washington considers direct attack syria

Akela Husseinowitsch Obama
Akela Husseinowitsch Obama

Syria: Obama has to act after he ignored Egypt?

Pentagon updates possible list of targets in Syria after massacre under false-flag by Syrian rebels in Jobar.

Advertisment

Another translation of an article on Syria and the recent alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Jobar.

The article focuses on the acts and possible options of the U.S. administration and President Barack Obama in regards of Syria and their violent agenda to overthrow the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad in the capital of the Arab nation, Damascus. However, although there are many new reports about a possible imminent military intervention in Syria, this case is not really to expect up to now.

However, the warmongers in Washington and Israel are capable of these violent and really crazy actions, of course. The Obama administration and the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv prove their incapability of a humanitarian thinking almost every day on the globe – just to carry out their agendas.

What to do, Akela?

The chiefs of staff of the British and the Americans have each justified themselves to their politicians in terms on the prospects of a “military intervention” in Syria. Neither of them has expressed something really new in his statements.

Essentially, they have warned that a war cannot run confined (restricted), when the politicians want to have a result. Based on their “experiences” in Iraq and Afghanistan, one should consider previously what has to happen after the war in the subjugated country – specifically, that there should be a functioning government.

Akela Husseinowitsch Obama
Akela Husseinowitsch Obama

Otherwise the country will be dragged in a years-or decades-long bloodbath, as it is already repeatedly known from several examples:

“The use of U.S. military force can change the military balance,” Dempsey said. “But it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fuelling this conflict.” Dempsey has … continually warned the country’s political elite against stronger military commitment in the conflict, citing the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dempsey thus supported the Obama administration’s current policy of providing humanitarian assistance and some limited help to moderate opposition, saying that would be “the best framework for an effective U.S. strategy toward Syria.” (Source)

In other words, Dempsey warns that the armed forces will carry out a decision for a war but that the politicians have, however, to worry about the consequences in advance.

That was even one of the fundamental tenets of Barack Obama, who even said before his first election victory, that the Republicans had, when they still ruled the country, to easily engaged in military conflicts, without weighing the consequences – neither for the “liberated” countries, nor for themselves.

What would be the rational reasons now for the situation that, as it is currently written very often, “Obama comes under pressure” in terms of Syria? No one seriously believes in the ramblings of “red lines”, probably kenning / understanding, that there just have to be occasions at times that represent a pretext for war.

Obama has recently suffered his second defeat during the “Arab Spring”. The first defeat yet looked like a needle stick, which was very effective in terms of the media, of course: the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi (Libya). The second defeat of Obama was the military coup in Egypt.

And this already has a system, because the support for that came from Saudi Arabia and almost certainly also from Israel. These processes undermine Obama’s position both in Syria and in the upcoming negotiations between the Americans and Iran.

Democracy back and forth, weapons of mass destruction are still no fun – not matter whether anyone has actually used such weapons or not. The main thing is the drawing of an image of a situation that gets out of control. On this basis, one is able to cobble together any / some coalition and to “wipe out” Damascus.

How this should be beneficial for the control of the chemical weapons in Syria is not of interest for them, especially since the backers know exactly whether they were used or not.

The fact is that Barack Obama needs to do something after they have so clearly ignored the current events in Egypt. If he swallows it, he soon receives another severe drubbing. The policy does not tolerate any weak person, especially not a weakened powerful person.

All in all, this means that the Americans in all seriousness consider a direct attack on Syria.

Currently, only the lack of clarity over what will happen afterwards restrains them from doing so – there is no enthusiasm for a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan, where they invaded quickly, but were not able to get out so quickly.

If the U.S. military has already send another, fourth warship with cruise missiles into the Mediterranean, then this is not just for a further political pressure on Syria, but certainly a preparation for a possible attack on Syria.

Until recently, this variant has not been really seriously considered, but meanwhile, the military coup in Egypt was very unpleasant for Obama. There is indeed a good chance that an attack on Syria, without any concern for the time afterwards in the Arab nation, now appears to be rational for Obama, in order to restore his position as a feudal Akela (in Kipling’s sense / fictional character in Rudyard Kipling’s stories).

In any case, the probability of a war against Syria has increased significantly after the events in Egypt.

Source: apxwn

Advertisment

6 Comments

  1. The Chicken Hawks in DC have been wetting their pants for a couple of years now, trying to find some excuse to invade Syria, so this is no news.

    • true.. they probably will receive a bloody nose (again).. however if it happens, its just sad for the US soldiers that are then part of such a war/mission.. as usual.

      • MK, the Chicken Hawks have gotten much more sophisticated. What they’ll do is try to swindle NATO into doing the killing. Our forces will stand off and launch drone strides at everything that moves, and cruise missiles against anything that looks like a factory, or a grain elevator, or a single story home that can be called a ‘suspected bunker’. NATO will get the dirty work of engaging SAF and dropping cluster munitions on schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and weapons depots. When the ground phase starts, the Chicken Hawks will, again, swindle NATO and EU forces into making the assaults and engaging SAA. We do NOT have enough troops and tanks to do the job; even a cheap remake of Iraq would not be possible anymore. The ‘allies’ would, eventually, ‘win’ a DU poisoned land in a toxic region, thanks to depleted uranium scattered about like confetti at some hideous entertainment. If the US invades, or sponsors a de jure invasion of, Syria, the only possible winners will be the arms manufacturers, none of whom will actually risk anything at all. Nothing. I am an American who really loves this country, and I utterly despise this government and no longer respect a military which just salutes and then commits the most horrific abominations upon a country and people which have never been a threat to us. It is an enterprise of Satan, wholly evil, and no one engaged in it will not go un-tarred by the brush of Lucifer. No one, high or low.

  2. This time they will likely use missiles to destroy infrastructure, without ground forces, just as they did in other coubtries already. Who says that Lybia was no success for the US? A couple of sacrificed guys including an ambassador, so what. Important are the arms deals, oil money and a weakened regime that is busy fighting internal strifes, and therefore has no time and lust to confront Israeli and US policy. How cares about the resulting death and desperation of millions? Noone in Lybia or Iraq speaks of an attack against Israel anymore. Mission achieved. And, if anyone in future turns against the US, it will not be a whole army, but rather a couple of rogue extremists. It the eyes of the US, with Ghadafi, Hussein, Taliban, rogue regimes have gone. Assad is next on the list. And he is a relatively easy target, compared to Iran. Sorry to say so, but the aftermath in Syria is not important this time. Chaos is actually better than a controlled transition. The only worry for the US boys and Israel – chemicals… Not so much in the hands of a news islamic regime in Syria, no. They fear the chemicals in the hands of then jobless and revengeful former SAA guys. Thats the only trump card the legitimate Government of Syria seems to have right now against a rogue US attack. Well, lets see with what solutions Nobel peace lauraete Obama (bin Laden) comes up next….

    • AH, Libya lost the war, the US won nothing except the (temporary) continuance of the US dollar as reserve currency, to pay for – – stuff. You probably know that Gaddafi was set to roll out the Libyan Gold Dinar in June, somebody leaked the info in February. It was Hillary Clinton who ordered the initial air strikes while Obama was busy in South America trying to sew up the ‘Free Trade Zone of the Americas’; she notified him by way of cell phone, and he backed up her action. You probably also know that the Libyan citizens Gaddafi was supposedly busy massacring were al Qaida and MB, which he was busily rooting out and killing wherever found. You also probably know that Libya was secular, stable, and increasingly prosperous; the Libyan government spent fortunes to build modern infrastructure, as well as schools, libraries, clinics and state-of-the-art hospitals. Part of the infrastructure money went for underground aquaducts, the increase in arable land permitted a corresponding increase in agriculture to the point where Libya was rapidly becoming ‘the bread basket of North Africa’, with sales increasing every harvest. Every Libyan of employable age received a government check for about a thousand dollars in US exchange value, whether they worked or not, hence the huge numbers of foreign workers in Libya.

      At the time the attacks were launched, until the Libyan government fell, Libya had no contractual links to either World Bank nor IMF; recall, if you will, that prior to her accession to Secretary of State, Hillary had been very near the top of a very short list to head the World Bank; in her post as Secretary of State, she was of infinitely more value to the banksters than she would have been as CEO of World Bank. As a bankster, she could not possibly have initiated an unlawful war to take down a rogue country which was switching to a gold currency.

      So far as I know, the Libyan oil concessions have been withheld from US companies, or nearly in entirety, thus another failure for the US. Monsanto dashed in with its GMO seeds in hopes of producing all toxic crops in Libya; I have to admit that I don’t know how well that worked out, if at all, but without aquaducts Libya would be lucky to grow enough food for its own people, and the aquaducts were heavily targeted as being ‘secret tunnels’ for movement of weapons and personnel, I assume with a fair degree of success. For a considerable time Libya was used as a training ground for terrorists, and the Gaddafi arsenals have been looted by wholesale but the bloom is off the rose. Once again, Libyan forces are dealing with al Qaida and MB, the weapons depots must be nearly empty by now, so there is no longer anything in Libya for the US. Bummer, huh?

      President Mubarak had his security forces busily tracking down and exterminating MB and al Qaida, too. Another bloodthirsty madman, killing his own people. Another country which was secular, stable, and increasingly self sufficient, but Mubarak made a fatal error in refusing the US a concession to build a permanent base in Egypt. Oops. Mubarak has to go, bring on MB and Egypt’s tears will all be dried. The bloom’s off that rose, too, as you know. Nobody knows for sure how that will play out, especially since MB headquarters is in London, but since Egypt is stiff arming both London and Washington, I’ve hopes that the Egyptians can get their country back. So far as I can tell, the Egyptian security apparatus is being used in a pretty good manner, but the Sinai command needs to be replaced, most rikitik; I think that they’ve lost more men due to incompetence in command than to any skilled use of enemy forces; I know that the Sinai is a pretty big sand patch and that guerillas would seem to have the advantage, but desert operations impose hideous logistical strictures which would be very difficult for the enemy to overcome; in order to rearms or resupply they would, very soon, be forced to rely upon captured government stocks. Unfortunately, until government’s Sinai command is thoroughly weeded out and squared away my opinion is that the guerillas will get an almost free ride.

      Iraq? Well, Iraq was also a secular and stable country which was getting along on the resources available to it. Iraq didn’t belong to either World Bank nor IMF, either. Saddam decided to dump the dollar for oil money, and go to the euro. Now Saddam, according to most reports, was nobody’s idea of Father Christmas. I was busy exterminating al Qaida and MB to the point where there were no known living members of either in Iraq, but that was his own business, so long as he didn’t mess with the reserve currency. Now it gets a little complicated. The US had, at that time, a nice share of the oil concessions and didn’t want to mess that up, so Saddam was conned into thinking that anything he conquered south of his border would be his, we would buy Kuwaiti oil from him, but the Saudi oil being of poor quality, he could do whatever he wanted with. Saddam’s military went through Kuwait like crap through a goose and, if reports are correct, he stopped at the Saudi line because his army ran out of gas, food and potable water, besides which his army was hamstrung because it was road bound.
      It could not navigate the desert by either day or night. While he was scrambling for transport to get supplies to his army, KSA was screaming its *ss of for help; somebody, somewhere, in DC knew right away that Saddam’s big invasion was a bust, and the only thing left to do was bail out the Saudis in the interest of supplying the US with oil. Fine, but we need to distract Saddam with something internal to Iraq, so we’ll just talk the southern Iraqi Shi’ia into an uprising, and the Kurds in the north; that will eat up enough time so that we can get all set for a haymaker right from the boot tops, which was done. The only intent at that time was to put Saddam safely back into his cage, restore the status quo ante (sort of), and make sure his aerial assets are rendered useless. Remember, Saddam was told that anything he took south of his own border he could keep so, when NATO attacked he was not only astonished, he also knew full well that he’d been betrayed. Had he been able to roll on to Riyadh, all would have probably been well since KSA had been an increasingly irritating burr under the US saddle for some time. His military just didn’t pack the gear to get the job done, so Gulf War I was on, with limited strategic objectives.

      At the conclusion, Saddam was allowed to keep his helicopters in operation ‘for humanitarian purposes’, they being exempted from the no fly restrictions. He converted them to gunships and set about trying to exterminate the southern Shi’ia and the Kurds, but the Kurds were too tough a nut to crack and that objective was pidgeon holed. He also set about destroying his C-B weapons, but in the run up to Golf War II, DC claimed that he had scads of the stuff, mobile manufacturys, fleets of scud launchers, yatta-yatta, not true. This time it was about oil, although it was widely trumpeted that Saddam was killing off his own people by wholesale (southern Shi’ia, yes), that he was a mad dictator blah-blah-blah, a regime change was needed so that American Democracy could be gifted to the Iraqi people blah-blah-blah. At this time there were no living al Qaida or MB in Iraq, Washington’s claims to the contrary not withstanding. Al Qaida, allegedly, had carpeted the Iraqi desert with training camps which made Iraq a threat to all the decent people upon the face of the earth. Well, the US didn’t win this one, either. When it was all over, the oil concessions went to almost any oil company which was not American. Monsanto did quite well, being the designated seed supplier as one of the 80 ‘points’ of the occupation agreement, especially after Israel destroyed the regional seed bank in Syria (claiming that it was a nuclear facility of some unspecified sort); in the process of all this the US military spewed forth so much depleted uranium and the soil and water are fatally contaminated for the few hundred million years; Iraq Iraqis will, eventually become extinct because of it. So, anyway, none of the oil objectives have been achieved, post war Iraq is stiff with al Qaida and a host of other ne’er do wells over which the US has no control any more.

      Hmmm. What to do – – if it’s true that idle hands are the devil’s workshop, maybe we could just channel their energies in another direction. Let’s see. Iran? No. Not a prayer of winning there. Syria. Yeah. A stable secular country, pretty prosperous, it’s got oil, very productive crop land, nice manufacturing base and another madman who kills his own people by wholesale; yeah, he’s just keeping the jihadi rats in check, but that’s not how we’ll sell it. Besides, the Syrian people really need to be gifted with American Democracy, ya dig, bro?

      So. Here we are. In my opinion, the US/NATO cannot win a war in Syria. Kill thousands upon thousands of people, flatten thousands and thousands of buildings yes, but win? No. Okay, why do I think that? Because I believe that the Syrian people would put their whole heart into it, and that the US/NATO troops wouldn’t have the heart FOR it. There are no more cake walks out there, it would be dead wrong and the troops know it; there’s nothing in it for Snuffy at the end of it, the resources in money, and man power just don’t exist anymore, and no one can come up with any excuse for the war that has even a scintilla of logic to it. KSA’s military isn’t up to any kind of meaningful participation, Jordan doesn’t want to play and is only in the game at all because it’s in a nutcracker. Iraq isn’t up to another war, but would probably give Iran right of passage in the interest of regional self defense. The West is right in the middle of a sh*t sandwich, and will have to eat the whole thing, if somebody doesn’t grow a brain in DC, London, or both. Anyway, all aggressive wars are about money so, cui bono, huh?

      Iraq is – – different – – sort of.

Comments are closed.