President Obama greeted by military honor guard. (photo: Reuters)
The Imperial Pretensions That Dominate Washington
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:
Post a Comment