NATO Missiles In Turkey To Point At Syria
NATO has approved ofÂ stationing US-made Patriot missiles along Turkey’s border, for what it claims is “defense.” Over the past two years Syria has been fighting terrorists armed, funded, and equipped by NATO, of which Turkey is a member. TurkeyÂ has admitted its roleÂ in harboring and providing logistics for foreign fighters flooding across the border into Syria, many of whomÂ are confirmed members of Al Qaeda. Despite this, Syria has gone through extraordinary lengths to avoid a confrontation with Turkey.
Conversely, Turkey, over the years, has not only flown sorties into neighboring countries to strafe villages suspected of harboring Kurdish militants, they have also conducted land invasions in what the Western media calls “hot pursuits.” Despite NATO-member Turkey’s repeated violations of neighboring nations’ borders, and despite repeated protests from nations whose borders are regularly violated, the United Nations has taken no action, nor has the self-appointed “international community.”
Turkey sent troops and fighter jets into Iraq Wednesday in “hot pursuit” of Kurdish rebels who killed more than 25 Turkish soldiers in multiple attacks in the southern Turkish province of Hakkari. It was the first cross-border violence in five years between Turkish troops and Kurdish guerrillas who Turkey says shelter in northern Iraq.
A month earlier, TurkeyÂ was strafing villages in northern Iraq. In June 2012, the BBC reported in their article, “Turkey in new air strikes on Kurdish rebels in Iraq,” that:
Turkey’s military has confirmed further air strikes against Kurdish rebel bases in northern Iraq.
It said nine attacks were carried out by Turkish aircraft on hideouts of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), mostly in the Qandil region.
Last Wednesday the military said it had carried out similar strikes, a day after eight Turkish soldiers and 26 PKK rebels were killed in clashes.
Conversely, this same silent and complicit “international community” has warned that any mirroring strategy by Syria to likewise follow militants, harbored by Turkey, over its borders in “hot pursuit” will result in military intervention. CNN’s article titled, “NATO OKs Patriots and delivers warning: ‘Don’t even think about attacking Turkey’” reported:
‘Today NATO agreed to augment Turkey’s air defense by deploying Patriot missiles to Turkey. Turkey has asked for NATO’s support and we stand with Turkey in the spirit of strong solidarity,’ said NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
‘To Turkish people we say, we are determined to defend you and your territory. To anyone who would want to attack Turkey, we say, don’t even think about it.’
It appears then that the stationing of Patriot missiles along the Turkish-Syrian border is, in part, a means to give Turkey assurances of impunity as it continues facilitating increased, overt NATO aggression against Syria.
This is stated explicitly in the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution document, “Middle East Memo #21Â Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” which reads:
However, securing Turkeyâ€™s and Jordanâ€™s participation may be challenging because both Amman and Ankara appear reluctant to host a Syrian opposition army involved in large-scale operations. They fear Syrian vengeance in the form of terrorism or support for unrest on their own soil, and would have to be convinced that the risk was worth the effort; they may even need to be provided with security guarantees and assistance. In addition, Jordan and Turkey would fear that arming the opposition and escalating the fighting could lead to spillover into their own countries or into Iraq and Lebanon, inflaming strife throughout the region. Given the fragility of all of Syriaâ€™s Arab neighbors, stoking the flames of Syriaâ€™s civil war should not be undertaken lightly, and arming the opposition might require Western support to all of Syriaâ€™s neighbors to help them cope with spillover. (page 6)
The move to station the anti-aircraft systems on the Turkish-Syrian border also involves NATO attempting to incrementally deploy a no-fly zone over northern Syria. This is intended for carving out long-ago prescribed “safe havens” within which NATO-backed terrorists can operate while the US handpicked proxy regime can safely pose as administrators. This is also mentionedÂ in the Brookings report:
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 Annanâ€™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.” (page 4)
The West’s diplomatic manipulation has failed. And because the Brookings report found considerable complications with conducting a Libya-style air campaign over Syria, (because Syrian forces are not isolated and exposed in the same manner as Libyan government forces were) it was determined that while significant damage could be accomplished versus the Syrian military from the air, it would not guarantee regime change and may lead to the necessity for the West to either “fold” or “double down with a ground invasion” (page 11).
It appears then, with the deployment of Patriot missiles, the West will try to salvage the best of both options – creating a safe haven in the north of Syria by creating a no-fly zone, but without flying sorties over Syrian territory.
While NATO currently denies the missiles are intended for the creation of a no-fly zone, US Senator John McCain has openly admitted the missiles are to shoot down a Syrian jet, thus creating a psychological deterrence against the government’s further use of air power where safe havens are to be carved out. During the Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) “The Consequences of Inaction in Syria” talk, uploaded on November 28, 2012,Â McCain would state after being asked what should be done in Syria (shortly after 17:00):
The no-fly zone. Which by the way, does not mean that we go after Bashar’s air defenses. It means that we emplace anti-air missiles in place and I guarantee you, first Syrian aircraft we shot down that would be the last one to fly over a no-fly zone. A place where they – a Benghazi. A Benghazi where they can organize, where they can train where they can equip where we can find out who the good guys and the bad guys are in this effort to form a revolutionary council that will be effective. and also frankly to counter what is the increasing influence of Al Qaeda and extremists who are pouring in from all over the Middle East.
Of course McCain fails to disclose that the extremists he “fears” pouring into Syria,Â are primarily from the very city of BenghaziÂ he cited, a city he andÂ the late US Ambassador J. Christopher StevensÂ personally helped establishÂ as a region-wide terror-hub.
McCain would continue, identifying the Patriot missiles specifically as the weapon system of choice for establishing the no-fly zone he advocates:
I think Patriot missiles – now the Germans are moving some patriot missiles under some kind of weird circumstances but at least they are coming into Turkey. Or we could give them a limited number, a controlled number of MANPADS. But primarily I think it would just be a Patriot installation. Pilots are not going to fly into certain death. I don’t care how brave they are. And you shoot down one or two of them, they’re not going to fly there again. They may like Bashar al-Assad, but they like to live a little more.
McCain would continue by admitting the Turkish government does not have the support of its people in supporting NATO’s attempt to implement regime change in neighboring Syria.
The conspiracy has been documented, a US Senator has all but admitted why the missiles are going into Turkey – not to “defend” the NATO member as stated, but to impose a de facto no-fly zone over Syria. It remains to be seen what pretense NATO uses to finally execute this already decided-upon plan. Whatever it may be,Â a chemical weapons false-flagÂ or another fabricated “atrocity,” it is documented clearly that expanded aggression against Syria is premeditated, merely couched in superficial justification and the illusion that NATO is fighting Syria reluctantly after being “provoked.”