By Tony Cartalucci
Source: nsnbc
Tony Cartalucci (NEO) : 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.

ISIS is Clearly the Product of State-Sponsorship  

In 2012, it was clear that the region north of Aleppo and across the border into Turkey, had become one of two primary points (Jordan being the other) of staging and entry for NATO-backed terrorists operating in Syria. It was from across the border north of Aleppo and Idlib that NATO-armed, funded, and trained terrorists from Libya first flowed into Syrian territory and from where the initial 2012 invasion of Aleppo emanated.

While NATO opened up several other fronts along Syria’s northern border, this has remained their primary focus – specifically for the purpose of taking Idlib, Aleppo, or both, establishing them as a seat of government for a proxy regime, and as a strategic and logistical springboard to wage war deeper into Syrian territory from.

While initially the West attempted to make ISIS appear to be sustaining its fighting capacity within a vacuum deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory, allegedly sustaining itself on ransoms and black market oil, the scale of their operations has since betrayed this narrative, revealing immense state-sponsorship behind them.

If ISIS was being armed, funded, equipped, and its ranks replenished from abroad, it would need supply lines leading to and from these resources. Fighting along the Syrian-Turkish border, between ISIS and both Syrian troops and Kurds exposed NATO-ISIS ratlines – with maps published even by the Western media clearly indicating ISIS supply lines as “support zones” and “attack zones.”

Cutting NATO-ISIS Supply Lines

It was clear that as Syrian troops deep within Syria encircled, cut off the supplies of, and defeated terrorist bastions in cities like Homs and Hama, a much larger version of this would need to be accomplished to secure Syria’s borders. With Syrian troops themselves unable to operate along its borders with Turkey because of a defacto no-fly-zone established with the help of US anti-air missile systems, the burden has been shifted onto Syrian and Iranian-backed Kurds.

The Kurds with their advantages as irregular forces familiar with the territory and now receiving significant material support have managed to cut off ISIS from its NATO supply lines along nearly the entire Syrian-Turkish border, save for the region just north of Aleppo and Idlib. Kurds and Syrian forces have managed to secure the border on positions flanking this last NATO-ISIS logistical zone and threaten to cut it off as well.

Thus the intentionally confusing narrative and feigned jostling between Turkey and the US over the exact details of the impending “buffer zone” they seek to carve out of Syrian territory becomes crystal clear.

It is intended entirely to preserve ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda affiliates’ supply lines to and from Turkey. It, by necessity, will exclude Kurds – an immense betrayal by the Americans who have attempted to pose as their allies – and the Syrian Arab Army, to ensure no force is capable of harassing and disrupting NATO’s increasingly tenuous logistical and terrorist operations.

With Russia’s entry into the conflict, and its application of airpower across regions previously out of reach of Syria’s own heavily taxed air force, the prospect of Syrian and Kurdish forces now being able to close that last remaining gap has become a real possibility. Should this gap be closed and similar efforts accomplished in Syria’s south near its border with Jordan, not only will NATO’s mercenary forces be strangled, all prospects of NATO dividing and destroying Syria will be lost well into the foreseeable future.

“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 until eventually the entire nation was either permanently Balkanized or destroyed. Despite Brookings’ claims that eventually a national 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.

By Tony Cartalucci
Source: New Eastern Outlook
Unbeknownst to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics. Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do – teams of unelected policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by “legislators,” as well as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.

Such a policy paper has been recently written by the notorious US policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country.” The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America’s shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.

Pretext ISIS: US Poured Billions Into “Moderates” Who Don’t Exist

The document openly admits that the US has provided billions in arming and training militants fed into the devastating and increasingly regional conflict. It admits that the US maintains – and should expand – operations in Jordan and NATO-member Turkey to provide even more weapons, cash, and fighters to the already catastrophic conflict.

It then recounts the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), but fails to account from where its money, cash, and weapons came. It should be obvious to readers that if the United States has committed billions in cash, weapons, and training on multiple fronts to alleged “moderates” who for all intents and purposes do not exist on the battlefield, a state-sponsor of greater magnitude would be required to create and sustain ISIS and Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front who Brookings admits dominates the “opposition” uncontested.

In reality, ISIS’ supply lines lead right into US operational zones in Turkey and Jordan, because it was ISIS and Al Qaeda all along that the West planned to use before the 2011 conflict began, and has based its strategy on ever since – including this most recent leg of the campaign.

The US Invasion of Syria

After arming and funding a literal region-wide army of Al Qaeda terrorists, the United States now plans to use the resulting chaos to justify what it has sought since the beginning of the conflict when it became clear the Syrian government was not to capitulate or collapse – the establishment of buffer zones now called “safe zones” by Brookings.

These zones once created, will include US armed forces on the ground, literally occupying seized Syrian territory cleared by proxies including Kurdish groups and bands of Al Qaeda fighters in the north, and foreign terrorist militias operating along the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south. Brookings even admits that many of these zones would be created by extremists, but that “ideological purity” wound “no longer be quite as high of a bar.

The US assumes that once this territory is seized and US troops stationed there, the Syrian Arab Army will not dare attack in fear of provoking a direct US military response against Damascus. The Brookings paper states (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 actin 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 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.

In a single statement, Brookings admits that the government of Syria is not engaged in a war against its own people, but against “ISIL” (ISIS). It is clear that Brookings, politicians, and other strategists across the West are using the threat of ISIS in combination with the threat of direct military intervention as a means of leverage for finally overrunning and seizing Syria entirely.

The Invasion Could Succeed, But Not for US Proxies

The entire plan is predicated on America’s ability to first take and hold these “zones” and subsequently mesh them into functioning autonomous regions. Similar attempts at US “nation building” are currently on display in the ravaged failed state that used to be North Africa’s nation of Libya, Syria’s neighbor to the southeast, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the list goes on extensively.

The folly of this plan both in attempts to use non-existent credibility and military will to actually implement it, as well as in terms of those foolish enough to place their trust in a nation that has left a swath of global destruction and failed states in its wake stretching from South Vietnam to Libya and back again, can be described only as monumental.

This strategy can almost certainly be used to finally destroy Syria. It cannot however, be used to do any of the things the US will promise in order to get the various players necessary for it to succeed, to cooperate.

Almost certainly there are measures Syria, its allies Iran and Hezbollah, as well as Russia, China, and all other nations facing the threats of Western hegemony can take to ensure that US forces will not be able to take and hold Syrian territory or ultimately succeed in what is essentially an invasion in slow motion. Already the US has used their own ISIS hordes as a pretext to operate militarily within Syrian territory, which as predicted, has led to this next stage in incremental invasion.

An increase in non-NATO peacekeeping forces in Syria could ultimately unhinge Western plans altogether. The presence of Iranian, Lebanese, Yemeni, Afghan, and other forces across Syria, particularly bordering “zone” the US attempts to create, may offer the US the prospect of a multinational confrontation it has neither the political will, nor the resources to undertake.

The ability of Syria and its allies to create a sufficient deterrence against US aggression in Syria, while cutting off the logistical lines the US is using to supply ISIS and other terrorist groups operating in Syria and Iraq will ultimately determine Syria’s survival.