The United States President, Barack Obama, has perhaps made it his mission to send his troops to whichever country that gives him a slight hint of an excuse to do so in order to send a “pretty strong signal” that USA is the most powerful of all, and all should abide by it.
The United States President, Barack Obama, has perhaps made it his mission to send his troops to whichever country that gives him a slight hint of an excuse to do so in order to send a “pretty strong signal” that USA is the most powerful of all, and all should abide by it.
In his recent statement, made in the light of chemical weapons being used to attack hundreds of people in Syria, he said that his government has “no intention of an open-ended conflict with Syria”. In an interview to the Public Broadcasting Service of the BBC, he also said that “any action would be limited, tailored and intended to send a pretty strong signal to the Syrian government to discourage it from using chemical weapons again”.
What we don’t understand from Obama’s statement is why at all is there a need to send troops and attack Syria when his government is yet to come up with the proof that shows the Syrian government used chemical weapons to attack its own people? The team conducting the investigations has been there just for three days. Why can’t he let UN have sufficient time to do its job?
Or is US government really onto “inventing” excuses to launch a strike? Because what will come out of a 24 hour mission in Syria, which will be capable of sending a strong message across the globe and at the same time will not harm Bashar -al-Assad’s government much?
The strategic rationale for all US interventions (Non UNSC approved) are economic (read oil, oil, oil). It clearly smacks of parochial and extremely opportunistic stance on part of the global hegemony, whereby all means – legitimacy can go to hell – are justified to secure its (unjustified) oil and energy needs. Supporting examples are US interventions in Iraq, Libya and now Syria (all rich oil deposit countries). All these interventions and many others in the past were NOT approved by the UNSC.
In addition, the global arms industry (led by USA-Israel) thrives on such misadventures so as to create demands for weapons. These misadventures now establish beyond doubt the dominance of the political-industrial-bureaucratic complex as the driver of all decision making in Uncle Sam’s courtyard. In this case, the bedroom relationship between the USA’s decision-makers and the global arms industry truly comes out naked.
Whatever the reasons be, Iraq like clouds are looming over Syria currently and the consequences will be international. As BBC’s Mark Mardell says, “the slope to war is very slippery”.
Russia has already sent its anti-submarine ship and missile cruiser to the Mediterranean. China too is opposing the idea of military intervention. The UK house of commons has voted against Syria action. According to reports, the US House of Representative speaker John Boehner has demanded an explanation from US President in an open letter as to how the action will stop Syria from another attack. More than 110 members of Congress have signed a letter formally requesting Obama to seek congressional approval before taking any action in Syria.
And of course, the question of Syrian neighbours being compromised in the whole process is a big one. With Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, and of course Israel supporting an international coalition to attack Syria has boosted the US stand. But Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq and Egypt have discarded the idea of a military solution to the Syrian problem. In fact, Jordan has been the most vocal saying that it will not be used as a “launch pad” to the intervention.
As CBS reports and as Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, “I know there’s nothing weak–nothing passive, nothing naive–in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.”
The American doctrine of “responsibility to protect” is clearly an extension of the imperial ideology of the “white man’s burden.” It is in direct contravention of the long-established principles of state-sovereignty and the ability of the people to take their own decisions (self-determination).
But the question is, is Syria really Obama’s “evil”, which he believes it to be?
