Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
April 24, 2012
PressTV has conducted an interview with Washington-based author and historian, Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, to further discuss the developing issue. The following is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Dr. Tarpley, let’s put this question to you as well. Our guest there in London is saying these are splinter groups not necessarily being commanded from a central center.
Do you think that these are groups that we could call them the arms of some other rather states, some other politicians deciding what they should do in Syria? How would you describe them?
Tarpley: I think there is a significant degree of centralization in the following sense. It’s the NATO states plus the reactionary feudal monarchies of the Gulf, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others.
The history of this, I think, is interesting you are dealing with death squads. They are indeed terrorists but the kernel, the hard core, the main force of what’s causing the trouble in Syria is these death squads and where did they come from.
Back in 2006, 2007 the US forces in Iraq found that their situation was almost untenable and Ambassador John Negroponte was brought in after a career in Central America and Latin America.
It was found that wherever Negroponte showed up in Central America, in Salvador that death squads would appear and begin essentially targeting population groups that the US wanted to attack or wipe out.
And sure enough that is what happened in Iraq around 2007. Negroponte arrived, death squads appeared. Now the death squads in this case were Sunni, extremist fanatics drawn from many, many areas, drawn from Saudi Arabia, from far away points in the world.
They began killing Shiites in particular in Iraq and that is what led to the civil war in Iraq in those years 2007, 2008. That is what allowed the United States to maintain their presence in Iraq.
Now at the time Negroponte did this, he was working with a man named Robert Ford it was his right hand man and sure enough Robert Ford then showed up in Damascus as the United States Ambassador.
I would add that in 2007, 2008 the original death squad plan known as the Salvadoran option included Syria. Syria was regarded as a unit with Iraq and so what they were doing was setting the basis at that time they merely needed to develop it further.
So I think you’ve got death squads in the center of it and then of course they’re joined by indigenous fanatics, indigenous criminal elements and then there is a thin veneer of civilians who are interested in political reform. The thing is they get lost in the shuffle. My own visit to Homs and Banias last year, this was never a peaceful rebellion, it was always armed; it was always based on killing.
Press TV: If we go ahead with the government’s claim and also the analysis that we’re hearing that these groups are after preventing this peace plan from working.
Dr. Tarpley who is going to benefit from the peace plan not working if we say that countries like Saudi Arabia, like Qatar, Turkey what the government in Syria says are the ones that are preventing this violence what kind of a solution are they looking for then and how would they benefit from rather the peace plan not working?
Tarpley: Well, the US and NATO goal, the US, the British, the French, NATO- it is regime change through some kind of coalition of the willing assuming that they can’t get their plan ran through the UN Security council because of the veto of Russia and of China.
I think you can also see in the Security Council in the last couple of meetings there is a clear division that Russia and China really would like this plan for observers to work in the sense of lowering the level of violence and pacifying the country.
Certainly there is a civilian opposition to the Ba’ath party and many of them that I met are actually in dialogue with the Ba’ath party. They engage in the political process that has been provided.
Indeed we are going towards elections at the present time, the goal however, if you look at Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Alain Juppe- the last couple of days they obviously don’t want the observer mission to work in that sense.
Now I’ve been skeptical about the observers, however, we must concede to the Russians that it has had some effect. Naturally the Western media still have all their articles: activists say, activists claim, this means the Syrian observatory in London which is a gaggle of Syrian expatriates of the Rifaat Assad clique.
Then there is the coordination, there is the group of Khaddam in Paris. So they all, they compete with an extravagant claims of deaths and so forth. We ought to hear what these observers have to say but of course we have got to watch out where these observers come from.
I’m not reassured by the fact that the head of the observer team is a NATO general by the name of Mood from Norway. That doesn’t seem to be a very good choice; he’s not likely to be very even-handed.
The other problem you have is that Ban Ki-Moon and the Political Chief of the United Nations, B. Lynn Pascoe, the political commissar of this mission alone with (Navanethem) Navy Pillay, they have discredited themselves.
Those are not international civil servants, they are not even-handed, they are not honest brokers- they are people who are looking for jobs- I would say in US-based multinational corporations at some future point. The one ingredient that you need to have is have the question of the death squads brought up.
Press TV: Dr. Tarpley, quickly if you can, I’d like to have your opinion on the basic, the main question here, which is will the Syrian crisis end without military intervention?
Can the Syrian crisis end without President Bashar Assad stepping down. What do you think?
Tarpley: I think it’s a great danger. Right now there is an attempt by the NATO powers to create a civil war from the outside. I don’t think they have the wherewithal for a civil war as we just heard eloquently stated but they will try.
Let’s look for a second at the former colonial power. Always a good place to look in these situations- that would be France, they ran Syria well into the 1940s. Could they do something? If we look at Paris today, we see the most pro-NATO president of France that we’ve had in recent years- Sarkozy. He just lost the first round; he is fighting for his political life.
Some would say this is the situation made to order for a wag the dog event. Some kind of provocation, some stunt, some false flag event that will be blamed on the Assad government despite the fact that comes from circles much closer to NATO in Brussels and use that for the armed intervention.
Because the NATO hopes for Syria come down to armed intervention using some pretext, either humanitarian or terrorist and the goal of course has been said to deprive Iran of an ally and to deprive Hezbollah of their strategic depth and thereby weaken the independent states of the Middle East.