A piece has just appeared (9/4/17) on The Conversation website, provocatively titled Why can't America just take Assad out? The author, David Alpher is described as Adjunct Professor at the School for Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University.
In a nutshell, Alpher's thesis is that America can't just take Asad out because "Targeting Assad would likely give birth to the same kind of catastrophe we saw in Libya after Muammar Gaddafi's fall."
While totally agreeing with Alpher's statement of the bleeding obvious in relation to Syria, I think it's time to pose a more fundamental question: What right has America to pursue regime change anywhere?
The answer, of course, is none. The words of a prominent American critic of his country's Vietnam War involvement, General David W. Shoup (1904-1983) are worth recalling here:
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. That they design and want. That they fight and work for. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the 'haves' refused to share with the 'have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans." (1966)
Shoup's words are as relevant today as they were in the 60s.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Asad Wins a Heart at The Australian
Trump's sudden reversal on US involvement in Syria has really set the proverbial cat among the Trumpista pigeons. Check out Jennifer (Thank God for Israel) Oriel's latest emission, Reckless West could unleash jihadist hell in Syria. Bashar al-Asad has never before looked this good in the Murdoch press:
"The US has launched a pre-emptive strike on a foreign nation. President Donald Trump ordered the missile strike without an independent investigation into allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. The US strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad signals a return to interventionist foreign policy. While the Western press and politicians have celebrated Trump's decision, America's tactical military victory risks destabilising the Syrian government and empowering our jihadist enemies."
"The acquired Western habit of deposing foreign heads of state has not yielded a net benefit for the free world. It has left the Western world in a state of deep debt by fighting wars we cannot win. It has empowered jihadist groups across the Middle East and contributed to refugee crises that push Islamists into the West. Whatever the West feels about Assad, we must recognise that he is a third-term president elected by his people. His recorded approval rating is very high. If Western leaders want to unseat Assad, they must establish an evidence-based case and seek the prior consent of the Syrian people by democratic election." (The Australian, 10/4/17)
"The US has launched a pre-emptive strike on a foreign nation. President Donald Trump ordered the missile strike without an independent investigation into allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. The US strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad signals a return to interventionist foreign policy. While the Western press and politicians have celebrated Trump's decision, America's tactical military victory risks destabilising the Syrian government and empowering our jihadist enemies."
"The acquired Western habit of deposing foreign heads of state has not yielded a net benefit for the free world. It has left the Western world in a state of deep debt by fighting wars we cannot win. It has empowered jihadist groups across the Middle East and contributed to refugee crises that push Islamists into the West. Whatever the West feels about Assad, we must recognise that he is a third-term president elected by his people. His recorded approval rating is very high. If Western leaders want to unseat Assad, they must establish an evidence-based case and seek the prior consent of the Syrian people by democratic election." (The Australian, 10/4/17)
Monday, April 10, 2017
The Silencing of Bassem Tamimi
Not a whisper about this matter in that hive of alleged free speech warriors, the Murdoch press:
"The Immigration Department has refused to comment on exactly why it blocked the visa of a prominent Palestinian activist, but has argued it has a responsibility to protect the community from abuse or danger. Bassem Tamimi, 50, had his visa cancelled hours before he was due to travel to Australia, on the grounds his opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could provoke anger in the community. He had been given permission to travel to Australia on Tuesday, but the following day the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) revoked his visa." (Visa of Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi revoked hours before travel, Matthew Doran, abc.net.au, 8/4/17)
The department's grounds for blocking Tamimi's visa are, of course, entirely spurious. The simple fact of the matter is that while Israeli apartheid politicians and propagandists, from Netanyahu on down, come and go without let or hindrance, a bona fide victim of Israeli apartheid, with an urgent story to tell about the ongoing theft and occupation of his land, has the door slammed in his face.
The real reason Tamimi's visa was blocked has been spelt out by the ABC's Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill, in a tweet:
"I'm told Bassem Tamimi's visa to #Australia was revoked after lobbying by #AIJAC on Immigration Minister Dutton's office." (8/4/17)
No surprise there. Just another stark reminder of the power of Israel in Australia.
Allow me to recall here Kevin Rudd's inclusive description of Australia's Deep State:
"[Rudd] reflects on how few people run the country: the Murdoch media, the heads of Rio and BHP, probably the heads of the big banks, and 'that mob', by which he means the hard-line, Likud-aligned pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne." (Diary of a Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, 2014, p 449)
"The Immigration Department has refused to comment on exactly why it blocked the visa of a prominent Palestinian activist, but has argued it has a responsibility to protect the community from abuse or danger. Bassem Tamimi, 50, had his visa cancelled hours before he was due to travel to Australia, on the grounds his opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could provoke anger in the community. He had been given permission to travel to Australia on Tuesday, but the following day the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) revoked his visa." (Visa of Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi revoked hours before travel, Matthew Doran, abc.net.au, 8/4/17)
The department's grounds for blocking Tamimi's visa are, of course, entirely spurious. The simple fact of the matter is that while Israeli apartheid politicians and propagandists, from Netanyahu on down, come and go without let or hindrance, a bona fide victim of Israeli apartheid, with an urgent story to tell about the ongoing theft and occupation of his land, has the door slammed in his face.
The real reason Tamimi's visa was blocked has been spelt out by the ABC's Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill, in a tweet:
"I'm told Bassem Tamimi's visa to #Australia was revoked after lobbying by #AIJAC on Immigration Minister Dutton's office." (8/4/17)
No surprise there. Just another stark reminder of the power of Israel in Australia.
Allow me to recall here Kevin Rudd's inclusive description of Australia's Deep State:
"[Rudd] reflects on how few people run the country: the Murdoch media, the heads of Rio and BHP, probably the heads of the big banks, and 'that mob', by which he means the hard-line, Likud-aligned pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne." (Diary of a Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, 2014, p 449)
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Paul McGeough: History Overboard
Paul McGeough's "analysis" in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald is a perfect example of the appalling history overboard school of journalism so lucidly described by Peter Hitchens in my last post.
Here's McGeough's opener:
"If there was a selfish, inward-looking core to Donald Trump's election-winning 'America First' philosophy, it took a backseat to human decency on Thursday, when the President ordered a swift and stunning missile assault on a Syrian air base as punishment for a poisonous gas attack that killed more than 80 civilians this week." (Syria's complex fight is now more complex)
Not only is Syria's guilt assumed, but the hitherto reviled Trump is deemed to have finally done the decent thing by unleashing his missiles! Next thing you know, McGeough will be hailing Trump as 'presidential'."
Some more McGeough gems from the same piece:
"But what happens next - how do Russia and Iran, patrons of the beleaguered Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad respond?"
McGeough's takfiri head-choppers are everywhere on the defensive in Syria, yet it's Asad who's "beleaguered"?
"Compared with 2013, when President Barack Obama failed to act on his 'red-line' to the Damascus regime that Washington would launch military strikes against the regime if it used chemical weapons - but didn't... "
No mention, of course, that Obama "failed to act" for the very best of reasons - Asad hadn't, in fact, crossed his red-line. (See my 8/4/17 post Why Obama Didn't Do What Trump Has Just Done.)
"[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson, cold-heartedly, insisted that it was up to the war-ravaged Syrians, not the US, to decide Assad's fate."
Unbelievable! If only George W Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had "cold-heartedly" declared that it was up to the Iraqis, not the US, to decide Saddam Hussein's fate!
Here's McGeough's opener:
"If there was a selfish, inward-looking core to Donald Trump's election-winning 'America First' philosophy, it took a backseat to human decency on Thursday, when the President ordered a swift and stunning missile assault on a Syrian air base as punishment for a poisonous gas attack that killed more than 80 civilians this week." (Syria's complex fight is now more complex)
Not only is Syria's guilt assumed, but the hitherto reviled Trump is deemed to have finally done the decent thing by unleashing his missiles! Next thing you know, McGeough will be hailing Trump as 'presidential'."
Some more McGeough gems from the same piece:
"But what happens next - how do Russia and Iran, patrons of the beleaguered Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad respond?"
McGeough's takfiri head-choppers are everywhere on the defensive in Syria, yet it's Asad who's "beleaguered"?
"Compared with 2013, when President Barack Obama failed to act on his 'red-line' to the Damascus regime that Washington would launch military strikes against the regime if it used chemical weapons - but didn't... "
No mention, of course, that Obama "failed to act" for the very best of reasons - Asad hadn't, in fact, crossed his red-line. (See my 8/4/17 post Why Obama Didn't Do What Trump Has Just Done.)
"[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson, cold-heartedly, insisted that it was up to the war-ravaged Syrians, not the US, to decide Assad's fate."
Unbelievable! If only George W Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had "cold-heartedly" declared that it was up to the Iraqis, not the US, to decide Saddam Hussein's fate!
Mainstream Media as History-Free Zone
Must-read: It's WMD all over again. Why don't you see it? by Peter Hitchens:
"Actually knowing something, remembering history and having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.
"As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.
"Today's frenzy over illegal use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair's WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
"How can trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told. How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports as 'suspected' or alleged, but most present them as established fact. 'All the hallmarks' mean in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true." (hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk, 8/4/17)
Worth reading in full.
"Actually knowing something, remembering history and having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.
"As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.
"Today's frenzy over illegal use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair's WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
"How can trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told. How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports as 'suspected' or alleged, but most present them as established fact. 'All the hallmarks' mean in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true." (hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk, 8/4/17)
Worth reading in full.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Bombs Away!
Syrian kids in harm's way? No sweat. A few American cruise missiles, and they'll be right as rain.
And anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait:
"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah which was bombarded by US marines in 2004 exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study." (Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima', Patrick Cockburn, independent.co.uk, 23/7/10)
Damn, better ask America's favorite Syrian kid what she thinks first.
Hi, Bana, Uncle Donald here. Hope you and your mum are recovering from your war wounds over there in Turkey, and Uncle Recip's taking good care of you. Say, what do you think we should do about Syria?
"I am a Syrian child who suffered under Bashar al Asad & Putin. I welcome Donald Trump action against the killers of my people." (Bana Alabed tweet, 7/4/17)
Then bombs away it is!
And anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait:
"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah which was bombarded by US marines in 2004 exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study." (Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima', Patrick Cockburn, independent.co.uk, 23/7/10)
Damn, better ask America's favorite Syrian kid what she thinks first.
Hi, Bana, Uncle Donald here. Hope you and your mum are recovering from your war wounds over there in Turkey, and Uncle Recip's taking good care of you. Say, what do you think we should do about Syria?
"I am a Syrian child who suffered under Bashar al Asad & Putin. I welcome Donald Trump action against the killers of my people." (Bana Alabed tweet, 7/4/17)
Then bombs away it is!
Why Obama Didn't Do What Trump Has Just Done
Everybody, but everybody's convinced that Asad is responsible for what's just happened in Khan Sheikhoun, and that's because everybody, but everybody's forgotten about (or has chosen to ignore), what really happened in similar circumstances in Ghouta in 2013, and why Obama didn't go off half-cocked then as Trump has now with his cruise missile strikes on Syria's Shayrat airbase.
As veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh explained in his April 2014 essay, The Red Line & the Rat Line:
"In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August [2013], after the sarin gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the 'red line' he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons. Then with less than 2 days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed... and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad's offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.
"Obama's change of mind had its origins in Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn't match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army's chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn't hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon. The joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria's infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.
"For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria's neighbors, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan was known to be supporting the Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. 'We know there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin gas attack inside Syria - and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat'." (lrb.co.uk)
See also my 4/8/14 post About That Gas Attack in Syria... (Just click on the Seymour Hersh label below.)
As veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh explained in his April 2014 essay, The Red Line & the Rat Line:
"In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August [2013], after the sarin gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the 'red line' he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons. Then with less than 2 days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed... and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad's offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.
"Obama's change of mind had its origins in Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn't match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army's chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn't hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon. The joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria's infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.
"For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria's neighbors, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan was known to be supporting the Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. 'We know there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin gas attack inside Syria - and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat'." (lrb.co.uk)
See also my 4/8/14 post About That Gas Attack in Syria... (Just click on the Seymour Hersh label below.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)