My having accepted Obama’s profile (that he hated England because of their global oppression / Imperialist nature … if only in his ancestor’s home, Kenya …) I find I must ask myself, ‘why is it he seems so willing to continue to work with them in this military foray, once again into the 3rd world?’
Britain’s Columnist Melanie Phillips offers some insights into this proposed military strike in Syria.
“It is that most vacuous, cynical and desperate of political knee-jerk reactions – the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’- anything … (has the accusation of “leading from behind” had an impact?
Obama has reacted in predictable fashion by thoughtfully alerting the enemy in advance to what he is about to do to them, so that everyone involved has the chance to run away before they get hurt. His officials told the New York Times (which was promptly hacked, reportedly by the Syrian regime) that the action under consideration was ‘“limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days.
The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers and 2 aircraft carriers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, …
‘The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks… the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site…’ and just to make things crystal clear, that it ‘would not accomplish Mr Obama’s repeated demand that Mr Assad step down’.
What kind of Commander-in-Chief publicly announces in advance details and targets of his proposed strike? A Commander-in-Chief who is going to war not to defeat an enemy but, cynically and opportunistically, to win plaudits at home.
Of course, this may all be a bluff to conceal a far deadlier military action against the Assad regime. But given Obama’s past form in leaking sensitive military information, it seems all too likely that this is indeed what is intended.
Faced with the chemical attack in Syria, says Cameron, ‘the world cannot stand by’. Today though, the British Parliment voted against military action (fear of local repercussions?)
Oh really? So why did he ‘stand by’ while the Copts of Egypt were subjected to savage pogroms by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics – who Cameron and Obama actually helped put into power in that country?”
Why did he ‘stand by’ while Christians were burned alive in their churches, converted at gunpoint or ethnically cleansed by Islamic zealots week in, week out, across Africa and the Third World?
Despite the declared intention to avoid hitting the chemical weapons stores, what if in the chaos of bombing raids these materials fall into the hands of al Qaeda who will use them against the west?
So what is Cameron and Obama’s strategic goal in Syria? No-one knows. Do they? Do they want to remove Assad? Apparently not; they just want to make him stop being a murderous psychopath. And they are going to do that, it seems, by strikes which they assure him will leave him in power.
The point of this strike, therefore, is not military but political. The aim of military action is to defeat the other guy. The aim of this proposed action, however, is not to defeat Assad. It is merely a rap over the knuckles. It is a gesture.
Assad has murdered something like 100,000 of his own citizens, reportedly gassing untold numbers of them. The idea that such a man will respond to a rap over the knuckles with anything other than irritated contempt is beyond risible. For Obama and Cameron seriously to be suggesting that they will deter Assad in this way is the political equivalent of King Lear impotently howling revenge upon his daughters.
So who do Cameron and Obama actually want to see in power in Syria?
From the noises made by both administrations, they seem to support ‘the rebels’ (having backed Assad for years, turning a blind eye to his sinister role as Iran’s proxy and his terrifying arsenal of not just chemical but biological weapons).
But these rebels include the Islamist fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. Appalling as is Assad, these forces would be as bad if not worse for the Syrians themselves, and certainly even worse for the west – since Assad is at least a rational actor governed by self-interest, which the Islamists are not …”
Would it be a surprise if the Muslim Brotherhood ended up replacing Assad? Not really . . . . not looking at Obama’s track record ……
Commentator Pat Buchanan today asked an important question: Who benefited from the gassing of civilians? It certainly wasn’t Assad!