Shamus Cooke: Should We Invade Syria? Obama and US Military Divided Over Syria!

Has Syria crossed the red line that warrants a US military invasion? Has it not? The political establishment in the United States seems at odds over itself. Obama's government cannot speak with one voice on the issue, and the US media is likewise spewing from both sides of its mouth, in an attempt to reconcile US foreign policy, with that most stubborn of annoyances, the truth. The New York Times reports: "The White House said on Thursday, that American intelligence agencies now believed, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons Immediately afterwards, Obama's Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, gave a blunt rebuke: Suspicions are one thing, evidence is another. This disunity mirrored the recent disagreement that Chuck Hagel had with Obama's Secretary of State, John Kerry, when both testified in front of Congress, with nearly opposite versions of what was happening in Syria, and how the US should respond. Kerry was a cheerleader for intervention, while Hagel, the military's mouthpiece advised caution. The US government's internal squabbling, over whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons, is really an argument on whether the US should invade Syria, since Obama claimed that any use of chemical weapons was a red line that, if crossed, would invoke an American military response. Never mind that Obama's red line rhetoric was stolen from the mouth of Bush Jr, who enjoyed saying all kinds of similar stupid things to sound tough. But now Obama's 'Bushism' must be enforced, say the politicians, less the US look weak by inaction. This seemingly childish argument is in fact very compelling among the US political establishment, who view foreign policy only in terms of military power. If Syria is not frightened into submission by US military threats, then Iran and other countries might follow suit, and do as they please, and US influence would wane. Only a firm response can stop this domino effect from starting. This type of logic is the basis for the recent Syria chemical accusations, which was conjured up by the US Intelligence service (CIA) and its British and Israeli counter parts, the same people who "proved" that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which later proved to be a fabricated lie. All three of these countries intelligence agencies simply announced that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, provided zero evidence, and then let their respective nations' media run with the story, which referred to the baseless accusations as mounting evidence. In the real world, it appears that the US backed Syrian rebels are the ones responsible for having used chemical weapons, and asked the UN to investigate the attack.    

No comments: