Who Will Benefit the Most if Diplomacy Fails in Syria?

by Gerard Emershaw

The United States and Russia have reached a deal in which the Syrian government would turn over its chemical weapon stockpile for destruction. However, there are many ways in which this deal could fall apart. President Obama has indicated that if diplomacy fails, the use of military force against Syria is still a possibility. Congress is unlikely to vote on the use of force against Syria, but President Obama has indicated that he does not need permission from Congress to strike Syria.

The idea of American military action against Syria is simply not popular with the American public. According to an NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans believe that President Obama does need permission from Congress in order to attack Syria. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, only 33% said that Congress should approve President Obama's request to attack Syria. According to a Reuters/Ipso poll, 75% of Americans support the use of diplomacy to resolve the crisis in Syria.

Syria poses no military threat to the United States. The United States has no national interest in Syria. An attack on Syria is unlikely to help President Obama in his legislative dealings with Congress or help his popularity with the American people. There are no Trotskyite neocons in the Obama administration whispering in his ear, and despite his faults, President Obama is not as naïve and easily led as his predecessor often was. Syria is not oil rich. It ranks 32nd in oil production—which makes up less than .5% of the world's total. Given that any military action in Syria would allegedly involve no “boots on the ground,” there would be no occupation. No occupation means no nation building. No nation building means no opportunity for war profiteering companies like KBR to enrich themselves through no bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure of Syria or to provide services in support of the occupation.

So who or what is behind the hawkish desire of President Obama to attack Syria? The question to ask is probably: “Who would benefit the most from the fall of Assad's government?” The most obvious answer is the Jihadists who dominate the rebel forces. However, President Obama has no reason to wish Al Qaeda to gain dominance over yet another country or to wish another Middle Eastern country to become a fundamentalist Islamic nation under Sharia law. Some may suggest that Israel would benefit, but this is debatable. If Assad becomes desperate, he is likely to launch chemical attacks against Israel. Furthermore, there is evidence that the rebels are considering launching a chemical attack of their own against Israel. A choice between Hezbollah or Al Qaeda having influence in Syria is not a pleasant choice for Israel, and it very well may prefer dealing with the devil it knows. The fact that Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel makes an attack on Assad seem even less attractive to Israel.

Arthur Conan Doyle's famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously said: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Having eliminated so many possibilities, two remain.

1. Raytheon

President Eisenhower presciently warned against the Military-Industrial Complex during his farewell speech in 1961. Raytheon is a poster child for the Military-Industrial Complex. Raytheon produces the Tomahawk missile, which it sells for about $1.4 million a piece. The beating of the war drums over Syria has caused the Pentagon to consider purchasing even more than the 196 Tomahawk missiles that it already buys per year. In the “kinetic military action” against Libya in 2011, the United States fired more than 112 Tomahawk missiles.

In December, the Pentagon paid Raytheon $254.6 for Tomahawk missiles just six months after paying them $337.8 million. Raytheon also produces Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs)—“low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employ an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker.” A “low cost” JSOW still costs $285,000.

The run up to possible American military action against Syria has been beneficial for Raytheon stock because of these reasons. Since June 25, the stock has increased more than 20% in value.

Nevertheless, this does not prove that Raytheon or the Military-Industrial Complex in general is pulling the President’s strings on Syria. There is no reason that “kinetic military action” in Syria would be preferable over such action in any other place. President Obama has also claimed that any American actions in Syria would be even more limited than the military action that he took in Libya in 2011. While American military intervention in Syria would be profitable to Raytheon, would it be profitable enough for them to seek to gin up a war? Could Raytheon possibly have enough influence over President Obama to force his hand in this manner? It seems unlikely.

2. Qatar

Qatar wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria into Europe. Unfortunately for Qatar, Assad has refused to allow this, opting instead to pursue negotiations with Iran on an alternative pipeline that would ship natural gas to Europe across Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In February, Iraq approved a deal for this pipeline with Iran and Syria. Qatar saw this as a “direct slap in the face” to its plans. As a result, Qatar has spent over $3 billion over the last two years bankrolling the Syrian rebels. Qatar began funding the Al Qaeda allied Syrian rebels at about the same time that it began funding Al Qaeda allied Libyan rebels. If victorious, these rebels would likely be inclined to sign a new deal for a pipeline with their benefactors in Qatar rather than Assad allies in Iran. The rebels are also Sunni and far more likely to do business with fellow Sunnis in Qatar.

Qatar has had close military ties with the United States since 1992 and is the location of U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center. However, Qatar is “totally dependent on US militarism and diplomatic protection.” Therefore, it appears that the United States taking down the Assad regime on Qatar’s behalf would be a matter of the tail wagging the dog. 

3. The Wider Middle East Plan

In an interview given on March 2, 2007, retired 4-star United States Army General Wesley Clark spoke of a memo that he was shown by another general around the time that the United States began its military campaign against Afghanistan:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

The United States has already taken out Iraq and Libya. Could this neoconservative plan be back on? Could the neo-progressives hawks in President Obama’s administration be reinstituting this plan? Or has the plan continuously been in place? More importantly, if this plan is currently in effect and guiding President Obama’s hand on Syria, who is behind the plan? The Military-Industrial Complex? Big Oil? Some combination of these? Someone else? The fact that no entity powerful enough to strongly influence American foreign policy benefits enough by military action in Syria makes President Obama’s militaristic zeal puzzling. Could he actually have humanitarian concerns over the innocent civilians suffering in Syria? He has not shown similar concern over the innocent civilians suffering as a result of his drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, so this seems unlikely.

Taking a longer view, it could be that action in Syria would not be about Syria at all, but about Iran. This may be confirmed by the events which occur in the near future. As a result, both Assad’s progress in satisfying the dictates of the Obama-Putin plan to surrender Syrian chemical weapons and Iran’s behavior will bear close watching.

Putin the Peacemaker?

by Gerard Emershaw

On September 11, The New York Times published an op-ed from Russian President Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In this editorial, Putin urges President Obama not to attack Syria. Has the Russian dictator and former KGB agent become a peacemaker? Probably not, but his words do deserve consideration.

Putin says:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Putin gives voice to the many possibilities for blowback that military strikes against Syria by the United States would create. In many ways the Syrian Civil War is a microcosm of the violent tensions in the Muslim World. The war pits Assad’s Alawites—a branch of Shia—against the Sunni rebels. The Muslim world at present can be viewed as a tense religionist rivalry between the Shia Iranians and the Sunni Saudis. With the importance of Middle East oil to the world economy, the worst possible scenario would be a wider regional sectarian war involving Shiite and Sunni factions. The potential fall of the Shiite Syrian government could make Iran nervous, as it would be losing one of its few allies. A nervous Iran is far more likely to continue its nuclear weapons program in earnest. More turmoil in the Middle East will definitely make solving Israeli-Palestinian issues more difficult.

Unlike President Obama, who tried to characterize the radical Jihadist Syrian rebels as “moderates” who wanted peace and democracy, Putin does not attempt to characterize his ally Assad as the Thomas Jefferson of Syria:

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

At no point did President Obama discuss the tensions in Syria between Alawites and Sunnis. Clearly, unlike his predecessor in the White House, President Obama knows the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Does President Obama consider that to be unimportant? Or is it a nuance that he believes the American public is not intelligent enough to grasp? Unlike President Obama, President Putin is also willing to address the elephant in the room—the al Qaeda affiliated Jihadists fighting on the side of the rebels. Calling Jihadists “moderates” does not make them so. Putin is correct about the dangers that Jihadist mercenaries represent. These are the individuals who become agitators, insurgents, and terrorists. Putin is right to be afraid of them. Russians do not want to become targets for terrorists any more than Americans do.

Putin continues:

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

The Butcher of Grozny pretending to be a peacenik might be funny, but after a good laugh, his words need to be considered. Putin clearly cares little or nothing about international law. He certainly had no concern for international law when he was killing Chechens or Georgians. Putin is obviously protecting Russia’s ally Syria. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. But why is it okay for the United States to staunchly support its allies, right or wrong, but not okay for Russia to do the same? Of course, supporting tyrants in nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain is immoral for the United States, but clearly no more immoral than Putin supporting Assad. With the fall of Russia’s ally Qaddafi in Libya, it is easy to understand why Putin might feel uneasy. With the NATO alliance getting closer to the Russian border, and allies falling left and right, Russia naturally feels threatened.

Putin is correct in stating that an American attack against Syria would be illegal under international law. Since Russia opposes an attack on Syria, Russia would veto such a decision by the UN Security Council. This would leave self defense as the only other possible justification. Syria has not attacked the United States, and President Obama acknowledges that Syria poses no military threat to the United States. 

Putin denies President Obama’s claim that it is a certainty that Assad used chemical weapons:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack—this time against Israel—cannot be ignored.

There has indeed been no confirmation of Assad being responsible. It is just as likely at this point that the attack was perpetrated by Jihadist rebels, perhaps as a false flag. Indeed, multiple sources have allegedly told RT that militants are planning to launch a chemical attack on Israel from government-controlled territories as a “provocation.” While this must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that rebel Jihadists pose as big if not bigger threat to Israel than Assad’s government does.  

Sounding oddly like an American non-interventionist, Putin contends that recent American military actions have been failures and that any American attack on Syria will lead to civilian casualties:

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

It is strange that Putin can see the parallels between Iraq and Syria yet President Obama cannot. Is this the same President Obama who reflexively blames anything and everything on President George W. Bush? Why would he want to follow in President Bush’s footsteps?

Putin urges: “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.” When the tyrant is urging peace and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is urging war, all bets are off. If Putin can indeed encourage Assad to give up Syria’s chemical weapons, then he will make himself a favorite to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Fox News is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached a framework for an agreement on securing Syria's chemical weapons. 

Putin concludes with a zinger:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

The idea of “American exceptionalism” has been dangerous. It has given rise to evils such as Manifest Destiny. When the United States was at its greatest, it was a humble beacon of peace. When you are exceptional, you do not need to tell everyone that you are. If and when the United States returns to its non-interventionist roots and promotes peace and freedom by example, it will again be exceptional. Right now, it is far from such exceptionalism.

Obama on Syria: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tries to Gin Up War

by Gerard Emershaw

On the evening of September 10, 2013, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and tried to sell them on an interventionist war with Syria that they do not want:

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Humanitarian support? Like the weapons that the CIA has been shipping to Syrian rebels? Moderate opposition? Like the al Qaeda affiliated group the al-Nusra Front, which an analyst has recently called the best armed al Qaeda affiliate? Moderates like Farouq Brigade cannibal leader Abu Sakkar, who consumed his enemy’s heart in a video? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering helpless bound Syrian soldiers in cold blood? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering children in Christian villages? With moderates like these, who needs radical Jihadists?  

President Obama claims to have “resisted calls for military action.” What this really amounts to saying is that he followed the Constitution, which states that only Congress may declare war. Given that he egregiously violated both the Constitution and the likely unconstitutional War Powers Resolution with his “kinetic military action” in Libya—which produced as blowback the massacre in Benghazi—perhaps in the bizarre world that we all live in, he should be lauded. Then again, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama believes that he can attack Syria without the approval of Congress. If he does believe that, then all of this is nothing but a charade. He would claim minutes later:

So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

It turns out the speech would be a charade that would basically just waste time and needlessly pre-empt the regularly scheduled television programming. No news here. President Obama never believed in the Constitution, and he still does not.

According to President Obama:

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits—a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. … Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. 

President Obama does not know that Assad was responsible for the attack. Perhaps he believes that Assad did. Perhaps Assad did. Assad is certainly a ruthless and murderous dictator. However, Syrian rebel group and al Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front has claimed that it is responsible for the attack blamed on Assad. Furthermore, the UN investigators have yet to release their report on the sarin gas attacks in Syria.

Assuming that Assad is responsible for the gas attacks, does that make him any worse than the United States that has employed such weapons as atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and depleted uranium tipped missiles? How is what Assad did any worse than what the United States helped Saddam Hussein do to Iranians? How is dying in a gas attack any worse than dying in a drone attack?

According to President Obama, Syrian use of chemical weapons is a danger to national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran—which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

Talk about a flimsy slippery slope argument! It is unlikely that Syria—or any other nation—would launch any kind of unprovoked gas attack against American soldiers. If the United States launches an illegal unprovoked war against some nation and that nation uses chemical weapons, who could blame them? Are there any weapons that Americans would refuse to use if the existence of the nation were in danger? After all, the United States was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the existential threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Any nation that used chemical weapons against the United States or its allies would be crushed. Even the most maniacal dictator knows that. If anyone would ever use chemical weapons against Americans, it would be al Qaeda—the very group that is fighting among the Syrian rebels. If the rebels win, then al Qaeda gains possession of a cache of chemical weapons. How is that good?

The issue of Iran and nuclear weapons has absolutely nothing to do with Syria and chemical weapons. Unless and until the United States stops bringing about regime change in non-nuclear nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya while refraining from bringing military action against belligerent nuclear nations like North Korea, then the only sane thing for a nation with ample natural resources and no love for the United States is to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

Sounding like Orwell’s Big Brother, the Nobel Peace Prize winner contends that we must make war in Syria:

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

If Syria is a threat to the national security of the United States, then virtually every nation on the face of the globe is. Does that mean the United States should launch Tomahawk missiles against every nation? Actually, President Obama would later reverse course and claim that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” However, it is unclear how targeted strikes would make Assad less likely to use chemical weapons. If the strikes begin to turn the tide against his regime, it would be more likely that he would become desperate and use more chemical weapons. What is the alternative? Toppled dictators do not meet good ends. Just ask Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi. Actually, you cannot ask them anything anymore. Without putting boots on the ground, how does President Obama expect to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons supply? There is strong evidence that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is protected from air strikes.

Obama continued his speech by answering questions that he allegedly received from members of Congress and in letters from the American people. When did he start listening to Congress or the American people? Do people really still send letters? It is more likely that these were questions that one of his aides saw on Twitter. Three of these questions were particularly interesting. The first involved the possibility of getting the nation entangled in another needless war:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.” My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

First, as previously stated, a limited air campaign of targeted strikes will not accomplish any of the President’s objectives. Secondly, how is launching Tomahawk missiles against an enemy not a war? Thirdly, does he not realize that this action could ignite a broader regional war that would pull the United States in? Fourthly, does he not realize that such military belligerency is irrational when it could pull nuclear nations like Russia and China in on the other side? Fifthly, does he not realize that the nation is $17 trillion in debt and even “kinetic military actions” are expensive when you are launching Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million a pop?

President Obama later considered an even more important question:

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where—as one person wrote to me—“those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?” It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people—and the Syrian opposition we work with—just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Those “moderates” again! A “moderate” Jihadist is like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and a benevolent dictator—it does not exist. Even Orwell’s Big Brother would be confused by President Obama’s doublespeak. How would attacking al Qaeda’s enemy hurt them? Did attacking Nazi Germany during World War II hurt the Soviet Union? Did attacking Japan hurt China? If Assad were to get toppled by air strikes the way that Qaddafi was in Libya, how would gaining control of yet another country hurt al Qaeda? Has he forgotten about the blowback from the Libyan debacle? Of course, he would love to forget about Benghazi, but he surely has not. A political solution? If President Obama wants a political solution, why is he not working on one? Then again, maybe he should just sit this civil war out the way that Britain, France, Spain, and Russia sat out the American Civil War and allowed President Lincoln to crush a violent rebel force even when that meant Lincoln was killing civilians.

Finally, President Obama addressed whether the United States should follow Woodrow Wilson’s dictate to “make the world safe for democracy” by being the policeman of the world:

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations—but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime. However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

It is nice that the Nobel Peace Prize winner claims to prefer peaceful solutions. But does he? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan, drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and “kinetic military action” in Libya. When has he ever managed to bring about a peaceful solution? In what sense has he done anything but try to act like policeman of the world? Of course, in many instances, President Obama acts like a policeman defending one group of criminals against another group of criminals. In some places like Bahrain, he even acts like a policeman defending criminals against innocent victims. The former KGB goon Vladimir Putin is a despot. There is no doubt about that. He is certainly not working for altruistic purposes here. He only seeks peace because he wants the Assad regime to survive due to the fact that Syria is a Russian client state and provides Russia with a base on the Mediterranean. But what kind of world do we live in when a KGB goon might bring peace while a Nobel Peace Prize winning American President promises only war? During the Cold War, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and ran a police state that spied on its own people. Today, the United States is occupying Afghanistan and running a police state that spies on its own people. Up is down and day is night, apparently.   

As he neared the conclusion of his charade of a speech, President Obama continued to base his hawkish argument for war on an appeal to emotion rather than on logic:

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

If President Obama enjoys watching videos, perhaps he should watch this video of children killed or injured in drone strikes. Or perhaps he should not base his decisions on emotion at all. His job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is a matter of reason and not emotion. Russia killed children in Chechnya. China killed children in Tibet. Should the United States attack these nations? Or is it all really just about the fact that the children in Syria were killed by gas attack? What does that really matter? Assad simply does not have Predator drones or depleted uranium tipped Tomahawk missiles. Tyrants kill the innocent with the weapons that are ready to hand.

As he closed his speech, President Obama quoted FDR:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

Quoting FDR at this juncture might have been a bad idea. After all, it was President Roosevelt who maneuvered the United States into World War II by imposing an oil embargo on Japan and inviting the blowback that occurred at Pearl Harbor. If President Obama is to learn any lesson from FDR, perhaps it should be a lesson of avoiding a world war by being careful what actions one takes in foreign policy.

Like any morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, President Obama closes by invoking the children:

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Children. Always the children. American children will only face danger if President Obama continues with his reckless foreign policy and creates blowback that produces the next major terrorist attack on American soil. Children will die in Syria one way or the other. Sad but true. Perhaps they will die at the hands of Assad. Perhaps they will die at the hands of the Jihadist rebels. But Syrian children should not die from American missiles. Syria has not attacked the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Attacking Syria would just be naked aggression with no purpose.

Each day Syria feels more and more like déjà vu all over again. Ba’athist dictator? Check. Vague intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction? Check. A lack of an actual threat to the United States? Check. The potential to create a power vacuum that will help Jihadist terrorists? Check. Albert Einstein defined ‘insanity’ as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Why would any sane person believe that military action in Syria will not end up a disaster like Iraq or Libya?

Kinetic Military Action in Syria: Stop Pretending that Damascus Will Not Be the Next Benghazi

by Gerard Emershaw

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A despotic secular leader of an Islamic country is accused of murdering his own people during a civil war. Americans who were still angry over being lied into war in Iraq are not eager for another war. A future head of the Natonal Security Council, the next likely POTUS, and a future ambassador to the UN begin propagating ridiculous propaganda about the despotic secular Islamic leader giving Viagra to his soliders so that they could rape civilians. The United States intervenes unconstitutionally and engages in “kinetic military action” which involves launching Tomahawk missiles—cruise missiles which are tipped with depleted uranium and are properly considered Geneva Conventions violating radioactive poison gas weapons. Dozens of civilians are killed in the American led NATO attacks. The United States succeeds in helping the bloodthirsty Jihadist rebels overthrow the secular tyrant. These Jihadist rebels—who are closely affiliated with al Qaeda—engage in genocidal revenge killings against black citizens who fought on the side of the secular tyrant. Thanks to the United States, the al Qaeda flag flies over a major city in the nation. A year later four Americans are murdered in an attack by some of the very Jihadists that the United States supported in the civil war.

Sound familiar, neocons? Benghazi? Ring a bell? You know, the tragic incident that resulted from blockback that was created by American invervention in Libya? Do me a favor, neocons. Put down your copies of Machiavelli, Plato, and Strauss. Stop making goo goo eyes at that autographed photo of Trotsky that you bought on eBay. Stop pretending that you’re conservatives. Stop thinking about how much you love the Bismarkian welfare state and Keynesian economics. Just listen.

The warmongering neo-Wilsonian President Obama is about to violate the Constitution by declaring war on Syria without the permission of Congress. Just as he did in Libya. He is going to justify it as a humanitarian action against a tyrant who is killing his own people. Just like he did in Libya. He is going to help an al Qaeda allied rebel group topple a secular tyrant. Just like he did in Libya.

In between trying to convince real conservatives that Trotsky was Barry Goldwater with weird hair and glasses and that Irving Kristol was an actual free market capitalist, the neoconservatives will ask: “What could possibly go wrong?” They will say that President Obama must attack Syria in order to not appear weak on the world stage. They will say that President Obama must send a tough message to Iran and that attacking Syria will accomplish just that. Constituton be damned! They will admit that Iraqis were not killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators prior to the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs or conspire to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and that black Libyan soldiers were not using Viagra to rape Libyan women. But they will claim that Syria is different. They will swear that this time the U.S. citizenry can trust them. It’s just not possible that the Jihadists would lie about Assad using chemical weapons. It’s not possible that it was a false flag attack carried about by the Jihadist rebels. Friends of al Qaeda would never do anything nefarious like that.

The neocons will promise that Syria will be completely different from Libya. The Jihadists will send us Christmas cards and flowers for helping them overthrow Assad. These Jihadists are “good al Qaeda.” Sort of like “good cholesterol.” That is the Straussian noble lie which they will tell. When the al Qaeda flag flies over Damascus, they will pretend to be shocked. When Syrian rebels commit atrocities against innocent citizens, they will make excuses. When these Jihadists begin ethnically cleansing Syria of Christians, they will say it's just a few bad apples doing it. When Syria becomes a training ground for al Qaeda, they will pretend that nobody could have seen it coming and claim that not having Assad around anymore somehow trumps that. They will claim that somehow having yet another Jihadist neighbor will benefit Israel.

All those so called conservatives who follow neocon RINOs like McCain, Graham, and King and neo-progressive warmongers like Obama, Kerry, and Rice and support American military action in Syria forfeit the right to express righteous indignation over what happened in Benghazi. All those so called conservatives who think it is okay for President Obama to violate the Constitution by unilaterally declaring war in Syria forfeit their right to complain next time the President violates the Constitution in order to carry out some domestic policy which they oppose—whether it be on immigration, abortion, health care, gay rights, taxation, etc.  

What could possibly go wrong? Unless you count the likelihood of blowback against American citizens in the form of Jihadist terrorism, then nothing. But if you support American military action against Assad, do not pretend you did not see it coming when blowback occurs.

The United States and Russia: What's to Talk About?

by Gerard Emershaw

President Obama has decided to pull out of a planned one-on-one summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next month. This marks a dangerous turn in relations between the White House and Kremlin. The Wall Street Journal and many other mainstream sources claim that Obama's snub of Putin is due to Russia granting temporary asylum to whistleblower Edward Snowden. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart claims that the snub is due to Russia's insistence that it will enforce its homophobic anti-gay laws during the Winter Olympics in 2014 in Sochi.

Regardless of why President Obama canceled the summit with President Putin, it is a major mistake. President Obama—like most presidents since McKinley—loves wielding powers that are not granted to the president in the Constitution. Whether it's declaring war or assassinating American citizens with drones, modern presidents love to act like Caesar. One of the few powers granted to the commander-in-chief in the Constitution is the power to make treaties. Thus, the President has the power to meet with foreign leaders as the sole representative of the United States. While Congress has the responsibility to confirm any treaties that the President makes, foreign diplomacy mostly rests with the executive branch.

Some may argue that not meeting with Putin is no big deal. What are the chances that some big agreement will come from the summit? What is the real harm if Barry and Vlad do not have a face-to-face chat in September?

The truth is that it is a big deal. The Cold War has only been over for two decades. While this may seem like a long time, Putin's belicosity and Obama's aloofness could be just the combination that again freezes American-Russian relations and begins a new Cold War. Putin has acted as if that is what he wants for much of his time in the Kremlin. Obama seems to enjoy “kinetic military action,” so maybe he would also enjoy a Cold War.

There are five very good reasons why President Obama should meet with President Putin as often as possible.

1. Syria

In 1914, problems in the seemingly insignificant country of Serbia ignited World War I—which lasted four years, led to the mobilization of more than 70 million military personnel from more than twenty of the world's most powerful nations, and killed over 9 million combatants. Syria is just the kind of insignificant nation which could ignite a war between the United States and Syria.

Russia is one of the staunchest allies of Bashar al-Assad's Stalinist Ba'athist Party in Damascus. The United States is arming the Jihadist Syrian rebels which includes elements of al Qaeda in its ranks. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. The United States, in contrast, has no real significant interest in Syria. Syria's petroleum industry accounts for just a drop in the bucket of world production. A Jihadist-dominated government in Syria is likely to be a greater threat to the United States and allies like Israel than the Stalinist paper tiger al-Assad.

The United States is well advised to take a non-interventionist approach in Syria. Unfortunately, President Obama loves nothing more than to take a Wilsonian approach. But instead of “making the world safe for democracy,” President Obama tends to make the world safe for radical and violent Islamic fundamentalism as he has already done in Libya. Given that President Obama seems fully committed to aiding al Qaeda-friendly elements in Syria, it is even more essential that President Obama meet early and often with President Putin. The effects that can potentially be caused by the violent and foolhardy interactions of two such despotic and arrogant leaders in a civil war are as dangerous as can be. Syria is even more Podunk than Cuba was in the 1960s. Therefore, it is just the sort of place that could cause the next Cuban Missile Crisis type situation.

2. Nuclear Arms

Neoconservative and neo-progressive wonks have all been quaking in their boots for years over the possibility of Iran eventually developing or acquiring a single nuclear weapon. Well, Russia still has 8,420 nuclear weapons. Of these, an estimated 1,720 are operational, 2,700 are in storage, and 4,000 are “retired, awaiting dismantlement.”

Taking every possible step to ensure that Russia dismantles as many of these weapons as possible is in the best interests of the United States given that Russia's weapons actually do pose an existential threat to the United States and her allies. Allowing Snowden, anti-gay Russian laws, Obama's pride, or anything else to get in the way of diplomatic discussion between the United States and Russia on the issue of nuclear arms is nothing short of insanity.

3. The cost of a new Cold War

The United States is approximately $17 trillion in debt. Its military budget is already an unsustainable $865 billion. Even with no true superpower rival, the United States insists on spending more on its military than the next 13 nations combined. What if President Putin decided to reignite the Cold War? He has been trying to gin up a new Cold War for some time now. How could the United States afford a new Cold War? Sure, the Military-Industrial Complex and the neocon chickenhawks would adore a new Cold War, but how can the American people possibly afford one?

4. Trade

American trade with Russia in 2012 consisted of nearly $11 billion in exports and nearly $30 billion in imports. Endangering so much trade would certainly be detrimental to the United States economy as well as the world economy. Russia has a population of over 140 million people. While there is some disagreement over the numbers, most agree that the Russian middle class is growing. It would be far better for the United States to treat these middle class Russians as potential customers for American businesses than to treat them again as potential targets for American weapons of mass destruction. What the American and Russian economies can both use is even more free trade between the two nations. The last thing that they need is another Cold War. Despite what crazy Keynesians might believe, war—whether “hot” or “cold”—is not good for a nation's economy. What is good for the economy is the production of goods that consumers—whether in Saint Petersburg, Russia or St. Petersburg, Florida—wish to buy.

5. Oil

It is a crying shame that an advanced space age and computer age civilization like the human race powers itself with the remains of dead plants and animals—a.k.a. oil, petroleum, "black gold," Texas tea, etc. Nevertheless, since the world is so dependent on oil, it is a good idea that the United States remain friendly with as many petroleum producing nations as possible. It is unlikely that Americans will support many more "humanitarian" regime-changing, nation-building enterprises in oil producing nations. Plus, unless the neocons and neo-progressives fancy a war with Canada, Mexico, or Norway, there simply are not that many petroleum exporting nations that the United States has not already waged a war of aggression against. The United States needs cheap oil, and Russia has it. Russia is one of the world's largest oil producers. Having cordial relations with as many oil producing nations as possible is the best way to ensure that cheap oil is available as long as possible as the world nears "peak oil."

Syrian Blowback: History of American Meddling

Secretary of State John Kerry recently expressed the opinion that the Syrian rebels deserve support in their civil war against the Assad regime:

We are determined that the Syrian opposition is not going to be dangling in the wind wondering where the support is or if it's coming. And we are determined to change the calculation on the ground for President Assad.

Given the tragic blowback that occurred in Benghazi following President Obama’s “kinetic military action” in Libya, one would have hoped that the administration would think twice before meddling in the affairs of Syria. American covert meddling in Syria during the late 1940s and 1950s was instrumental in creating a left-wing oppressive regime in Syria which supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This meddling also set the stage for the oppressive Ba’athist Assad regime currently engaged in a campaign of violence against its own people. What follows is a brief timeline of the machinations of the United States in Syria.  

1948

CIA operative Stephen Meade made contact with right wing Syrian army officers to discuss the possibility of a coup in Syria to put Syrian Army Chief of Staff Husni Zaim into power as a dictator. Although the United States knew that Zaim was a “Banana Republic dictator type,” they admired his “stronganti-Soviet attitude.” The United States was also interested in securing the rights for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to build the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE) through Syria. Negotiations for this had been stalled in the Syrian Parliament. Meade and Zaim planned a Syrian coup for early 1949.

1949

Shortly after American Secretary of State George McGhee arrived in Syria, Zaim staged his coup against the democratically elected government of President Shukri al-Quwatli on March 30, 1949. Zaim arrested Communists and left wing dissidents, approved the ARAMCO TAPLINE, signed a peace treaty with Israel, and considered allowing 250,000 Palestinians to be resettled in Syria. While awaiting an expected $100 million in military and economic aid from the United States, Zaim was overthrown and executed by Colonel Sami Hinnawi. Hinnawi’s coup returned Syria to electoral democracy and gave Syrian women the right to vote. Hinnawi’s Populist Party won in a landslide in November 1949 elections, but Hinnawi was quickly ousted in a coup led by Colonel Adib Shishakli.

1951

Shishakli began to exercise blatant dictatorial control over Syria. The United States supported Shishakli behind the scenes from the beginning because Shishakli was considered “one of the strongest anti-Communist forces in the country.” The United States State Department provided military material to Shishakli’s dictatorship, and in return Shishakli was willing to renew the TAPLINE concession, consider a treaty with Israel, and resettle Palestinian refugees within Syria as long as more financial aid was provided to Syria.

1952

President Eisenhower lobbied the World Bank to expedite a $200 million loan to Shishakli’s government.

1954

Before an arms deal between the United States and Shishakli’s dictatorship could be consummated, Shishakli was overthrown on February 22, 1954. The post-Shishakli Syrian government became increasingly left wing and increasingly sympathetic to the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.

1957

Shukri al-Quwatli had again been elected President of Syria. The United States again used the CIA to meddle in Syrian affairs. The CIA in conjunction with the British Secret Service “called for Turkey to stage border incidents, British operatives to stir up the desert tribes, and U.S. agents to mobilize SSNP guerrillas, all of which would triggera pro-Western coup by ‘indigenous anticommunist elements within Syria’supported, if necessary, by Iraqi troops.” Washington provided $150,000 to the conspirators in the plot and sought to return the anti-Communist Shishakli to power. This clumsy plot was quickly uncovered by Syrian intelligence and was ultimately called off by President Eisenhower. The result of all of this CIA cloak and dagger meddling in Syria was that the Syrian government became even more left wing in the aftermath and became a staunch ally of the Soviet Union for the remainder of the Cold War.

2012

Having learned no lessons from the fiasco in Libya, on December 11, President Obama announced that the United States would formally recognize the Syrian opposition – the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (National Coalition) – as Syria’s legitimate representative and praised the opposition for being “well-organized” and “representative of the Syrian people.”

Four months earlier Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide aid to the rebels. Obama attempted to be a bit more careful than he was with Libya by blacklisting the Syrian terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra – which is linked to Al Qaeda – for killing numerous Syrian civilians during 600 attacks that the group conducted against Syrian cities. However, Jabhat al-Nusra has great support among the other members of the rebel coalition. One rebel praised Jabhat al-Nusra, saying that “they rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them. They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo.” Such praise of the terrorist group is not uncommon among the Syrian rebel groups. Immediately following the American blacklisting of Jabhat al-Nusra, Moaz al-Khatib – the leader of the National Coalition – asked Obama to reconsider, claiming that “no group fighting Assad should be considered a terrorist organization.” Immediately after al-Khatib’s public display of support for Jabhat al-Nusra, 29 groups within the National Coalition signed a petition in support of the terrorist group and called for mass demonstrations in support of it. The petition included the phrase “No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra” and recommended that supporters should raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag as “a thank you.”

Two days later, thousands of Syrians took to the streets and to the internet social networks in support of the terrorist group. If President Obama believes that he can pick and choose whom among the National Coalition to recognize, then he is seriously mistaken. There is also no telling what manner of terrorists may be among the other groups in the National Coalition. The UN has warned of possible war crimes that have been committed by members of the National Coalition. Human Rights Watch has claimed that it has documented over a dozen cases of extra-judicial executions by members of the National Coalition.

2013

Syrian rebels formed an exile government and eagerly waited for American funding. While the American government announced that it would be providing $60 million in new non-military aid to the Syrian rebels, Secretary of State Kerry claimed that the United States would not be providing military aid – at least “at this moment.” However, if the rebels do not turn the tide against government forces, one suspects that it is only a matter of time before the United States or NATO begin engaging in “kinetic military action” in Syria. Doing so will be perilous. There is simply no way to guarantee that the power void will not be filled by Jihadists sympathetic to or even affiliated with al Qaeda if the Assad regime falls. By intervening in Syria, the United States will be creating new enemies at a time when it has more than enough already.