Syria: Obama has to act after he ignored Egypt?
Pentagon updates possible list of targets in Syria after massacre under false-flag by Syrian rebels in Jobar.
Another translation of an article on Syria and the recent alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Jobar.
The article focuses on the acts and possible options of the U.S. administration and President Barack Obama in regards of Syria and their violent agenda to overthrow the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad in the capital of the Arab nation, Damascus. However, although there are many new reports about a possible imminent military intervention in Syria, this case is not really to expect up to now.
However, the warmongers in Washington and Israel are capable of these violent and really crazy actions, of course. The Obama administration and the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv prove their incapability of a humanitarian thinking almost every day on the globe – just to carry out their agendas.
What to do, Akela?
The chiefs of staff of the British and the Americans have each justified themselves to their politicians in terms on the prospects of a “military intervention” in Syria. Neither of them has expressed something really new in his statements.
Essentially, they have warned that a war cannot run confined (restricted), when the politicians want to have a result. Based on their “experiences” in Iraq and Afghanistan, one should consider previously what has to happen after the war in the subjugated country – specifically, that there should be a functioning government.
Otherwise the country will be dragged in a years-or decades-long bloodbath, as it is already repeatedly known from several examples:
“The use of U.S. military force can change the military balance,” Dempsey said. “But it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fuelling this conflict.” Dempsey has … continually warned the country’s political elite against stronger military commitment in the conflict, citing the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dempsey thus supported the Obama administration’s current policy of providing humanitarian assistance and some limited help to moderate opposition, saying that would be “the best framework for an effective U.S. strategy toward Syria.” (Source)
In other words, Dempsey warns that the armed forces will carry out a decision for a war but that the politicians have, however, to worry about the consequences in advance.
That was even one of the fundamental tenets of Barack Obama, who even said before his first election victory, that the Republicans had, when they still ruled the country, to easily engaged in military conflicts, without weighing the consequences – neither for the “liberated” countries, nor for themselves.
What would be the rational reasons now for the situation that, as it is currently written very often, “Obama comes under pressure” in terms of Syria? No one seriously believes in the ramblings of “red lines”, probably kenning / understanding, that there just have to be occasions at times that represent a pretext for war.
Obama has recently suffered his second defeat during the “Arab Spring”. The first defeat yet looked like a needle stick, which was very effective in terms of the media, of course: the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi (Libya). The second defeat of Obama was the military coup in Egypt.
And this already has a system, because the support for that came from Saudi Arabia and almost certainly also from Israel. These processes undermine Obama’s position both in Syria and in the upcoming negotiations between the Americans and Iran.
Democracy back and forth, weapons of mass destruction are still no fun – not matter whether anyone has actually used such weapons or not. The main thing is the drawing of an image of a situation that gets out of control. On this basis, one is able to cobble together any / some coalition and to “wipe out” Damascus.
How this should be beneficial for the control of the chemical weapons in Syria is not of interest for them, especially since the backers know exactly whether they were used or not.
The fact is that Barack Obama needs to do something after they have so clearly ignored the current events in Egypt. If he swallows it, he soon receives another severe drubbing. The policy does not tolerate any weak person, especially not a weakened powerful person.
All in all, this means that the Americans in all seriousness consider a direct attack on Syria.
Currently, only the lack of clarity over what will happen afterwards restrains them from doing so – there is no enthusiasm for a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan, where they invaded quickly, but were not able to get out so quickly.
If the U.S. military has already send another, fourth warship with cruise missiles into the Mediterranean, then this is not just for a further political pressure on Syria, but certainly a preparation for a possible attack on Syria.
Until recently, this variant has not been really seriously considered, but meanwhile, the military coup in Egypt was very unpleasant for Obama. There is indeed a good chance that an attack on Syria, without any concern for the time afterwards in the Arab nation, now appears to be rational for Obama, in order to restore his position as a feudal Akela (in Kipling’s sense / fictional character in Rudyard Kipling’s stories).
In any case, the probability of a war against Syria has increased significantly after the events in Egypt.