engaged in bitter fighting against a Russian-led

coalition along one front, in strategic areas of the western enclaves that remain largely under government control, Washington is preparing to launch an entirely new front.

Stoltenberg warned of “a military build-up which provides Russians with what

many experts call Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities.” There is a misunderstanding about the Russian attacks on ISIS and other salafi-

jihadi armed groups in Syria. They are much heavier than anything being carried out by the US-led coalition, with 59 Russian strikes on one day recently compared to the US launching just nine.

“The only reason F-15s are going to Syria is to shoot down Russian jets,” the Washington Times titled its report Friday. “US and Russia Sending Weapons to Syria

Best-Suited for Shooting at Each Other,” a Time magazine headline declared on Friday. The only question now will be whether the US concedes defeat, or escalates

dangerously toward war with Russia to save a policy that has not only utterly failed, but

has already been exposed to the world as a criminal conspiracy. Image: For months – if not years – those looking at ISIS and Al Qaeda territory in Syria

can see, flowing like a river, their support has originated in NATO-member Turkey. The most recent Washington Post article all but admits that is the case, but claims it can only be stopped by holding Syrian territory. It is clear however, that NATO, Turkey, and the US

possess the ability but intentionally lack the will to stop this flow before it enters Syria – specifically to create a pretext to invade. Aug 10, Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria said it is

withdrawing from areas along the border with Turkey where Ankara and Washington hope to drive out the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. It was not immediately clear from which areas the Nusra Front has already withdrawn.

“Buffer Zone” To Divide and Destroy, Not Save Syria

Western policymakers have made it quite clear precisely what these “buffer zones” are truly intended for. While they claim they are aimed at fighting ISIS or protecting refugees – these are but pretexts. The Brookings Institution – a corporate- funded policy think-tank

whose policymakers have helped craft upper- level strategy for the Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, and now Syrian conflicts as well as plans laid for future confrontations with Iran and

beyond – has been explicit regarding the true nature of these “buffer zones.” In a recent paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” it states: …the idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within

Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually

on the ground via special forces. The paper goes on by explaining (emphasis added) : The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest

(eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by

accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones

defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to

train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually

expanded. In essence, these zones constitute a defacto NATO invasion and occupation. The territory

seized would be used as springboards to launch attacks deeper still into Syrian territory

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 3 of 13 08/11/2015

until eventually the entire nation was either permanently Balkanized or

destroyed. Despite Brookings’ claims that eventually a nationa l government would emerge and the territory under it “stabilized,” a look at all other NATO interventions, invasions,

and occupations (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) clearly indicates Syria’s true fate will be anything but stable and well-governed. The President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Richard Haas, published an op-ed titled, “Testing Putin in Syria,” which

echoed the Brookings plan (emphasis added): In the meantime, the United States and others should pursue a two-track policy. One track would channel steps to improve the

balance of power on the ground in Syria. This means doing more to help the Kurds and select Sunni tribes, as well as continuing to attack the Islamic State from the air. Relatively safe enclaves should emerge from this effort. A Syria of enclaves or

cantons may be the best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future. Neither

the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government

that controls all of the country’s territory; what is essential is to roll back the Islamic

State and similar groups. It should be noted that the CFR plan was presented after Russia’s intervention, Brookings’

plan was presented beforehand, as early as June, and the concept of buffer zones has been proposed by US policymakers as early as 2012. It was also recently revealed during a US

Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing that retired US Army General John Keane suggested the creation of “free zones” in precisely the same manner. General Keane also suggested using refugees as a means of deterring Russian airstrikes in these zones – or in

other words – using refugees as human shields. The common denominator between the Brookings, the CFR, and the US Senate Committee on Armed Services’ plans is the

establishment of these zones for the destruction of Syria by perpetuating the fighting. To perpetuate the fighting terrorists like ISIS and Al Nusra must be continuously supplied and supported – a process now in jeopardy because of Russia’s intervention.

In a desperate last bid, the US may try to seize and expand “buffer zones” within Syrian territory in the hopes that these expansions can at least Balkanize Syria before Russia and

Syria are able to roll back terrorist forces from most vital regions. It will be a race between Russia and Syria’s ability to drive out terrorists and stabilize liberated regions and America’s ability to bolster terrorists in regions along the border while obtaining public

support for providing these terrorists with direct US-NATO military protection. Somewhere in between these two strategies lies the possibility of a direct confrontation

between Russian-Syrian forces and US-NATO forces. For the US and NATO, they would be provoking a wider war within the borders of a foreign nation in direct violation of the UN Charter, without a UN Security Council

resolution, and with an entire planet now aware of their role in creating and perpetuating the very terrorist threat they have claimed now for a decade to be at ‘war’ with.

Revealing the true nature of NATO’s “buffer zones” and the fact that they are aimed at saving, not stopping ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda linked extremist factions, further undermines the moral, political, diplomatic, and even strategic viability of this plan. By

revealing to the world the true solution to solving the “ISIS problem” – cutting their fighters off from their Western and Arabian state-sponsors, opens the door to more

aggressive – not to mention more effective – measures to defeat them both in Syria and elsewhere. That Russia has already begun taking these measures means that that window has closed

further still for the US. The only question now will be whether the US concedes defeat, or escalates dangerously toward war with Russia to save a policy that has not only utterly

failed, but has already been exposed to the world as a criminal conspiracy.

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 4 of 13 08/11/2015

Logistics is the lifeblood of war. Understanding this and denying the enemy the

resources they need to maintain their fighting capacity is the key to victory. The Russians, Syrians, Kurds, and Iranians are strangling NATO’s proxies at their very source and

instinctively, NATO has raised its hands in the form of a “buffer zone” to defend them and relieve the pressure – thus revealing the true nature of this regional conflict and the central role the West has played in creating and perpetuating ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremists

currently ravaging Syria and beyond. Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

Nov 6, Once again the world has underestimated the strength and viciousness of Isis. The group has always retaliated against any attack by targeting civilians and killing them in a way that ensures maximum publicity. This happened most recently in Turkey on 10

October when Isis suicide bombers killed 102 people attending a pro-Kurdish peace demonstration. In Kobani in Syria at the end of June, Isis suicide squads avenged recent

military defeats by the Syrian Kurds by murdering at least 220 men, women and children. In Iraq, the leader of the Albu Nimr tribe told this newspaper how 864 of his tribesmen had been killed over the previous year for resisting Isis advances.

It was always likely that Isis would retaliate against the Russian air campaign in Syria that is targeting its forces and al-Qaeda clones such as the al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham.

But the carefully planned destruction of a Russian plane with 224 people on board by a bomb on 31 October has presented Western governments and media with a publicity problem. They had been relentlessly pursuing a propaganda line that the Russian a ir

strikes in Syria have avoided hitting Isis and are almost entirely directed against “moderate” or “Western-backed” Syrian opposition forces seeking to overthrow President

Bashar al-Assad. The fact that Syrian armed opposition in north-west Syria is dominated by al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham is seldom mentioned. Isis evidently does not have any doubts about the Russian air strikes being aimed at itself and cannot have done so since

the raids started on 30 September, because an operation such as getting a bo mb on to a plane at Sharm el Sheikh airport would take weeks to set up. There is a further

misunderstanding about the Russian attacks on ISIS and other salafi-jihadi armed groups in Syria. They are much heavier than anything being carried out by the US-led coalition, with 59 Russian strikes on one day recently compared to the US launching just

nine. There is a limitation on the use of US air power in Syria which may not be immediately evident, even to those who study communiqués issued by the US defence

department. Of nine strikes on 6 November, three are described as being near Hawl, an Arab town in north-east Syria where the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) are fighting Isis. Two strikes were near Hasakah, also in north-east Syria and, again

apparently, in support of the YPG. The remaining four were near Abu Kamal, near the Iraqi border, said to be an Isis “crude oil collection point”.

This is in keeping with the US air campaign’s almost exclusive focus in Syria on helping the Syrian Kurds in fighting Isis, and also attacking Isis-controlled oil facilities in north-east Syria. There are seldom any attacks on Isis when it is engaged in fighting the Syrian

army because this might be interpreted as keeping Assad in power in Damascus. But this does not make much sense because American and British policy is meant to be to remove

Assad, but keep the Syrian state in being. This would be unlike Iraq in 2003 when the US-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein, but destroyed the Iraqi state in the process and opened the door to a Sunni insurgency and the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It would therefore

make sense, and have made sense over the last year, for the US air force to attack Isis when it is advancing against the Syrian army. It is this army which is the mos t

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 5 of 13 08/11/2015

important institution of the Syrian state, and if Washington and allies such as the

British do not want to repeat the disastrous fiasco of their intervention in Iraq, they should support it when fighting Isis.

Again, sensible policy decisions are blocked by a view of the situation on the ground in Syria that is largely shaped by sloganeering and propaganda. In this case, the Syrian opposition claim is that the Syrian army has never seriously fought Isis and, indeed, is

complicit in its growth and expansion. This view has been widely credited, though it is demonstrably false because Isis has repeatedly fought and usually defeated the Syrian

army in eastern Syria. It captured Palmyra in May and has since advanced to within a few miles of the crucial north-south M5 highway linking Damascus to Homs. For a few days recently, it cut the last government-held road into Aleppo before being driven back by the

Syrian army supported by Russian air strikes. here are several other points about the US-led air campaign. First, it has failed in its purpose of containing Isis, since its fighters are

still advancing in Syria and are holding cities such as Ramadi, Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq which they have captured since the start of 2014. This is despite 7,871 air strikes of which the US has conducted 6,164, with 2,578 of these in Syria. Non-US air forces participating

in the operation, part of that great anti-Isis coalition of 65 nations so often commended by the US ambassador to the UK, have carried out just 142 strikes in Syria. The Arab air

forces are apparently now busy bombing Yemen. For those with good eyesight, there is another figure in small print in the US defence department’s daily report on “Inherent Resolve” which is worth thinking about. It says that “as of Nov 3, US and partner nation

aircraft have flown an estimated 61,288 sorties in support of operations in Iraq and Syria”. In other words, only 10 per cent of sorties are finding targets, showing that, even taking

into account reconnaissance and refuelling flights, Isis is difficult to find, as would be expected in an experienced and well-organised guerrilla force. Effectiveness in attacking it depends on good intelligence, which in turn can only come from a competent partner on

the ground capable of identifying targets and swiftly passing on this information to aircraft overhead. All attention at the moment is on the Isis bomb on a Russian plane, claimed

four times by Isis though some still doubt that the group is responsible. But a much less dramatic event may have greater long-term impact on the course of the civil war in Syria and Iraq. This is the victory of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Justice and

Development Party (AKP) in the parliamentary elections on 1 November, a victory welcomed with effusive messages by no fewer than 15 different non-Isis armed

opposition groups in Syria. Prominent among those congratulating President Erdogan is the Army of Conquest, which captured much of Idlib province earlier in the year and 90 per cent of whose fighters reportedly come from al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.

Metin Gurcan, writing in the online magazine al-Monitor, points out that the Army of Conquest says in a statement that Erdogan and the AKP government have never abandoned

their support for the Syrian revolution, despite domestic and foreign pressure. Mr Gurcan cites a well- informed Turkish authority saying many of these Syrian opposition “groups are trying to sign non-hostility pacts with Isis” – pacts that say they will not fight Isis unless

attacked by them. Governments pretending to distinguish between “moderate opposition” and Isis in Syria should keep this in mind

US deploys F-15s to Syria, targeting Russian jets

By Thomas Gaist 7 November 2015 The US will send a squadron of F-15C fighter jets to

Turkey’s Incirlik air base, the US Defense Department (DOD) announced on Friday. The nature of the US war planes, which are specifically designed for dogfighting with other

highly advanced fighter jets, indicates that the deployment carries a significance far

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 6 of 13 08/11/2015

beyond what its small scale would suggest. The F-15 line of combat jets was

developed in response to the unveiling in 1967 of the Soviet Union’s MiG-25 “Foxbat” interceptor. Because they are designed for air-to-air combat against other major powers,

the US has, until now, seen no need to deploy the F-15C model to its Middle Eastern and Central Asian war theaters, where the opposing forces have no warplanes. The sudden deployment, coming less than two months after Russia began sending its own SU-30

fighters to its new airbase in Latakia, Syria, makes clear that the jets have been deployed in response to Moscow’s air campaign. “The only reason F-15s are going to Syria is to

shoot down Russian jets,” the Washington Times titled its report Friday. “US and Russia Sending Weapons to Syria Best-Suited for Shooting at Each Other,” a Time magazine headline declared on Friday.

The US warplanes are being deployed to the same area where unauthorized crossings into Turkish airspace by Russian warplanes allegedly occurred last month, events which were

seized upon as the basis for the latest round of anti-Russian war rhetoric by US and NATO officials. “The deployment of the air-to-air combat planes comes after two Russian warplanes, active in Syria, strayed into Turkish airspace last month, triggering strong

condemnations from Turkey and its NATO allies. The deployment sends a message of NATO’s resolve to protect its members following the Russian planes’ intrusion,” US News

and World Report noted Friday. The additional jets were sent after the Turkish government asked for greater US military aid in securing its border area. Even prior to Friday’s announcement, the Turkish-Syrian border was already emerging as one of the

most dangerous geopolitical fault lines worldwide. In October, the Turkish military shot down an unmarked military drone along the same border area, but the source of the drone

has not been confirmed. The stationing of the high-tech jets in this area marks another stride toward the establishment of a no-fly zone over northern Syria. The Obama administration has repeatedly resisted Turkish demands for an immediate no-fly zone, but

last week top US defense officials told Congress that the option was “not off the table.” Analysts agree that a no-fly zone would necessarily also entail the creation of militarized

areas on the ground directly below. The US took a major step in this direction this week, announcing the formation of a new proxy army this week, dubbed the Syrian Democratic Force. The SDF is composed of the Kurdish and Arab militia groups that have received

parachute drops of US military assistance during recent weeks. The force is largely a renamed faction of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)

militias, according to reports stemming from members of militant groups under the SDF umbrella. “The Syrian Democratic Force is basically just the YPG. It’s a mask to avoid Turkish strikes and get more coalition support,” former YPG spokesman Alaa al-Sheikh

told the Financial Times. The US is seeking to rebrand the YPG, which has been implicated in systematic war crimes against the ethnic Arab population of northern Syria

by a recent Amnesty International report, by grafting on small contingents of Arab fighters, including militants affiliated with Thuwar Raqqa, Jaish al-Thuwar and other factions with ties to Al Qaeda. Under a thin a “multi-ethnic” and “democratic” veneer,

Washington is assembling yet another loosely federated proxy force, drawing largely from militant groups known to have razed dozens of villages to the ground during the past year

alone. It appears very likely that the SDF’s first mission will be to lead a ground offensive against the Syrian city of Raqqa, which now serves as a de facto capital for militants

aligned with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The planned attack on Raqqa faces skepticism by SDF’s Arab factions, however, who worry that YPG elements will take

advantage of the offensive to further their own ambitions for a Kurdish state, creating

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 7 of 13 08/11/2015

conditions for ethnic conflict within the SDF coalition.

The heavy bombardment of Syrian targets by Russian air forces this week has underscored the grave risks accompanying the latest US escalation. The logic of imperialist military

escalation finds highly concentrated expression on the battlefields of Syria. The bombardment of US-backed forces by Russian planes, intended by Moscow to bolster its client government in Damascus and create the conditions for a political settlement, has

succeeded above all in provoking Washington to double-down on its own military operations. With US-backed militias already engaged in bitter fighting against a

Russian-led coalition along one front, in strategic areas of the western enclaves that

remain largely under government control, Washington is preparing to launch an

entirely new front. Even as US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign

Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed the possibility of engaging the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime in political negotiations on Friday, dozens of freshly arrived US Special

Forces were preparing yet another US proxy force for offensives against areas where Russian air units are already involved in heavy fighting. The US ground deployment, announced by President Barack Obama last week in defiance of his repeated vows that he

would not send US troops into ground combat, is only the beginning of a general intensification of US operations in both Syria and Iraq. US Defense Secretary Ashton

Carter stated clearly last week that US forces are now planning their own “direct actions on the ground” in Syria and Iraq. Washington and Moscow are being drawn ever closer to the front lines, on opposite sides of a raging civil war, under conditions where the US-

backed coup in Ukraine and the massive US-NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe that followed have already dragged humanity to the brink of war between the two largest

nuclear-armed powers. NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday called for members of the US-led alliance to prepare military deployments aimed at countering Russian military strength in

the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea and Baltic Sea. Speaking to the media during a visit to Portugal, where NATO is holding its massive “Trident Juncture 2015” war games,

exercises that are transparently intended to prepare the alliance for a general, European-wide war against Russia, Stoltenberg warned of “a military build-up which provides

Russians with what many experts call Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities.”

The NATO alliance must respond with a military buildup stretching across the Eurasian landmass, Stoltenberg said. “The question on our agenda now is how to overcome, how to

deal with the increased A2/AD capabilities of Russia in the Baltic, the Black Sea, and now in the Mediterranean,” he said.

America’s Ground War “Against” or “In Support” of The Islamic State? ISIS

Supplied Via Turkey, a US Excuse to Seize Syria

By Tony Cartalucci Global Research, November 03, 2015 In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR? With the announcement of US special forces joining Western-backed militants on the

ground in Syria, many still appear confused as to exactly what the implications of this move are. As if to assure the public that indeed, the move is to use the so-called Islamic

State (ISIS/ISIL) as a pretext to invade and occupy Syrian territory, the Washington Post has published an article explaining the move in detail titled, “Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles.” In it, it states openly that ISIS is being supplied via

Turkey. It states specifically that: They will increase air operations in northern Syria, particularly in the Turkish border area to cut the flow of foreign fighters, money and

materiel coming in to support the Islamic State. Of course, it should be noted that Turkey

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 8 of 13 08/11/2015

itself has been a NATO member since the 1950′s, with a US airbase located on

Turkish territory at Incirlik for nearly as long. Since the war started in Syria in 2011, the US has admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times and

the Washington Post itself has reported on numerous occasions regarding the US Central Intelligence Agency steering weapons to militant groups across this very border. There are also multi-billion dollar refugee camps built in a joint effort between Western

governments and nongovernmental organizations and the Turkish government itself along the border, as well as US-run training camps for “moderate rebels.” The question becomes

then, if ISIS is receiving the summation of its “foreign fighters, money, and materiael” from Turkey, and the US is operating all along the Turkish border, why isn’t it being interdicted before it reaches Syria? Washington Post answers that too, but in the way of a

denial from an unnamed Pentagon official: This step is not to be considered “the start of a no-fly zone or a creeping no- fly zone. That’s just not the intent,” the Pentagon official

said. But of course it should be considered the start of a creeping no-fly-zone – because that is precisely why ISIS was created to justify in the first place, and that is precisely what is materializing before the world’s eyes. And the Washington Post elaborates on just

what this no-fly-zone will lead to amid this feigned fight with ISIS: Defeating the Islamic

State in Syria, under Obama’s strategy, rests on enabling local Syrian forces not only to

beat back Islamic State fighters but to hold freed territory until a new central

government, established in Damascus, can take over.

There already is a central government in Damascus, that should ISIS supply lines flooding

out of NATO territory be cut, could easily reestablish control over this “freed territory” the Washington Post refers to. But the Post is careful to mention the term, “new central

government,” or in other words, a government hand-selected by the US and its regional partners, affiliated with the terrorists that have laid waste to Syria since 2011. Invading Syria with US special forces-backed militants, and taking and holding Syrian territory is

verbatim the plan laid out by US foreign policymakers from various corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks, and more specifically the Brookings Institution.

As reported during the initial US announcement of “boots on the ground,” the plan to create “safe zones” to then expand further within Syria with the ultimate goal being the toppling of Damascus, has been ongoing since at least 2012. In the March 2012 Brookings

Institution”Middle East Memo #21″ “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated specifically that (emphasis added): An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on

how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian

corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of

course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that

starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate

international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. The plan to use US special forces to take and hold Syrian territory was also specifically laid out in a June 2015 Brookings document literally titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new

strategy for America’s most hopeless war.” In it, it stated that (emphasis added): The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within

Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and

Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but

eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well. The approach

would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack through a combination of

technologies, patrols, and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 9 of 13 08/11/2015

fighters set up. Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even

if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces, he would be likely

to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his

military of one of its few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

The Washington Post’s recent article confirms that this is precisely what is being done in Syria – the execution of long- laid plans obvious since at least June of 2014, but

documented in detail since June of this year. The only question left regarding this obvious, long-stated plan is, since it has been so openly and transparently pursued, what has Syria

and its allies, particularly Russia who is now engaged militarily in Syria, going to do to expose and confound it? The original source of this article is Land Destroyer Report

Regards Cees food for thought, Russia regional geopolitical maneuvering.

Cees, Although western leaders and their press paint the picture that Russia will meet its next Afghanistan in the Middle East, Putin and its staff have looked, thought, analyzed and acted on the grand chessboard the Middle East. The inadequate (no) strategy of the West

under the lead of the US have failed to address the regional countries interest’s and issues at hand and start to result in regional states looking at Russia who are addressing

the growing Islamic State threat, for help in securing their country survivability. Russia strategic intent and involvement over the long term, will give them a strategic foothold in the Middle Eastern region with critical strategic economic gateways and resources. With

our focus on the Middle East, Russia has – among others -also showed intent regarding the Artic and the northern see route, and expending influence in the China Sea area. The

west was asleep for a long time surfing on their so-called peace dividend after the crumble of the former Soviet block. Do we have an answer?

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow last month appears born of the confidence that no one would depose him in his absence. It completes Vladimir Putin’s

cycle of Middle Eastern visitors: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, plus Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, a NATO partner; Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, a long-time American partner; and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,

president of Egypt, which has not had Russian interlocutors since the Yom Kippur War. After his meeting with Assad, Putin called Erdogan, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, and el-

Sisi, as well as King Abdullah II of Jordan to update them. It is unsurprising that Arab leaders and Israel, traditional American allies, are listening carefully to Putin. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan are making overtures to the Kremlin and requesting military

hardware.

Consider Russian strategy from large to small. Vladimir Putin has two strategic goals: ■ To restore the 25 million Russians who, as he told Charlie Rose on 60 Minutes, woke up one morning as former Soviet citizens living in someone else’s country – Ukraine, the

Baltics, etc. He wants to reincorporate them, and the territory on which they live, into Russia.

From this, Putin’s Europe policy becomes clear. Ukraine, Crimea, the 2008 Georgia war, cyber attacks on the Baltics, the drive to control oil and gas resources in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf are all ways to squeeze Europe, to punish Europe for bringing the

former Soviet colonies into the EU and/or NATO, and to make the former colonies believe he may forcibly restore the Russian Empire.

■ To deal a blow to Sunni jihad. Putin has no particular love for Shiite Iran, Assad,

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 10 of 13 08/11/2015

Alawites or Hezbollah. He and Netanyahu get along pre tty well. But Putin has a

passionate hatred for Sunni jihadists – particularly, but not only Chechens, some of whom are fighting with ISIS and whom he believes will return to Russia and restart the wars that

he so brutally extinguished. Saving the secular Assad regime is essential, in his view, to keeping the lid on Sunni jihad. Ah, you say, “But Russia isn’t striking ISIS; it’s striking those ‘other’ rebels in Syria.”

True, but from Putin’s point of view, that is a small problem. “Should I drop a bomb on ISIS today? Should I drop a bomb on Jabhat al Nusra?” His concern is the large problem.

“How do I hold the Syrian state together until some end game can be reached through which Russia will keep its bases in western Syria?” Putin is taking out the Sunni enemies of the Syrian state – sometimes rebels and

sometimes ISIS – and using the military to create conditions for a political settlement that serves Russian interests. That is, in fact, the essence of political-military leadership.

FDR’s strategic goal was the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, and he told Eisenhower to go to Berlin to get it. That is not to compare Putin to FDR, and several things could ultimately derail Russia’s plans. Specifically, Russia cannot afford a long,

drawn out war; it doesn’t have enough troops for a large-scale ground campaign; the Russian public is very opposed to foreign military adventure; and finally, indiscriminate

bombing and shelling in Sunni Syria will, indeed, breed more Chechen- like Sunni jihadists. The recent phone call between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was not a coincidence; Putin wants help. But to find a

cooperative mechanism that serves American interests, the US will first have to understand Putin’s bottom lines.

So far, Russia has focused most of its involvement in Syria on hitting rebel targets to shore up territory for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, an ally of Russian President

Vladimir Putin. But as ISIS affiliates in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula insist they took down a plane carrying 224 people as an attack on “Russian crusaders,” experts say Putin might

have little choice but to get even more deeply involved in the Middle East. “Putin is not going to reflect on his involvement in the Middle East and think about what he could have done differently,” Michael Pregent, a military analyst and former US Army intelligence

officer, told Business Insider. “[Putin] is going to take action. He’s been telling his people he’s in Syria to attack ISIS but he hasn’t.” “This is the same type of event that motivated

the King of Jordan to step up his attacks against ISIS in Syria,” Pregent said. “This is 100 times that for a guy like Putin.” But Putin might be reluctant to give ISIS credit for this attack, knowing that it would drag him even further into the fight. “The big question is

who will Russia be passing the blame for this to,” Michael Kofman, a Russia expert and public policy fellow at the Wilson Center, told Business Insider. “… They don’t want to

assign [ISIS] credit.” “The whole point of [Russia’s involvement in Syria] is pre-decided as an operation and

has almost entirely avoided or ignored the Islamic State because that’s not really a problem for Assad,” Kofman said. He added: “If Russians do believe that the Islamic State

did this, they will absolutely take revenge. … One of the few personalised elements of their foreign policy is that it is quite vindictive. It always has been under this leadership.” Increased Russian involvement in Syria could, however, have unintended consequences in

Iraq. “US airstrikes have been limited in scope and are not denying [ISIS] freedom of movement,” Pregent said. “If Russia steps up its airstrikes … you’re likely to see the flow

of high-value targets go back to Iraq.” Another potential course of action for Russia would

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 11 of 13 08/11/2015

be to team up with Egypt in a military initiative against terrorist groups. “Egypt

has been one of the few, if not only, Arab states that has supported Russian intervention in Syria,” Boris Zilberman, an expert on the Middle East and Russia and the deputy director

of Congressional Relations at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, told Business Insider in an email. “Putin has made it a priority to strengthen cooperation and economic/military/energy ties with Egypt.”

Russia’s military intervention in Syria is serving as a broader announcement of Moscow’s

renewed determination to hold sway in the Middle East. But beyond the immediate outcome of the civil war there, NATO military chiefs are now viewing it as a wider strategic play by Vladimir Putin’s Russia to challenge the west closer to home. According

to a senior Nato civilian official, the Mediterranean “is a contested space again”. “We have to be prepared for Russia to be [in Syria] as a factor for a long time,” Alexander

Vershbow, Nato’s deputy secretary-general, told the Financial Times on Monday, speaking on the edge of Nato’s biggest war-game since 2002: Trident Juncture, which took place across the western Mediterranean. Russia has not had any sizeable presence in

the Mediterranean since the end of the cold war. And a lack of investment until recently in its decaying Black Sea fleet, based in Crimea, had led many strategic military planners to

overlook the entire theatre as a possible source of concern when it came to Moscow. Russia’s renewed presence could be highly disruptive: it opens up Nato’s entire southern

border to Russian provocation while

threatening to restrict the “freedom of navigation” that allows Nato to quickly

and easily deploy military assets. Oct 23, MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Major

goals of a new Russia-Jordan anti-ISIL coordination center in Amman are

to guarantee safety in the northern part of Jordan as well as to preserve peace

and stability in Syria’s south, the Jordanian information minister told Sputnik Friday.

Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia and Jordan agreed to coordinate military activities in the fight against the Islamic State militants

in Syria through a center to be created in the Jordanian capital. "The military coordination mechanism between Jordan and Russia is created because of…. the need to ensure safety of the northern borders of the Kingdom of Jordan and stabilize

the situation in the southern part of Syria," Mohammed Momani stressed.

Russia-Jordan Anti-ISIL Center to Coordinate Activities Close to Syria Border. Cooperation between Moscow and Amman has been developing for a long time and in many dimensions and areas, he outlined. "Jordan, undoubtedly, continues to be part

of an international coalition, leading the war on terror," Momani added. A new Russia-Jordan anti-ISIL coordination center in Amman, set to begin its operations soon, will

enable the sides to operate “on the ground” in close proximity to Syria, Jordanian Ambassador to Russia Ziad al-Majali told Sputnik.

Oct 13, Iraq has begun bombing Islamic State insurgents with help from a new intelligence center with staff from Russia, Iran and Syria, a senior parliamentary figure said on

Tuesday about cooperation seen as a threat to U.S. interests in the region. The center has

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 12 of 13 08/11/2015

been operational for about a week, and it provided intelligence for air strikes on

a gathering of middle-level Islamic State figures, Hakim al Zamili, the head of parliament's defense and security committee, told Reuters. The new security apparatus

based in Baghdad suggests the United States is losing clout in a strategic oil-producing Middle East, where it has been heavily invested for years. ç Iraqi officials, frustrated with the pace and depth of the U.S. military campaign against Islamic State, have said they will

lean heavily on Washington's former Cold War rival Russia in the battle against the Sunni Muslim jihadists. Two Russian one-star generals are stationed at the intelligence center in

Baghdad, according to an Iraqi official who asked not to be named. The Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah military triangle

Al Monitor Nov 2, Since Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria became apparent in the summer of 2012, it has been a subject of hot debate both within Lebanon and beyond.

Many questioned the wisdom of this step, saying that by engaging in the Syrian conflict, Hezbollah had tarnished its image after gaining high popularity in the Arab world as an anti-Israeli resistance force. But with the latest twist of events sparked by the Russian

intervention in Syria, which started Sept. 30, the Lebanese movement may very well be in the driver's seat to assume a major regional role. This could mean the birth of a “new

Middle East,” albeit in stark contrast to the one then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of shortly after Israel began its war on Lebanon in July 2006 with the aim of “crushing Hezbollah.” A major indicator supporting the above notion is that Russia does

not seem to be replacing the “Iranian-Hezbollah axis” in Syria, but rather complementing and strengthening this axis. According to political commentator with Russia’s

Kommersant publishing house Sergei Strokan, there now exists a “Russia, Iran,

Hezbollah military triangle” in Syria.

In a telephone interview with Al-Monitor, Strokan said, “Hezbollah can do some things

that Russia can’t afford to do itself,” as putting “Russian boots on the ground [in Syria] is a subject of heated debate [within Russia].”

He added, “The Russian public is worried that something similar to Afghanistan might take place.” Hezbollah for its part appeared jubilant, from day one of the Russian airstrikes. Just hours after the first airstrikes were launched on Sept. 30, a Hezbollah

official emphasized during a private discussion with Al-Monitor that Moscow "has its partners on the ground in the Syrian army and its allies, like us."

A second Hezbollah official recently told Al-Monitor about reports of the establishment of a joint operations room in Damascus for the coordination of efforts between Russia, the Syrian army, Iran and Hezbollah. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity,

underscored that the Lebanese movement — and its allies in Syria — were now receiving “support from a superpower, and Hezbollah [along with the Syrian army] was providing

intelligence to Moscow in the air raids being conducted.” An Iranian source, who maintains close contact with both the Russian and Chinese sides, went even further, saying that Hezbollah’s regional patron, Iran, had “brought the

Russians [into Syria].” This scenario is further supported by reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military intervention was planned out during a visit by the commander of

the Iranian Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, to Moscow in late July. Within this same framework, the chief international correspondent of the Al Rai Kuwaiti newspaper, Elijah Magnier, has also reported about a division of labor agreement,

whereby Russian warplanes provide air support for the Iranian and Hezbollah fighters on the ground (in addition to Iraqi and Afghan fighters), as they attempt to retake lost Syrian

territories.

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent

dewaartc@hotmail.com In Confidence

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.

–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 13 of 13 08/11/2015

Meanwhile, director of the military and security studies program at the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Michael Eisenstadt, as well as former head of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin, have also shed light on the likelihood that the

Russian intervention in Syria will only serve to strengthen the position of Hezbollah — and Iran — in that country. At the same time, Russian experts point out that Moscow’s intervention in Syria is part of a broader strategy in the Middle East, whereby success in

Syria could spell success for Putin’s bid to assume a leadership role in the Middle East, a role Putin is widely believed to aspire to. Strokan said President Putin has placed high

stakes on success in Syria and therefore “can’t afford to lose.” If such a scenario is indeed playing out and the “Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah military

triangle” is victorious in Syria, Hezbollah will not only go down as one of the major

players that changed the geopolitics of the Middle East, but will also have established

itself as a strategic partner in this “new Middle East.” Ironically, the movement could go

from being an organization that was internationally recognized as a terrorist group to an organization that is an “internationally recognized” anti-terrorist force — although such an outcome is far from guaranteed. The establishment of the joint operations headquarters

between Russia and Iran in Iraq to share intelligence in the fight against terror only serves to reinforce the notion that Moscow will seek to expand its regional role through

coordination with Iran and Hezbollah. According to the well-informed Iranian source who asked not to be named, Russia and

China "have come to view Iran and Hezbollah [along with the Yemeni Ansar Allah

group, which is viewed as the Yemeni version of Hezbollah] as the most effective

fighting force against terror.” Strokan expressed a similar view, underscoring that for

Russia, “Hezbollah is getting much more important.” Expanding Russia’s leadership “obviously would require it to maintain close contact and cooperation with influential players in the region,” Strokan said, adding that “Hezbollah’s role is not restricted to

Syria.” Indeed, Hezbollah stands ready to enter into a similar arrangement with Moscow in Iraq. When asked whether the movement was ready to replicate the coordination with

Russia on the Iraqi battlefield, the Hezbollah official nodded in approval.