“Clueless” Cameron struggles to decide a course on Syria
The Ghost of War Criminal Blair stalks the corridors of power, spreading a corrosive slime.
Once more the drums of war beat.
Blair and Clinton developed a new national socialist propaganda approach to diverting the attention of their electorate by attacking other countries, claiming to be attempting to liberate the oppressed. Bush Jnr raised it to a fine art and carried a very willing Blair along with him. It seemed that the world could live in a continual state of war where most of the victims resided in smaller countries. When historians look back in 50 years, they will probably view this as the Russo American Imperial Era, where the two countries and their satellite States avoided direct contact by waging war in other countries. When the Cold war ended, this global warfare was supposed to have ended, but it has really carried on with America becoming the leading player.
Once more, the old Cold War has surfaced with China and Russia supporting mass killings in Syria by the Assad Regime, and America supporting the Islamic revolutionaries in what is looking increasingly like a re-run of the Russian war in Afghanistan. Once more, the Imperial States of Russia and America are fighting by proxy and funding opposing Islamic groups. It remains to be seen whether Russia and China will send their own troops into Syria at the request of Assad, or how they will respond to air strikes by the US, orwhether US and European troops will be sucked in after air attacks.
In Britain, “Clueless” Cameron was making all the familiar noises about sending British Forces into action alongside America. Now he faces confusion and chaos because he has been told that he will be unable to command a majority in Parliament when the Syrian situation is debated. That could place considerable pressure on Hussein Obama as he prepares to blitz Syria in a new demonstration of US destructive might.
The news media will be occupied with Syria and devote huge amounts of news space to covering the political and any military action, but probably not looking at how we got to where we are today.
Coming up to US mid-term elections, Hussein Obama, son of an alleged terrorist and suspected by many Americans as being a covert Islamic activist, may have seen the use of rhetoric condemning Syria as a wonderful opportunity to look Presidential, decisive and powerful. In reality he is looking anything but. In the short term, he has been repeating all the mistakes of the last two decades, assuming that it is OK to select another country, build a set of justifications, and then apply disproportional force against the victim. He has made his position even more toxic by dithering. In the process, he has contributed to rising tensions and increasing risk.
The Assad regime is undoubtedly one of the most repulsive currently in power, but equaled by the governments of several African countries. He has tried brutally to suppress his own people. However, much of the opposition war lords are no better and some of them are probably significantly worse. As the civil war rumbles on in Syria, it threatens to destabilize the region and could very easily trigger a conflict that rapidly spirals out from the Middle East. It may yet prove to be a trigger for a global war of unimaginable consequences for mankind. During the Cold War, the powers holding nuclear weapons mutually feared the nuclear capabilities of the opposing side, this guaranteed that both sides would pull back from the brink of a nuclear war and had to accept that if a conventional war was begun it would rapidly escalate to tactical and then strategic nuclear exchanges. That level of constraint no longer holds. Iran, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are completely unpredictable and any increasing tension in those areas could lead to a nuclear exchange. If that happened, the Americans and Russians could well target those countries with their own nuclear weapons in an attempt to bring the regional nuclear war to an end. The very real risk is that any such action could rapidly spin out of control and produce global nuclear warfare. There are no longer any simple solutions, if indeed there ever were.
We got to this position because it has become fashionable and politically helpful for powerful countries to interfere in the affairs of smaller countries. There is much talk of UN resolutions and International “law” which really translates into arrogant and hypocritical politicians throwing their weight around. The process started after 1945, when many countries felt guilty about not attacking Germany before it could unleash global warfare and conduct a genocide program that killed millions of Jews. That guilt and the feelings that came from it made three false assumptions. The first was that an early pre-emptive war would have quickly removed the Nazi Regime in Germany, over looking the facts that Hitler came to power through the ballot box, was supported enthusiastically by most Germans, and that Hitler would have been able to call on German patriotism to fight the attackers. It also assumed that the potential allies had a military supremacy when in reality America was uninterested in European affairs and Britain and France had allowed their politicians to spend peace dividends and run down their military organizations. The second assumption was that Britain and France had a moral justification to use force to change the internal politics of another nation. The third was that there was a perfect end game that would see Germany reborn as a democratic country without its own aggressive international ambitions. The events since 1945 should have demonstrated how wrong the assumptions were. In 1939, Britain and France had little option but to stand against German expansionism, but the same claims could be made today as Germany again threatens world peace as it attempts once more to dominate Europe. It cam also be seen that two other factors hold. In 1945, thousands of Nazis simply vanished back into the German population and emerged under difference false colours. At the same time, the attitude of most Germans remained unchanged and what encouraged them to support the Nazi terror continues, being reborn with the reunification of Germany and the German drive to turn its neighbours into slave States.
There is one further irony about the German situation. Had Britain not responded to the invasion of Poland by declaring war, there might never have been teh Holocaust. Prior to war, the Nazis were very happy to rob Jews and then banish them. The Holocaust began as the Nazis needed to maintain internal support and then to remove evidence of the earliest uncoordinated killings. In the process, the Nazis demolished the myth of German efficiency by failing to remove all evidence of their crimes and leaving evidence at the chaotic brutal processes employed in the development of their genocide program.
In much the same way, regime change in Syria provides no guarantee that the new Syria emerging from the ashes will be any more co-operative with other countries, or that its internal politics will be any better. Egypt has demonstrated that “democracy” can produce a new despot and trigger a new revolution, that is unlikley to migrate into Western democratic concepts. It is unreasonabel to assume that Syria is any different.
What Obama did was make a series of statements about red lines and then failed to follow through. It may be that he would have been wiser to let Syria crumble under its own self-destructive tendencies, but having taken a very public position, he then made America look indecisive and weak, encouraging the Assad regime to try pushing the boundaries, with the chemical attacks probably being conducted as much to make a rude gesture to Obama as to help destroy rebels..
Now the people of Europe and America are being told that a few days of blitz is necessary to send a message, but not what that message will be. The Syrians on both sides already know the views of Europe and America and could care less. The reality of blitzing Syria would be a weakening of the Assad regime as a step once more to regime change which is specifically prohibited by the United Nations. As Syria presents no real and immediate threat to Europe and the US there is no justification in any claims that force must be used against Syria for self defence. No one is currently claiming a blitz on Iran and North Korea is justified even though both countries present a clear and present danger to many other countries.
Into this confused and dangerous environment comes the ghost of War Criminal Blair who has been industriously discharging his over paid duties as a Middle East Special Peace Envoy by sunning himself on another very rich person’s yacht and strolling around St Tropez. War Criminal Blair urges immediate attacks on Syria and the sending in of soldiers. No great surprise, but his intervention immediately scared “Moron” Milliband into another of his well-know U turns. “Moron” was claiming to enthusiastically support “Calamity” Clegg and “Clueless” Cameron in preparing British military assets in support of an impending US strike. Now he says that he can’t support the attacks. The treacherous Clegg will also perform a similar U turn in the hope of embarrassing Cameron, leaving Cameron in a very difficult place where he cannot support Obama because he cannot carry Parliament with him. The interesting factor is that Parliament is more scared of repeating the war crimes of Blair than making a decision based on the Syrian situation.
However, if the US and its satellites do not attack Syria, they will be greatly diminished and send a signal to all other rogue states that they no longer have the will and capability to impose their interests. It has become tha case that Obama and Cameron are damned whatever decision they take. Europe and America are already damaged internationally and the situation will continue to become more dangerous. It may be that the only way forward is regime change in Europe and America with the big government political elite being driven out and replaced by true democrats who employ small government and defence true national interests rather than embarking on grandiose attempts to develop complex big government international law.