[It’s deja vu all over again. Watching Trump mouth the absurd excuses for his recent missile strikes on a Syrian airport brings back visions of monkey-faced Bush starring bewilderingly at cameras and mouthing his beyond-ridiculous claims about the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center back in 2011. Everyone knew he was lying through his teeth, but no one dared do anything about it.
A lot of Americans hoped that Trump might be different. But they needn’t wonder any longer. Trump has collected a whole bevy of bad people on his staff to advise him and to be his spokesmen. He is proving to be a typical idiot. America is run by idiots with gigantic egos and criminal hands reaching for money.
Anyone wanting to sit in the office of President nowadays must be either a psychopathic criminal or a complete fool. We haven’t seen a sane President in America for as long as I can remember. Eisenhower might be the last one to come close. Trump is looking and sounding more and more like a George Bush clone nowadays. One might wonder just how silly the buffoon president can look as he worms his way in with the criminal crowd that occupies Capitol Hill and the Pentagon. -ed.]
4-15-2017
An absurd array of analysis has emerged, following the US airstrike on a Syrian airfield. The US Government’s position can be summarized in one sentence: “for peace to return and for civil war to end in Syria, Assad must sacrifice his presidency.”
While it is mind-boggling to see the mainstream Western media calling Syria’s chaos a “civil war” when fighters from 86 countries are reportedly fighting there, the US’ own direct intervention does strongly make it a war imposed from outside forces. The US intervention comes in addition to the proxy groups being funded by the Arab countries as well as Syria’s immediate neighbor, Turkey, as all of them have been looking, since the beginning of the crisis, for ways and means to impose a “regime change” in Syria to facilitate their own imperial projects.
The so-called chemical attack—something that CIA itself is guilty of previously supporting and overlooking in the US manufactured gulf war—-is the latest excuse they seem to have invented to legitimize direct military intervention to prolong the war and facilitate their own sinister objectives for the region that extends far beyond Syria.
Prior to the attack, the five years of war had us to a point, until 2 weeks ago, where the US officials were reported to have changed their policy vis-à-vis Assad. Reportedly, ‘sending Assad home’ was no longer the US agenda. The agenda, as their various statements suggested, was to pave the way for a political solution of the crisis. This, however, seems to be out of the question now as we are back to square one with regard to the question of Assad’s future as the country’s president. The agenda of “Assad must go” is back on the table and so is the question of the role Russia, as also Iran, has played in helping Assad against the foreign funded “rebels” and the self-styled Islamic State.
If it hadn’t been for Russian military presence in Syria since September 2015, Syria would have fallen. Everyone knows this. Therefore, by projecting the blatant lies about Russia being an accomplice in the pseudo gas-attack, the US is attempting to push back the Russian led peace process to a point where the US can reinsert itself in the conflict and keep the region embroiled in war and bloodshed.
Notwithstanding the “humanitarian face” put on Trump’s motive behind the attack, the fact remains that at least two immediate reasons stood behind the attack:
- The US’ allies, especially in the Middle East, were developing the perception of US’ indifference—and/or ineptness against the gradually increasing assertiveness of the Russia-Iran- Syrian government combine in the region.
- US’ Establishment (of course including Pentagon) appears to have felt the necessity to apply a “check” to the increasing Russian military-geopolitical common sense in Ukraine/Crimea and now in Syria (and very recently inserting, albeit in low profile at this stage, in Afghanistan).
Therefore, against a subtly changing geo-political scenario in a region that was, until 2 years ago, solely under the US command, the US cannot help but put up a fight to regain the space it has lost. As such, the perception being built in the US via the mainstream media that Washington is not frantic to upstage Russia is factually incorrect.
How is the world supposed to disregard the reality that not even a slight attempt at intelligence gathering, analysis and professional decision making by the US Establishment has been seen, and that only a “knee jerk” decision was made by the US president?
On the other hand, what appears more likely and logical is that that US government does have a settled plan to apply such “checks moves” to counter Russia’s moves to expand its own geopolitical influence.
However, what is not yet certain is whether the US plans to commence its long-term intervention moves in Syria, or only the “check moves” according to the evolving situation. So far what appears more likely is that US may not prefer to intervene militarily alone in a big way in Syria because US ’public is averse to heavy causalities of their kith and kin in US military, and continuation of the mutual attrition of the Muslim world helps US and its allies to maintain their geopolitical superiority and enables them to profit from the war (Read: the missile strike has added a whopping US$ 5billion to the Tomahawk market).
That is to say, while the US does want to retrieve some of the geo-political space it has lost to Russia, it wants to do this through a limited military engagement. On the one hand, this would help the US in maintaining its erstwhile allies, such as Turkey, in its own ambit and use them against Russia/Iran, and on the other, a tussle with Russia would equally help it maintain its military and political credibility amongst its European allies who have been expressing their “reservations” with regard to Trump’s possible opening up to Russia—something that now appears to be unrealistic and out of the question.
The attack on Syria, in this context, was not a spontaneous outcome of Trump’s emotions, it was a well calculated move; a part of the US new strategy for the region, in the war that is likely to go on in the years to come. And, although missiles landed on a Syrian airbase, the target was Russia and the message was loud and clear enough: the US wouldn’t allow Russia and its allies to end the war that allows the US to maintain its superior position amongst its allies as well as enemies.
_______________________________________________________________