688 NED behind Hong Kong Color Revolution

NED behind Hong Kong Color Revolution

Newsletter published on 14 October 2014

(1) NED behind Hong Kong Color Revolution - China Daily
(2) People's Daily accuses US of orchestrating Hong Kong 'color revolution'
(3) Color Revolutions are outside-supported pro-Western coups
(4) Socialist Worker Trots are part of the Color Revolution in Syria

(1) NED behind Hong Kong Color Revolution - China Daily
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/n/2014/1011/c98649-8793283.html

Why is the US so keen on ‘Color Revolutions’?

(People's Daily Online)    10:11, October 11, 2014

According to media reports, Louisa Greve, a director of the National
Endowment for Democracy of the US (NED), was already meeting with the
key people from "Occupy Central" several months ago, to talk about the
movement. Louisa Greve is the vice president of NED who is responsible
for its Asia, Middle East and North Africa programs. For many years, her
name has frequently appeared on reports about "Tibetan independence",
"eastern Turkistan", "democracy movement" and other forces destabilizing
Chinese affairs and interfering with the Chinese government. She also
hosted or participated in conferences about the "Arab spring" and the
"Color Revolutions" of other regions.

It is hardly likely that the US will admit to manipulating the "Occupy
Central" movement, just as it will not admit to manipulating other
anti-China forces. It sees such activities as justified by "democracy",
"freedom", "human rights" and other values.

The mainstream media of the US have showed exceptional interest in
"Occupy Central". Their reports and comments are full of approval and
praise. "Occupy Central" is depicted as a pro-democracy movement, and
the Hong Kong version of the "Color Revolution". They have branded the
movement "The Umbrella Revolution". Associated Press published an
article titled ‘Umbrella Revolution’ Protests Spread in Hong Kong,
"Umbrella Revolution" appeared on the cover of The Times Asia, and the
Wall Street Journal's report Hong Kong's Democratic Awakening reads:
"For years the people of Hong Kong avoided direct conflict with Beijing
in the hope that Chinese authorities might be persuaded to grant them
self-government. Now they realize that their only chance for democracy
is to demand it."

Three former U.S. consuls-general in Hong Kong recently united to
publish an open letter criticizing the nomination committee system for
the Hong Kong chief executive. This simply made the political situation
in Hong Kong even worse.

It is inevitable that these new moves on the part of the US government,
non-governmental organizations and media will be associated with the US
involvement in the "Color Revolutions" in the Commonwealth of
Independent States, the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere. The US
purports to be promoting the "universal values" of "democracy",
"freedom" and "human rights", but in reality the US is simply defending
its own strategic interests and undermining governments it considers to
be "insubordinate". In US logic, a "democratic" country is one that
conductss its affairs in line with American interests.

The results of Amreica's "Color Revolutions" have hardly been a success.
The "Arab spring" turned to be an "Arab winter" and Ukraine's "street
politics" have resulted in secession and conflict. There is little
evidence of any real democracy in these countries, but the US turns a
blind eye.

The US may enjoy the sweet taste of interfering in other countries'
internal affairs, but on the issue of Hong Kong it stands little chance
of overcoming the determination of the Chinese government to maintain
stability and prosperity.

(2) People's Daily accuses US of orchestrating Hong Kong 'color revolution'

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1613980/peoples-daily-accuses-us-colour-revolution-bid-occupy-central?page=all

People's Daily accuses US of 'colour revolution' bid with Occupy Central

People's Daily takes claims of American collusion with Occupy Central to
higher level

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 11 October, 2014, 4:02am
UPDATED : Saturday, 11 October, 2014, 4:02am

Teddy Ng in Beijing teddy.ng@scmp.com

The Communist Party's mouthpiece newspaper has blamed the United States
for colluding with Occupy Central protest organisers to try and foment a
"colour revolution".

Although a Hong Kong-based pro-Beijing newspaper has made similar claims
before, the commentary published on the front page of People's Daily
overseas edition signalled Beijing is taking the accusations to a higher
level.

The commentary, entitled "Why the US never gets bored with colour
revolutions",claimed Washington was stirring up trouble against regimes
it dislikes under the pretext of supporting pro-democracy movements.

Citing unidentified overseas media reports, it said core leaders of
Occupy Central had met Louisa Greve, a vice-president of the US National
Endowment for Democracy (NED).

The commentary also cited unnamed overseas reports as suggesting that
Greve was connected with forces seeking Tibet independence and the East
Turkestan Islamic Movement.

"Of course, the US will not admit it is manipulating 'Occupy Central',
just as they will not admit it is controlling other anti-Chinese forces.
They will legitimise their moves under the values of 'democracy, freedom
and human rights'," it added. NED had not responded to request for
comments by late last night.

The commentary came after the Hong Kong government called off a meeting
with student protest leaders as Occupy Central entered its 13th day and
international leaders gave their backing to the movement.

"Colour revolution" is a term widely used to describe various movements
in the former Soviet Union during the early 2000s that led to the
overthrow of governments. It was also applied to uprisings in the Middle
East.

A front-page commentary in the paper's national edition last Saturday
warned that any attempt to launch a "colour revolution" on the mainland
from Hong Kong would be futile, but it did not name the US.

The tough rhetoric came after a US Congressional-Executive Commission on
China said in a report that Beijing's actions to restrict democracy in
Hong Kong "raise concerns about the future of the fragile freedoms and
rule of law that distinguish Hong Kong from mainland China".

Commission chairman Senator Sherrod Brown called on US President Barack
Obama to directly press his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on the issue.

German President Joachim Gauck drew parallels to the Hong Kong
demonstrations when honouring protesters who stood up to the communists
in East Germany in 1989, saying the experience of East Germany showed
the importance of defending democracy. "The young protesters in Hong
Kong have understood this very well," he said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei reiterated the warning that
foreign government should not intervene in Hong Kong affairs and
described the report of the US commission as "distorting the facts" and
"making malicious attacks" against China.

Additional reporting by Agence France Presse and Associated Press

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as
Party paper accuses US over 'colour revolution'

(3) Color Revolutions are outside-supported pro-Western coups

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:21:44 -0700
Subject: The Source of Obama's Foreign Policies/ Andrew Korybko/
Oriental Review
From: chris lancenet <chrislancenet@gmail.com>

The Source of Obama’s Foreign Policies

Posted on October 12, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

By Andrew Korybko (USA), Oriental Review.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/source-obamas-foreign-policies.html

Introduction:

A global shift in US strategy is currently underway, with America
transitioning from the ‘world policeman’ to the Lead From Behind
mastermind. This fundamental shift essentially entails the US moving
from a majority forward-operating military to a defensive stay-behind
force. Part of this transformation is the reduction of the conventional
military and its replacement with special forces andintelligence
recruits. Private military companies (PMCs) are also occupying a higher
role in the US’ grand strategy. Of course, it is not to say that the US
no longer has the capability or will to forward advance – not at all –
but that the evolving US strategy prefers more indirect and nefarious
approaches towards projecting power besides massive invasions and
bombing runs. In this manner, it is following the advice of Sun Tzu who
wrote that “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s
resistance without fighting.” The outcome is a mixture of Color
Revolutions, unconventional warfare, and mercenary interventions that
avoids the direct use of US combat troops while relying heavily on
regional allies’ proxy involvement. This results in the promotion of
American policy via oblique methods and the retention of relative
plausible deniability. Importantly, the absence of conventional forces
is thought to reduce the risk of a direct confrontation between the US
and Russia, China, and Iran, the primary targets of these proxy wars.

The Eurasian-wide plan of strategic destabilization and state fracturing
owes its genesis to Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Eurasian Balkans
concept. The US is flexible in practicing this concept, and it does not
meet a dead end if the destabilization encounters an obstacle and cannot
be advanced. Should this occur, as it has in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq,
and possibly soon in the South China Sea, the stratagem evolves into
maximizing the chaos within the launch pad states that are positioned on
the doorsteps of the Eurasian Powers. The idea is to create ‘black
holes’ of absolute disorder in which Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are
“damned if they do, damned if they don’t” intervene. Ideally, the US
prefers that its intended targets are sucked into a quagmire that bleeds
them dry and destabilizes them at home, per the example of the
Soviet-Afghan War which Brzezinski conspired over 30 years ago. Moving
away from the expansive Eurasian Balkans and reverting to the roots of
‘Afghan anarchy’ is the nature of the Reverse Brzezinski, and it poses
the ultimate dilemma-like trap for the Eurasian Powers.

The Afghan Prototype:

US-sponsored mujahedin in 1984 (Afghanistan).

The US’ experience in training and arming the Mujahideen to bring about
and manage the Soviet-Afghan War can be seen as the first foray into the
Lead From Behind strategy. The US worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan and
other Muslim states to sow the seeds of chaos in Afghanistan (including
the creation of the international mercenary organization Al Qaeda), thus
creating a strategic destabilization so tempting that the Soviet Union
could not resist the urge to intervene. This was the goal all along and
it was a resounding success. It also the pinnacle of Cold War-era proxy
warfare that meshed perfectly with the international balance of power at
the time. It was so successful that it is credited as one of the
contributing factors to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
This altered the global power balance and resulted in the US’ unipolar
moment. During this period of time, the Afghan Lead From Behind
prototype was no longer seen as necessary because the US now had the
power, will, and opportunity to project power directly and forcefully
all across the world.

The Unipolar Moment of Shock and Awe:

Drunk with power after emerging victorious from the Cold War, the US
began a spate of military interventions beginning with the First Gulf
War. Although marketed as a multilateral operation, the US was the
primary participant in the warring coalition. Within a few years, the US
was then bombing Serbian positions in Bosnia before initiating a
unilateral NATO war in Serbia’s Kosovo province. It was the bombing of
Serbia that awakened Russian decision makers to the need to defend their
country from future threats, thus beginning a commitment towards
modernizing its defense industry in order to deter a direct
American/NATO attack against Russian interests. Nonetheless, this did
not result in an immediate change, and in the meantime, the US’ power
had yet to climax.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US undertook military operations
and a subsequent occupation of Afghanistan, a country situated halfway
across the world and near the Heartland of Eurasia. This massive
expansion of American military might and reach inside the continent was
unprecedented, yet even that did not mark the highlight of the post-Cold
War era. The epitome of the unipolar moment was actually the 2003 Shock
and Awe campaign in Iraq. During that time, the US massively bombarded
Iraq in a show of force definitely made to remind the rest of the world
of the US’ sole superpower status. It also deployed incredible amounts
of troops and weaponry into the Mideast. Ironically enough, the
subsequent financial and opportunity costs of the war and occupation
would play a strong role in decreasing American power and allowing other
countries such as Russia and China to catch up in challenging and
defending against the US within their own spheres of interest.

Map of the Eurasian Balkans “war on terrorism” from the book The Grand
Chessboard by Brzezinski. page 124. 1997

The Eurasian Balkans:

It was at the middle of the unipolar moment in 1997 that Brzezinski
authored “The Grand Chessboard” in which he laid out the US’
geostrategic priorities for Eurasia and how to best achieve them. He
postulated that it was imperative for the US to retain a commanding
influence over Eurasia, and that one of the best ways to do this was to
prevent collusion between Russia and China. The strategic ‘Balkanizing’
of societies across the Eurasian landmass is a pivotal means of
destabilizing the entire continent. If taken to its logical end, it is
envisioned to create a tidal wave of ethnic, religious, and political
anarchy that can crash into and dismember the diverse civilizations of
Russia, China, and Iran. In some aspects, the US wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq and their chaotic aftermath can be seen as following the
philosophic dictates of this principle. The US has also historically
undertaken regime change operations as a method of advancing continental
destabilization and pushing Western power deeper into Eurasia.

Regime Change:

Regime change has always been a characteristic of American foreign
policy, owing back to the covert overthrow of the Syrian government in
1949. Since then, it has been estimated that the CIA has overthrown or
attempted to overthrow over 50 governments, although it has only
admitted to 7 of them. Regime change can be either direct or indirect.
Pertaining to the former, one can look at the examples of Panama in 1989
or Iraq in 2003, whereas the latter can be witnessed by the 1953 Iranian
coup or the trail of Color Revolutions. [Background here, here and here,
here.]

As can be evidenced from the recent Ukrainian coup, regime change today
can be as cheap as only $5 billion, a fraction of the cost that it would
have taken to directly overthrow Yanukovich and invade the country.
Additionally, owing to international circumstances and the resurgence of
Russian military might and will, it may not have been possible for the
US to do so without risking a major war. Therefore, covert regime change
operations are seen as preferable when the interests of other Great
Powers are at stake. It is very important for the new leadership to have
perceived legitimacy within the international community following the
coup. Seeing as how Western democracy is viewed as a legitimate
governing standard, pro-Western Color Revolutions are the optimal method
of regime change among targeted states not currently practicing this
form of government.

Color Revolutions:

Color Revolutions are outside-supported pro-Western coups. They
specifically use the tools of social media and NGOs to infiltrate
societies, increase their ranks, and expand their efficiency after the
regime change operation has been commenced. Because they typically
manipulate large groups of people, they create the illusion of a broad
grassroots movement of disaffected masses rising up against a tyrannical
dictatorship. This misleading perception enables the coup attempt to
gain wide support and acceptance among the Western community, and it
also denigrates the legitimate authorities that are trying to put down
the illegal overthrow. The manipulation-prone masses are drawn to the
street movements largely as a result of Gene Sharp’s tactics, which
adroitly seek to amplify social protest movements to their maximum
possible extent.

This new method of warfare is extremely effective because it presents a
startling dilemma for the affected state – does the leadership use force
against the civilian protesters (de-facto human shields unaware that
they are being politically manipulated) in order to strike at the
militant Right Sektor-esque core? And with the eyes of the Western media
following the developments, can the government afford to be isolated
from that community of nations if it legally defends itself? Thus, Color
Revolutions present a strategic Catch-22 for the targeted government,
and it is therefore not difficult to see why they had been deployed all
across the post-Soviet space and beyond. They have replaced
‘traditional’ CIA coup action and have become the modus operandi of
covert regime change.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political correspondent of Voice of
Russia who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for
ORIENTAL REVIEW.

(4) Socialist Worker Trots are part of the Color Revolution in Syria

http://socialistworker.org/2014/10/06/why-syrian-rebels-oppose-us-air-strikes

Why the Syrian rebels oppose U.S. air strikes

October 6, 2014

U.S. warplanes and drones are carrying out air strikes in Syria against
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). But though you likely
wouldn't know it from the U.S. media coverage, the Pentagon is hitting
other targets in Syria: Other Sunni Islamist groups, even though they
have fought militarily against ISIS alongside the Free Syrian Army and
other forces. This is the side that the U.S. government claims to
support in the civil war with the murderous dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

In this article published at his Syrian Revolution Commentary and
Analysis website in late September, Australian socialist Michael
Karadjis argues that the air strikes prove the opposite is the case: The
U.S. is siding with the Assad dictatorship against the popular
uprising--even though both Washington and Damascus both deny this
officially.

A building destroyed by U.S. air strikes in Idlib, a city in northwest
Syria, far from ISIS's baseA building destroyed by U.S. air strikes in
Idlib, a city in northwest Syria, far from ISIS's base

IN AN extraordinary development, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan have launched a joint air war, on
Syrian territory, with the full support of the Syrian tyranny of Bashar
al-Assad, on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose any U.S. war in any
circumstances; and in this case, a war that is targeting only the
Sunni-sectarian ISIS, yet sparing the viciously anti-Sunni Assad
regime--indeed collaborating with the regime, which is responsible for a
hundred times more massacre and destruction than ISIS, with which it has
long collaborated in any case--is likely to boost support for ISIS among
a large section of the poverty-stricken, dispossessed Sunni majority.

However, ISIS is so reviled that it was just possible a very
well-targeted war on ISIS may have won some hearts and minds. Certainly,
even for those of us solidly antiwar, there should be no talk of
"defending" ISIS, whatever that may mean. Likewise, if last year's
proposed (in my view, imaginary) U.S. attack on the Assad regime had
become reality, it would have been necessary to oppose the, war without
giving a skerrick of "defense" to the genocidal regime that had just
gassed hundreds of sleeping children to death with sarin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The U.S. Launches a War on Jabhat al-Nusra

However, the U.S. is not only attacking ISIS--which the Free Syrian Army
(FSA) and the united rebel alliance has been at war with for the last
year--but from the outset has also attacked Jabhat al-Nusra (JaN).
Despite also being a sectarian organization which the FSA will have to
deal with in the future in its own time, based on its own
decision-making, JaN has, for the most part, been fighting on the side
of the FSA and the other rebels against both the Assad regime and ISIS.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that the U.S. has attacked
Ahrar al-Sham (AaS) in Aleppo. AaS is what might be called the most
"jihadist" wing of the Syrian rebels other than JaN. However, unlike
JaN, it is not associated with al-Qaeda. AaS has been operationally
allied to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and, along with the FSA, has been
at war with both the regime and with ISIS. U.S. officials seemed
unconcerned by the possibility--as one explained, "We're characterizing
our targets as Khorasan and [ISIS], but it's possible others were there.
It is a toxic soup of terrorists."

In other words, the U.S. and its allies have taken advantage of the
revulsion against the clerical-fascist ISIS barbarians to launch an
attack on the Syrian revolution, on behalf of the secular-fascist Assad
regime.

According to early reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,
U.S. air strikes killed 50 Al-Nusra militants and eight civilians,
including children, in northern Syria on September 23.

For the record, there is no ISIS presence whatsoever in northwestern
province of Idlib. ISIS was driven out root and branch by the FSA's
Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) in January, probably the most
successful anti-ISIS operation carried out by any of the forces which,
at one time or another, have fought ISIS, whether the Syrian Army, the
Iraqi Army or the Kurdish forces.

Yet while ISIS is comprehensively absent, the U.S. Air Force launched a
series of air strikes on the Kafr Dariyan region of Idlib, killing
dozens of al-Nusra militants--the civilian death toll shot up
considerably compared to the initial reports. (There is also video
footage of this terror.) According to JaN, the group's weapons factory
near Sarmada in rural Idlib--where it produces weapons to fight the
regime and ISIS--was targeted by U.S. air strikes.

In particular, given the grave situation in Aleppo, where the
revolutionary forces are being jointly besieged from the South and the
Northeast by Assad and ISIS, the fact that the first U.S. attacks were
on JaN inside Aleppo--where JaN is playing an important role in the epic
defense of the rebel-held, working-class half of that city, alongside
the FSA and other Islamist groups--is perhaps the most blatant attack on
the revolution possible.

Perhaps once the revolutionary forces have been crushed in Aleppo, Assad
and ISIS may fight: the former will then present the world with a fait
accompli--it's my regime or ISIS--while the latter will present the
impoverished, Assad-hating Sunni masses with precisely the opposite dilemma.

That is why the defense of Aleppo now is all-important. And at precisely
this moment, dozens of Jabhat al-Nusra fighters have been slaughtered by
U.S. bombers, right there in Aleppo. According to a JaN Twitter report,
"U.S. air strikes (with the help of Qatar, KSA, Jordan, UAE) hit
positions of Jabhat al-Nusra in rural Muhandiseen Aleppo," and scores of
fighters were martyred in Jabhat al-Nusra headquarters in Urm al-Sogra,
Aleppo.

Oddly, U.S. warplanes have also bombed positions in Jabal Sha'er in the
Homs countryside, killing some Bedouins. It is unclear what the intended
targets were.

Senior JaN leader Muhsin al Fadhli was martyred by the U.S. bombing, as
was Abu¯ Yusuf at-Turki¯, JaN's top sniper trainer.

The Assad regime must be very pleased with having acquired for itself a
new air force.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some Background

These developments are remarkable not for the fact they happened--this
was basically my exact prognosis in June, based on a class analysis:
that a U.S. attack "on ISIS" in Syria would become an attack on the
revolution, via the devise of attacking JaN--but rather in their sheer
brazenness and rapidity.

Despite the jihadist JaN leadership, much of its ranks are decent
revolutionaries, often former FSA cadre, just going where the money and
arms are. Despite some its recent provocations--caused by the impact of
ISIS's victory in Mosul on the more jihadist parts of the JaN ranks), it
still mostly fights the regime and ISIS.

Attacking JaN is a way of attacking the revolution, just as the U.S. has
been trying to turn the FSA into a Sawha--the tribal groups that the
U.S. enlisted in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda--against JaN (not only against
ISIS) since 2012. The FSA has always rejected this imperialist "advice."
According to FSA Col. Abdul Jabbar Akaidi, speaking last year, if the
U.S. "helps us so that we kill each other, then we don't want their help."

Then we had the recent United Nations resolution against ISIS that just
happened to also be against JaN as well, nicely slipped in by Obama.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Assad Regime Hails the U.S. Attacks

Furthermore, all this is in the context of the open collaboration
between the U.S. (and its Saudi, UAE, etc., allies) and the Assad
regime, which the U.S. informed of the attacks, with which the U.S. is
sharing intelligence, and which has expressed strong support for the
U.S. attacks on its own country.

Ali Haidar, Syria's minister for national reconciliation, told Reuters:
"As for the raids in Syria, I say that what has happened so far is
proceeding in the right direction in terms of informing the Syrian
government and by not targeting Syrian military installations and not
targeting civilians."

The U.S. strikes have, of course, killed some dozens of civilians, but
that is hardly a concern of a regime that has killed so many tens of
thousands of civilians, as a grand underestimate.

Meanwhile, the pro-government news network Damascus Now hailed the
strikes as a historic moment, which has left "happiness etched on the
faces of the majority of Syrians, because they found international
support towards eradicating a cancer which has been rooted in the
diseased Syrian body." The regime's Al-Watan newspaper declared, "The
U.S. coalition and the Syrian Arab Army are on the same front against
terrorism."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mass Revulsion Against U.S. strikes

Revulsion has erupted right across Syria. In mass demonstrations
throughout Aleppo, Idlib and Homs, demonstrators chanted, "We are all
Nusra" and "Jabhat al-Nusra came to support us when the world abandoned us."

Now, as stated above, I certainly don't love Jabhat al-Nusra. But these
chants mean the people identify with those getting bombed by Assad's
newly acquired air force. For those who want to emphasize the
reactionary nature of the Nusra leadership--which I would distinguish
from its ranks--this development underlines the fact that creating
counterrevolution works in differing ways: One way is to directly attack
a militia like JaN, which at this point is on the side of the
revolutionary forces; another is to put extra pressure on the more
pro-Western elements within the FSA to take the U.S. side against JaN,
thus weakening and splitting their forces on the ground; and a third way
is precisely allowing JaN to denounce anyone who doesn't support it now
as a U.S. agent, thus strengthening Nusra, the most jihadist pole,
within the anti-Assad, anti-ISIS front.

Though this is by no means straightforward. The "We are all Nusra"
chants may simply be identifying with those under U.S. attack rather
than expressing political support for JaN. Thus, these demonstrations
could equally be seen as a new, clearer anti-imperialist grounding of
the revolution. It may take some time to work through what this means.

But worse is the fact that by allowing its attack on ISIS, which
everyone hates, to become an attack on Jabhat al-Nusra, and a
collaboration with the regime, which all rebel forces and most of the
impoverished, dispossessed Sunni masses see as their main enemy, the
attacks have also led to a surge in support for ISIS in some quarters.
To see mass demonstrations in support not only of JaN, but also of ISIS,
in areas as far west as Homs and Idlib underlines the multiple ways in
which imperialist attack promotes counterrevolution. A mass
demonstration supporting ISIS even occurred in Kafranbel in Idlib, the
very heart and soul of the revolution!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Reactions of the FSA and Other Rebels

In any case, it is the reactions from the FSA and other rebels which are
most remarkable.

One of the first statements condemning the U.S. attacks came from
Harakat al-Hazm, a 7,000-strong secular FSA militia operating mostly in
Hama:

     The international coalition launched the first military strikes in
Syria in the provinces of Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, Idlib, Aleppo, Homs and
Al-Hasakah, leaving 11 civilians martyred in Idlib and five in Homs, in
addition to a number of members of Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra.

     The air strikes which took place amount to an attack on national
sovereignty and work to undermine the Syrian revolution. The
international community's continued disregard for the revolutionary
forces' calls for the unconditional arming of the FSA is nothing but a
harbinger of failure and ruin, which will extend to the entire region.

     We of Harakat al-Hazm confirm our full commitment to the principles
of the revolution and that our actions are beholden only to the
priorities of revolutionary work and the requirements of national
interest, not to the dictates of the international coalition. We also
emphasize that the latter's continuation of singular decision-making, in
an effort to win international public opinion, will not succeed in
uprooting extremism, but encourages its growth. The only way to
establish peace in the region comes through the realization of the
aspirations of the Syrian people and by Syrians.

     The sole beneficiary of foreign interference in Syria is the Assad
regime, especially in the absence of any real strategy to topple it. The
regime will spare no effort to target civilians in its attempt to
rehabilitate itself internationally.

     Mercy for the martyrs, healing for the wounded, freedom for the
detained, long live Syria and its people.

One of the extraordinary things about this statement is that, after all
the years of "leftists" falsely asserting that the U.S. was arming the
FSA, Hazm is precisely one of the very few FSA units that did receive a
handful of U.S. anti-tank weapons beginning in April 2014. It was never
very many, but Hazm could possibly have expected more if it played ball.
This magnificent declaration indicates that while the U.S. might be able
to buy some dozens of puppets here and there, it is very difficult to
buy an army of 7,000 fighters to be puppets.

Meanwhile, Jaish al-Mujahideen, a markedly soft Islamist coalition that
was set up last December and which then played a major role, alongside
the FSA and important components of the Islamic Front (of which it is
not a member) in driving ISIS out of Aleppo in January, also condemned
the U.S. attacks and said their aim was to put down the rebellion.

Abu Ratib, head of the Sufi-led Al-Haq Brigade, part of the Islamic
Front, termed the intervention "a total war against Muslims." Suqour
al-Sham, the main Islamic Front unit in Idlib, condemned the air strikes
and said they "will breed more extremism and terrorism." The Army of
Islam, the Islamic Front unit in Damascus, which drove ISIS out of the
Damascus region several months ago, also condemned the strikes. The
secularist FSA Forqat 13 issued a statement condemning U.S.-led air
strikes as "aimed at weakening the revolution" in Syria.

Then, in a joint statement, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (the major
secular FSA coalition in the northwest, which singlehandedly drove ISIS
out of Idlib in January), Jaish al-Mujahideen, Al Zinki, Hazm and others
condemned the U.S. air strikes, declaring "you help Bashar."

While we haven't yet accessed statements from every group, it is clear
all the major groups have declared themselves solidly against the U.S.
air war.

In similar vein, Syria's Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Zuhair Salem
declared, "A new killer joins the band of the Syrian people killers. The
war on Daesh is an American pretext to continue the war on the Syrian
revolution. We won't wait for long to watch how the American war is
eating revolutionary forces. We condemn the American crime of the
aggression on Syrian territories."

Earlier, a statement by the Syrian Islamic Council, close to the Muslim
Brotherhood, rejected intervention in Syria by Western countries and
their allies in the region. It condemned "the silence of the
international community, governments and organizations, at the daily
massacres against the Syrians, with all kinds of internationally
proscribed weapons, by the Assad regime"--describing the U.S. move
against ISIS in this context as a double standard. The Brotherhood
itself rejected any collaboration with the U.S. attack on ISIS unless
the first bomb lands "on Assad's head."

Finally, the founder and former leader of the FSA, Col. Riad al-Asaad,
who still has significant influence, declared, "The Coalition kills the
remaining children that the Syrian regime couldn't kill." Earlier, he
had already declared that the FSA will not collaborate with the U.S. in
the war against ISIS, claiming the U.S. is working to destroy the FSA
and noting that since 2011, the Americans promised aid that never
materialized, and meanwhile worked to split the rebels and to help Assad.

Asaad claimed that the real target of the strikes would not be ISIS, but
rather "the Syrian revolution will be eliminated under this pretext." He
also called on moderate rebels to make efforts for more unity to revive
the Syrian revolution after having been hijacked by radical Islamist
groups and West-backed agendas. "We are looking for rebel commanders who
share us the national concern."

The Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC), a grassroots network
that coordinates civil disobedience and other nonviolent campaigns, was
a little more ambivalent, but has been documenting the civilian and
other deaths from U.S. air strikes. The LCC declared that "an end to the
Islamic State needs to happen concurrently with an end to the equal
terrorist threat represented by Bashar al-Assad's regime," and noted
that it continued to consider "Assad's regime the foremost enemy of the
Syrian people and assuring that extremism and terrorism were the
products of the regime's crimes."

The LCC also emphasized the following:

1. Assad's regime bears sole responsibility for this violation of the
Syrian state's sovereignty, since it was the first to do that by
bringing sectarian death militias from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.

2. Assad's regime and ISIS are alike when it comes to terrorism and
crimes violating the Syrian people's dignity and lives.

3. The necessity of coordinating with the political and military forces
of the Syrian revolution so they can regain control of the positions
conquered by ISIS, as well as helping these forces with their continuous
battles against Assad's regime, until it is toppled.

4. Taking all precautions that these air strikes do not give any form of
political or military benefits to Assad's regime.

5. Taking extra care for the civilians' lives and their properties in
the targeted areas.

6. The United Nations must take its responsibility towards civilians by
immediately responding to their basic humanitarian needs.

7. The Syrians' salvation from ISIS should be synchronized with their
liberty of the tyrant Assad's regime and its terrorism against them.

The only more or less clear support for intervention came from the
pro-West and pro-Gulf leadership of the exile-based Syrian Opposition
Coalition (SOC) and its associated Supreme Military Command--supposedly
of the FSA, but in reality largely representing itself. The SMC declared
support to "all earnest national forces and free international forces"
who are trying to "fight terrorism," but stressed that this should start
with "the Assad gangs and Shabiha" and "ending with their new creation,
i.e., ISIS" ().

The only other apparent support for the U.S. coalition's actions came
from, somewhat understandably, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD).
PYD leader Salih Muslim Muhammad declared that the U.S. attacks were a
positive step in the fight against ISIS.

Considering ISIS's current genocidal attacks on Syrian Kurds around
Kobane, which have driven some 150,000 Kurds across the Turkish
border--Turkey already holds 1.5 million Syrian refugees--the PYD's
position is understandable.

It is unclear at this point, however, how much the U.S. has targeted the
ISIS units carrying out the siege of Kobane. At the outset, at least,
the U.S. seems to have been too busy bombing ISIS in Raqqa (from which
most ISIS militants had already been evacuated) and non-ISIS targets
over in western Syria, to simply bomb the advancing front line of ISIS
around Kobane. Similarly, the Assad regime, while good at bombing
bakeries in Raqqa and killing dozens of civilians, also couldn't seem to
target the ISIS siege.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Where Does This Leave the U.S. Sawha Plans?

This rather solid opposition to the U.S. air campaign from the bulk of
the FSA and its allies on the ground raises serious issues regarding the
U.S. intention to arm and train a small puppet segment of the FSA as a
Sawha to fight ISIS, and presumably JaN, but not the regime. It seems
likely there will be relatively few takers.

Of course, many may officially agree in order to get the arms, and then
hope to do as they please and direct their energies at the regime. But
the current united stand against the U.S. shows not only that the FSA
are not puppets, but has rubbed this fact in the U.S.'s face. Hazm seems
to have performed this trick earlier this year to get some U.S.
anti-tank weapons--now it releases the most solidly anti-imperialist
declaration.

It is worthwhile looking at the full text of the resolution of the U.S.
Congress to provide "training, equipment, supplies and sustainment" for
some 5,000 "vetted" rebels. Anyone in doubt that the aim is for these
rebels to fight ISIS but not the regime only needs to read the opening,
which states the purpose is firstly, for "defending the Syrian people
from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and
securing territory controlled by the Syrian opposition"; secondly,
"protecting the United States, its friends and allies, and the Syrian
people from the threats posed by terrorists in Syria"; and thirdly, in
the only part that refers to the regime, "promoting the conditions for a
negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria."

In other words, smash ISIS (and Jabhat al-Nusra) and negotiate with the
regime.

More interesting is the section on what "vetted" means:

     The term "appropriately vetted" means, with respect to elements of
the Syrian opposition and other Syrian groups and individuals, at a
minimum, assessments of such elements, groups, and individuals for
associations with terrorist groups, Shia militias aligned with or
supporting the Government of Syria, and groups associated with the
Government of Iran. Such groups include, but are not limited to, the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Jabhat al Nusrah, Ahrar al
Sham, other al-Qaeda related groups, and Hezbollah.

Now of course, the references to Shia groups associated with Iran,
Hezbollah, etc. are just fluff, since this is a resolution on "vetting"
members of the Syrian opposition. Hezbollah works for the regime, so it
is irrelevant to this resolution.

But if "vetting" is to check if any "elements, groups and individuals"
have any "associations" not only with ISIS, but also with Jabhat
al-Nusra, and even Ahrar al-Sham, then the resolution effectively wipes
out 90 percent, if not more, of the FSA and of the Syrian opposition as
a whole--since they all actively cooperate with Jabhat al-Nusra on the
ground against both the regime and ISIS, and even more so with Ahrar
al-Sham, whose leadership was just wiped out by a regime or ISIS bombing.

By ruling out any "group" that has had any "association" with JaN and
even with AaS, the US ensures its Sawha operation will remain with a
very small group--perhaps the proposed 5,000, out of some 60,000 FSA
fighters alone, will not be reached. This was always the intention anyway.

So people should not confuse this with "training the FSA," and they
should not confuse the U.S. of the terms "vetted" and "moderate" with
"secular" and "non-Islamist" as a whole. These few thousand will be
secular and non-Islamist, but they will also be the most
subservient--basically those who agree to fight only ISIS and leave the
war on the regime until the future: the exact opposite of the priorities
of the 95 percent who won't be trained for Sawha.

Former U.S. ambassador Robert Ford explained this more clearly than
usual recently: "One prominent American observer says it is folly to
think that we can aid the moderate armed fighters to topple Assad. But
toppling wasn't our goal before and shouldn't be now."

Certainly, extra arms can help the opposition "put pressure" on Assad to
form a "new" expanded government, like just happened in Iraq, writes
Ford. Its first aim would be to expel ISIS from Syria, so therefore "as
we boost aid to the moderate armed rebels, we must condition that help
on their reaching out to disaffected regime supporters and developing
with them a common political stance for a new, negotiated national unity
government, with or without Assad." (my emphasis)

In other words, while Obama long ago called on Assad to "step down"
(this is the sole basis on which leftists imagine Obama called for
"regime change") in order to preserve his regime and state in a "Yemeni
solution," Ford is here making clear that if it could be negotiated, a
"national unity government" would be fine even with Assad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But Who Can Replace ISIS? Assad Can't.

However, the U.S. knows that it cannot simply be Assad's airforce. The
U.S. aim now seems to be to further eviscerate the revolution, in a
number of different ways as explained.

However, the question of who will replace ISIS on the ground if the U.S.
really wants to wipe it out--let alone if it also wants to wipe out
Jabhat al-Nusra--remains. Quite simply, in neither Syria nor in Iraq can
ISIS be replaced by non-Sunni forces, still less by murderously
anti-Sunni regimes. Some kind of Sunni forces will be necessary, just as
the U.S. needed to arm the Iraqi Sunni tribes in their "Sawha" against
Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007-08.

The Kurds have been valiant fighters against ISIS, but in defending
their own Kurdish turf. Only Sunni Arabs can replace ISIS on the ground
among the Sunni base that they now control.

The act of replacing the discredited Shiite chauvinist Nuri al-Maliki in
Iraq was necessary façade. Yet Maliki has been replaced by another
member of his own party, only slightly less sectarian, with the hope
that this may win over some Sunnis. So far, there has been little
success. And fighting ISIS with Shiite sectarian militias simply
consolidates Sunnis behind ISIS, including those who previously fought it.

What hope is there then in Syria, where the Assad regime has been far
more murderous than Maliki, wiping entire Sunni towns and cities off the
map and sending millions into exile?

While the US now acts as Assad's air force to help smash the revolution,
a stabilization of the situation will eventually require the long-term
U.S. aim of doing some deal that encourages Assad and a narrow circle
around him to "step down" in order to save the Baathist regime and its
military-security apparatus--and to "widen" it by allowing in some
select conservative opponents. This is the so-called "Yemeni solution."
The difficulty, though, is that the Assad ruling family and
mega-capitalist clique is so much more completely associated with the
state than a mere Saleh or Mubarak ever was.

Is an attempt to crush the revolution for the regime a prelude to a plan
with regime insiders and international factors to gently push Assad
aside when it's over, to gain a modicum of Sunni support to replace ISIS
on the ground? Like everything else, this remains to be seen, but it is
one of the possibilities--as is the possibility that the crushing of the
revolution simply means the current regime becomes the "factor of
stability" in the region.

First published at the Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis website.
http://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/syrian-rebels-overwhelmingly-condemn-us-bombing-as-an-attack-on-revolution/