Syria - What the Clinton Department of State Wanted for the Nation

With Bashar al-Assad's version of Syria now dead on arrival, a brief look back at history is quite interesting.  Thanks to WikiLeaks and the release of Hillary Clinton's U.S. Department of State emails to the world, we can see why Washington was cheering for  the ultimate downfall of Syria.

 

In an unclassified Department of State document dated November 30, 2015, we find the following with my highlights throughout:

 

 

Note that the document states that "a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States" and that "Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces."  It also states that the costs of military intervention to the United States could be "limited" if Washington takes steps to arm the Syrian rebels and use its air power to ground the Syrian Air Force.  The author of the document claims that a victory over the Assad regime would have two results:

 

1.) strategically isolate Iran

 

2.) Syrians would view the United States as a friend, not an enemy

 

What do you think the odds are that the rebel forces that have now taken Syria will view the United States as a "friend"?  Or that Syrian civilians will view the United States as acting in their best interest once the new leadership starts to implement its extremist Islamic views on the nation?

The document also states that Libya was an easier case when it came to direct military intervention by the United States against Muammar Qaddafi.  That said, how have things turned out in Libya?  Rather than bringing Libyans under a single umbrella, the nation is now divided into several rival governments/power centres and is now home to a wide range of Islamic jihadist groups as you can see on this map:

 

In my humble opinion and as an observer of history, I suspect that Syria, a nation made up of Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Turks, Druze, Isma'ilis and Shiite Muslims, will ultimately be divided geographically and socially along ethnic and religious lines.  While Bashar al-Assad may have been dictatorial, he did serve to generally keep the peace among these wide-ranging groups of people.  Now that control of the nation has fallen into the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a Sunni Islamic, Salafi-jihadist militant group that Washington has declared as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it will be interesting to see how tolerant they are of non-Sunni Syrians.  I'm guessing that they won't be terribly tolerant of those that they view as infidels.

 

Right now, we don't know how involved Washington was in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.  What kind of back channel negotiations took place with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Turkey, Israel and other players in the region that wanted to see an end to the Syrian nation and its close ties to Tehran?  Only time will tell just how convoluted the geopolitics are of the very brief military actions that saw an end to one of Israel's key foes in the Middle East.

In any case, as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations have shown the world, Washington's efforts at nation-building have been a complete and utter failure with a long series of unintended and painful consequences.  Syria will be no different.  In this case, you can assure yourself that any intervention by Washington was done on behalf of and at the behest of its proxy in the Middle East - Israel.

Syria's Civil War and Bashar al-Assad's Viewpoint on Russia, Iran, Israel and the United States

A recent interview with Bashar al Assad gives us some interesting insight into the seven-year long civil war in Syria and how the President of the Syrian Arab Republic feels about the progress that the government has made in battling back opposition forces, at least some of whom are funded and armed by Washington and his comments on Iran's involvement/presence in Syria, an issue that has been used by the United States and Israel to justify further actions against Iran.  Let's look at some excerpts from his interview with Al-ALAM TV which were posted on the Syria 360 Internationalist News Agency.

Let's start this posting with a map showing the current situation in Syria:

Syria is controlled by the following forces:

Red - Syrian government forces

Yellow - Kurdish Forces

Light Grey - Turkish and Rebel Forces

Green - Rebel Forces

Dark Blue - Occupied Golan Heights

As you can see, the Syrian government (with the assistance of Russia) has reclaimed significant portions of Syria, pushing rebel forces, ISIS and Turkey to the edges of Syrian territory.

Current military activity is taking place in southern Syria around Daraa as shown here:

The Syrian Air Force is involved along with the Syrian Arab Army which is using Grad rockets, mortars and missile launchers to repel rebel forces.

The United States is active in the Iraqi border region on the east side of Syria where their al-Tanf base is located within Syrian territory as shown here:

U.S. and Magaweer al-Thowra (the anti-government Revolutionary Commando Army formerly known as the New Syrian Army) forces exchanged heavy fire in this area on June 21, 2018.   

With that background, let's look at the wide-ranging interview with Bashar al-Assad which covered several key subjects as follows:

1.) The current situation in south Syria:

"To put it simply, after the liberation of al-Ghouta, it was suggested that we should move south. We were faced with two options, as is the case in all other areas in Syria: reconciliation or liberation by force. At this point, the Russians suggested the possibility of giving reconciliation an opportunity, similar to what happened in other areas, in order to restore the situation that prevailed before 2011. In other words, for the Syrian Army to be deployed in that area, which is an area of confrontation with the Zionist enemy. And of course the terrorists should leave the area. This proposition suits us. Up till now, there are no concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference; for they put pressure on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution. That is how the situation stands now.

When asked about reconciliation in the southern region, here is his response:

"No, contacts are still ongoing between the Russians, the Americans, and the Israelis, while nobody is communicating with the terrorists, because they are mere tools, and they implement what their masters decide ultimately. This is what happened, i.e. there was an opportunity to reach reconciliation, but the American and Israeli interference prevented that possibility." (my bold)

2.) American involvement in Syria and the "Iranian problem":

"For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price; otherwise we wouldn’t have fought this war for years. We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region. Consequently, it is not subject to the price tags of the international bazaar. Neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling. The proposition was made by the Israelis with the objective of provoking and embarrassing Iran. At the same time, this comes in line with the international propaganda campaign launched against Iran regarding the nuclear file. It is not a separate issue; for everything happening now is linked to Iran in order to create an international position against it. As for us in Syria, the decision concerning our land is an exclusively Syrian decision. We are fighting the same battle, and when we have a decision concerning Iran, we will talk about it with the Iranians and not with any other party." (my bold)

When asked if the Americans would leave al-Tanf, the U.S.-led coalition base located in Syria at the al-Tanf border crossing to Iraq, here's what Bashar al-Assad had to say:

"The Americans say they are ready, but everyone knows that the Americans are historically professional liars in politics. So why should we believe them? Also, we have to wait and see." (my bold)

3.) The Israeli occupation of Syrian territory and its involvement in the Syrian Civil War:

"Certainly, neither conviction, morality, nor international law means anything to the Israelis. Since the beginning of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the terrorists’ artillery and aircraft. That applies to Jabhat al-Nusra of course. Nothing is going to change this Israeli approach. As far as we are concerned, Israel’s approval had no role at all. Despite Israeli support to the terrorists, we have been doing our job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty we shall carry out." (my bold)

4.) Syria's relationship with Russia:

"The new element in the war on Syria is the Russian element, and that’s why this tripartite alliance (Syria - Russia - Iran) came into existence. Our relationship with Russia is now about seven decades old. Despite the fluctuations and the fall of the Soviet Union, the rule of President Yeltsin, and the deterioration of these relations to a large degree for us, it has never reached the stage of reversing this relationship with Syria. Russia continued to deal with Syria as a friendly state, and we have imported everything from Russia, including weapons, during the different stages of the sanctions imposed on Syria. It is not in the nature of the Russians to build temporary or self-serving alliances or to sell out on relations in order to get deals done. The relationship is definitely a strategic one, but the political statements allowed for these speculations...As for Syria, the Russians do not interfere in Syrian affairs. If they have a certain opinion, they raise it with us and say that in the end, the decision is that of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people. This is a constant principle for Russia." (my bolds)

5.) The presence of Iranian advisors in Syria:

"The term adviser is sometimes used in a broad manner, i.e. these advisers have been with us, through the longstanding relationship with Iran, even before the war, because the military relationship is close. When a military formation moves to a fighting position, the adviser becomes a fighter. So, the word can be used in different senses. There are certainly Iranian advisers in Syria, and there are groups of Iranian volunteers who came to Syria, and they are led by Iranian officers. Iran has fought with and defended the Syrian people. It offered blood. That’s why when we say “advisers” this is a generic term, but this doesn’t mean that we are ashamed of any Iranian presence, even if it is official. But we use the word “advisers” because there are no regular Iranian fighting units in Syria…There are no battalions, or brigades, or divisions. First, we can’t hide them, and then why should we be ashamed of that? When we invited the Russians legally to come to Syria, we were not ashamed of that. And if there were an Iranian formation, we would announce it, because such relations need agreements between the two states endorsed by parliaments. Such relations cannot be concealed….Of course, from the beginning we invited the Iranians, and then we invited the Russians. We needed the support of these countries, and they answered the call." (my bold)

Bashar al-Assad goes on to clearly state that there are no Iranian bases in Syria but that it is within Syria's rights to ask Iran to establish bases in Syria.

Here is a link to the interview in its entirety.

As you can see from this wide-ranging interview, what we read about Syria in the Western media tells only one side of the story of this lengthy and costly war, that side, being the anti-Assad at all costs narrative.  Assad's viewpoint on the involvement of  Russia and Iran, two nations that have been invited to assist Syria, is in sharp contrast to his views on the involvement of both Israel and the United States who are acting in their own best interests.  The United States has had plans in place for decades to see the Assad regime end its control of Syria.  While there is little doubt that the Assad regime has treated some of its citizens badly, the United States has demonstrated that its plans for regime change and the imposition of "Democracy, Western-Style" have been a complete failure in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.  As well, there is little to suggest that replacing Bashar al-Assad with a hand-picked pro-American successor will prove successful, particularly for the Syrian people.

Was Syria's Chemical Attack Another False Flag?

Now that the United States has taken significant action against Syria and Russia because of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, a press conference held by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Valery Gerasimov is of particular interest.  This news item, covered by a Russian news source shows us how poorly the western media has covered the Syrian war and, in particular, how biased its reportage has become as it swallows Washington's Russophobic attitude wholeheartedly.

Here is the key part of the press conference:

Here is a transcript:

"Today, we have reliable information about militants preparing to falsify a government chemical attack against civilians.  In several districts of Eastern Ghouta, (a suburb of Syria's capital city, Damascus) a crowd was assembled with women, children and old people brought in from other regions who were to represent the victims of the chemical incident.  White Helmet activists and film crew are already in place at the scene with satellite video transmitters.  This has been confirmed by the discovery of a laboratory for the production of chemical weapons in the village of Aftris which was liberated from terrorists.  According to reports, after this provocation, the U.S. plans to accuse Syrian government troops of using chemical weapons as well as provide the international community with so-called evidence of mass civilian casualties cause by the Syrian government and the Russian government supporting it.  In retaliation, Washington plans to launch an airstrike on the government blocks of Damascus." (my bold)

According to Sputnik, this press briefing was held on March 13, 2018; less than one month later, the chemical attack on Douma took place.

As background, here is a screen capture of a map from ISW News (Islamic World News) showing how Syrian government forces were splitting the forces holding Eastern Ghouta into two parts in early March 2018:

According to South Front, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Tiger Forces which are supported by the Russians Aerospace Forces have captured significant ground from the Islamic militants (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham - formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of the Iraqi cell of al-Qaeda which was founded in January 2012) controlling Eastern Ghouta, splitting the militants into two parts, one which controls Douma, the largest town in East Ghouta and those occupying the region to the south which contains Arbin and Jobar.

Let's close this posting by looking at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research's assessment of damage caused by the battle for Eastern Ghouta from between February 23 and March 6, 2018:

Here is a closeup of the damage caused by fighting in Douma itself over the time period between February 23 and March 2, 2018:

Over the one week period, 17 percent of the area of Douma was affected by major new damage with buildings in these areas suffering from complete destruction and severe damage.

As you can see from this posting, the truth about the conflict in Syria is definitely in the eye of the beholder, however, if it is true that the Russians were aware of a potential chemical attack of the false flag variety in early March and the situation on the ground in Eastern Ghouta is one of desperation for the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters, one can quite quickly see that it is entirely possible that one of America's "allies" in the fight to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria could be responsible for the latest chemical attack in Syria.  After all, even the U.S. Department of State has admitted that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has used chemical weapons in this warning to travellers:

"Terrorist and other violent extremist groups including ISIS and al-Qa’ida-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (dominated by al-Qa’ida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusrah, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization), operate in Syria.  In July 2017, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham consolidated power in Idlib province after it clashed with other armed actors.  Hayat Tahrir al-Sham control over Idlib threatens the ability of NGOs and states to deliver humanitarian aid to Syrians residing in Idlib. Moreover, Russia and/or the Syrian government initiated airstrikes in Idlib in September, which resulted in significant damage to medical facilities and dozens of civilian casualties.  Tactics of  ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons. They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings, government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces.  These groups have murdered and kidnapped U.S. citizens, both for ransom and political purposes; in some instances U.S. citizens have disappeared within Syria.  Because of the security situation in Syria, the U.S. government’s ability to help U.S. citizens kidnapped or taken hostage is very limited." (my bold and underlining)

Given Washington's use of false flags to justify war (i.e. the Nayirah Testimony in 1990, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the USS Maine), one has to be at least a bit sceptical about the recent alleged chemical attack in Syria that is being touted as a justifiable reason for U.S. troops to enter a sovereign nation.

Hillary Clinton and Libya - Sending A Message to Bashar al-Assad

Updated July 2017

In searching through the Clinton server emails, I stumbled on this email that quotes an article by David W. Lesch, an American expert on Syria and a professor of Middle East History at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas.  The email was sent to Hillary Clinton on June 20, 2011 (please keep this date in mind) by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unofficial intelligence gatherer and former aide to Bill Clinton, with the following introduction:

"Enclosed is an article entitled "What Could Shake Syria's Regime?" by David W. Lesch, perhaps the U.S. expert with the closest relationship with Bashar al-Assad, developed out of my continuing correspondence with him, an edited version which I have appended. 


The bottom line is that Assad' s gestures at reform are delusional attempts to recreate the pattern of his own recent past when he gained a modicum of respect from the West. Likely the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion."


Here are some key quotes from David Lesch's article:


"Of the many occasions that I met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from 2004 to 2009, this one seemed different.  He was always very affable and unpretentious, certainly not the profile of the brutal Middle East  dictator that he appears to be today with the violent crackdown against Syrian protesters. 

But in a February 2006 meeting, he was much more confident than usual in discussing the state of U.S.-Syrian relations; in fact, he was almost cocky.  He knew by then that he had survived the intense pressure the United States and its allies had applied on him following the U.N. investigation into the assassination the previous year of  former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, which initially had implicated the Syrian leadership.  His new-found confidence lasted. A few months later in a follow-up meeting, he triumphantly  remarked that, "I don't want the United States. I don't need the United States." 

After successfully weathering that storm, Assad and his cohorts may well believe that they can once more emerge intact from a major challenge to their regime.  Assad has an exaggerated sense of Syria's importance on several Middle East fronts, from  Lebanon and Iraq to the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

Before policymakers in the West started thinking that Syria was too big to fail, he thought it.  To Assad's way of thinking, the enemies of Syria are at it once again in 2011, somehow  transporting premeditated instability to Syria under the guise of the Arab Spring. What other delusion could have possibly led to the pathetic speech he gave on March 30 -- his initial public response to the uprising -- in which he blamed terrorists and malevolent external forces for the  unrest rather than the underlying socioeconomic problems and political repression that lay at the root of the protests in other Arab countries and his own." (my bold)


I found it quite interesting that Bashar al-Assad clearly stated that he neither wanted nor needed the United States, insight that became quite apparent when he invited Vladimir Putin and his Russian forces to help repel the advance of ISIL.  One has to wonder if the relatively fresh example of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dangling from an American rope had something to do with his unwillingness to contemplate allowing a U.S.-led coalition to "assist" in Syria?"

Let's go back to David Lesch's article which was written before the fall of Muammar Qaddafi:

"One game-changer could be the fall of Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Until now, the only models for removing dictatorial regimes in the region have been mass unrest combined with the splitting of the military from the ruling circle, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt (and unlikely in  Syria), or many American boots on the ground, as happened in Iraq (and is unlikely to happen again anytime soon). 

If Gadhafi falls within the next few months, there will be another model for regime change: that  of limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion. Not that this can be easily applied in Syria. It hasn't even been easily applied in Libya, and Syria would be a much harder nut to crack. Furthermore, the Syrian opposition is far from united or  being able to establish a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent. 

But if there is regime change in Libya, the international community would be emboldened with  the precedent, with maybe even the Russians finally getting on board, and it would give the Syrian regime something to really think about. Perhaps it would even give Bashar al-Assad the upper hand with his ruthless brother and security minders to finally do what he should have done  in the beginning -- forgo violence, offer and implement real reform and enter into a national dialogue with the opposition.  The options are not pretty. The Syrian regime does not want, nor can it probably survive, long-  term international pressure or isolation, but it is used to sanctions, special tribunals, the withdrawing of ambassadors and similar actions. These are marginal levers that will have very little effect on the regime in the near term.  Success for the rebels in Libya might change that." (my bold)

Remember the date of this email?  It was sent to Hillary Clinton on June 20, 2011.  Interestingly, on June  27th, a mere 7 days later, the International Criminal Court issued this:

By August 22, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi was ousted from power when Tripoli fell to rebel forces after the Qaddafi leadership compound was bombed by NATO powers.  Here's what President Obama had to say on that date:

Remember, President Obama stated that "...the future of Libya is in the hands of its people".

Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say on August 26, 2011:

"The events in Libya this week have heartened the world. The situation remains fluid, but it is clear that the Qadhafi era is coming to an end, opening the way for a new era in Libya -- one of liberty, justice, and peace.

"We join the Libyan people in celebrating the courageous individuals who have stood up to a tyrant and defended their homes and communities against Qadhafi's violence.

"The United States and the international community have stood by the Libyan people during many difficult days in the last six months. Together, we prevented a massacre, and we supported the people's efforts to gain their freedom. We will continue to support them as they take on the regime elements that still pose a threat to Libya's future -- and as they address their humanitarian needs and rebuild their nation. The Libyan people made this revolution and they will lead the way forward, but they deserve our help. Libya's future is not guaranteed. Considerable work lies ahead."

Not to mention the powerful message that was being sent to Syria.

Looking back at the article by David Lesch that was forwarded to Secretary of State Clinton by her unofficial minion, Sydney Blumenthal who just happened to be the author of over 800 emails to Secretary Clinton that had been released during the 2016 election cycle, it is not a great stretch to see that the United States, particularly  the Department of State, was quite likely sending relatively blatant messages to Bashar al-Assad's, attempting to force his hand by providing him with another fine example of what happens to the deposed leaders of countries that fall on the wrong side of America's agenda for global hegemony.  With the gory example of Muammar Qaddafi's death at the hands of his captors, it's really not terribly surprising that al-Assad moved toward the welcoming arms of his long-term friends in Russia when looking for a world power to watch his back and protect his regime from ISIL.  It is also interesting to note that when you take the time to dig through the emails on Hillary Clinton's controversial server, you find a great deal of information about how Washington functions, how the thinkers at the top of the political heap form their opinions on issues that impact civilians in other nations over the long-term and who they rely on as sources for that information.  

Hillary Clinton, Syria and the Deep State

Updated April 2017

I would like to open by apologizing for the length of this posting but I want to make certain that I cover all pertinent information in a single posting.

Earlier this month, I posted an article on the Deep State, the unseen quasi-governmental group that has the real control over the American federal government.  In that article, I mentioned that Silicon Valley is heavily involved in Washington's business and one of the 30,000 plus emails that Hillary Clinton has released from her private, non-secure email server has shed a bit of light on the connection between the federal government and the tech sector.

Thanks to Wikileaks, here is the email in question:

"UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05795577 Date: 01/07/2016 

RELEASE IN PART B6


From: H  

Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 1:51 PM 

To: 'monica.hanley 

Subject: Fw: Syria  

Attachments: Defection Tracker.pdf 


  

Pis print. 



From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:SullivanJJ©state.gov ] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 06:20 PM 

To: H Subject: FVV: Syria 

FYI — this is a pretty cool idea. 




From: Jared Cohen [mailto Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:21 PM 

To: Burns, William J; Sullivan, Jacob J; ale.ross 




Subject: Syria 




Deputy Secretary Burns, Jake, Alec,  Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the  defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we  believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership  over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria. I've attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything eke you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important  impact. 




Thanks, 

Jared 


Jared Cohen I Director of r't ": •Tel"

Who is Jared Cohen and why is he contacting then Deputy Secretary of State William Burns who served part of his tenure under Hillary Clinton?  Jared Cohen is currently the president of Jigsaw, which was previously known as Google Ideas.  Jigsaw is Google's think-tank, a technology incubator that is tasked with the following mission:

"...to use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigated the threats associated with digital attacks."

I will bet that you had no idea that Google was active in the fight against terrorism, did you?

Jared Cohen has a long history of working with the Department of State as an advisor to both Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.  As well, he is an Adjunct Senior Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an "independent, non-partisan membership organization, think tank and publisher" that many people believe is a "public organ of the Deep State".  The CFR counts America's elite politicians, academics and media personalities among its members and publishes research that are used in decision-making by Washington.  For your information, you can find a complete listing of the group's membership here; note that the membership includes William and Chelsea Clinton, Richard Cheney  and Colin Powell among others.      In addition to his duties for the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Cohen serves as a member of the National Counterterrorism Center's director's advisory board.  The NTCC was established by Executive Order in 2004 and serves as the"...primary organization in the U.S. government for integrating and analyzing all intelligence pertaining to counterterrorism.".  He serves on the board of advisors for companies including ASAPP, Rivet Ventures, SineWave and QSI.  He has authored four books and was named as one of the "Top 100 Global Thinkers" by Foreign Policy.  Obviously, this is a very well connected man.

Interestingly, Mr. Cohen had travelled to Syria in September 2010 with Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of the Secretary of State.  Here is an email from Alec Ross to the same William Burns who was Deputy Secretary of State:

"From: Ross, Alec 

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:04 PM 

To: Burns, William 3; Feltman, Jeffrey D; Sullivan, Jacob J; Crocker, Bathsheba N; Mills, Cheryl D 

Subject: 1st known case of a successful social media campaign in Syria   

When Jared and I went to Syria, it was because we knew that Syrian society was growing increasingly young (population  will double in 17 years) and digital and that this was going to create disruptions in society that we could potential harness for our purposes.  In what is the 1st of what I predict will be many interesting cases in the future, this past week a campaign went viral on  Facebook in Syria (even though Facebook is outlawed in Syria it is widely accessed through proxies) showing teachers in Syria abusing their pupils. Thousands of Syrians made public their support on Facebook (the fact that people made their  identities known is notable) for the campaign to remove these teachers, and the Ministry of Education intervened and fired the teachers.  This is the first known case of a successful social media campaign in Syria. 

More will come. 

Alec 

Alec Ross 

Senior Advisor for Innovation Office of the Secretary of State

(202) 647-6315 

RossAJ@State.gov" (my bold)

"...potential (sic) harness for our purposes..."?  And what purposes would those be?

As well, to help you put the first email into context, Jacob J. Sullivan (aka Jake) who noted that this was a "pretty cool idea" served as Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning and now serves as her top foreign policy adviser to her current presidential campaign

Now, let's go back to the email dated July 25, 2012 and put it into context of what was happening in Syria at the time and some history, focussing on the United States connection to the ongoing civil war.  Syria's homegrown version of the Arab Spring began on March 15, 2011 when Syria's government met peaceful protests against the Assad regime in several towns and cities, particularly Damascus and Homs, with force.  In April 2011, hundreds were killed in Daraa and Damascus by government forces and by May 2011, the United States had imposed sanctions on Bashar al Assad and some of his senior government officials.  In June 2011, more than 120 soldiers were killed by armed rebels which may have been partially composed of defected members of the security forces.  In July 2011, the U.S. government stated that Assad has lost his legitimacy as head of state and military defectors formed the Free Syrian Army.  In August 2011, the United States, EU and United Kingdom demanded that Assad step down and the Syrian National Council, an anti-Assad coalition formed in Istanbul, Turkey, an avowed enemy of Assad.  In October, 2011, The United Nations Security Council attempted to pass a resolution condemning Assad and his government, however, Russia and China vetoed it.  In January 2012,  the Arab League called for Assad to step down and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, is formed to fight against the regime.  In February 2012, the United Nations once again tabled a resolution requesting that Assad step down but it is vetoed by China and Russia.  The United States closed its embassy.  In March 2012, Syrian troops retake Homs from the Free Syrian Army.  In April 2012, Kofi Annan brokered a ceasefire and Assad stated that he had regained control of Syria.  The United States pledged to provide communications equipment to rebel forces.  In May 2012, free parliamentary elections are held and are boycotted by opposition forces with Assad and his allies winning the majority of the seats.  In June 2012, Assad warned that his nation faces war and tensions between Turkey and Syria rose after a Turkish reconnaissance jet is shot down in Syrian airspace.  In July 2012, the same month that the aforementioned email by Jared Cohen crossed the desk of Hillary Clinton, a bomb attack by the Free Syrian Army killed the defence minister and his deputy, Assad's brother-in-law.  High profile defections from the Assad government rose.  Rebels took control of eastern Aleppo and the United Nations once again threatened sanctions against Syria but these are vetoed by China and Russia.  Assad announced that he will use chemical and biological weapons if Syria is attacked by a foreign power.

As you can see from this timeline the United States was increasingly involving itself in actions that would have seen the end of Bashar al-Assad, similar to what happened in the cases of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi.  The Obama Administration was willing to stoop to any level to rid Syria of Bashar al-Assad and a system of tracking defectors and feeding that back to Syria using the broadcasting capabilities of al-Jazeera would have been a very useful tool to destabilize the Assad regime.  What the current administration seems to have forgotten is that destabilizing the Libyan and Iraqi regimes ended up creating a geopolitical vacuum that resulted in the rise of ISIS and various al-Qaeda proxies.  Thanks to the ongoing geopolitical meddling in the region, the world is definitely not a safer place. 

This single email from Hillary Clinton's once private collection gives us a surficial but interesting glimpse into the Deep State and the connection between the private sector (in this case, Silicon Valley) and the American security and state apparatus.  We should not forget that there are thousands upon thousands of unelected Americans who have significant control over the direction that Washington takes, particularly on issues that impact national security.