There is no such thing as a humanitarian bomb.
In a speech today, Obama has declared he will seek congressional approval to strike Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that he claims was perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Obama made his declaration just hours ago:
“Our military has positioned assets in the region. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Congress is set to meet about this on the week of September 9. So, by our president’s own admission, there is no imminent threat. This is not about the safety of the Syrian people.
Clearly if this was about the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons and all the reported Syrian deaths, waiting for nine days to strike — nine days in which more chemical weapons attacks among other potential acts of violence could occur — makes no sense.
Bombing Syria because the U.S. government says Syria bombed Syria makes no sense.
No, this is obviously about something else entirely.
The U.S. has been using proxy war to destabilize the entire Middle East region and to promote regime change amongst numerous nations since 9/11, the Iraq War and ongoing Afghanistan military action.
The Arab Spring, while outwardly representing a democratic uprising, was fomented by the West via State Dept. front groups, the George Soros/Zbigniew Brzezinski-led International Crisis Group, and the related actions of Google Ideas think/do tech-instigator Jared Cohen.
The drone bombing campaigns carried out indiscriminately by the Obama Administration in several countries — via an unconstitutional ‘kill list’ administered by now-CIA director John Brennan — have arguably done more to create a backlash of anger on the part of the Middle East world and civil rights advocates at home in the U.S. than it has done to target any so-called militants (many of which turn out to be innocent civilians redefined as targets for political reasons).
The uprising in Libya turned into an insurgency to oust Muammar Gaddafi. While billed as patriotic Libyan rebels, the force really compromised of Western-backed mercenaries — both overtly and covertly handed weapons, cash and aid from special operations forces. Many of these Libyan rebels were overtly aligned with al Qaeda and/or had fought in Iraq against American forces.
Now, the Syrian rebels who’ve been waging civil war for more than two years to topple the Assad regime have come from the same cesspool of incestuous and ill-conceived foreign policy. Many rebel fighters were drawn from the Libyan rebel forces and literally transferred to the new theater for regime change; similarly, a significant portion are “tied to al Qaeda.”
As in Libya, covert backing preceded overt support for what were again Western-backed rebels: it was reported in August 2012 that Obama had signed a secret order authorizing clandestine support for the Syrian rebels by the CIA and other agencies several months prior, despite the fact that its forces had been caught ‘ethnically cleansing’ Christians in Syria, looting and desecrating churches, beheading people and more.
Libya’s post-Gaddafi regime transferred weapons to the Syrian rebel insurgency – including reportedly, chemical weapons.
While many warned about the danger of the U.S. being dragged into the Syrian conflict, it seems instead clear that this has been the likely intent. Libyan rebels weren’t successful until they received air cover from U.S. and NATO allies; likewise, the Syrian rebels have been trying to get the job done against Assad with the implicit understanding that U.S. and Western forces could be sent in — if needed — under the right pretenses. (Now, of course, Obama, Kerry and their bosses have found that pretext, and evidence be damned).
The seeming contradiction of waging a decade long ‘War on Terrorism’ to eradicate al Qaeda while simultaneously offering covert and overt support for their insurgencies in at least two theaters — Libya and Syria — are reconcilable with the understanding that the U.S. imperial machine wants ordo ab chao — dominance in the region by picking off “rogue regimes” unwilling to comply with central bank rule and meanwhile keeping surrounding states meaningfully confused. This can be evidenced, for example, in Egypt, where several rounds of coups and military rule have undermined the supposed grassroots victory of the people.
Striking Syria has far-reaching implications that go beyond the U.S. and Syria, as both Iran and Syria have declared Israel will become a target if Syria is hit, in addition to further Iranian threats against the West. Both Russia and China have warned the U.S. against the use of force against a sovereign nation as well. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has responded to Obama in a recent press conference:
“Our American colleagues and friends insist they have the evidence that the government troops did use the weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons. Well, in this case they’d better present the evidence to the U.N. inspectors and to the security council. They claim they cannot show this evidence because it’s secret, but this excuse doesn’t hold water… If you have the evidence you should present it. If it’s not presented, it means they don’t have it.”
“First of all, I would address Obama not as my colleague, not as the U.S. president, not as the head of state, but as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.”