Pentagon Correspondent: Joint Chiefs Warn Syria Intervention Is a Proxy War for Confrontation with Russia
March 12, 2012 • 6:11PM

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and their Chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, are continuing to make every possible and even impossible effort, as each of us should be doing, to avert the thermonuclear holocaust which British puppet Barack Obama will bring about if he is not stopped.

In immediate response to lunatic Obama's order to them to prepare military options for intervention into Syria, "high Pentagon officials" have spelled out to the New York Times exactly why there can be,— there must be no such intervention!

But the most critical, new aspect, is that here for the first time, they tell the American people something that they have known and acted on, but not stated, ever since they first heard Lyndon LaRouche's warning of a British Empire drive for immediate thermonuclear war, back at the time Obama, London and Paris together murdered Muammar Qaddafi in October 2011. Namely: that what is at issue here, is not Syria or Iran or any such thing, but rather all-out thermonuclear war with Russia (and China).

Thus, Times Pentagon correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller writes in her article, datelined March 11, that "senior Pentagon officials" told her that any U.S. intervention in Syria, has "the potential for starting a proxy war with Iran or Russia, two crucial allies of Syria." And even more ominously, Michele Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official, said in Washington last week, that "If we jump in with purely military instruments as the U.S., absent a broader strategy, we could very quickly hasten reactions from others, namely Russia and Iran, to bolster the regime AND START U.S. DOWN A ROAD TOWARDS GREATER CONFRONTATION."

Otherwise, as to Syria per se, an unnamed senior U.S. defense official told Bumiller that even creating "safe havens," or protected areas inside Syria for civilians, would be such a complex operation that military planners were "looking at a serious contingent of U.S. ground troops" to help establish and maintain them, should the United States take such a course of action.

Referring to the military operations in Libya that led to the assassination of Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi and a total breakdown of law and order, and the governing mechanism, one senior military official told Bumiller: "WE'VE BEEN SUCKED INTO THIS OPEN-ENDED ARRANGEMENT BEFORE, AND WE'RE NOT GOING THERE AGAIN." The official pointed out the hundreds of cruise missiles fired from U.S. ships and submarines — to take out Libya's air defenses so that European warplanes could operate freely above. Even then, the United States continued to supply ammunition and refueling planes and to fly combat missions.

The reference above to "the assassination of Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi," further shows that the Joint Chiefs had absorbed LaRouche's forecast which featured that event as the key turning-point towards nuclear war.

Some other defense officials told the Times that they are concerned about four tough challenges that such intervention in Syria offers:

* The risks in attacking Syria's plentiful and sophisticated Russian-made air defenses, which are located close to major population centers.

* Arming a deeply splintered Syrian opposition.

* The potential for starting a proxy war with Iran or Russia, two crucial allies of Syria.

* The lack, at least so far, of an international coalition willing to take action against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.