by Scott Creighton
The administration of President Peace Prize has put it to congress to decide if we should bomb yet another sovereign state, inevitably killing more civilians in pursuit of the desired “regime change” agenda, on the basis of trumped up “evidence” of a chemical weapons attack, which was such an obvious false flag attack that Ron Paul called it one just the other day on Fox News.
While the “alternative” independent journalists complain that Obama’s authorization for use of military forces request is “too broad” in scope, I take a slightly different approach to the growing debate:
We have no business fighting along side our terrorist mercenaries in Syria in the first place and we have already done enough damage to the country in pursuit of the regime change agenda.
In short, hands off Syria no matter what our corrupt congress says.
President Obama has submitted his first draft of a request for the authorization to use military force against the Syrian government. Many are arguing (Emptywheel, Moon of Alabama, Jack Goldsmith) that it is way “too broad” in it’s scope and reach, that it could be used to expand the conflict to other nations and even include the use of “boots on the ground” if the president deems that necessary.
(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
These problems they seem to have with the request are all well and good and quite accurate for that matter, but they don’t address the real problem of the legality of attacking another nation without U.N. approval with or without the say-so of this circus freak-show of a congress we have.
Congress is in the back pocket of the same corporate and banking interests that need the injection of liquidity they will get from neoliberalizing Syria. AIPAC is already on the march pushing for the resolution. Everyone who is anyone in D.C. is urging this action while the 80% of the American people who stand opposed to more war and carnage carried out in their names get no representation at all.
But congress doesn’t care. They just want a way to sign up for the deal to appease their owners while looking like they’re heroes to their constituents who oppose it.
In short, it doesn’t matter if the request is “too broad” and the president could use this authorization to “put boots on the ground” or “expand the conflict zone” to Lebanon, Palestine or Iran. And someone should make that point to our friends over at Emptywheel, Moon of Alabama, and Jack Goldsmith
Let’s say just for the fun of it, that congress amends the request to specifically limit the president to no troops on the ground (save those already on the ground in Syria) and limited cruise missile strikes on selected targets within Syria and Syria only.
Is that a “victory” for our friends at Emptywheel, Moon of Alabama or Jack Goldsmith?
I wouldn’t think so.
In the end, we are still fighting on behalf of al Qaeda, who even the Obama administration has to acknowledge is in Syria, paid by really oppressive regimes like the Saudis and Jordanians to do our “regime change” work, quite literally killing civilians left and right on behalf of the same regime change agenda that President Obama and congress serve as well.
The idea that we are sitting around discussing the scope of the request for authorization of the use of military forces instead of discussing the root of the conflict, is amazing to me. It shouldn’t be though. That’s what they call “framing the discussion”.
What is happening in Syria is not a “civil war”.
Robert Ford was sent to Syria to ferment a color revolution which he began doing as soon as he set foot in the country under the cover of the Arab Spring which started in Tunisia and Egypt.
This is not a civil war. It is an example of what we call “unconventional warfare”, terrorism operations designed to destabilize nations on behalf of the neoliberal regime change agenda.
We pay al Nursra terrorists, linked to al Qaeda, through proxy means, to destabilize Syria. We train them in camps located over the borders of Jordan and Turkey in the use of urban terrorism, bombings, kidnappings, and assorted means of mayhem.
In short, we are the bad actors in this conflict.
It doesn’t matter one bit if our corrupt congress, a body politic that has a lower approval rating in this country than cockroaches, approves Obama’s request be it broad in scope or limited.
The “limited” strikes in Libya killed an estimated 50,000 civilians in that “humanitarian intervention” and the country, once beautiful and stable, is now a cesspool of violence, degradation and corruption.
We are a member of the United Nations. Syria is a member of the United Nations. It is illegal for us to bomb that country, limited or broadly, in any way, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Period. End of story.
If the focus of this debate is lost in discussions as too whether or not the authorization is either too broad or not, then we have lost and the spin doctors, the Cass Sunstein assets have succeeded in bringing us, unwittingly, back into the fold of consensus thinking on this subject.
I for one will not cater to that corralling of legitimate dissent.
We have no business involving our military in any fashion in Syria. And that includes our Special Forces operators who are training al Qaeda to kill civilians and have been for over a year.
Hands off Syria.