Obama's Red Line --The Cynical and Dangerous Mindset of those Choosing War Over Peace

[KoKo]

As US and NATO plan aerial attack on Assad government, analyses expose cynical and dangerous mindset of those choosing war over peace. Put another way, the simple political calculation that Obama must "save face" is really an admission that what's most important in terms of U.S. foreign policy is that the potency of U.S. military power should never be questioned by potential rivals or made to look impotent by other nations
In that context, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern writes at Common Dreams, the real target of U.S. military action is not the Assad regime per se—but Iran.

"Obviously, there is concern about the human rights catastrophe in Syria," writes McGovern, "but is the main target Syria’s main ally, Iran, as many suspect?".

Parsing why both the U.S. and and neighboring Israel would risk triggering a regional war when both state that neither "regime change" nor protracted involvement in Syria's civil war is the goal, McGovern argues that,

Iran’s leaders need not be paranoid to see themselves as a principal target of external meddling in Syria. While there seem to be as many interests being pursued – as there are rag-tag groups pursuing them – Tehran is not likely to see the common interests of Israel and the U.S. as very complicated. Both appear determined to exploit the chaotic duel among the thugs in Syria as an opportunity to deal a blow to Hezbollah and Hamas in Israel’s near-frontier and to isolate Iran still further, and perhaps even advance Israel’s ultimate aim of “regime change” in Tehran.

What has long been known about the conflict within Syria is the manner in which it has served as a proxy war among both regional and world powers, but none of those players have played such a central and pernicious role in fueling global conflict in the last century than the U.S. military which time and time again has chosen military belligerence and imperial self-interest over the option of more peaceful pathways.

Indeed, as the Guardian's Seumas Milne argues, if the U.S., U.K. and their allies wanted peace in the region, they have a sadistic way of showing it. As he says, it "is the war itself"—the "death and destruction" of ongoing violence—that poses the great threat to Syria's people:

If the US, British and French governments were genuinely interested in bringing it to an end – instead of exploiting it to weaken Iran – they would be using their leverage with the rebels and their sponsors to achieve a ceasefire and a negotiated political settlement.

Instead, they seem intent on escalating the war to save Obama's face and tighten their regional grip. It's a dangerous gamble.

Even if the attacks are limited, they will certainly increase the death toll and escalate the war. The risk is that they will invite retaliation by Syria or its allies – including against Israel – draw the US in deeper and spread the conflict. The west can use this crisis to help bring Syria's suffering to an end – or pour yet more petrol on the flames.

As many critics argue and Phyllis Bennis expressed again Wednesday, the "notion that we are going to somehow escalate these attacks in Syria, rather than saying this is a moment when we desperately need diplomacy" is absurd.

Condemning the U.S. decision to cancel scheduled diplomatic talks with Russia on Wednesday, Bennis said the U.S. is wrong to stave off discussions or any possibility of peace talks.

"This is exactly the time" for such talks, she said, adding:

We need to be talking to Russia, to Iran, to all of the U.S. allies that are supporting the other side, to force the various parties to peace talks. There is no military solution. This is what Congresswoman Barbara Lee said yesterday, and it’s absolutely true. There is no military solution. Extra assaults from the United States is going to make the situation worse, is going to put Syrian civilians at greater risk, not provide protection.

So let the record show—if and when the U.S. bombs fall on Syria and the predicted death toll and violence spreads—that there was another choice for President Obama and his allies, but that helping to coordinate peace talks or fostering a negotiated settlement between the warring factions was just "something" that the U.S. simply refused to do.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/28-3
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

[kentuck]

1. The President is getting some terrible advice...

in my opinion.

[brooklynite]

2. Please explain "choosing peace"

If we choose to do nothing, it might be the right idea, but the war in Syria will continue.

[KoKo]

3. The thought is that Obama/Kerry should have worked harder on bringing

together China, Russia into talks with Syria. Even including Iran and others to try to work out a solution before they decided to claim that Syria's chemical weapons could be a harm to US Citizens (as Obama claimed in PBS Interview with Judy Woodruff, yesterday)

Steve Clemons fellow at the New Democracy Foundation and an Editor of the "Atlantic" said today on "Democracy Now" that he wished Obama had not drawn a Red Line and had waited. He feels that if Obama Strikes Syria that it should be used as an opportunity for Peace Negotiations to try to stop what's going on in Syria. He feels Obama will use the strike to do that.

[G_j]

4. K&R nicely none

a must read IMO.