Who is Khorasan? What does Khorasan even mean?

ISIS - Islamic State in Iraq & Syria Isis - Mother of Horus, god of war Sisi - President of Egypt ISI - Inter-Services Intelligence
— U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) June 14, 2014

Our Spin on How the Mideast Spiraled into War

Cable news networks are not supposed to provide background to current events. Poorly informed audiences are easier to frighten. As a rule, our media partners try not to provide perspective.

However, sometimes a superficial attempt to put events into context is better than none.  Case in point: the present unrest in the Middle East. Having lit the match, like any good arsonist, we want to distance ourselves from the fire. Mideast Spiraling in War and Terror, a recent CNN article, hides our tracks through charred forests.

First stop: Libya.

Gaddafi was overthrown by our NATO partners. Although they now have the run of the country, the jihadists played only a supporting role in toppling Gaddafi.  For the Department, Libya is a fiasco rivalled only by Iraq. Thoughtfully, CNN has completely written us out of Libya's history.

Next stop: Syria.

The armed opposition to Assad is largely comprised of hard-line Islamist groups including al-Nusra, ISIS and al-Qaeda. Moderates represent only a fraction of the firepower arrayed against Assad.  CNN says "rebels want to end the rule of al-Assad." Of course for extremist rebels, the endgame is Islamic rule. 

The video accompanying the article includes a map in which Syria and Iraq have been disappeared:

By showing Islamic State in control of all of Syria and Iraq, CNN makes the situation in the Middle East look bleaker than it really is. This wild distortion isn't fully qualified by correspondent Jim Sciutto in his narration of the video. Although Sciutto says IS/ISIS has "taken over more than a third" of Iraq, concerning ISIS in Syria, Sciutto says, "it was one of several rebel groups that was fighting the regime of Bashar al Assad." Of course, ISIS continues to fight the Syrian government.  The map, paired with Sciutto's narrative, wildly exaggerates IS successes. It overlooks Syria's role as the region's strongest bulwark against Islamic State.  Should we ever decide to attack Syria, CNN's audience won't think we're out of our minds.

CNN knows better than to let facts get in the way of a promising new narrative. In the video Jim Sciutto says, "When you look at these crisis, each one has brought a different policy response: in Syria, no intervention..." No intervention? Of course, in June we publicly admitted that we're aiding jihadists groups fighting the Syrian government.  Our continued support for various jihadist groups in Syria protects ISIS by diverting Assad's forces.  

How does CNN explain what happened in Iraq? 

Since spilling into Iraq from Syria...  No need to explain how that happened. No need to point out that we supported the efforts of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to train and arm thousands of Syria-bound jihadists; that we ourselves supplied jihadists fighting in Syria with aid, training and weapons. No need to explain that these policies wrecked Syria's ability to secure its territory and thereby created sufficient instability in Syria for ISIS to grow roots and now "spill into Iraq."  

Is CNN effective? We think so. Readers reacted as we might have hoped to this rewriting of Mideast history. Instead of blaming the Department for bombing otherwise stable nations like Libya and aiding jihadists from Tripoli to Aleppo, CNN's audience is learning--through reports like this one--to blame the locals. 

Readers of the CNN article said they liked this comment best: 

Mission accomplished.

New Twitter Account Is More Than a Stage to Showcase Terrorist Groups in the Guise of Trolling Them

We use our new Twitter account to promote Terrorists and
 intimidate analysts who don't abide by our playbook. 

Four years ago we launched @FearDept to promote publicize threats to the Homeland. Based on the success of that venture, in 2013 the Secretary of Fear authorized an expansion of our social media operations. Our new account is called @ThinkAgain_DOS (Dept Of State).

"Think Again" is the moto of our newest public relations and thought-policing initiative. The ostensive, publicly acknowledged purpose of the account is to strike back against Terrorists at a moment's notice whenever they terror-tweet. In other words, to troll them.

Some background. Once the destabilization of Syria was underway, the Secretary of Fear asked staff how some of the smaller terrorist groups could get noticed and attract followers. It had come to his attention that even some important terror groups like Al Nussra only have a few thousand followers. Sec Fear identified the need for a stage, a veritable security theater, where up-and-coming terror groups could make a name for themselves; a cyberspace where they could work on developing their infamy.  It occurred to us that if the Department were to follow some terrorist organizations on Twitter, it could enhance their visibility. Sec Fear's recognition of the need to raise the public profile of Twitter Terrorists was the inspiration behind @ThinkAgain_DOS. Pointing to the big picture, the Secretary explained:

Over time, enhancing the profile of Twitter Terrorists ought to help our corporate partners fund new and profitable counter-twitter-terrorism, cyber-warfare, and surveillance initiatives.  

However, our new Twitter account is more than a stage to showcase terrorist groups in the guise of trolling them.  Observers have noticed it serves another, rather insidious purpose.

Jonathan Krohn (@JihadiStuff) told CNN that we "target journalists and analysts with as much verve as attacking jihadis." Krohn's observation was grounded in his firsthand experience interacting with @ThinkAgain_DOS:

We had publicly insinuated that Krohn, an American writer and journalist, works for the Terrorists:

Aris Roussinos (@arisroussinos), a crisis reporter for Vice Magazine, observed of our new Twitter account:

More than a stage for promoting up-and-coming terrorists, @ThinkAgain_DOS provides a platform from which staff can insult, heckle and harass independent analysts and journalists.  This is important because with respect to our operations in Syria, there are voices we would like to silence.

To help Israel dominate its neighborhood, we have been trying to weaken the Syrian state. It's a policy that has resulted in over 150,000 deaths. So far, we have avoided criticism by blaming Assad on the one hand, and on the other, sending American celebrities to Syrian refugees camps to plead that the world do something. Of course, the revolving door between the Department and various human rights organizations has also helped us dodge criticism.

In Libya we funnelled about $500 million to al-Qaeda aligned groups. Likewise, it's no secret that the backbone of our Syria policy entails supporting armed resistance groups who depend on the muscle of al-Qaeda. The Financial Times describes the Terrorists as the "invaluable allies" of the groups we directly support.

Al Qaeda: The friend of our friend...

Whenever independent analysts draw attention to our tactical alliances with bonafide jihadists, we either ask our media partners to ignore their reporting (the Sy Hersh treatment) or we try to intimidate them into silence (#ThinkAgain strategy).

Saudi Arabia is our ally in the war against Syria's secular regime.

In terms of producing quality anti-Syria propaganda, apart from the fact Syria's Christians overwhelmingly support Assad and the likelihood that Assad would win a fair election [update: he won], the most inconvenient fact about Syria is its secularism. It's awkward for us that many Assad supporters have a Western mindset. It's downright embarrassing that Syria under Assad is a more open society than the absolute monarchies of the Gulf, our allies against the Syrians.

Partisangirl (@Partisangirl) has been one of the sharpest critics of our efforts to destabilize Syria. @Partisangirl is a Sunni Muslim who doesn't want to see her country return to the Middle Ages. Many Syrians share @Partisangirl's assessment that Assad remains Syria's best hope for keeping Syria an outpost of secular values in a region where women are often treated as second-class citizens.

The following screenshot is illustrative of the kind of interactions we have with @Partisangirl. To support her arguments, @Partisangirl will cite a reputable journal like Foreign Affairs. Our social media team at @ThinkAgain_DOS will counter with a link to a story we got printed in one of the tabloids.

PartisanGirl quotes from Foreign Affairs, we link to tabloid stories.

Because @Partisangirl is a strong debater, we have learned to respond to her arguments by insulting her. For example, noticing a typo in one of her tweets, we asked her why she couldn't speak English properly.

You might be tempted to call our interactions with @Partisangirl undiplomatic. Absolutely. The last thing we want is a debate about Syria with someone who knows what she is talking about.

UPDATE:
We were engaged in a Twitter conversation with ISIS when @Partisangirl interrupted us, calling attention to our deception.

Partisangirl caught us trying to pass off an old photo of Lebanon for Syria.

Third Time Lucky

We had Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning at the Obama State Department, write an op-ed ("Syrian intervention is justifiable, and it's just," Washington Post, June 8) in support of bombing Syria.  We've reprinted seven key points with staff commentary.

1.  Don't believe us when we say we want regime change

For some reason China and Russia don't believe anything we say.

A.M. Slaughter: Henry Kissinger recently argued against intervention in Syria [“The perils of intervention in Syria,” Washington Post, June 3] on the grounds that it would imperil the foundation of world order. His analysis was based on a straw man, one put forward by the Russian and Chinese governments, that outside intervention would seek to “bring about regime change.”

Fear Dept: It goes without saying that any idea held by China or Russia is inherently worthless, any perception they share, mistaken. 

2. Our plan works like magic

A.M. Slaughter: The point of an intervention in Syria would be to stop the killing — to force Bashar al-Assad and his government to meet the demands of the Syrian people with reforms rather than guns. If the killing stopped, it is not clear what shape the political process would adopt, how many millions would take to the streets or whom different factions would support.

Fear Dept:  We’ve done a lot to stop the killing already.  For example, we’ve encouraged Gulf state dictators to supply Syrian rebels with guns and explosives. Some say we're providing serious logistics support to the rebels. We can't comment on allegations that Mossad trains militants bent on destabilizing Iran’s most important ally.

If we bomb a country with a pure intention for the killing to stop, the Universe will create the outcome we desire; we just can’t know what shape the manifestation of our desire will take in advance. 


3. Syrian institutions will remain intact

Minority religions are over-represented in Syrian institutions.

A.M. Slaughter: The majority of Syrians would almost certainly demand that Assad leave office, but by the ballot box or a negotiated political settlement that would leave the Syrian state in the sense of bureaucracy, the army, the courts largely intact. The chaos and horrific violence in Iraq resulted in large part from the US determination to destroy those institutions along with Saddam Hussein.

Fear Dept: All we have to do is bomb Syria and voilà! A negotiated settlement and elections will leave “bureaucracy, the army, the courts largely intact.” When it comes to the transfer of power, the fact that many of the key positions in these institutions are held by Alawites and allied minorities should not create any complications.

If the U.S. made a strategic mistake in Iraq it certainly wasn’t the initial decision to invade.

4. Libya is actually a success story

In Benghazi there were no militiamen to be seen.

A.M. Slaughter: As a cautionary tale, Kissinger and others point not only to Iraq but also to Libya. Kissinger lumped Libya in with Yemen, Somalia and northern Mali as a “blank space” on the map “denoting lawlessness.” Yet political scientist Juan Cole, who recently visited Libya, where he expected a fair degree of chaos, reports that in Benghazi, Misrata and Tripoli, “there were no militiamen to be seen, that most things were functioning normally, that there were police at traffic intersections, that there were children’s carnivals open till late, families out, that jewellery shops were open till 8 pm, [and] that Arabs and Africans were working side by side.”   The Economist reached the same conclusion early this year, reporting on relatively optimistic economic prospects.

Fear Dept: The fact our NATO air campaign did not eliminated all vestiges of civilization in several of the oldest cities in North Africa is a testimony to the righteousness of our decision to bomb the shit out of Libya.  And if we haven't ruined the economic prospects of one of the world's richest countries, that should count for something.   Slaughter was smart not to address the clashes in the Libyan countryside, the deteriorating situation in Mali, or the disaster that is Somalia in the wake of Ethiopia’s CIA-sponsored invasion. 

5. Let's hope nothing goes wrong

Not worth mentioning.

A.M. Slaughter: Kissinger is right that in the end NATO’s operations in Libya looked like an effort to remove Moammar Gaddafi from office, not because NATO planes took out command-and-control facilities in Tripoli from which Gaddafi and his generals were ordering civilian massacres but because NATO planes never sought to protect civilians supporting the regime against opposition troops. The response to this concern, however, is not to oppose intervention in Syria but to support a UN Security Council resolution with clear parameters about a limited use of force.

Fear Dept:  Our Security Council resolution on Libya said nothing about toppling Gaddafi, but we made that NATO’s mission anyway. For some reason China and Russia suspect we might pull the same stunt again.  In the past, Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that we don't need a Security Council approval for military action in Syria, suggesting the support of Arab league dictators ought to be sufficient.

Any use of force resolution would no longer be “limited” should the Syrians strike back against US, Turkish, NATO, or Israeli assets in the region. We're pleased Anne-Marie Slaughter does not think the possibility that a desperate Syrian regime would seek to draw Israel into the conflict is worth mentioning. 

6.  We have a plan to minimize civilian casualties

The civilian death toll from our military campaign will be zero.

A.M. Slaughter: Such a resolution, which would have to follow a request by the Arab League, should resolve to protect the establishment of no-kill zones by local Syrian authorities by whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground. These means would include the provision of intelligence and communications equipment, antitank and anti-mortar weapons, and, crucially, air support against Syrian government tanks and troops that seek to enter or overrun a zone. The provision of such support would also require the disabling of Syrian air defenses.

Fear Dept:  We have policies in place that should considerably reduce the civilian death toll from our military campaign.  None of the tens of thousands of innocent Syrian civilians that could reasonably be expected to die in our air campaign will be counted. That’s because the Secretary General of NATO does not count civilian deaths.  Moreover, the President calls the bodies of all military-age males found near strike zones “dead militants.” 

All the "no-kill zones" we carve inside Syria will provide a safe haven for friendly holy warriors from across the Middle East. We know these rebels will fight hard because many of them hate the fact that Syria is a secular state. They hate that Syria is not run by “genuine” Muslims of the Sunni sect. They hate that Syrian women have the freedom to walk the ancient streets of Damascus without head scarfs. On the other hand, they love getting paid in U.S. petrodollars. These fighters know the secular civilian population of Syria is a long way from being sufficiently terrorized to abandon support for Assad regime.  From bases protected by NATO air support, the holy warriors can hunt down Syrian soldiers and plot attacks against a variety of targets in Damascus. And nothing whatsoever the Assad regime does will protect ordinary Syrians from terrorism.  Nothing, that is, short of an effort to draw Israel into the conflict in hopes of generating a groundswell of popular support for its cause across the Muslim world.

"Whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground" includes extensive use of killer drones. 

7. Our motives in Syria are pure, our near genocides irrelevant

 People should not ask about the difference between
our support for Bahrain and Russia’s support for Syria.

A.M. Slaughter: Proposing this type of action would force the Russian and Chinese governments to come clean about the real motives for their positions. Even if Libya had never happened, would Russia really be willing to allow intervention in Syria? Assad would still be one of Moscow’s principal allies in the Middle East. Russia would still have port facilities at Tartus. It would still want to protect the principle that a govt can suppress popular demonstrations by any means it chooses, including the kinds of crimes against humanity, indeed near-genocide, that Vladi­mir Putin ordered in Chechnya at the turn of the century.

Fear Dept: Russia must “come clean” about their “real motives” for backing Assad. Of course, we have no obligation to explain why we’re selling a shitload of arms to Bahrain. Don't ask about the difference between our support for Bahrain and Russia’s support for Syria.  The department has a God-given right to defend the territorial integrity of our protest-stricken undemocratic client states.  Unlike in Syria, the protesters in Bahrain are peaceful. They have not taken up arms against the monarchy. We will go all-out to support heavily armed rebels (Libya, Syria), but the support we offer peaceful demonstrators is either stingy (Egypt, Yemen) or nonexistent (Bahrain, OWS).

Anne-Marie Slaughter recognizes that the “near genocide” that “Vladi­mir Putin ordered in Chechnya” is relevant to the debate about U.S. led military action against Syria, whereas more recent “near genocides” in Mesopotamia are not. For example, it would have been entirely inappropriate for Slaughter to have mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died "at the turn of the century" as a result of UN-imposed sanctions. It would have been equally inappropriate for Slaughter to have mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. Slaughter realizes our own "near genocides" in the Middle East are less relevant than Putin's in Central Asia.