As the entire United States ruling class, now firmly behind President Trump, brings the war in Syria to a point of unthinkable escalation, I propose a toast to the death rattle of common sense and the lessons of recent history.
As millions shared the video of last week’s chemical attack with hysterical pleading for the U.S. military to “do something,” no one appeared to think for a minute that the images would be taken advantage of to manufacture public support for the use of force against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Few found it suspicious that the foreign policy of top-ranking Democrats aligned perfectly with that of Trump’s, the president they claim to detest. Hours before Trump lobbed 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air force base and the surrounding towns, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who has been silent on the rest of Trump’s destructive agenda, managed to slither out into the public light to demand a strike against Assad’s government.
I found it touching that Democrats and Republicans can still put aside their differences to cheer on the bombing of yet another Middle Eastern country. The fact that the purpose of the strike was to protect “beautiful babies,” to use Trump’s words, too was quickly forgotten when ground reports indicated that several civilians, including children, were killed in the strike.
The criticism and apologies that followed the strike were beyond disgusting. Some complained that Trump should have received Congressional approval or that the bombing was military ineffective.
What about that fact the U.S. reserves itself the right to act unilaterally and breach any international law imaginable, and usually under the laughable pretext of protecting “human rights?”
Former president Barack Obama commenced his destruction of Libya in 2011 with the firing of Tomahawk missiles with the excuse of “human rights.” Throughout the 1990s former president Bill Clinton shot Tomahawk missiles at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to protect “human rights,” and only ended up bolstering Hussein’s regime. Even if the strike was militarily insignificant, it’s triggered new possibilities for escalation in the future because the three human rights champions of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey have applauded Trump’s actions and are demanding further action against Assad.
As for the ridiculous calls for the U.S. to “do something” about Syria, I assume these people are momentarily forgetting the extensive role the U.S. had in creating this war. Leaked State Department documents show that Washington, D.C., has been attempting to overthrow Assad since at least 2006, years before the war even started.
The cables include a detailed analysis of the “vulnerabilities” of the Assad regime, and the tactics the U.S. should employ to delegitimize Assad, which included stoking sectarian tensions, economic interference and the spreading of rumors about “external plotting” against the government. In 2011 it was reported that the U.S. was spending millions of dollars on Syrian political opposition groups and anti-government TV channels.
Extensive CIA funding of rebels once the war started turned vast swaths of Syria into an Islamic militant theme park. Militias indistinguishable from ISIS and Al-Qaeda lauded Trump’s bombing and made the U.S. the de-facto air force of such groups.
A lone voice of sanity amidst all of this was Sacha Lorenti, the Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations. Holding up a photo of Colin Powell’s infamous “Weapons of Mass Destruction” speech, he stated “Do we remember these images? ... That invasion caused a million deaths ... The U.S. believes that they are investigators, that they are attorneys, judges, and they are the executioners. That’s not what international law is about.”
luwrobin@umail.iu.edu
