by John Galt
September 1, 2013 11:00 ET
The old 1980’s PSA anti-drug campaign says it best:
Why say no to another war without a defined mission, a Constitutional reason, or strategic objective? Let us all take a moment to review the crisis and the consequences of the dangers which the United States encounters by attacking the small nation of Syria which has never in its history attacked us.
First and foremost, the war hawks and chicken hawks have been all over television making false proclamations that the President already has the justification to attack the nation of Syria under Article 5 of the NATO treaty which states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
The interesting part of this claim the warmongers wish to promote is that since Turkey was attacked by Syria last year and two years ago during artillery exchanges with rebels which spilled into Turkish territory is that this justifies NATO or its members attacking the Assad regime. What is conveniently left out of this discussion is the fact that the United States and Turkey committed an act of war first by arming rebels and permitting them to attack Syrian military positions from Turkey before the Syrian counterattacks began! Will the mainstream media point this fact out? No, just as they failed to investigate the Bush administration’s WMD claims before the calamity in Iraq began.
Also if one notes the portion I have highlighted in red above, the United States nor Turkey have reported the violations to the U.N. Security Council until last week where they decided to protest not the attack on Turkish territory but the unconfirmed use of chemical weapons allegedly by the Assad regime.
Secondly, the crucial facts being left out of the discussion by convenience of omission is the use of chemical weapons by the very rebels America, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Arab states have been supporting surreptitiously. The report that Saudi Arabia was supplying the rebels with chemical weapons has been dismissed by Western leaders as propaganda but there is an unfortunate equally amount of ignorance by the Western press. At no point in time has there been an official accounting for the Libyan chemical weapons arsenal of the deposed Qaddafi regime that our State Department was supposed to control using its mercenary force (Private Security Contractors). In fact indications are that weapons that were being transferred from Libya to the rebels, including Al Qaeda cells, may include shoulder fired SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles yet the United States government has remained silent.
Why was the Obama regime silent? From the article “Reshaping the Syrian Battlefield” via Oilprice.com on March 4, 2013:
From the time that Ambassador Chris Stevens was named liaison with the rebels in Libya in March 2011, he worked closely with the leader of the February 17th Martyr Brigade. When President Obama authorized in 2012 the distribution of heavy weapons to the rebels, it was through Abdel Hakim Belhadj with his Qatari credentials and his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood that gave the ambassador an open channel.
A shipment of four hundred tons of arms that included anti-tank weapons and even anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles from the Gaddafi arsenals arrived in Turkey on September 6th. The Turks required that such arms would have to be handled by the Syrian National Council that is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Working at arm’s-length through the Brotherhood enabled the U.S. to continue the fairytale that it was providing only non-lethal equipment. After the murder of the ambassador, the supply chain to the arms of Libya was broken and former Secretary of State Clinton in November abandoned support of the unpopular SNC. The Turks too withdrew support for the Syrian National Council in favor of the newly formed Syrian National Coalition.
By working with Qatar, Washington had taken a position opposing the Saudis. Unlike the Qataris, the Saudis did not have ready access to the vast supplies of looted Gaddafi arms and had to acquire theirs on the open market. They were blocked from transferring their American arms to the rebels.
Circumstances, however, have shifted to favor the Saudis. The United States no longer has an organization that it can use as a shield and insists that Washington will provide only non-lethal materials to the rebels. Washington has contributed 385 million dollars in aid over the past two years. Since Saudi Arabia has revealed that it is supplying heavier weapons to groups in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to increase the American aid in quantity and variety. The additional aid will include military training for the approved groups and armored vehicles so long as the recipients can certify that they equipment will be employed for the protection of civilians, but not many in the Middle East consider the United States a reliable participant.
With the Qatari and Saudi government taking the lead in supplying the rebels yet not publicly admitting to what munitions they are transferring other than the infamous phrase of “small arms,” it is little wonder that there is a lot of skepticism in the American proclamations of a Syrian government attack on their own citizens.
Lastly, the most obvious point is the one that the U.S. political elites need to debate regarding our intervention in the war. Why would Assad attack his own civilian population with chemical weapons when such an attack would invite an American retaliation and disrupt the near stalemate on the battlefield around Damascus? There is no logical rhyme or reason for the regime to invite the wrath of Obama and the U.S. military but there are other parties which need the involvement of American firepower to tilt the balance of the conflict in favor of the pro-Saudi/Qatari rebels.
If the rebels were able to launch a chemical attack and make it appear to the world that the Assad regime conducted the attack, the horrific images and revulsion of dead children being carted off to unmarked graves would create the reaction necessary to initiate U.S. action. The fact that the CIA specializes in deception and false flag attacks of this type does not help argue in favor of this attack being conducted by the Syrian military. The rebels have proven through their savagery that they are not fighting this war for any great humanitarian cause nor the greater good of the Syrian people as a whole so why would they want to launch such an attack?
Perhaps it is for the real reason this so-called rebellion began, a war for oil.
The desire to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar and Saudi Arabia first took hold in 2009 but due to the uprisings within the “Arab Spring” which followed and massive instability created from the uprisings, Bashar Al-Assad’s distrust of the Sunni governments which supported the rebellions caused his heart to change from one of cooperation to absolute opposition to the pipelines and any other projects with the governments on the Arabian peninsula. The pipeline project through Syria was spiked by Assad and shortly thereafter, the rebellion in Syria began under the guise of the Arab Spring.
The United States, once again, is being funded and pushed by the Arab nations within OPEC to fight a war so they will have a sustainable market for their natural gas and petroleum products in the near future as the United States shifts from an oil importer to the role of exporter in direct competition with their former Arab allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar desperately need a consolidated Middle East free of Russian and Israeli influence so there is no competition for supplying Europe with their energy needs for at least the next forty plus years. As long as those two nations remain in the region with any economic or military superiority over the old OPEC regimes, then the ability to offer alternatives to Iranian and Russian petroleum products is via price competition versus a strategic monopoly.
It is time for American politicians to take a stand and quit the five decade old process of allowing our soldiers, our friends and family members, to act as the Janissaries for the House of Saud. When the resolution for military action comes to a vote on the floor of the House and Senate, we must pressure our political representatives to quit spilling American blood as well as that of the civilians which inevitably die during an expanded conflict. The consequences of a wider Middle East war possibly involving Chinese and Russian economic and possibly military retaliation are not worth the risk of attempting to preserve Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize legacy.