Everything you thought you knew about U.S. involvement in Syria — and animosity toward Russia — has instead flourished from confusion wrought by intentional miscommunication and birthed from the minds of avid propagandists.
We know this with a degree of certainty, thanks to award-winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, obtained perhaps the most naked evidence of hapless government duplicity resulting in an unknowable number of deaths and, astonishingly, even a preposterously harrowing likelihood of world war.
Communications between an active duty U.S. soldier and a security adviser, both unnamed by Hersh, prove the narrative proffered by corporate media and establishment politicians for months — that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had carried out an horrific and deadly chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians in Khan Sheikhoun — was a lie.
Should that not seem impactful enough, consider it was the assertion of a gruesome chemical attack by Assad against his own civilian populace which provided the putative impetus for U.S. retaliation in the firing of 59 missiles into the sovereign nation of Syria near Khan Sheikhoun, also resulting in a wholly unjustified number of civilian casualties.
Ineffectively destroying parts of a mostly-dormant airbase and killing innocents indeed, at the time, seemed a peculiar mission accomplished as broadcast news belched repetitively — and for good reason.
Beyond the determination Assad had not gassed his own, the U.S. knew there had been no chemical weapons incident, at all — and had been privy to cooperative intelligence among the warring parties that an airstrike would be carried out against a cache of weapons — characterized as a “legitimate military target” by the active duty soldier chat protocol with the adviser.
On April 6, 2017 — Hersh reported for German outlet, Die Welt — the American soldier seemed near panic in a communiqué to the security adviser, imploring,
“We got a fuckin‘ problem.”
“What happened?” the adviser asks. “Is it the Trump ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians? And that we’re pissing on the Russians?”
Soldier: “This is bad...Things are spooling up.”
Adviser: “You may not have seen trumps press conference yesterday. He's bought into the media story without asking to see the Intel. We are likely to get our asses kicked by the Russians. Fucking dangerous. Where are the godamn adults? The failure of the chain of command to tell the President the truth, whether he wants to hear it or not, will go down in history as one of our worst moments.”
Soldier: “I don't know. None of this makes any sense. We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military target) and there was collateral damage. That's it. They did not conduct any sort of a chemical attack [...]
“And now we’re shoving a shit load of TLAMs (tomahawks) up their ass.”
Adviser: “There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.”
Soldier: “I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The russian air defense system is capable of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal...we are still all systems go...
Adviser: “You are so right. Russia is not going to take this lying down.
“Who is pushing this? Is it coming from [General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of United States Central Command]?”
Soldier: “I don't know. It's from someone big though. . . . This is a big fucking deal.
“It has to be POTUS.
“They [the Russians] are weighing their options. Indications are they are going to be passive supporters of syria and not engage their systems unless their own assets are threatened..in other words, the sky is fucking blue.’”
In case you missed it, the unnamed security adviser brazenly suggests feckless U.S. military aggression in Syria pertains to a murky, but penultimate, goal with Iran — that, and the altogether foreboding indication Russia, a foe who should not be and the object of Western provocation, would outperform American forces should hostilities flare.
Communications between the pair of insiders continued the following day, April 7:
Recommended for You
Adviser: “What are the Russians doing or saying Am I correct that we did little real damage to Russia or Syria?”
Soldier: “We didn't hit a damn thing, thankfully. They retrograded all their aircraft and personnel. We basically gave them a very expensive fireworks display.
“They knew where ships were and watched the entire strike from launch to end game.
“The Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth about the weapons depot strike.
“They are correct.
“I guess it really didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump. Fuck.
“No one is talking about the entire reason we're in Iraq and Syria in the first place. That mission is fucked now.”
Adviser: “Are any of your colleagues pissed or is everyone going along with it and saying this is OK.”
Soldier: “It's a mad house. . . .Hell we even told the Russians an hour before impact.”
Adviser: “But they clearly knew it was coming.”
Soldier: “Oh of course.
“Now Fox is saying we chose to hit the Syrian airfield because it is where the chemical attacks were launched from. Wow. Can't make this shit up.”
Adviser: “They are. I mean, making it up.”
Soldier: “It's so fuckin evil.”
And, again, on April 8:
Soldier: “Russians are being extremely reasonable. Despite what the news is reporting they are still trying to deconflict and coordinate the air campaign.”
Adviser: “I don't think the Russia yet understands how crazy Trump is over this. And I don't think we appreciate how much damage the Russians can do to us.”
Soldier: “They're showing amazing restraint and been unbelievably calm. They seem mostly interested in de-escalating everything. They don't want to lose our support in the help with destroying Isis.”
Adviser: “But I get the get the feeling are simply trying this approach for as long as they feel it might work. If we keep pushing this current aggressive stance they're going to hit back.”
Die Welt ostensively withheld only information considered sensitive, including details pertaining to precise location and nature of operations — but, considering Hersh’ itinerant adherence to journalistic principles, the report should be examined with more than a grain of salt.
If, indeed, the communications prove true, the documents could reveal more about censorship, a possibly-rogue media establishment, and an undeniable foolishness — and, more keenly, helplessness — in the haphazard rush to many wars in the fulfillment of anachronistic goals.
We don’t need to be at war in Syria — nor should we be. And these communications prove, above all, those of us sounding the alarm for a year this addled Syrian conundrum would befall the U.S. had not done so in alarm — rather, in a growing awareness of the unscrupulous tactics possessed by an imperialist State circling the drain.