Syria And Sarin: Such Is Politics

[Purveyor]

OpEdNews Op Eds 8/26/2013 at 09:42:47
By Philip Kraske

Can anyone recall a single moment of greater nonsense in international affairs than the one the world is living right now, as the UN inspectors examine the gas-attack victims in Syria and the chemicals used and give us their verdict? A half-dozen nations, including the U.S. and Britain, stand ready to attack if this reddest of red lines -- the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons -- is crossed, and it all depends on a group of scientists.

Of course, the scientists will find evidence of the gas, and the Assad regime will say, "Hold on. That's XYZ sarin, and all our sarin is type ABC. Here: take a few liters straight out of our stockpile and see for yourselves."

And then some savant from -- oh, let's take some nice, quiet, neutral picturesque place -- from Israel will say, "That's true, but you can easily make XYZ from ABC. All you need to do is add a little JKL and a dash of salt -- all stuff you can buy at the local drugstore -- and you're there."

And just to be sure that this Israeli is not talking out the Netanyahu side of his mouth, another talking head from -- oh, let's take a nice, quiet, neutral place that runs a mile from anything military -- from M.I.T. will confirm that this is true, and add the opinion, "Y'know, if I wanted to gas my people and I had ABC sarin, this is exactly how I'd disguise it." And off we go to war.

Well.

It's instructive to remember a couple of things as we await the learned words of the UN scientists. First, the Syrian government is now winning the war. Russia continues to help out with arms, Hezbollah has sent their seasoned fighters. Things are looking up. What need is there to bring in deadly gas? The only element that could galvanize public opinion beyond Syria's borders -- and the mainstream media is really whacking the old drum -- is the use of chemical weapons. Even the Syrian military brass could not be that stupid.

MORE...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Syria-and-sarin-such-is-p-by-Philip-Kraske-Chemical_Nonsense_Politics_Syrian-Situation-130826-235.html

[Skidmore]

1. The greater absurdity is that the nations who ultimately go in to clean up the mess

in these conflicts are the very ones which manufacture and sell those weapons to these nations. No one ever takes the time to draw that connection when talking about the cost of war.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Can anyone recall a single moment of greater nonsense in international affairs

[Arctic Dave]

3. I like the MIT throw in.

Not like they don't know who butters their bread.

MIT is about as none biased about warfare drumming as the PNAC was.

[karynnj]

4. Could it be that Obama's policy is for a stalemate?

In yesterday's NYT there was this opinion article that makes the case that EITHER side winning is bad for the US and also very bad for some of the Syrian people - obviously different ones for each outcome. Here is a link to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0

I did not recognize the name of the author, but the most relevant information from wikipedia was:
"Luttwak has been a frequent lecturer and consultant, and is known for his innovative policy ideas, suggesting for example that major powers' attempts to quell regional wars actually make conflicts more protracted.[2] His book Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook has been reprinted numerous times, and translated into 18 languages. His Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace is widely used as a textbook in war colleges and universities, has also been translated in several languages, including Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese (forthcoming), and Turkish"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak

My opinion is the article does not adequately consider the ongoing slaughter (except in the case of 4 enemies of the US killing each other - ignoring that there are innocent people being killed in the thousands.) However, it does make a case for there being no good options.

It seems to suggest that a "limited" strike (ie cruise missiles) is warranted and he states it will not change the outcome of the ongoing war - and doesn't consider the possibility that it would take little to create a far worse situation if anything goes wrong or if Iran or Russia do retaliate. Later, it speaks of a policy of helping the rebels when they are losing and not doing so as they start to win - insuring a stalemate. (Also note that Obama has yet to give the rebels weapons - even though he spoke of doing so. It might be that the danger in doing that is too great.)

It also seems to suggest that the author might have supported whatever effort there was to push the moderates to rebel 2 years ago.

[arendt]

7. re: Edward Luttwak

This guy is a heavyweight. He used to toe the MIC party line; but he went off the reservation sometime during W's reign. Now he warns that the US is spending too much on the military and not enough on the country.

Smart guy who is clear enough to bite the hand that used to feed him. Of course, he is no liberal.

[karynnj]

9. Thanks - that seemed to be what the article and the bio suggested but didn't outright say.

Love your avatar picture.

[KittyWampus]

5. According To AL JAZEERA- Assad is losing the North/Coastal region (his stronghold)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013826124946176888.html

Syria rebels take control of strategic town
Rebels cut off government troops' supply route out of Aleppo, as President Assad warns US against military action.




So I question Assad is winning.

[railsback]

6. Sure does explain why the Syrian army SHELLED that area for 5 days straight

while denying U.N. access. Now there's snipers shooting at the inspectors.

Just another op-ed based solely on emotions.

[dtom67]

8. We do not have the money for this....

we have not even paid for the last war(s).

How about this: Give up Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, SNAP, ALL unemployment insurance and we can have our war.

Because THAT is what we are setting up.

" The President MUST get serious on cutting spending for entitlements; we just don't have the money" or some such republican bullshit. And we can blame ourselves for falling for the same crap, once again.

and since the money that we will borrow to pay for this will be IN OUR NAME, we will pay the price.

What a great deal....