This is a follow on to my post from the weekend Syrian Chemical Weapons attack: False Flag or not?, since then the UN inspectors went home, the UN repeated it's allegation that the Rebels used Chemical Weapons, I've seen evidence that the Rebels used Chemical Weapons before, were caught at the Syrian border with them, and allegations that Assad had used them before. Meanwhile I'm seeing an administration that dismisses inconvenient facts and am even more convinced we are being rolled [again] by the Military-Industrial establishment. I still believe:
- One: Unilateral action would be dumb.
- Two: The US is discounting warnings that the Saudis/Al Nusra are involved in these chemical attacks and that this is a false flag -- even though many of their own rank and file believe this.
- Three: Unless the USA can at least get more evidence on who launched those attacks, they risk falling into a trap.
The Blog "Who What why" reminds us that Wesley Clark testified back around 2008 that a neo-conservative agenda included Syria and has since 9/11 provided them with the opportunity. Who What Why Reminds us that he said at the time:
"2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a “policy coup” at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Wesley Clark wrote recently in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/. He compares the attack on Syria not to Kosovo, but to Clinton's punishment strike on Saddam Hussein for a plot to assassinate GHW Bush in 1993
"First, Kosovo was a much larger effort. In terms of scope, a more analogous precedent to a strike on Syria would be President Clinton's strike against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's intelligence center in Baghdad with cruise missiles in 1993, in punishment for Saddam's alleged plot to assassinate former president George H. W. Bush."
But wait, at the time I heard that was to punish Saddam for outrages he'd perpetrated against his Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the North. I guess I should be used to lies as a cover for real reasons by now. Anyway Clark supports a reaction to the use of chemical weapons:
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
But of course, if the Saudis were using chemical weapons to try to start a false flag, I'm not sure that punishing Assad as they want us to, is going to do it. We need concerted action, and we need to make sure that we don't get tricked into doing what our frenemies want us to do instead of what is good for us and the world as a whole.
And the UN Secretary warns (and so Does Wesley Clark obliquely:
"I take note of the argument for action to prevent a future use of chemical weapons. At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate the political resolution of the conflict," Ban said.
So we need to do something, as a world. Not sure the United States is going to win out by launching a punitive strike that helps the Al Nusra/Saudi's at our expense. But something is needed. And everyone, agrees:
Ban did not blame any party for the alleged attack on a Damascus suburb, saying that "If confirmed, any use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances will be a serious violation of international law and an outrageous war crime."
We need an international intervention. And we need the various greedy parties to set aside their destructive "grand game" and do the right thing (for a change):
"Whatever the source, this latest allegation should be as wakeup call for the international community," Ban said.
So, while I'm still convinced we are being rolled, the US needs to be active here. Maybe go to the UN next. But striking Assad? Not sure we'll get the kind of "bang for a buck we really want. Because the blowback from such a thing can be hell, and because we aren't likely to get rid of them at this point, since both sides have them.
He stressed that an ongoing investigation by U.N. chemical weapons experts "is uniquely placed to independently establish the facts in an objective and impartial manner."
Too Bad the UN doesn't have a court with International Sheriff powers and genuine Juries.
"UN chief: US attack to punish alleged Syria chemical weapons attack could unleash more turmoil."
Oh well. We are definitely being rolled by a whole lot of greedy, ambitious and perverse players. But this box has steel walls. I'm listening to Chris Hayes and am hoping he has better ideas than I have at this moment, because nobody is following my ideas. I'll publish this as soon as I hear what he has to say.
Oh s**t. Chris sees this even darker than I do. He's really sure that a strike will make things much worse. He sees Assad's regime as desperate, and that if he used Gas, it was as a statement that he and his followers have their backs to the wall and are in this together. So we attack, and they are not going to stop, but raise the ante instead. He also points out what I've been pointing that the Rebels include Jihadi's whose program makes Assad's look enlightened by comparison. And he suggests that we spend money actually supporting refugees, and preparing to repair the problems.
As I noted today, cruise missiles are really expensive (Chris gives the numbers) and aren't a strap on Phallic symbol, but a very expensive piece of equipment guaranteed to kill civilians (especially if it does hit chemical weapons). There has to be a better solution to the Syrians than the USA bombing the smithereens of them. I don't think it is good for the USA. I know it's not good for the long term survival of anyone, especially Israel and Israelis, and it may satisfy the atavistic urges of a few chicken hawks (who never send their own kids). But it will make a few people very rich, and so as John Stewart says:
"The idiot parade is in town!"