Posts
Obama’s
Agenda: Direct Military Intervention and the Relentless Destruction
of Syria as a Nation State today: The Angry Summer
Shamus
Cooke
2
March, 2013
The
recent announcement that the United States would increase its “non
lethal” military aid to Syria’s rebels shouldn’t be a surprise
to anyone. Some speculated that Obama — having been
repeatedly proved wrong about the Syria government’s stability —
would leave Syria in silent humiliation.
Not
so. The destruction of Syrian society will continue, indeed,
increase. Although there are plenty of non-military options the
Obama administration could pursue, he’s instead choosing the
bloodiest course possible. Millions of Syrians have had their lives
destroyed, and now millions more can look forward to a similar fate.
U.S.
media outlets have reported that all of the hundreds of millions of
dollars of U.S. aid to Syria’s rebels has been “non-lethal,”
but the New York Times admitted
recently:
“American
[government] officials declined to discuss an ongoing covert program
to train rebel fighters or the extent to which it has made a
difference on the battlefield.”
It’s
no exaggeration to say that Obama is helping to orchestrate the
largest state-sponsored terror campaign since the still-simmering
genocides of the Congo and Yugoslav wars. This fact has been
completely hidden from the view of the U.S. public, but it’s a fact
nonetheless.
For
example, the only effective fighting force of the Syrian rebels, the
Al Nusra Front, has been labeled a terrorist organization, even by
the United States. Its frequent terrorist bombings have helped shred
the fabric of Syrian society; its most recent massive car bombings
killed 100 mostly-innocent people in central Damascus, including
dozens of children and wounding hundreds more.
U.N.-Arab
League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi denounced the latest terrorist attack as
a “war crime.” But such labels do not get attached to allies
of the United States. Obama is ignoring the countless similar attacks
by Syria’s terrorist rebels, ensuring that such attacks will
increase.
In
fact, U.S. officials blocked
a Russian-sponsored resolution at the United Nations Security
Council condemning the recent terror bombings. Actions like
these both minimize and encourage indiscriminate terrorist bombings.
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s most recent announcement of U.S.
aid to Syrian rebels made sure to mention that the aid will not go to
“terrorists” — an absurd statement considering that the
terrorists in Syria are the ones in power on the ground for the
opposition. Of course most of the crucial aid will be funneled
to them, no matter who initially receives it.
The
Obama administration has been on a relentless search for a
non-terrorist dominated Syrian opposition, only to fail and then
re-start his quest. Initially the ‘Syrian National Council’
play-acted as the non-terrorist “revolutionary” opposition.
But
Hillary Clinton later confronted reality and dumped the
group, correctly
labeling them as ”…
a bunch of out-of-touch exiles who should be replaced with a group
more representative of the fighters on the ground.”
The
same article referred to the Syrian National Council as “too
accommodating to terrorists.”
Obama
then sent Clinton on an international tour to discover and organize a
brand new non-terrorist “legitimate” Syrian opposition. On
her journey Clinton unearthed yet another group of handpicked rich
Syrian exiles who hadn’t been in the country in decades, with no
connections on the ground and, more importantly, zero military
presence of any significance. Clinton re-named the group the
National Coalition of Syrian Revolution, and unveiled her new
offspring to glowing U.S. media acclaim. But Hillary’s latest baby
was again born from smoke and mirrors. The New York
Times reported:
“…the
coalition has struggled to agree on a slate of governing leaders that
would unite what is still a loosely allied organization, trying to
weave together local councils, splinter organizations, disparate
opposition groups and the loyalties of the armed units fighting the
forces of President Bashar al-Assad.”
Obama
now intends to buy the legitimacy of his new Syrian opposition, as
part of the newly announced aid package. The New York Times
shamelessly
reports:
“one
aim of the $60 million in [new] assistance is to help the National
Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces build up its
credibility within the country…”
Obama’s
new “friends of Syria” would like the United States to destroy
Syria. Many within the rag tag grouping are demanding a direct
U.S. military intervention to topple the existing government.
Anyone
who has paid attention to the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libyan wars
understands that U.S.-style regime change equals the destruction of a
nation. The above three countries were all once independently
functioning civilizations, but are now socially and economically
destroyed and regionally fragmented, ruled by whomever in the region
happens to have the most guns.
As
millions of Syrians become internally and externally displaced
refugees and the country
obliterated,
the Obama administration is purposely choosing not to settle the
situation with diplomacy. Both Russia and Syria have made recent
offers for negotiations. By rebuking these offers and aiding the
rebels instead, Obama is choosing more mass slaughter.
“Syria
is ready for talks with its armed opponents, Foreign Minister Walid
al-Moualem said on Monday, in the clearest offer yet to negotiate
with rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad.”
The
Obama Administration responds to the peace negotiations:
“…[Syria's
Foreign Minister's] offer of talks drew a dismissive response from
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was starting a nine-nation
tour of European and Arab capitals in London [to help organize the
Syrian rebels yet again].”
Why
does Obama choose war instead of peace? Because presently Obama
cannot dictate his terms; the majority of Syria is still
controlled by the Syrian government, which remains in a much more
powerful bargaining position, a painfully stubborn fact.
Obama
will thus continue to sponsor large-scale mass murder and
ethnic-religious
cleansing until
his handpicked rebels gain enough power on the ground to negotiate a
peace favorable to U.S. interests.
The
Obama administration’s hands are awash with the blood of countless
innocent Syrians, blood that promises to spill into Lebanon
and other neighboring states as
the region becomes destabilized along ethnic-religious lines. The
“popular revolution” in Syria has long ago been replaced by
foreign mercenary terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The
Obama administration has overseen this entire process, while actively
trying to organize a respectable “public face” for the rebels.
Obama’s
recent strides in Syria end with a logical conclusion: U.S. direct
military intervention. The stage is still being set, waiting
until optimal conditions are met for a Libyan style U.S./NATO
mass-bombing mission to finish off the Syrian government. In the
eyes of Obama the resulting disaster will be worth the mess, since a
non-compliant regime to the U.S. will have been toppled, thus
clearing the path for the long term plan of crushing Iran.
Shamus
Cooke
is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers
Action (www.workerscompass.org)
He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.