Debunking Trump’s Casus Belli
Intelligence community insiders are getting
restless for a whistleblower to step forward.
By Philip Giraldi
Wars and
rumors of wars have been dominating news cycles
of late. No one should be surprised that there
is a “former intelligence officer” subculture
that is particularly noticeable in the
Washington, DC, area. We stay in touch,
communicate regularly, have lunches to discuss
the “old days,” and sometimes organize to raise
objections to some of the foreign follies
pursued by the U.S. government. Though we often
try to stay under the radar, making personal but
discreet contact with sympathetic congressmen
and journalists, we sometimes work together to
get letters to the editor or articles placed in
national publications. More rarely we appear on
television or radio to discuss our own
perspectives on current events.
There is
an additional element that helps shape our
perceptions—namely, that many of us are in
contact with friends who are still in harness
with the Intelligence Community or who are
working as post-retirement contractors. Though
current employees generally are highly cautious
about what they are doing, and we are acutely
aware that it is not a good idea to ask anything
specific, frustration over specific governmental
policies and actions is occasionally vented.
Recently,
with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian
airfield, there has been a considerable
loosening of the normal restraints that
employees exercise regarding their duties. Even
more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed
skeptically by many in the community, the
decision by President Trump to retaliate with
force against Damascus has been met with dismay
among many of those closest to the action in the
Middle East.
|
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is
Independent Media
|
Many
officers have expressed frustration and anger
over what has taken place—not to challenge
national-security policy, which they leave up to
the politicians, but because they are perceiving
a tissue of lies, as in Iraq. They have
expressed their concerns in very specific ways
to former fellow officers and friends. For the
first time, people on the inside of the process
are really talking. And we have been listening,
astonished at the level of anger.
The
insiders note that no evidence has been produced
to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces
dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. U.S.
monitors, who had been warned by the Russians
that an attack was coming, believe they saw from
satellite images something close to the Russian
account of events, with a bomb hitting the
targeted warehouse, which then produced a cloud
of gas. They also note that Syria had absolutely
no motive for staging a chemical attack. In
fact, it was quite the contrary, as Washington
had earlier that week backed off from the U.S.
position that President Bashar al-Assad should
be removed from office. The so-called rebels,
however, had plenty of motive. Many intelligence
officials have concluded that the White House is
lying and concealing what it knows.
Some
employees have even expressed a desire that a
whistleblower might step forward to demolish the
administration’s casus belli, though none
has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on
the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations
for expanding the war, including seemingly
active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe
havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad
must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid
escalation of military activity that inevitably
will result in conflict with Russia.
Philip
Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive
director of the Council for the National
Interest.
This
article was first published by
The
American Conservative
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
