US Contemplating Military Strike On Syria
John Kerry gave a very good speech and made a very “compelling” case yesterday. In fact, he made such a good case against stockpiling of chemical weapons and killing innocent people, including children, that I think the US should go ahead and bomb its own military installations and stockpiles of chemical weapons. He referred to Assad as “murderer” and “thug”. It always baffles me when US officials call others such things and complain that they kill innocent people and how they themselves value human lives. But, it gets really comical when they speak of respect for international laws and the will of the international community.
Nevertheless, the US has reportedly asked UN inspectors to leave Syria while it gets ready to attack the country alleging that the regime has used chemical weapons, bringing to mind the events of ten years ago when Bush asked UN inspectors to leave Iraq before the invasion of that country alleging the regime possessed weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We now know why they didn’t want the inspectors to conclude their inspections and testing: because the whole WMD issue was a lie.
It begs the question, now: why would Assad use chemical weapons at a time when the UN inspectors are already in Syria? I’m not saying that he didn’t. I’m not because I don’t know if he did or not. He very well may have. But, why would he do it now? The war has been going on for a while and he’s not losing. In fact, he seems to be “winning”, as former US ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson said yesterday on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hays. I could understand if he were losing his grip and made the attack in desperation, not caring that the inspectors are in the country and knowing that doing that would give the US the pretext to intervene and change the balance of forces to benefit the “rebels”, but now, when the “rebels” are losing ground? It would however make more sense if the rebels or the CIA or Israel were behind those attacks to give the US a reason to intervene.
I’m not saying that is the case, but, it’s at least as likely, if not more, as the official US version, especially given the fact that US officials tell lies before, during and after every military intervention they commit. You may doubt if they will go ahead with an attack, but, you can always count on them to lie about the reasons for and circumstances around their attack. They couldn’t stick to a single story even about the assassination of Bin Laden and dumping his body into the sea, let alone their wars and military interventions. I can say “with high level of confidence”, as John Kerry put it, that they have lied about every single military aggression they have committed, all some 130 of them undertaken since WWII in some 70 different countries. Assad may be a “murderer” and a “thug” and he may be lying when he denies the allegation, but, the lying world record is sure held by the US.
John Kerry stressed that the UN inspectors can determine that chemical weapons have been used, but not who used them. Therefore, it would make sense for the US to claim that the regime was the one who used it even if it were done by the rebels or the CIA or Israel. The fact is it could be either party and we simply don’t know who did it, and the US claim that “we know” with “high level of confidence” means as much as when they said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that the NSA does not spy on the American people.
We must keep in mind also the why and when of US military interventions. If there is a silver lining to US military operations, which on average occurs about twice a year, it would have to be the fact that we can study them and draw some definitive conclusions since there are so many of them. The most important one I think is that their interventions are never based on humanitarian considerations, but rather on cold, pragmatic and business-like geopolitical and strategic calculations. They will intervene if they figure it’s beneficial for the long term interests of the Empire or profitable for some corporation or group of corporations that are part of the Empire.
The war in Syria created a pretext, an opening or opportunity, for the US to try and bring about a regime change, just as they did in Libya, not from the dictatorship of Assad to a democratic government answering to people’s needs, but to a dictatorship of their own, answering to Washington and US multinational corporations. In Iraq, they didn’t have the same alibi, but they had 9/11 and the (manufactured) weapons of mass destruction scare.
The point is: it doesn’t matter what they say or what their excuse is. What matters and what is a much clearer indicator as to what guides their actions is their long term plan for world domination, accomplished by taking out any obstacle on their way, with all means necessary.
What started in Syria, I believe, was a genuine movement for democracy, as in other places, but it soon morphed into a proxy war by
the “rebels” who include in their ranks pro-Al Qaeda mercenaries and Salafist fighters who descended on Syria from several Arab nations to fight the regime, with support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain and the US, pushing away, undermining and detailing the original movement for democracy. What we see in Syria, today, resembles nothing like a revolution or even a civil war, given all the foreign forces involved there.
A US attack which would result in the loss of more lives, possibly in the thousands, coming at a time when the rebels are losing the war, is meant, at the maximum, to reverse the trend and enable the rebels to overthrow the regime. And, in the event it doesn’t, its minimum goal is to weaken the country, especially militarily. That’s why they will be targeting their defensive capabilities, including radar, anti-aircraft and surface to air missiles, communication equipment, command and control, weapons caches that have nothing to do with chemical weapons, and possibly even infrastructure, water treatment facilities, etc.
Even liberals who have misgivings about the looming attack and criticize US militarism that has become ever so frequent are guilty of a big misrepresentation. They say the US can’t be the world’s policeman anymore. The implication is that they try to keep the peace, prevent violence and punish violators of international laws. Making such gross misrepresentation by the same liberals who commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dr. King’s speech and the March on Washington is extreme hypocrisy and fraud. Do these liberals really forget what Dr. King thought of this government or do they wish we’d forget? “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world”, has now taken the level of violence it commits around the world to such new highs that Dr. King could not have fathomed when he made that speech, 50 years ago. And these are liberals who stop short of supporting Obama’s wars and militarism. Others, such as the shameless Rev. Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry, following their leader, Obama, have taken on neocon policies and positions and defend every action Obama takes, no matter what. If the Reverend of BS disagrees with that part of Dr. King whom he pretends to admire, then he should have the gull to come out and say it. But, they won’t because these so-called liberals-turned-neocon are cowards and frauds. Their job is to deceive the public for which they get compensated by NBC. But, putting aside such garbage TV personalities, the farthest liberals will go is to say “we can’t continue to be the policeman of the world”, instead of the truth which is that the US heads a bunch of international terrorist gangsters who bully, extort, bribe, murder, and commit the most vile acts of violence, terror and mass murder humanity has ever known for profit and wealth.