The question of whether the US
should attack Syria is not about justice or chemical weapons, it's about
whether the US should be the world policeman.
It's a role America has been stuck with since WW2.
Although nominally a republic, thanks to
their security posture and global military deployment, the US is effectively an
empire. The critical element in that
empire is oil and therefore the critical area is the Middle East.
The other issue is that the
American military industrial complex is so big it needs to be fed with war
every now and then to justify its existence; preferably two or three small ones
and one big one per decade.
I cringed when I saw Obama in Russia at a press conference at the G20 trying to justify US involvement in Syria. He was too honest in explaining the situation saying e.g. that well America is the only country with this capability. Yes, but that's not justification for war.
Obama is a good talker, but when it comes to the War On Terror he needs to take a leaf out of George W Bush's book and stop the "maybes" and talk more terms of absolutes. He needed to talk up the War On Terror aspect more.
Has the beneficial effect of 9-11 as being a Pearl-Harbor-like-event for US imperialism really dried up so much? Did Bush ruin international sympathy over 9-11 with the Iraq war? Certainly Americans are tired of war and of the War On Terror in general.
Who's responsible for
the Syrian chemical weapons attack?
Chemical warfare agents are
extremely difficult to manufacture and distribute. A ragtag bunch of rebels in the Syrian desert
can't make such weapons. Of all the
weapons you could want to use, chemical weapons are the least practical and least
cost effective to make.
So that leaves the Syrian regime
and western powers such as Israel and the US who could actually make
weaponisable chemical weapons and deploy them to Syria. Syria is one of the few non-signatories to
the chemical weapons convention and is thought to possess a stockpile of
them. But I don't see an incentive for
Assad to use these weapons on his own people.
The West, however, does have an interest insofar as generating a pretext to attack.
The Grand Chessboard
False flag attacks are how any
major power gets the ball rolling on military action. Military conflict is politics by other means...someone
said (I think Hitler). If the US wants to
be involved in conflict: it will be.
Whether it's the Gulf of Tonkin
to start the Vietnam war or the explosion in the battleship Maine to start the
Spanish-American war: it will happen if the will and means are there.
The United States wants to be
involved in the Middle East as part of what Zbigniew Brzezinski described as
the grand chessboard -- control of the world's most strategic area in the oil
rich Central Asia/Middle East. Put it
this way: if this chemical attack happened in Uganda would the US be prepared
to become involved? Of course not, there's no oil in Uganda!
The Grand Chessboard
The reason events in the Middle
East are always in the US's vital national interest is because without
importing oil from the middle East to power their vehicles, the economy would
grind to a halt. That's why many in the
US are desperate to develop fracking so as to finally free it from Middle
Eastern oil dependency.
There are two factions in the
Middle East roughly divided along the Sunni - Shia fracture in Islam. The Sunni-Saudi side is backed by the
US. They tolerate Israel in return for
US assistance (where "assistance" is of the kind of a mafia
protection racket; we assist you or we break your legs). The other side is the Shia Iran/Syria side
backed by Russia. (Most in Syria are
Sunni Muslim but Assad is Shiite.) Let's call this side the axis of evil.
The axis of evil is backed by
Russia, but Russia is not the superpower it used to be. One of the strange things I hear of the
coming war in the Middle East is that it will lead to WW3, I don't agree. I think the limited action in Syria will lead
to worse consequences such as Iranian involvement, and I think that's kind of
the point -- to provoke Iran into a response that will lead to a wider Middle East conflict which the US is ready for -- that's what they've been preparing for all this time: confrontation with Iran.
All
Syrian attack contingencies from the US military planers would include the
possibility of Iranian retaliation. But it's not going to lead to all out WW3; that's a ridiculous notion.
Russia backs Syria and Iran, but it's not
going to start WW3. China is even less likely to become involved. China sells most of its stuff to the US and
holds trillions in US government bonds.
It's not going to fight the golden goose that lays its economic eggs.
The Report From Iron
Mountain
The Report From Iron Mountain was
released in 1967. Some say it's a hoax;
if so it's a hoax about a true thing. It
basically says that the US has a war-based economy, continuing from the WW2
economy, and that economy needs to be fed with a war every now and then to keep
it going.
Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul
proposed pulling back from the Empire and the war based economy to a pre-war
stance of bringing the troops home and defending the US within its
borders. This would cost a lot less and
allow the federal budget to be balanced and the deficit finally reduced --
Paul's so-called austerity plan.
Most US
voters have the view that America should no longer be the world policeman, and
case in point: should not get involved in Syria. If Congress doesn't authorise military action
against Syria then it's time to re-examine the US's position as Team America: World
Police.
