UPDATE September 10, 2013
UPDATE September 9, 2013
All we’re gonna do is kill Assad’s cat.
Is the globalist war party about to get its come uppance? Aangirfan has an excellent post, rather obscurely headed Hollande Panics, that draws attention to straws in the wind suggesting that the US/Israeli war for global hegemony is running into serious resistance.
But such optimism may be premature. Over at the White House, what they’re planning for Syria is not a punitive raid but the total destruction of Syria’s entire military establishment.
Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything Insane McCain: No one can touch the US of A,
we have a force field the Russians cannot penetrate.
Manufacturing Dissent: The truth about Syria
UPDATE September 7, 2013
French fries off the menu again.
The only countries that supported Mr. Obama’s plan, the Russian leader said, were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey…
Oh, good. We in Canada are on the same side as those freedom loving Saudis and Turks.
I guess that’s the price Harper’s willing to pay for Obama’s approval of the XL pipeline to carry tarsands oil to the US Gulf coast. But even for that, we won’t actually participate in any military strike on Syria. No, we’re just cheering the US on: Bam, O’Bomber, Bam.
Syrian Woman Rips Into Warmonger McCain
Canada has two NeoCon warmongering national newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the National Post, aka the Globule and the Pustule. Unlike the G and M, the NatPo has the merit of being hard-headed about the business of war as the following excerpts from articles by George Jonas and Marc Steyn make clear.
In brief, what they’re saying is, if you’re gonna make war, do it to win, not to impress the world with your superior moral standing. And what that means is to wage war like Ghengis Khan or Adolph Hitler, not like some limp-wristed advocate of political correctness.
Threaten Assad with the total annihilation of Damascus, the spot to be marked only by a mountain of skulls and he’ll maybe show some deference to the wannabe global hegemon. But threaten to do no more than the international community including Russia and China will tolerate guarantees only failure.
Trouble is that doing what Russia and China will not tolerate could result in devastating consequences for the Neocon warmongers: US warships sent to the bottom by supersonic Russian or Chinese anti-ship missiles, for example, plus the downing of America’s stupendously expensive warplanes by by Russian-supplied anti-aircraft missiles. And, as Putin is supposed to have threatened, a rain missiles on Saudi Arabia’s oil terminals, which would put the hydraulics under the price of gasoline.
|Vasily Vereshchagin (1842-1904), Apotheosis of War, 1871.|
So in fact the United States has no useful way forward in the war with Syria. Obama would have done better to nix US intervention in Syria than to pussyfoot around seeking a popular basis for what promises to be an ineffectual assault on a country that has done the United States no harm.
What the British people are sick of, quite reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness. The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40% of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked.
What do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked
Let us stipulate that many of those war-weary masses are ignorant and myopic. But at a certain level they grasp something that their leaders don’t: For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Yes, those BBC images of schoolchildren with burning flesh are heart-rending. So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first — and then, instead of napalmed schoolyards, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered.
So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror.
If the former constitutional scholar is right and congressional approval is unnecessary, the current Commander-in-Chief is grievously wrong. Delaying a necessary military response for an unnecessary legislative approval is an error of judgment bordering on incompetence. What if Congress refuses to consent to what the Commander-in-Chief thinks is necessary? Do what the House or Senate majority want rather than what he thinks is right? Boy, that’s not the way to an equestrian statue; it’s more like dereliction of duty leading to a court martial. Or will he ask the legislators’ advice only to reject it if it’s different from what he wants to hear?
This would be like asking a cop if you can cross a street without having to do so, and if he answers no, crossing it anyway. This would be a good way of turning a legal act of crossing a street into an illegal act of obstructing police. For Mr. Obama to seek congressional approval for something he believes (a) doesn’t require their blessing in the first place, and (b) is right and necessary, must in fact mean (c) that either (a) or (b) isn’t true.
Tony Cartalucci: US Planned Syrian Civilian Catastrophe Since 2007
If the Arabs are that keen, why don’t they do the fighting as well as pay for it?
Uh-uh. O’Bomber joins the NeoCon gang of War Criminals, along with Rummy, Condi, Bush, Brown and Blair.
She must think a five-year-old is the ideal subject to test out the latest warmongering line before taking it to the public at large.
CanSpeccy: Americans Neither Believe Their Own Government Nor Support Its Violent Intentions (The Drudge Poll, as of September 4, is running 91% against US intervention in Syria)