Keeping the Peace or Courting Disaster
Though we generally steer clear of current events in this blog, the significance of the recent strikes against Syria calls out for comment, On Friday, April 13th, the US launched 120 bombs at three sites within Syria. The mainstream media’s portrayal of this attack does not, by in large, question the official narrative that these attacks were carried out in response to a chemical weapons attack believed to be perpetrated by the Syrian government. However, for several reasons, this story is not believable,
- On April 12th, one day before the US attacks, the US Secretary of Defence, James Mattis speaking before the US Congress, said, “I believe there was a chemical attack in Syria, we are trying to get the evidence, the OPCW, this is the organization for the chemical weapons convention, we are trying to get those inspectors in. If we get them in, if the regime will let them in, we will not know who did it, they can only say that they found evidence [of the attack] or did not.”
- This OPCW's (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) investigatory team for the United Nations that Gen. Mattis referred to was scheduled to arrive to Douma, the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack, on April 14th. If the US motivation was to send a message to the perpetrators of the chemical weapons attack, it should have been important to wait to make sure the message was sent to the right party, as sending the message to the wrong party would have the effect of letting the actual perpetrators off the hook.
- As the US had recently declared that we would soon be pulling out of Syria, and as Assad's government was prevailing against the rebel forces, the only thing that could turn the tides against him and pull foreign forces back into the fray would be for him to use chemical weapons against his own people. For this reason, doing so would be a huge strategic blunder. In contrast, it would have been a benefit for the Syrian Rebels.
- Out of all the reasons that the U.S. uses military force in other countries, humanitarianism is not one of them. There are enormous humanitarian crises perpetrated by our allies (such as the famine unfolding in Yemen or the Palestinian occupation) that the U.S. either exacerbates or is apparently unconcerned about.
- The previous mainstream narrative to explain what we are doing in Syria is that we are fighting the terrorists working to overthrow Assad. This is not fully consistent with the narrative that we are now disciplining the Assad regime. As an aside, this previous narrative is equally dubious as it is well known that the U.S. and our allies have been simultaneously supplying the Syrian Rebel forces with arms.
These obvious discrepancies are important because they reveal astounding levels of corruption in a mainstream media that has been both expressing unmitigated support for the story that we are shooting humanitarian missiles at Syria and supporting the US's steady advance towards war.
These discrepancies are also important because they bring up the question, if it’s not for the sake of punishing the use of chemical weapons, why are we bombing Syria? What motivation could possibly lead us to commit these war crimes in broad daylight at the risk of a cataclysmic third world war? Many say it’s a conflict over competing pipelines, but to me there can be only one reason: to protect the US Petro Dollar, but that’s a longer story.
Thanks for reading and please pray for peace.