Obama’s Proposed War on Syria: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2009, now he is pushing for war against Syria to promote the interests of his Neocon-Israelite allies and to save face from early policy failures by doubling down.

Writes historian Eric Margolis at the lewrockwell.com

Let’s face some hard facts about the vicious conflict in Syria.

If the US directly attacks Syria,  the real cause will not be the recent chemical attacks.  What are 300 or so dead in a 2-year old war fuelled by the western powers that has so far killed over 100,000?

Chemical weapons are horrible. So are bullets, shells, bombs, cluster bombs, fuel-air explosive, white phosphorus, and napalm.  All wars are crime writ large.

We don’t yet know if the recent chemical massacre in Damascus was a real chemical attack using Sarin nerve gas,  a rebel provocation, an industrial accident, or an attack by rogue Syrian army units?  After Iraq, we can’t trust western intelligence and so-called evidence.

This is not even the main issue at hand though it makes an excellent pretext for outside powers to intervene.

The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region.  Israel, hoping to isolate Hezbollah and cement its annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, cheers from the sidelines.  Syria and Hezbollah are  Iran’s only Arab friends.

The US and allies ignited the anti-Assad uprising two years ago, using the underground Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and imported jihadis.   But Assad’s forces, with some limited help from Russia, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah,  held on and are now beating the US-backed rebels.

As a result, the Obama administration is now leaning towards direct US military intervention to stave off defeat of its proxies by neutralizing Assad’s air force, armor and artillery.  As for Syria’s chemical weapons, they were developed as a counter to Israel large nuclear and chemical arsenal.

Read the rest here 

The possible unintended consequences: risk of war with Russia. Again Mr. Margolis

More tellingly, Gen. Colin Powell, who disgraced himself before the world by parroting the Bush administration’s lies about Iraq now also urges caution over Syria.

Powell is right.  The US has lost its last two “crusades” in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The US  has no strategic interests in Syria beyond an obsession to overthrow Iran’s disobedient government.

Washington’s Syrian misadventure threatens to put the US on a very perilous collision course with Russia,  Syria’s close ally.  So far, Russia has sought a diplomatic solution, but it’s most unwise to push tough Vladimir Putin too hard.  Syria is as close to Russia as northern  Mexico is to the United States.

Courting even the remote threat of a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia just to overthrow President Assad, a former US ally,  is the height of irresponsibility.

This just shows how politics can render people obsessed with power arrogantly blind.