“On March 27, three days after the bombing of Serbia began, NATO commander Wesley Clark informed the press that the vicious Serbian reaction was “entirely predictable.” He added that it had been “fully anticipated” and was “not in any way” a concern of the political leadership. In his memoirs, Clark reports that [..] if NATO proceeded to bomb Serbia, “almost certainly” the Serbs would “attack the civilian population” and NATO would be able to do nothing to prevent that reaction on the ground.”1[emphasis added]
When a military strike is planned, one has to ask the question what it evokes, who it endangers and if it is improving the situation for people or worsening it. As we could see in the case of Bosnia 1999 the situation for the population worsened massively; massacres increased manifold.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) just published its statement for Syria where it makes clear that a military attack is the worst possible scenario for Syria2. Why then does the US wants to strike Syria so badly when this will have the most dire consequences for the population?
The answer is simple: The US―as history gives ample credits―does not pursue peace as a goal. The US is only―and exclusively―interested in maintaining and expanding its power and economic interests3. ‘Human rights’, ‘peace’, etc. are just euphemisms to cover their aim of global dominance4.
What are the true interests of US in Syria?
Iran is the next Irak5; Iran has resources; Syria is an ally of Iran. Weaken the ally before you attack. If a military action against Iran will happen in the future, we don’t know, but the diplomatic behaviour against Iran shows clear signs. Iran does not bow to US orders. So it is a ‘bady’, part of the axis of evil. Iran could sell oil in Euros, a thread to the still world currency Dollar. Iran could become a powerful force in the region, uniting the Arab world. Both are against US interests of global dominance6.
How to weaken the ally?
“Divide an rule”. A military strike that does not bring a solution even in the words of John Kerry7 can’t have peace in mind. After a death toll of 100’000 the population might be willing to accept a truce under Assad. Avoiding a victory of Assad, keeping the status quo of different parties fighting each other and rendering the country de facto useless as an ally for Iran makes much more sense in the light of global dominance.
The red line
If the attack is thought as a punishment against the use of chemical weapons, as a message (to prevent future massacres), as a consequence of having crossed the red line, we have to ask what else is the US doing to prevent the use of chemical weapons? Again, hypocrisy becomes visible as the US does hardly move a finger to stop the industry producing and selling the chemicals used for producing chemical weapons. There are far more efficient ways to stop future uses of chemical weapons than to bomb a country for the alleged use it―especially as the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah 2004 themselves! So, if you want to stop the use of chemical weapons, stop using them, stop producing them, stop selling them.
The Russians and the Chinese
Media headlines make us believe that China and Russia blocked all peace settlements. Omitted is the insistence of the US that Assad had to go, an unnecessary and useless demand that can only be explained to topple a peace agreement. As Norwegian General Robert Mood stated, “[…] it would have been possible to lead Syria through a transition supported by a united Security Council with Assad as part of the transition. […] The insistence on the removal of President Assad as a start of the process led them into a corner where the strategic picture gave them no way out whatsoever.”8
The oxymoron of attacking Syria is paraphrased by Robert Fisk: “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured—for the very first time in history—that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida. …”9 Orwell would bow to Obama; US fighting along with Al Qa’ida for world peace!
1Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, pdf version, page 39
3The US economic interests are (a) access to resources, (b) access to the markets for their own products and (c) access to cheap labour. “pax americana” stands therefore for profit, access, x (collateral) …
4How can the US be concerned about roughly a thousand death by gas when they used up to 2’000 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, a poison far worse than any chemical weapon? How can they care about gas when they themselves supported its use by Ira in the 1980? How can they care when the US is the only power that does not let inspectors check the US production of chemical weapons.
6The US behaves in such situation like a Mafia Don. The threat for US citizens is minimal to non-existent, but the image of the Don is threatened.
9Robert Fisk quoted in ibid.