Untitled

#The Memo

 

The memo can be found [here](http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf)

 

 

 

It's a DIA memo partially declassified under FOIA by Judicial Watch, and it was written in 2012.

 

 

 

- The memo states : ”THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA”.

 

 

- It also states that : ”THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION".

 

 

 

- Elsewhere, it says : ”OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS".

 

- And also : "IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME"

 

- And finally : "ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA".

 

 

 

So, to review: US intelligence knew that the anti-Assad opposition were primarily made up of radical Islamists (i.e. Salafists, AQ, and the Muslim Brotherhood). The memo also states that the West (which would include the US), the Gulf States, and Turkey support this opposition and their efforts to control Eastern Syria. The memo does not split hairs and delineate that we only support the "moderate elements". In fact, that term or related terms describing moderate rebels appear nowhere in the memo. Underscoring that the US was supporting the opposition regardless of its makeup, the last two passages cited make clear that the "supporting powers" (elsewhere defined as the West, Gulf States, & Turkey) actually want a Salafist principality (Islamic State) to emerge in Eastern Syria, because it would undermine Assad's hold on Syria.

 

 

 

The "moderate rebels" narrative is just not present in the DIA memo. The moderate rebels only seem to exist in State Department PR, White House PR, and mainstream media. If the moderate rebels ever did exist at this stage in the Syrian War, they were likely just cutouts for funneling money and weapons into the arms of Al Nusra (i.e. AQ), ISIS, and other radical Islamists.

 

 

 

Some people say that the creation of ISIS and the arming of this and other Islamist jihadist groups were an unintended consequence of Obama's and Hillary's policy, and not a goal of that policy itself. But can we trust that it was merely an unintended consequence? The DIA memo makes clear that the Syrian opposition, even though it was dominated by Islamist extremists, was supported by the West. This support even included support for their efforts to take Eastern Syria and establish a Salafist principality (Islamic State) there. And while the memo doesn't specify if this support was material support or just "cheering them on", there is an abundance of evidence documenting that US arms ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists in Syria/Iraq.

 

 

 

The Obama administration and their cheerleaders/apologists can always claim "unintended consequences" as way to give themselves plausible deniability, but how plausible are their denials in practice?

 

 

 

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the consequences of the Obama administration’s actions were entirely predictable. Even if they did support factions they deemed ‘moderate’, did they not expect that weapons, aid, and money would eventually get snatched up by the most powerful forces driving the opposition in Syria, i.e. Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Were they not warned by the DIA that continued support for the opposition would result in a “Salafist principality” emerging in Eastern Syria (a warning which unfortunately turned out to be true)? And what was their expected endgame for Syria? Even if they *were* able to topple Assad by supporting the so-called "moderate elements", did they expect that these same moderates would assume control of Syria after Assad being deposed?  No reasonable person could expect such a thing. Even if we trust the administration’s “moderate rebels” claims,  the DIA memo makes clear that these factions were outmatched by the larger players driving the opposition, the Islamist extremist factions. In other words, the Obama administration **knew** these groups were the main composition of the opposition, and yet did not withdraw their support.

 

 

 

A reasonable observer would come to no other conclusion than that the Obama administration's intended policy was to topple Assad by any means necessary, including by instrumentalizing extremist groups for this purpose, such as the ones that would declare themselves as ISIS in 2013. This policy also  meant that as long as it was necessary for carrying out regime change in Syria, they did not care if extremists took control of the post-Assad country. Such an eventuality, by the way, would have almost certainly resulted in massacres of Shiites, Christians, and Yazidis (the State Department even [admits now that ISIS is engaging in genocide against these groups](http://www.newsweek.com/isis-genocide-kerry-yazidis-christians-shia-437944)).

 

 

 

#Further resources pertaining to the memo

 

 

The DIA memo described above has existed in the public domain since May 2015, when Judicial Watch wrote this [press release](http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/).

 

 

 

If you are looking for a good way to share this info in an easily digestible format, journalist Ben Swann gave an excellent [4-minute summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA&feature=youtu.be) of this memo and its implications.

 

 

 

General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the DIA at the time the memo was written, also corroborated this interpretation of the memo in [an interview on Al Jazeera television](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg), naming the Obama administration’s Syria policy as a “willful decision” made in spite of the intelligence revealing the true nature of the Syrian opposition. [Full transcript of Flynn interview here](http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michael-flynn-160104174144334.html). Keep in mind, Flynn gave this interview as the former DIA head, and not as a Trump surrogate. The interview was given [9 July 2015](http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2015/07/blame-isil-150728080342288.html) which is only 23 days after Trump announced his candidacy — long before Flynn was acting as an advisor for Trump (this was first reported [Feb 26, 2016](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-advisor-idUSMTZSAPEC2Q6G3JRH)).

 

 

 

#Additional substantiation

 

 

If it wasn’t already evident from the DIA’s intelligence assessments, it was [reported in December 2012](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9735988/Syrian-rebels-defy-US-and-pledge-allegiance-to-jihadi-group.html) that 29 different opposition groups had pledged fealty to Jabhat Al-Nusra, a known Al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria.

 

 

 

Shockingly, despite the foreknowledge that the anti-Assad Syrian opposition was primarily driven by extremist factions such as Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the administration continued their assistance to the opposition. In June 2014, Obama requested [$500 million to train and arm “vetted” members of the Syrian opposition](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-asks-congress-500-million-aid-syrian-opposition-article-1.1845550), and later [signed](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-obama-idUSKBN0JV06Z20141217) the $1.1 trillion dollar omnibus which [contained](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/09/omnibus-gives-500-million-worth-of-weapons-aid-to-appropriately-vetted-syrian-rebels/) this allocation.

 

 

 

Separate lines of evidence also corroborate that the Obama administration is complicit in enabling Islamist extremists in Syria, indicating that they [trained](https://archive.is/xALnk), [armed](http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/), and [aided](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/19/u-s-humanitarian-aid-going-to-isis.html) ISIS and other terrorist groups fighting in Syria.

 

 

 

Under scrutiny, it was also clear that the administration’s preferences were to favor ISIS over Assad’s government. You can [see State spokesman Mark Toner here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxs7yog_CjM) refusing to state that the Obama administration would prefer to see Assad’s soldiers to retake Palmyra rather than it remaining under ISIS control. The subtext here is, of course, that given a choice between rooting for Assad or for ISIS, the administration chose to root for ISIS.

 

 

 

#The other DIA memo : Hillary Clinton, the CIA, and covert weapons smuggling into Syria from Benghazi

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton was always [one of the biggest administration proponents](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-history-with-arming-syrian-rebels/) of arming the Syrian opposition. Moreso even than Obama! But there was also significant resistance to such proposals from people like Senator Rand Paul. He has contended in the past that arming these factions, many of which we had no idea who they even were, would [probably lead to slaughter of Christians in Syria](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdg8qLvggY&feature=youtu.be&t=115). Unfortunately, he turned out to be correct.

 

 

 

The question is, if Clinton desired so strongly to arm the anti-Assad forces, would she have allowed herself to be stymied? Would she have limited her options to overt, legal means? Or could she have collaborated with the CIA to do so? The CIA and State Department have had a very close relationship ever since the Dulles brothers, this is a fact. And the CIA have been involved in more regime changes than you could probably count on your fingers and toes together. Here’s the other thing — we know now that there was a CIA annex in Benghazi just minutes away from Ambassador Stevens’s Consulate. Benghazi had a strong CIA presence.

 

 

 

A [separate DIA memo released under FOIA by Judicial Watch](http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pgs.-1-3-2-3-from-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version1.pdf) sheds light on possible CIA-assisted arms smuggling of former Gaddafi weapons caches into Syria to arm the opposition. [Fox News reported on it](http://video.foxnews.com/v/4242465982001/us-intel-knew-about-weapons-going-from-benghazi-to-syria/?#sp=show-clips) after the memo was made public in May 2015. Even back in January 2013 though, before the DIA memo was public, Rand Paul famously [questioned Hillary Clinton about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH0CDErX1rg&feature=youtu.be&t=136) when she was giving testimony to the Senate under oath. While she denied any knowledge of arms shipments out of Benghazi, the DIA memo (written in October 2012) was indeed copied to the Secretary of State, indicating Hillary probably lied under oath here in order to hide the truth. Rand Paul [recently reaffirmed his belief that the CIA was assisting with weapons transfers from Libya to Syria at Hillary’s request](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBHfCMpVdOQ&feature=youtu.be&t=263).

 

 

 

Hopefully more information regarding Hillary’s role in covert arms smuggling will be uncovered in the future.

 

 

 

 

#The verdict

 

 

 

ISIS would not exist but for the machinations of Obama and Hillary in Libya/Syria/Iraq.

 

 

 

Despite the warnings from their intelligence agencies, Obama and Hillary still armed/aided/trained/funded the Syrian opposition in order to topple Assad.

 

 

 

They do bear responsibility for creating ISIS. George W. Bush undoubtedly deserves blame too, for invading Iraq in the first place. Paul “Jerry” Bremer does as well for how the occupation was conducted. However, ISIS's rise was not 100% in the cards at the time Obama took office. Hillary and Obama midwifed it into existence.

 

 

 

Their policies helped ISIS expand into Eastern Syria, which in turn helped ISIS to launch offensives on Western Iraq.

 

 

 

Moreover, Obama and Hillary did the Libya regime change, another terrible idea, which is part of the ISIS story as well. Due to the poor security situation in post-Gaddafi Libya, and given that much of the country's territory was taken by radical Islamists (who comprised a large part of the Libyan rebels we backed there), post-Gaddafi Libya was a jihadist playground, and it served as a crucial nidus for the nascent Islamic State.

 

 

 

Trump’s contentions that Obama and Hillary are the “founders” of ISIS may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it falls into the category of truthful hyperbole. There is undeniable evidence that they were willfully complicit in aiding ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, in order to further their primary goal in the region — which was never eliminating ISIS, but rather, deposing Assad.