Labels

SUPPORT JULIAN ASSANGE

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Imperial Pretensions That Dominate Washington


President Obama greeted by military honor guard. (photo: Reuters)

President Obama greeted by military honor guard. (photo: Reuters)


The Imperial Pretensions That Dominate Washington

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
03 September 13

hy, friends ask, does Team Obama now want to bomb Syria?

Let me offer what I think is their reason. I personally oppose it, but it makes a certain sense to the imperial pretensions that dominate Washington, from the crusty old warhorse John McCain chanting "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" all the way across to national security adviser Susan Rice, U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, and other self-described humanitarian hawks eager to make war while serenading a wounded world with "Let Momma Make it Better."

Even if no one in Washington has yet publicly offered [1]slam-dunk proof[1] that Bashir al-Assad or his brother or third cousin gave the go-ahead for murderous chemical attacks in Ghouta or elsewhere, the Sunni rebels are losing the civil war to Assad, his Alawite Shia base, and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

Losing limits Obama's options. He could seriously seek a diplomatic solution with the Russians, which would leave Assad in power, keep Sunnis from slaughtering the Alawites and Christians, and seriously exasperate the Saudis and their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

Or, he could provide heavy weapons to the radical Sunni jihadis, who would in time conquer most, though not all, of Syria and then use the weapons against us and our allies, as Jimmy Carter and his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski came to discover (but not publicly regret) in Afghanistan.

Bombs and cruise missiles, which Washington, France, and maybe Denmark would control, avoid that mistake, while upping the pressure on Assad and - at least temporarily - encouraging the Sunni rebels and their Saudi backers. Expect a renewed offensive on their part in coordination with any U.S. air strikes. In the longer run, most analysts doubt that limited bombing - boots in the air or "a shot across the bows" - will have any lasting impact on Assad or what he does, which raises the great unanswered question: What would Obama do next? Experienced military thinkers like Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey keep asking, but Team Obama will not answer. Most of us can guess why.

"I know well we are weary of war," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden on Saturday. "We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military."

At least for a limited time, bombs and cruise missiles bolster the President's personal credibility. Having painted himself into a corner like a rank amateur by publicly drawing "a red line" against Assad using chemical weapons, he no doubt feels personal pressure - if I may borrow from my grandmother - not to look like a pisher.

Though too easily dismissed by sophisticated reporters like the Daily Beast's Christopher Dickey, maintaining the president's personal credibility has far more than cosmetic importance. It is essential if Team Obama wants to continue pursuing its pro-Sunni, pro-Israeli foreign policy in the region. For Andy Borowitz fans (of which I am one), this is the objective, this is what is at stake.

Does Washington want to go on following Dick Cheney in supporting the Saudis and their Sunni allies in their expanding civil war against Shia Muslims throughout the region? Do our policy-makers want to continue supporting Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Israel's Bibi Netanyahu in building toward a wider war with Iran? The two wars are obviously interlocked, and bombing Syria keeps us moving us ahead - or rather behind - on both.

These are the big questions Congress should debate before the non-binding vote next week on bombing Syria. All the other chatter is what Joe Biden calls blarney. Perhaps the better angels in Washington would like to save children, punish the use of chemical weapons, and in the words of Obama's Congressional resolution, "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" Syria's potential for further chemical attacks. But how seriously will the world take a bomb-and-missile laden gesture against sarin gas when CIA documents now confirm that Washington helped Saddam Hussein use sarin and other chemical agents against Iran in 1988.? As Secretary of State [8]John Kerry[8] himself said, "History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction."

In much the same way, we should reconsider another of Obama's red lines, his stated willingness to go to war to stop Iran from achieving the capability to build a nuclear weapon. Not even the bomb itself, just the capability to make one. How principled does the world find this when Washington continues to go along with Israel's full-blown nuclear arsenal and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept the inspections regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran accepts international inspections. Why not Israel?

The coming vote on Syria could give us a chance to turn American foreign policy away from the Sunni war on Shia Muslims and the Sunni-Israeli-Neocon war on Iran. Don't expect so serious a shift that quickly, but now is the moment to educate, organize, and campaign for it. Anything short of a diplomatic solution - even a Congressional rejection of a military strike, as in Britain - leaves Obama free to continue using the CIA to aid and abet the war that's now going on. And that war is already killing and maiming far too many Syrians and threatening even greater violence throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

Humanitarians should make peace, not more war.


A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
 

No comments:

assange



At midday on Friday 5 February, 2016 Julian Assange, John Jones QC, Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzon will be speaking at a press conference at the Frontline Club on the decision made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the Assange case.

xmas





the way we live

MAN


THE ENTIRE 14:02' INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE AT

RC



info@exopoliticsportugal.com

BJ 2 FEV


http://benjaminfulfordtranslations.blogspot.pt/


UPDATES ON THURSDAY MORNINGS

AT 08:00h UTC


By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word, we can and will build a brighter future.

bj


Report 26:01:2015

BRAZILIAN

CHINESE

CROATIAN

CZECK

ENGLISH

FRENCH

GREEK

GERMAN

ITALIAN

JAPANESE

PORTUGUESE

SPANISH

UPDATES ON THURSDAY MORNINGS

AT 08:00 H GMT


BENJAMIN FULFORD -- jan 19





UPDATES ON THURSDAY MORNINGS

AT 08:00 H GMT

PressTV News Videos