Posturing over Syria -Melanie Phillips [pictured]
Obama has reacted in predictable fashion by thoughtfully alerting the enemy in advance to what he is about to do to them, so that everyone involved has the chance to run away before they get hurt.
What kind of Commander-in-Chief publicly announces in advance details and targets of his proposed strike? Of course, this may all be a bluff to conceal a far deadlier military action against the Assad regime.
[T]his proposed strike would seem simply designed to advertise the moral virtue of David Cameron, Barack Obama and any other western leaders involved. It aims to show that, faced with the evidence of an appalling atrocity, these leaders reacted in a principled way. But in fact, their moral nausea is highly selective.
Faced with the chemical attack in Syria, says Cameron, ‘the world cannot stand by’.
Oh really? So why did he ‘stand by’ while the Copts of Egypt were subjected to savage pogroms by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics – who Cameron and Obama actually helped put into power in that country?
Why did he ‘stand by’ while Christians were burned alive in their churches, converted at gunpoint or ethnically cleansed by Islamic zealots week in, week out across Africa and the Third World?
So what is Cameron and Obama’s strategic goal in Syria? No-one knows. Do they? Do they want to remove Assad? Apparently not; they just want to make him stop being a murderous psychopath. And they are going to do that, it seems, by strikes which they assure him will leave him in power.
Oh really? So why did he ‘stand by’ while the Copts of Egypt were subjected to savage pogroms by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics – who Cameron and Obama actually helped put into power in that country?
Why did he ‘stand by’ while Christians were burned alive in their churches, converted at gunpoint or ethnically cleansed by Islamic zealots week in, week out across Africa and the Third World?
So what is Cameron and Obama’s strategic goal in Syria? No-one knows. Do they? Do they want to remove Assad? Apparently not; they just want to make him stop being a murderous psychopath. And they are going to do that, it seems, by strikes which they assure him will leave him in power.
The point of this strike, therefore, is not military but political. It is merely a rap over the knuckles. It is a gesture.
The most important argument used to support attacking Assad’s regime is that, by bringing it down, the west would deal a grievous blow to Iran, Syria’s puppet-master, which itself poses such a terrible threat to the region and the world.
There is only one way to hit Iran – and that is to hit Iran. Attempting to weaken Iran by striking at Assad is to look at the problem the wrong way round. To neutralise the puppet Assad, the west has to strike the puppeteer, Iran.
The overwhelming moral imperative for the US, the UK and the west not to ‘stand by’ is to stop the Iranian bomb. Striking a few Syrian targets not only will not achieve that end. It will be yet another displacement exercise deployed by the US and UK to avoid facing up to the overwhelming threat to the west posed by Iran.
[Electric Media]
*
2 comments:
What a remarkably well-written piece. And, not because I find myself in agreement with most of it. Cameron's wobbliness may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, however, since if the Americans plus or minus the French attack unilaterally, it may ignite fires whose destructive power may not be easily calculable. Here's my (two day old) take on it all.
http://soupyskyepraise.blogspot.fr/2013/08/poor-syria.html
Agreed. This is indeed an outstanding piece. It alone suggests a move that would disempower Syria without having to strike her: hit their sponsor, Iran. But I am afraid Obama isn't there yet.
Post a Comment