Rick Rozoff: Military Buildup Around Syria Points To Another Invasion

by Rick Rozoff
Writer, Dandelion Salad
July 23, 2013

John Robles
Voice of Russia
July 23, 2013

The dressing down and attempted humiliation of General Martin Dempsey, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by superannuated life-time bureaucrat John McCain, was another in a long series of attempts to push the U.S. military into another act of aggressive war by those controlling Washington. With the amassed U.S. and NATO military forces and hardware around Syria and the advancements made by the Syria Army, the likelihood that the U.S. will invade and commit another act of aggressive war against yet another country they have helped to destabilize and tear apart seems very likely. Regular Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff spoke to the VOR about these matters and more.

This is John Robles I’m speaking to Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Hello Rick. How are you this evening?

Rozoff: Very good John.

Robles: What is going on with all the saber rattling surrounding Syria? Do you think there is a chance that the U.S. may be up to something, or that they are planning an invasion in the near future?

Rozoff: They certainly intend direct military action against the government of Syria, and you characterized it correctly by using the term saber rattling. Gunboat diplomacy and brinkmanship and other similar terms from the colonial era I think also are apropos in this context.

What is most disturbing, and it’s something that many of your listeners may be aware of by now, but just today the Senate confirmation, actually reconfirmation, hearings for the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and his second-in-command, General Martin Dempsey, was dressed down rather rudely and even brusquely by Senator John McCain, who in recent years with his colleagues, Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, and until recently, until he retired, Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut formed a triumvirate of U.S. Senators, almost like the imperial Roman proconsuls that would travel around the world inciting hostilities against other countries. We’ve talked about this on your show before. A traveling war circus is how I characterized it, but you know, McCain and Graham being the two survivors of that trio.

McCain, in so many words humiliated, this is really pretty stark. I’ve just seen the transcripts of it and accounts of it but I can imagine what this looks like, to see a superannuated, life-time bureaucrat like McCain, dress down and attempt to humiliate the head of the U.S. armed forces and essentially accusing him of being cowardly and indecisive and irresolute because he won’t go to war against Syria – there is no other way of interpreting McCain’s comments – and then finally browbeating Dempsey, the same Dempsey who had warned earlier this year, in February, that enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria ipso facto constituted war, an act of war, which in fact it would be. Finally, coaxing out of Dempsey the statement that no options were off the table and that “kinetic strikes”, meaning air strikes and strikes on the warships in Mediterranean, were something the U.S. military has considered, so I can’t think of any other way of describing or characterizing or interpreting the comments both by McCain and by the U.S. military chief Dempsey except an avid and almost passionate desire to have some sort of military action taken against Syria.

Now we have to remember, this occurs immediately after joint massive military exercises in two countries bordering Syria led by the United States. That is, in both Jordan and Turkey, almost simultaneously. They overlapped towards the end of June, Eager Lion as it was called in Jordan, where there are 8,000 troops from 19 nations. These are NATO nations, the U.S. and its allies, and their Arab allies, through the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

The reports came out, and they were picked up by the Voice of Russia, as a matter of fact, from other press-wires, that the US intended during the course of those exercises, to retain 700 troops in Jordan along with Patriot Interceptor missiles of the sort that NATO has now deployed in Turkey and military aircraft, I believe F-16s. And in Turkey you had similar large-scale multinational exercises between NATO members and their Arab allies, involving NATO AWACS surveillance aircraft and 50 fighter jets.

So, you see the potential for military buildup. Some of these are annual exercises, like the Eager Lion one in Jordan, but the fact they’re being held in countries bordering Syria, with just the cast of characters you would expect to participate in an attack on Syria, something comparable, perhaps even on a larger scale perhaps, comparable to what was used against Libya two years ago and were used in the invasions and occupation of Iraq both in 1991 and in 2003.

So, we have all this going on at the same time. Incidentally increasing encroachment around Syria, and incidentally one step removed, around Iran, with the U.S. son-of-Star-Wars missile shield system, Patriot missiles and eventually Standard Missile 3 and other interceptors and radars, is a pretty ominous development. It suggests that again they’re preparing for war.

And we have to recall that NATO has only twice before deployed AWACS and interceptor missiles, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, and that was in 1991 for the attack against Iraq, and in 2003 for the invasion of Iraq.

One would be hard-pressed to miss the analogy in the fact that the military buildup, and this is all compounded by, and this came across in the Senate hearings today, it is compounded by the fact that Martin Dempsey, the head of the US military, acknowledged, what everyone now knows, is that the tide has turned inside Syria, where government forces and their allies have scored fairly decisive, and I think at this point irreversible gains against internal rebel forces and their foreign mercenary allies, or backbone, and the more desperate the situation becomes for the U.S. and its NATO partners’ proxies inside the country, I think the more apt the hotheads like McCain and company are going to be in terms of pushing a direct U.S. military aggression.

Robles: How far along would you say is the political buildup compared to before the invasion of Libya, before the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan? Do you see the same mechanisms and strings being pulled? Or was McCain kind of on his own here? What’s going on there?

Rozoff: I am glad you asked that question, particularly about Libya. This is maybe a study on two different scenarios, opposing scenarios, with Iraq which eventually culminated in the U.S.-British attack on and invasion of the country in March of 2003, there’d been a build-up, I think in a lot of people’s minds for a year and a half since events of 9-11 2001. It was clear that the U.S. was going to use those attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. as a pretext for invading Iraq.

So there was plenty of time to anticipate and to organize against what was maybe not an imminent, but was certainly an unavoidable, inexorable threat to Iraq, whereas with Libya it was a matter of only some six weeks between the first protest that erupted in Benghazi, and the first U.S. and British cruise missiles that landed inside the country.

So, the turnaround time was appreciably abbreviated, in relation to previous wars such as that eight years earlier in Iraq in 2003.

I fear, then, that the Libya precedent is more likely to be at work with Syria, that with the turn of a dime, if you will, that the U.S. and company, which has amphibious assault ships right in the Eastern Mediterranean now, which participated for example, in the Jordanian exercises and in the official U.S. Armed Forces publication Stars and Stripes, they had an article four-five days ago the actual quote was “U.S. amphibious assault navy vessels are parked off the coast of Syria”, or words to that effect.

It is clear that the U.S., through the Sixth Fleet in Mediterranean and NATO through Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean, the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, that they have the military assets, particularly the naval ones, to put in place very quickly.

You were listening to an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff, the Owner and Manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Visit our site in the near future for the conclusion of this interview.



West Losing On All Fronts In Syria by Finian Cunningham

British Govt. Encourages Chemical Weapons Use In Bahrain, Syria by Finian Cunningham

Rick Rozoff: For U.S. and NATO Self-Defense Is Act Of War

Russia Must Beware of West Chicanery Over Bahrain, Syria by Finian Cunningham

Cheerleading Another Bloodbath in the Name of Peace by Felicity Arbuthnot

10 thoughts on “Rick Rozoff: Military Buildup Around Syria Points To Another Invasion

  1. Pingback: Obama’s ‘Guns of August’ by Ed Ciaccio | Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Chemicals Seep Through the Cracks in Western-led Axis Against Syria by Finian Cunningham | Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: The BBC’s Syrian Chemical Weapons Coverage: An Exercise in Imperial Deception By William Bowles | Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Western Governments and Their Propaganda Machine, aka MSM Ignoring Latest Massacres in Syria by Finian Cunningham | Dandelion Salad

    • Rick has his own blog now, so I doubt he’ll read your comment, Ariel.

      Click the link at the top of the post, and post your comment there, if you wish.

      My guess, Rick knows full well what’s going on (everywhere).

  5. What madness! It’s pretty clear to me, even if nobody else seems to realize it, that if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Middle East conflagration that leads to another world war which we’ve been dreading our entire lives, will be upon us.

    Where is the national debate? Do Americans really want to provoke another global war? Are we willing to live with the consequences of attacking Syria (as well as the unforeseen consequences, which are always greater)?

    This is the step that will release a Pandora’s box of ills upon Americans. I don’t know how I can state it more vehemently. We should not attack Syria. In fact, we should be withdrawing from all involvement in that arena, and let matters take their course. Stop paying the mercenaries. Stop arming the rebels. We have no business in the internal affairs of Syria. None. This country does not threaten the U.S. They are not going to attack us, and there is no valid reason to get involved militarily in this country… that is if you consider the interests of all the Americans who are not in the tiniest, wealthiest percentage, who are usually war profiteers.

      • I agree, but ~

        Russia is not an innocent party, and the entire post Ottoman (Sykes-Picot) Syrian “experience” was blighted from the imperial get-go in 1946.

        “America” is the leading pack brand. The product is war and the US goal is Superempire. Their principal agency and instrument is NATO, so Washington’s racketeers urge their Executive and Congress to rush in where even devils fear to tread.

        Their real intention is unclear & covert, and the “international” strategy obscure. In Iraq there was no strategy, only clandestine geopolitical ambition. The Syrian “crisis” (how many times have we heard that before?) should be prefaced with the epithet “engineered…” as it reeks of the same caliber of pretext (in other words, tactical deception.)

        So what should be done? This barren “country” called Syria was invented by bureaucrats and evolved out of the failure of Nasser’s UAR. It is a basket-case casualty of post-imperial, post-WW2 deviance. My local MP here in the UK has quoted me a death toll of 93 000 already. Refugees and the displaced are numbered in the millions.

        The real crisis is humanitarian, therefore moral, legal and administrative. All the leading players in this genocidal fiesta of cruelty are guilty of colossal crimes against humanity. There is no moral order in our world, there are only default “programmes” reinforced by political necessity.

        Ariel is right, but…the consequences of apathy could be even more pernicious, as this risk of escalation is a threat to the entire region, indeed the world. I see the covert intention as Sunni domination of Shiite Iran & mastery of Levantine/ Eurasian heartlands through overwhelming force, by the creation of a new US empowered Ottoman-Zionist-NATO coalition.

        What is the alternative? The permanent membership of the UN Security Council (whose “security?”) is token window dressing.

        The US carries the biggest stick. It is the citizenship of the US who must determine how that stick should be transformed from dead wood into a living tree, and how and where it should be planted.

Comments are closed.