Actions
Post info
cosmicrat
Peace, freedom, equality, tolerance, and justice for all
15.06.2013 (1620 days ago)
Recommend
 
Post view

Syria's War Could Cause a Serious Mistake
by cosmicrat ·
15-June-2013, 6:05 pm

There is real danger now that US foreign policy, that has been somewhat cautious so far under President Obama, could move toward disastrous involvement in a sectarian civil war in Syria. The thinking and rhetoric that led to this began well before Obama, and before September 2001. Although using a much less rash and more thoughtful approach, the Obama administration has been unable or unwilling to make fundamental policy changes in dealing with the Middle East.

Interfering in Syria, including covertly fomenting dissent in the first place, followed by the rhetoric that worsened it, and now supplying the weapons that will only multiply the deaths, is a mistake born of the mistake regarding Iran.

The hostility toward Iran that has been more or less constant since Reagan has by now turned what was initially a diplomatic blunder into something like tradition. It should have been stopped long ago. The obsession with Iran's nuclear capability makes no sense. It is a circle of illogic. We need not worry about weapons in the hand of friends, yet we insist on making Iran a foe. And why? The reason given is that they might make the weapons. And the more we treat them as foes, the more they may think they need weapons.

We are only assuming without proof they are preparing to make nuclear weapons. We actively sold Iran on nuclear power in the 50's and 60's, then cut off all fuel sales to them after the revolution, leaving them no choice but to learn to enrich their own.

The official and media demonization purposely omits the history, and most people don't bother to look it up. We created the adversarial relationship, behaving as if it were real.

This article is well worth reading, regarding unintended consequences of ill-planned policies and strategies: http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=1557#top Seeds of the Syrian and Mali crises in Western Foreign Policy

The fault has been thinking of nations as chess pieces in a global power game without understanding the nature of each of them, including the internal balances that are needed for stability, governmentally and socially.

The kind of sectarian warfare that we unleashed in Iraq is already ongoing in Syria. It is not about freedom and democracy. It's about which sect gets the power. A secular government can keep relative peace between them. Take that away, and you get religious extremists on both sides, each trying to eliminate the other.

This article http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/us-actively-trying-prolong-syrian-civil-war

asks the question “Is the U.S. Actively Trying to Prolong the Syrian Civil War?”

After all, that is exactly what it WILL do by arming the rebels. That is the kind of cynical manipulation that has been used for decades, having no regard for the human lives it ends or ruins, as long as they are elsewhere.

Syrian civil war: a one-way street

As the rebels have been rewarded for refusing to attend Geneva, it seems unlikely they will stop fighting and start talking http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/editorial-syria-war-street

In Syria, U.S. may find war centuries in the making

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/14/hezbollah-lebanon-war-shiite-sunni/2416335/

President Obama has said his goal is to help the rebels protect themselves from Assad's military. Doing so will place the United States firmly on the Sunni side of the Middle East conflict and in opposition to the growing Shiite military axis of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah, experts say.

"Both sides know how fragile the situation is, and all parties are aware and concerned that the situation could violently explode in an instant," says Avi Melamed, a former Israeli senior official on Arab Affairs”

Why two sects of the same religion have developed such a hateful and violent antipathy is hard to understand. Protestant and Catholic Christians have had similar conflicts in the past, but seem to coexist in most places today with few problems.

What we do know is that there is no one more irrational and potentially violent than someone with a religion and a bad attitude, and getting between two of those is a bad idea.

US covert actions in Syria are nothing new. We were caught red-handed at it in 1957:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4328056?uid=3739552&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102323577121

In 1949 the CIA engineered a coup in Syria, overthrowing its democratic government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

According to Joseph Massad, a professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, the coup was sponsored by the United States CIA a conclusion in agreement with other historians such as Professor Douglas Little, and declassified records. The coup is also described by author Irene Gendzier, who states that "CIA agents Miles Copeland and Stephen Meade..were directly involved in the coup."

Covert United States foreign regime change actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

There is quite a long list. This article lists some of the better known ones.

The U.S. has also covertly supported opposition groups in various countries without necessarily attempting to overthrow the government.”

Syria's Bloody CIA Revolution - A Distraction?

http://www.sott.net/article/241383-Syrias-Bloody-CIA-Revolution-A-Distraction

Since its creation in 1947, the CIA has mounted approximately 3,000 major operations and 10,000 minor operations of this nature, every one of them illegal and many of them "bloody and gory beyond comprehension". According to former CIA agent John Stockwell (who was involved in several such operations), by 1988, over six million people had been killed as a result. 


In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explained that the Bush Administration planned to "take out" seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. While the sequence of invasions seems to have been revised to some extent, the plan appears to be progressing nicely for the psychopathic lords of empire. But wait! The Bush government isn't in power anymore! Obama's in charge now, right? How can the Obama administration be following a foreign policy of subversion and mass murder that was devised under another president's leadership?! Unless the president really isn't the 'commander in chief'. Unless the position of the president of the USA is little more than a ceremonial one, and some other group, that transcends changes in administrations, actually dictates government policy. But that wouldn't be democratic, so obviously it's not true.

Stay out of Other Nations’ Civil Wars http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/stay-out-other-nations-civil-wars?gclid=COvqxvGA57cCFRDl7AoduHoABw

(Even if you started the war in the first place!)

This is precisely the sort of conflict America should stay out of. The case against joining the Syrian fratricide is simple yet overwhelming: Americans have nothing at stake that warrants going to war. War should be a last resort, employed for interests that are truly vital. War should not be just another policy choice for impatient internationalists and frustrated social engineers.”

-cosmicrat June 15 2013

Comments
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    "In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explained that the Bush Administration planned to "take out" seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. While the sequence of invasions seems to have been revised to some extent, the plan appears to be progressing nicely for the psychopathic lords of empire. But wait! The Bush government isn't in power anymore! Obama's in charge now, right? How can the Obama administration be following a foreign policy of subversion and mass murder that was devised under another president's leadership?! Unless the president really isn't the 'commander in chief'. Unless the position of the president of the USA is little more than a ceremonial one, and some other group, that transcends changes in administrations, actually dictates government policy. But that wouldn't be democratic, so obviously it's not true."

    Well, yes, it is true. No, the presidential office is not a ceremonial one; it is just that the persons holding the office are from the same group. We may see some changes in the minor things but the major ones continue right along; in fact, we have seen them escalate under Obama and it will be no different with the next president.  Take the recent NSA revelations; they started under George W Bush, and perhaps further back, and despite Obama claiming how he would do away with such during his campaign, Obama has escalated the surveillance on American citizens.

     
     1619 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  Anonymous: 
     

    I can't comment on this without getting all religious.......the Bible speaks of a beast rising up out of the waters.....meaning out of the people.  And this beast will have one main leader they all listen too........that leader is supposed to take the place of three others.......out of ten and those left will do his bidding........one of the characteristics of this monster is that they will behead Christians........therefore to me this is all just stuff the Bible said would happen toward the end of time as we know it........not the will of God, just reporting what God knows people would do......thus far islam has been very busy fighting itself......but the muslim brotherhood might change all of that........dictators who would never follow anyone but themselves have been falling all over the middle east.......so from where I'm standing........all I can say is hold on to your hat, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

     
     1620 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
  •  Oakie: 
     

    The US just can't seem to get enough new Nams these days. Something has to be done about the Syrian despotism, but it should be United Nations endorsed and preferably without the States' involvement considering that America is so unpopular in the Middle-East. A U.N.-backed Arab peace-keeping force, plus economic sanctions against any nation who actively supports the current regime, especially Russia, ought to make things a lot less tenable for Assad. Iran and Hezbollah have only gotten involved to the extent that they have because of a lack of determination by the United Nation states, including the US. And now, as you indicate, the American leadership seems to want to make up for lost time by jumping out of the frying pan into the Sun.

    I know the macho power behind the US throne feel the need to decapitate every unfriendly Arab country's leadership, but sooner or later that policy could lead to a level of global war unseen for almost a century. And it would be a very dirty war. Maybe not lasting for centuries, but certainly feasibly for many decades. Though a constant war against the providers of the oil that props up Western ecomomies is unlikely to do anything other than sign the death-knell of the US and European dominance that has lasted for half a millennium.

    Why wind, sea and sun power are not higher on the agenda of the US government/media/business/people's would be a bit of a mystery if it weren't for the fact that too many people seem to have too much to gain by selling out future generations of Americans.

    Anyway, how do we sort out the two warring sectarian factions. In Ireland (a tiny problem by comparison, yet a brutal one), the real start of the peace process was the realisation by the more idealistic paramilitaries that they were becoming anacronisms. Idealistic young Irish people no longer wanted to fight for the cause. They wanted to move abroad and raise a family and become doctors or film-makers. This meant that the quality of the recruitment pool dipped and both sides ended up with mere thugs making the bulk of their organisations. I believe the IRA proposed serious peace negotiations (in secret). That combined with a less inhumane British government (now that Major had replace the demagog Thatcher) and an increasing sense of "war-fatigue" amongst the ordinary folk of Ulster ballooned into a genuine peace process. What a real success it has been. Yet the hatred is always still there, bubbling under.

    If a tiny dispute between a handful of people ruined a small country for a hundred years, what hope is there that the Syrian civil war factions are going to halt the appalling disintergration of their country? None.  There has to be influence from outside and at the moment nearly all the influence is from the pro-Assad side.

    What we really need is a global response to conflicts like these, and we also need to endorse AND LISTEN TO, neighbouring nations of Syria. Egypt does not want major military intervention and Egypt is right. If there is eventually a military response (say its the only way to save a few million trapped refugees for instance, it should be an Arab force. Not a European/American imperialist whitey-knows-better force. But before that lets bitch-slap Russia for its own muscle-flexing, with sanctions, and lets hear some major words from the U.N. and have a major plan from them. 

    The West has absolutely no credibility in the Middle-East. Our hypocrisy and double-standards, lies and propagandas, lead to marathon bombings and a decapitation on a London street. Then we turn around and cry unfair. Unfair is 90,000 dead and innocent Iraqis.

    American involvement in global conflicts once added surety and integrity. That was in the days when 90% of war fatalities were military rather than civilian. But since the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima a new standard has been set. The standard of "collateral damage". And this is an American concept. We need a new American concept. That of American diplomacy. Because that is now all the USA can afford. At it is all the rest of the world can afford too.

     
     1620 days ago·3 replies3 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      We need to clearly realize that US intervention in Syria has nothing to do with humanitarianism or anti-despotism.  We fomented and encouraged violent insurrection in the first place with the purpose of taking out Syria as an Iranian ally.  At his point, sending more weapons to the rebels is only going to prolong the war and increase the death toll, and even if they still lose, it will keep Syria weak and unstable.  It will also increase the chances that it will become a regional Sunni-Shiite war.

      The oil factor in the Middle East is not so much about insuring our own supply, which we could do by simply buying it, but because oil is a commodity we can control, profit from, and use our control of it to ensure global power.  That's why, since the 1940's, the big oil companies have been virtual "partners" in determining foreign policy.  Other energy sources can't be used that way.  Sun and wind are almost everywhere.

      Though Russia leaves a lot to be desired as a government, I think they have actually fulfilled a useful function by slowing down our interference with Syria, and to an extent, with Iran as well.  We, and the world in general, need an opposition so that global control is not absolute by one nation.  Without being an actual enemy, they have fulfilled that role fairly well.  There is always more than one point of view, and it pays to listen to it.  We should have listened to them about Afghanistan.  They were on the right side when Georgia attacked South Ossetia.  That diplomacy that we need more of does not work so well when any nation that doesn't follow our orders becomes the "bad guy".

       
       1619 days ago 
      0 points
       
    •  augiedoggy: 
       

      It seems Arabs have fought Arabs for 2000 years.  Of course, Europeans have done the same thing, but they seem to have called a timeout for a bit.  Even hating Israel can't unite Arabs.  They'll take arms from the West and from the Persians, but I doubt they'll ever become either's true friends.  Iran will probably eventually learn what the U.S. should learn:  "Arabs love your money and guns, but they hate your face."  I believe the vast majority of Arab people and leaders (including radical Islamists ) are too parochial to care much about fighting America and Europe, if we would just tell Western oil companies that Western armies are no longer available to secure their profits and middle eastern oil production joint ventures are no longer an option if you want to do business in the West.  The Chinese will move in, buy the oil and can deal with the problems if they wish. 

       
       1619 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        It is more about the Industrial Military Complex.

         
         1619 days ago 
        0 points
         
    •  enchantedone: 
       

      Here!  Here! *applauds*

       
       1619 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  Oakie: 
         

        Big Smile

         
         1619 days ago 
        0 points
         
Syria's War Could Cause a Serious Mistake