диссертация (1169605), страница 22

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 22)

the US, which has not been linked to this conspiracy). When mutual defensetreaties are involved (i.e. Article 5 of NATO), then this means that the actions ofone actor could dangerously involve the entire larger alliance. Secondly, thepattern of deceit in trying to justify an attack on Syria shows the desperatemeasures that certain governments will go to in order to not admit that they aresolely pursuing regime change. This means that they understand that their citizensand the world will not approve of a war launched on such grounds, and thereforethey need to manufacture a seemingly plausible reason to excuse their militant203YouTube ban: How Turkish officials conspired to stage Syria attack to provoke war. Autonomous Non-ProfitOrganization TV-Novosti, 30 Mar.

2014. Web. 29 May 2018. http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-phone-leak-861/.88actions. Finally, the tomb conspiracy reinforces the fact that Turkey is a majoractor in destabilizing Syria and that it continues to be a security threat there.Having had its conventional intervention plans scuttled by Russia’sdiplomatic handling of the Ghouta chemical weapons attack, and with its regionalLead From Behind allies reluctant to unilaterally intervene on their own, theUnited States constructed a massive internal proxy army to continue its regimechange goals in Syria. A declassified Pentagon report written in August 2012proves that the US knew about, and actually had a strategic interest in, the rise ofan ultra-extremist Islamic terrorist organization along the country’s border withIraq204.

This group eventually came to be known as Daesh, and it’s currently theworld’s most notorious terrorist organization.What had happened was that the US allowed this organization tometamorphasize into an internal proxy army that could carry out its regime changeobjective for it, thus accomplishing what the US itself was unable to do, which waswage a conventional war in Syria205. Just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban before it,however, Daesh seemed to rebel against its Western patrons and began pursuing itsown interests, some of which appeared to be contrary to America’s, such asinvading Iraq and threatening Baghdad. This development provided the‘convenient excuse’ to justify an American military response against theorganization and pave the way for the Pentagon’s return to Iraq.

Since this also wasa strategic aim of the US, it’s questionable whether Daesh ever in fact trulyrebelled, or if it was actually an agent for promoting their interests all along.Moreover, the US and Russia’s fight against Daesh would see the PYD-YPGKurds become a globally renowned name, which in turn fed into their desire toreap tangible political-administrative dividends after the anti-Daesh portion of theWar on Syria was completed. This forms the basis for the post-conflict204Department Of Defense Information Report. Op.

Cit.Milne S. Now the Truth Emerges: How the US Fuelled the Rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq. The Guardian. GuardianNewsAndMediaLimited,3June2015.Web.3January2018.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq.20589“federalization” scenario that has become popular in Western think tank circles asthe US tacitly preferred “solution” to the war.***The analysis shows that American policy toward the Middle East after theend of the bipolar order is an inherent part of the US global strategy aimed atestablishing the international liberal order with America’s domineering role basedon Western institutions. This strategy was a combination of realist – global powerprojection and presence, and liberal ideas and plans – democratization, making theworld similar to the American (Western) political and economic system.

Thiscombination manifested itself in neoconservative ideology which became theofficial American ideology determining its global and regional behavior.Neutralizing or removing any opposition to the American world order formationand promotion of its national interests became the primary goal of the policy of alladministrations since 1991. Concept of the Greater Middle East and its variationswere part of American global strategy making Arabic countries the testing field fornew mechanisms and norms of interference into domestic political life of variouscountries. After it was tested in Yugoslavia in 1999, concept and techniques ofregime change were broadly used in the Arabic countries.

This led todestabilization of the region, destruction of Iraq and Libya, growth of terrorism,beginning of severe competition among big regional powers with growingambitions of Turkey. Iran and Syria were also the objects of this policy aimed atserious restructuring of the distribution of power, but these two cases became socalled “hard cases”, and required rather sophisticated approaches to their solution.Policy toward Syria was constructed in the framework of the general Americanstrategy and general Middle Eastern strategy.

Since it did not go in accordancewith the acquired techniques, and with interference of Russia into the conflict, theUnited States had to apply agile strategy playing on the contradictions andambitions of regional players. Syrian conflict has been growing and unsolved as aresult of American efforts and foreign interference supporting opposition groups,90situation has become a disaster for the Syrian people and a serious problem for theworld community and the United Nations.91CHAPTER 3POLITICAL CRISIS IN SYRIA AND ITS INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION3.1. Activities of the United States and NATO in SyriaThe third chapter of the dissertation covers the tumultuous and fast-movingevents which occurred following the commencement of the US conventionalbombing campaign against Syria in September 2014 on supposed “anti-terrorist”pretexts against Daesh, and ends in December 2018.

Many dynamic events tookplace within this nearly three-year-long time period. A certain sequence will bepresented whereby everything during this timeframe is categorized according toone of three themes which also correspond to the subsections of this chapter.The first one deals with the US and NATO conventional actions againstSyria, and include such developments as the Pentagon’s support for antigovernment Kurdish separatists and Turkey’s open invasion of northern Syria. Themiddle part of Chapter 3 talks about Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syriaand correspondingly touches upon its Tripartite diplomatic initiatives with Turkeyand Iran and the resultant Astana peace process. Lastly, the final part of this post“Arab Spring” chapter concerns the fate of Syria after the war and the US tacitlyunderstood preferred scenario of “federalizing” (internally partitioning) the countryinto identity-centric statelets.

This format will allow one to more clearlyunderstand all of the complex and interconnected events in Syria which will enablethem to better understand intentions of the main actors and formulate somescenarios for the future development of the conflict.As the world stood in apparent shock at the devastating advances that theplanet’s most notorious terrorist group rapidly made in Iraq in the summer of 2014,the US began planning a military operation in order to exploit the situation underthe guise of bombing Daesh. President Obama authorized the Pentagon to strike92the group’s Iraqi positions on 7 August, 2014 206, and nearly a month and a halflater on 23 September, the US and its Gulf allies illegally did the same thing inSyria, thus officially internationalizing the conflict207.

Still, the US did not use thisnew state of affairs to directly attack the Syrian government or the Syrian ArabArmy. Instead, it scarcely attacked anything at all, delivering only token airstrikesthat didn’t alter Daesh’s military dynamics. This makes it seem as though the USwas strategically ‘corralling’ the group deeper inside Syria, since it appliedsymbolic pressure against some of its positions, but it never decisively acted toprevent its offensives anywhere inside the country.When the destabilization of Syria began in March 2011, the United Statessupported the opposition’s demands. The Obama administration urged PresidentBashar Assad to start a “serious dialogue” with the opposition to initiate what theUS described as a “democratic transition”. However the Syrian government tried toestablish order and prevent further growth of instability using forceful measures.As a result the United States imposed sanctions against President B.

Assadaccusing him of “human rights violations”. In April 2011 Washington imposedsanctions against Syrian government agencies and officials. In August 2011Barack Obama stated for the first time that President Assad must resign for thesake of the Syrian people. At the same time Washington’s open support for theopposition was diplomatic and had yet to enter into the military realm.At the beginning of August 2012 CIA got the official permission to helpterrorist groups. They gave them very important intelligence information aboutlocation and movements of the government forces, trained the fighters, andsustained permanent connection with the terrorist groups commanding center inAdana, Turkey (100 kilometers from the Syrian border), close to the Turkishmilitary base Injirlik which was used by the American military.

Характеристики

Список файлов диссертации