President Obama has drawn a red line in the figurative sand in saying that chemical weapons will be the tipping point for U.S. military engagement with Syria. (Read article, USAToday.com)
Syria almost certainly has these weapons and Assad, the lunatic running a campaign of state terrorism has threatened to deploy them. Yet the situation all too closely parallels a recent justification for launching a Middle East war ... the war on Iraq.
First, before you go sideways on me, let me say I absolutely detest Assad's reign of terror on his people. He has gone insane, if you ask me ... caring far more about his own temporal power (and neck?) than about his people. He is viscous — a badman in every light. He has killed over ten thousand of the citizens of Syria in merciless bombardments.
Saddam Hussein, like Assad, was insane. He was killing his people and, was killing Iranians WITH WMD ... chemical weapons. We launched a war on him, garnering support for attacking a sovereign nation by declaring that he had stockpiled WMD, both chemical and biological, and was a threat to ourselves and to Israel. We also implied he had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. A big difference there was that when we attacked Iraq ... we couldn't find a single chemical or biological weapon.
This must have been a great mystery to many for this simple reason: The U.S. sold Saddam millions of dollars worth of the supplies and technology necessary to make chemical weapons like mustard gas and sarin!
Consider this excerpt from CounterPunch.com:
"On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, 'Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas.' Quoting anonymous U.S. 'senior military officers,' the NYT 'revealed' that in the 1980s, the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan covertly provided 'critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war.' The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.
While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of U.S. military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the U.S. helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs."
Both Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior aided Saddam in his war against Iraq, making his extensive use of weapons of mass destruction possible! Why? Well, he was using them against Iran — for one thing. Of course, he also used them on the Kurds, his own people — but, hey ... collateral damage right? As an aside I would like to know how many of you are proud that the U.S., under the leadership of Reagan and Bush Sr., sold Saddam Hussein the vital supplies and technology to make and use weapons of mass destruction against Iranians and Iraqis. Here is the thing ... When a U.S. president talks about chemical weapons or WMD in general " falling into the wrong hands," I find it disingenuous at the least.
Even with our reported 90 percent reduction in chemical and biological weapons, we still have over three thousand TONS of declared material. And you know we have the delivery systems capable of putting them on anyone's doorstep. So, I would like to know ... who has the right hands for WMD? Not us for sure ... we couldn't resist selling them to help our good friend Saddam fight Iran. A war on Syria, is an act of insanity, of imperialism run out of control, or both. We should have responded long ago ... Assad has been on a roll for quite awhile. I don't know that sanctions would have worked ... But, I do know that trillions of dollars later, with thousands of brave Americans dead and over thirty thousand seriously wounded ... with at least one hundred and twenty thousand casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly civilians ... we have a police state on the one hand and Afghanistan is still way out of control with no promise of democracy in sight.
Israel, by the way, has not ratified it's part in the convention to disarm chemical and biological weapons. I don't think they have used them but they certainly made them for some reason ... as did the U.S. The difference is we used them by proxy. Iran, of course, defends Syria verbally. So, is this all a presage for an all out Middle East War? I see the potential and I am no one ... People get edgy when a super power attacks their country. They tend to throw all they have into their defense. It will be WMD in Assad's case. As to the U.S. gain — we may bring down one more bad guy for the effort ... but, at what expense? WW3? Is this what we want? I don't know U.S. history in Assad's rise to power. We helped create Saddam ... that is historical fact. But it is clear that, from before the time the U.S. overthrew Iran's Mossadegh in the fifties, NOTHING we have done in the Middle East has been to bring democracy to people, to free them ... in a word ... for altruistic purposes. So, despite the murders conducted by Assad ... If we do attack Syria, it will be to control Syria and, as with Iraq and Afghanistan ... it's not likely to work. Additionally it just might set off WW3 ...
1. At the moment we are not well positioned to intervene except by air strikes. Most of our troops are gone from Iraq and they would not be welcomed back. Much of our ground force is tied up in Afghanistan. 2. The rebels would not welcome overt support from us or Israel. They do not want to appear as puppets of the Great Satan. 3. We have a vested interest in keeping this civil war going. Assad's #1 supporter is Iran. He gets financial, military and political assistance from them. Bleed Assad and you bleed Iran. 4. If Assad has chemical weapons why has he not already used them? He can't use them in a major population center like Aleppo, but Homs would seem like a likely place to use chemicals. 5. It was never clear what Israel was doing when they bombed Syria a few years ago. How much of Assad's WMD stockpile has already been wiped out by overt or covert action? 6. Syria doesn't have much oil. Why should we care?
You are basically correct. Also, the fact that there is not a lot that we CAN do at the moment. I should point out I am talking about the likely reasoning of the administration, not my personal views, although they are similar. To elaborate: 1. Although chemical weapons sound scary, they aren't really an effective way to kill a lot of people. Young men with machine guns have done much worse damage than chemical weapons by several orders of magnitude. 2. If Obama is talking tough like this, then he probably has intel that NBC (nuke, bio, chem) is unlikely at this time. First rule of politics - don't say anything your opponents can stick you with later. 3. You can bet money the Israelis are all over this. They share a border and a long history with Assad. I would lay money down that they know exactly where 99% of Assad's NBC weapons are and they are keeping a close watch on them.
I prefer to see the US stay out of the conflicts unless we are attacked on US soil. I am tired of the argument that a few $Billion now will save a $Trillion later. If we depended on ourselves for oil, we would not have to worry about the other hemisphere. Let's be honest here- our Government is only worried about the safe passage of oil barges to feed our supply. Eliminate the dependance on foreign oil, and why would we really care about that side of the Planet? So instead of burning light sweet crude, can we start burning our own supply of second rate reserves and tell the EPA to get bent?
In regards to past presidents selling weapons to Saddam - what are you looking for here? Of course, they did that. The U.S. has always done that. How do think Al Qaida got started? Look up UNITA or the Contras. It's a practice I strongly oppose, but the U.S. has done this for their entire history. Heck, we were arming "our guys" during the French & Indian War. Who do you think is supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels now? Remember, they aren't terrorists if they are killing people we don't like.
When we can not afford to feed our hungry here on US soil, it is time to bring all of our boys home, and keep them here defending our soil.
Won the Battle of Baghdad, but lost the rest of the world!" -- from the song "Lord of the Realm" on the Local News CD by Embedded Reporter
I don't know if you have seen this article; however, it fits very well with your blog. http://theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=9733 Here is where I struggle with heavy criticism of past foreign policy decisions. How do we know the world would be a better place if the US had not intervened? Most likely, Saddam would have killed Kurds with or without our wmd's. Also, many of the decisions we made were based on the chess match we played with the USSR. What does a world look like where USSR gains control of Middle East oil fields as we step back and watch? Would post 9/11have been different if a Democratic President had been in the White House, maybe, but probably not. The American people, not the government alone, wanted a country to blame. Saddam fit the role. Lastly, should we not also hold responsible those presidents that sat back and did nothing. Clinton never addressed the growing threat of terrorism even after numerous attacks on American interests. That lack of foreign leadership could be pointed as the reason the 9/11 attackers were able to pull off what they did. No president is immune to foreign policy failures. Most are left to deal with the previous administrations F-ups. It is a snowball effect that could go back 100 years to our failure after WWI that created the conditions for WWII. "The world no longer listens to Washington elites. Now it's our turn to do the same."
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades." Dwight Eisenhower full text at: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html I hope people here read both your link and this statement (full) by Eisenhower. Enlightening.
Re: "How do we know the world would bee a better place had we not intervened? " We don't.... But we do know we would not have gotten nearly five thousand well meaning soldier's lives lost, over one hundred thousand Iraqis killed, and over a trillion dollars spent so far on this project. These achievements are now part of what America means to the world...reinforcing our reputation as empire builders. We are occupiers... And Iraq, post Saddam, is pretty much a corrupt police state. Not good return on our dollar...of course most of those dollars cycled to out military industrial complex. Saddam would have killed Kurds at this point.... But go to the history of our intervention...our CIA hired him when he was young, to assassinate the Iraqi leader ofnthe day Quadim...I believe his name was....Saddam nearly got him but missed...this no doubt built him prestige in any case in his assent in the Baathist Party. We helped him immensely in the Iran Iraq war...again...building his power. In a very real sense we helped make him. Now...suppose we had not. No Saddam. Saying other madmen would have risen does not justify helping to create dictators...
The USSR question begs the question.... Who's oil fields? If they belong to the Middle East...after all the Middle East DOES sit on them....then why do we or the USSR seem to think we own them or are justified in taking them? If the USSR decides to take the oil...steal it...is that a justification for us to do the same? You often mention your Christian beliefs... Do they not apply to foreign policy? And screw the AM public if they want a country to blame. There are humans living there...they got the wrong country to begin with and the world is not ours to feed anappetite for national revenge. Yeah I like Bill for many reasons. Not for missing the Ruandan genocide though. Yes there are a string of mistakes....the point of my blog here is to ask are we repeating another one in squaring up for a fight in Syria.
Brian Carlson 6:54 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012 AWD...shelling neighborhoods where suspected dissenters live doesn't happen here too often. Killing over ten thousand Americans in the name of State Security would be called state terrorism or a Dirty War. Your comment expresses ignorance perfectly. While our government has killed or jailed dissenters.... and while, of course, we began this free countrywith genocide and slavery, situations where the government determined groups of humans had no rights, civil or God given, were eventually contested and outlawed. You will like the legislation the President recently signed into law, reducing our rights further ( check my blog on dissenters). But until he begins to wield it broadly, dissenters like the "occupy types" and angry right wing extremists have the opportunity you just exercised...to protest against government policies. If you want to hunt for parasites you should look at the grotesque war profits of multinationals that feed off the wars that kill little people ..over 200 million last century. That is literal blood sucking.