Tuesday, 7 May 2013

"War Gaming" on Syria: The Real Strategy Behind Western Policy on Syria.

The hawks in the USA simply want direct military assistance because "regime change" was the strategy from the beginning as, having destroyed Saddam's Baathist regime, it's obvious that Assad's was supposed to be next in line anyway according to the "domino theory".

The US is not interested in any credibility that could be given to the Sunni insurgents use either of terrorism, use of children as soldiers, massacres or allegations of the use of sarin gas as it does not fit the usual narrative of good versus evil US politicians use to sell war to the US public

The Guardian , indeed, reported with regards Del Ponte's investigation into the insurgents using sarin this,

Supporters of Syria's moderate opposition also dismissed del Ponte's remarks, pointing out that if the rebels had had access to chemical weapons they would have been tempted to use them much earlier against Assad's military bases.
The wording is curious as it implies logically that they do not lack the intention to use them but simply didn't have sarin gas otherwise they would have used it by now. Saddam's Iraq was attacked on that basis. But the "rebels" i.e insurgents are not held to account in this way.

The entire bias is appalling as much as both Assad's regime was bad and the insurgents appalling. The "game changer" ( a crude term for a tragic civil war not a game of American football ) is a fraud: the US has wanted Syria destroyed as a land bridge delivering weapons to Hizbollah.

Ultimately, by ramping up the arms race by lifting the EU embargo, with the feeble and craven Philip Hammond echoing Chuck Hagel uncritically in advocating directly arming the insurgents, is about checking Iranian regional power in alliance with the Saudi despotism it arms, aids and abets.

From the east the securing of the construction of the TAPI pipeline is the war objective and to head off the rival IP pipeline that would leave Afghanistan wholly devoid of lucrative transit fees and the West with a decade of squandered blood and treasure. Again encircling Iran is the aim.

None of the options posited for Bosnia or Kosovo will work in Syria any more than they did in Iraq. Military intervention would spread a national civil war into a catastrophic inter sectarian belt of warfare from Lebanon to Iran and destabilise sunni minority regimes in the Gulf States.

Iraq is still in a state of brutal sectarian warfare, though this is barely reported in connection with events in neighbouring countries. April was Iraq's deadliest month since June 2008, with a total of 712 people killed and 1,633 wounded in bomb attacks and other violence, the UN says.

Iran would be drawn in to a full scale confrontation in which tankers in the Gulf would be blown to bits by Republican Guard missiles and speedboats rammed with explosives. The global economy, already weak in the West, would fall into deeper recession. World War III could even break out.

We are being led into a potential historic crisis by historically illterate fools who have no diplomatic skills but only a slimy penchant for "Public Diplomacy" , a PR version of 'foreign polic'y in which cautious diplomacy is being replaced with reckless belligerent rhetoric and "strategic games".

1 comment:

  1. That would leave Afghanistan wholly devoid of lucrative transit fees and the West with a decade of squandered blood and treasurefree online strategy games war.
    space strategy games.