Advertisement

Facing a war weary public at home and an irresolute international community, President Obama has decided to take his case for action against Bashar al-Assad to Congress. In an ironic turn of events, the do-nothing Congress had a momentous decision at its doorstep that will impact countless lives in Syria and the region.

For more than two years President Assad of Syria has led the slaughter of his own population without remorse. Approximately 100,000 people have been killed by the regime and over one million children alone have been forced to flee the state. These numbers by themselves are staggering and deserve due attention. When a leader of any state commits these kinds of atrocities against his own people it becomes a moral imperative to intervene. Further, this imperative should strike us at our core not as merely citizens of America, but as members of the human race.

Some smart people thought, and perhaps some still think, that the 2003-2011 war on Iraq was unique in that it was promoted with the use of blatant lies. When I'd researched dozens of other wars and failed to find one that wasn't based on a foundation of similar lies, I wrote a book about the most common war lie varieties. I called it War Is A Lie.

That book has sold more than any of my others, and I like to think it's contributed some teeny bit to the remarkable and very welcome skepticism that is greeting the U.S. government's current claims about Syria. The fact is that, were the White House telling the truth about the need for an attack on Syria, it would be a first in history. Every other case for war has always been dishonest.

The stupidity of Obama's sanctioned attack on Syria Bob Sheak

Obama appears to be sinking deeper into his war- making plan on Syria. He has probably gone too far to reverse the momentum toward a military strike for which he and his administration are most responsible. But many in Congress seem eager to jump on the bandwagon. Obama worries about his credibility and the credibility of the nation's military might and power to intimidate.

But a diplomatic option is right there, right now, within talking distance, at the G-20 meeting taking place in St. Petersburg, Russia. The US and Russia are the key actors in the terrible Syrian "civil war." They each have important allies - proxies - in the Middle East Region. What could they do? They could influence their respective allies to stop the flow of weapons into Syria. For example, Russia could stops arming Assad. The US could use its considerable influence to stop Saudi Arabia and Qatar from sending arms to its favored "rebel" groups.

Who’s up for stopping a war?

This is the time, as the next war strains to be born, amid the same old lies as last time, amid the same urgency and pseudo-debate and pretensions of seriousness:

The government of Syria has crossed a “red line.” It has used poison gas, killing hundreds of innocent people and committing a heinous war crime. And suddenly, clear as a bell, we have good vs. evil. Our only course of action, President Obama and his spokespersons tell us, is to “carry out a punitive strike against the Syrian government.”

What do you call a proposal that breaks promises to city workers, destroys their family’s hard earned retirement security, lowers the city’s tax base, harms our fragile economy and actually requires the city of Cincinnati to pay out more in retiree funds?

In this case, the tiny group of wealthy financiers, tea party supporters and out of town petitioners sponsoring this ridiculous proposal are calling it by the misleading name of “Cincinnatians for Pension Reform” (CPR). However, unlike the medical procedure by the same name, this one would kill its patient!

WHO IS BEHIND CPR?

If you said; “It can’t be Cincinnatians, our own home town folks would never push something this bad,” then you are actually right on the money!

What about the 7,000 signatures filed by the so-called “Cincinnatians for Pension Reform?” Actually, that phony group paid nearly $70,000 to the California Company Arno Petition Consultants to bring in and put up out of town petitioners in order for them to collect the signatures needed to qualify for ballot status.

Evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" is "no slam dunk," U.S. officials are saying this time around, reversing the claim made about Iraq by then-CIA director George Tenet.

Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.

A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war deceptions, opposes arming the "rebel" force in Syria, so heavily dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a majority opposes U.S. military action in Syria.

But that public opinion is only just beginning to get expressed as activism. With Republicans more willing to actively oppose a war this time, and some section of Democrats still opposed, there's actually potential to build a larger antiwar movement than that of 2003-2006.

Thus far, however, what's discouraging an attack on Syria is the public uproar that was created back then over the disastrous attack on Iraq.

The White House is treating the Syrian government like a potential drone strike victim.
President Barack Obama's preferred method for dealing with targeted individuals is not to throw them into lawless prisons. But it's also not to indict and prosecute them.

On June 7th, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but "they never asked us." In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted.

A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he'd attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested -- had he been charged with some crime.

Missile-strike law enforcement is now being applied to governments as well. The Libyan government was given a death sentence. The Syrian government is being sentenced to the loss of some citizens, buildings, and supplies.

It's 4 a.m. and I can’t sleep, just like 10 years ago when President Bush was telling the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the United States must invade and occupy Iraq to rid humanity of these weapons. I didn’t believe President Bush ten years ago and I resigned as a U.S. diplomat.

Now a decade later, President Obama is telling the world that the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad government must be answered by other weapons, even though the results of the UN inspection team have not been compiled—just as the Bush administration refused to wait for the UN report by the inspectors who had been looking for WMD in Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that the UN inspectors “can’t tell us anything that we don’t already know.” President Obama says that any U.S. attack on the Assad government will be as punishment, not regime change. The strike will be “limited”—but tell that to the civilians who inevitably die when military attacks take place.

President Bush and his advisors either didn’t know or didn’t care about the probable consequences of their decision to invade and occupy Iraq:
The British Parliament’s rejection of an attack on Syria is a direct contrast -- and implicit challenge -- to the political war system of the United States. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly,” Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday night. At least for now, Uncle Sam’s poodle is off the leash. Now all eyes turn to Congress, where the bar has suddenly been raised. Can the House of Representatives measure up to the House of Commons?

It’s a crucial question -- but President Obama intends to render it moot with unwavering contempt for the war authority of Congress. Like his predecessors. Even with war votes on Capitol Hill, the charade quotient has been high. The Gulf War began in early 1991 after the Senate vote for war was close: 52 to 47. But, as the PBS “Frontline” program reported years later, President George H.W. Bush had a plan in place: if Congress voted against going to war, he’d ignore Congress.

Pages

Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS