history

Egyptians are making history at a frantic pace. After the largest protests in Egypt’s history initiated the downfall of the first Muslim Brotherhood government, a military-led massacre of Muslim Brotherhood faithful quickly altered the political dynamic. Everything is in flux.

The people of Egypt have now deposed of two governments amid one of world history’s strongest revolutionary movements. But the massive showcase of Egyptian people-power has been met with gloom and cynicism from many progressive-minded people, who lament the loss of “democracy” in Egypt as they painfully watch the Egyptian military re-assert itself into power. “Nothing has changed,” they moan, “the same ruling class under Mubarak rules again.”

This criticism — although partially true — completely misses the point.

The flaw lies in viewing the Egyptian military as omnipotent and the Egyptian people as powerless. Yes, the military is a powerful institution — especially in light of U.S. military aid — but ignoring the crucial role of the Egyptian people in the process is a profound oversight and a lack of political depth perception. To be more financially stable, in case off emergencies, you might want to look into playing some fun and interactive sports betting games via autoanuncia.

Some key questions to ask are: Do the recent events in Egypt push general political consciousness forward or backwards? And are the people nearer or further away from taking power for themselves? The answer is unquestionably “forward.”

The people of Egypt have learned a thousand political lessons since the overthrow of Mubarak. They have now successfully disposed of two heads of state, and will not be so easily deceived by a U.S.-backed Mubarak clone. The situation has changed in a profound way, most notably because the people have twice exercised and felt their massive power. This is key!

The most astute revolutionaries in Egypt — and there are many — have zero trust in the army. The whole country has become politicized and is learning incredibly fast from direct experience. To only see the power of the Egyptian military in this dynamic is to be color blind to the vibrant shades of revolution.

It’s true that many Egyptians have a semi-idealized view of the Egyptian military; but this is not a sheepish bow to authority, but a uniquely Egyptian perspective based on real history. Former Presidents Nasser and Sadat were military-linked heads of state who played a progressive role in many arenas of Egyptian life, especially in economics and national independence (in recent polls Sadat and Nasser remained the two most popular Egyptian politicians to date, regardless of both having died decades ago).

This bygone era of romance with the Egyptian military was partially rekindled when the military seemed to fulfill the demands of Egyptians by removing Morsi. The largest protests in Egyptian history were based on one solid demand — Morsi must go. The military, it appeared to some, listened to the people and acted accordingly. Of course the military never wanted the Muslim Brotherhood in power; the military also pursued its own interests while play-acting on behalf of the people.

Although the military was also looking out for itself, it was the massive anti-Morsi protests that acted as a smashing democratic veto to the elections that brought Morsi to power. These elections offered no real alternative to Egyptians: A Muslim Brother versus a stooge from the previous dictatorship. This especially fake form of democracy was not suited for a nation that just used revolution to destroy a dictatorship; a higher form of direct democracy thus delivered the immediate impeachment of Morsi.

The people of Egypt again delivered a revolution while the military again attempted to act as a midwife — after the revolutionary contractions already began. It’s true that only the military had the organizational abilities to care for the baby post-delivery, but it’s the Egyptian people who gave life to and still demand parental oversight over their historic offspring. The people of Egypt have no doubt who the real parents of this revolutionary newborn are, and neither does the military.

This is why the military is immediately trying to appease the Egyptian masses by getting governmental power into the hands of a civilian caretaker government that has the trust of the people. The liberals who are accepting these posts — such as U.S.-backed Mohamed ElBaradei — will be the next to expose themselves as poor parental guardians of the revolution, as did the Muslim Brotherhood before them.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ascension to the position of revolutionary caretaker acted as an enormous barrier to the revolution’s progress, and surmounting this barrier has pushed the revolution into a whole new political territory. Now only the weakling liberals remain as brakes to the Egyptian revolution, along with the military behind the scenes and the Mubarak forces. But the people have proved themselves capable of steamrolling anything it views as a threat to its revolutionary offspring, liberals, reactionaries, and military alike.

In reality the Egyptian military’s power is overstated, easily shredded if it attempted to repress the broader revolution. The army’s rank-and-file soldier — if ordered to shoot on the revolutionary public — would rather turn its guns on the officers and generals ordering the repression. Revolutions excel at this form of redefining power — the powerful quickly become powerless. Once omnipotent dictators find themselves — as Mubarak did — literally in a cage, discarded.

After the Egyptian liberals are exposed as poor guardians of the revolution, a giant political void will open up. In politics — especially revolutionary politics — voids are quickly filled by those most organizationally ready to fill them.

Speaking to this idea, Cihan Tugal’s essay, “The End of the ‘Leaderless’ Revolution,” makes many excellent points about Egypt’s revolution suffering from an inability to organize itself sufficiently to receive the gains of the revolution. Tugal argues:

“…it is not sufficient for the system to fall. What will replace it? We have been avoiding an answer…We now have to wake up and realize that if we do not develop solid alternatives (and organizations and institutions that will implement them), the downfall of the system will not mean the making of a better world.”

In short, if the Egyptian people are not properly organized, the power will return to the army, as it has post-Morsi.

Tugal is of course correct. The Egyptian people must organize to ensure it is they who are able to care for their creation, not simply a handful of elites. Organization begins with common beliefs and interests, which in political language quickly get translated into political demands and broader social goals.

The Egyptian people do not need abstract notions of democracy, but food, jobs, social services, etc., while striving towards equality and a deeper sense of direct democracy than is offered by the stale, uninspiring U.S.-modeled electoral system.

The most modest demands in Egypt — food, jobs, public services, etc. — are at the moment the most revolutionary demands, since the majority of Egyptians will unite to fight for them in the streets, while the U.S.-backed military and its liberal coalition government are incapable of delivering them, since doing so would violate the sacred laws of neo-liberalism/capitalism.

Once these demands are properly articulated and organized around, the situation in Egypt will have changed, since the people in Egypt will have found their collective voice towards what they aspire to, as opposed to the present day rejecting what they are against.

But many pundits see only tragedy in the recent events of Egypt, rejecting any optimistic possibility. They argue that the recent events in Egypt are purely the machinations of foreign powers — again, there is evidence to partially legitimize this claim. But this analysis ignores the revolutionary X factor — the Egyptian people and the continuation of the revolution.

The essence of revolution is that the overwhelming majority of people directly intervene into politics in a way that fundamentally changes existing politics. This is opposed to a “normal” democracy, where average people mark a ballot every four or so years — if they vote at all. In non-revolutionary times people are passive and disengaged from the political process, focusing on themselves and their families; they don’t view themselves as agents of change, but victims of larger more-powerful forces. A revolution creates the exact opposite dynamic.

Most political pundits only understood the masses in states of non-revolutionary political passivity. The Egyptian people have proved this perspective wrong on two historic occasions and still this outdated narrative is clung to by observers.

To the average political pundit the motor of history freezes in place after every political uprising. The situation is not evolving but stagnant; the group that presently is in power will remain in power. Nothing will really change. The people were used as puppets for more powerful interests, and in the post uprising period the puppets will be cut from their strings, lifeless and exploitable.

This is a popular explanation of the events in Egypt, which view the downfall of Morsi as purely a pre-planned coup, and again, there is legitimate evidence of coup plotting.

But again, the bigger picture is lost by narrowing the focus here. The ruling class of any country is extremely hesitant to attempt to use the broader population as weapons against their ruling class political adversaries, since doing so is akin to steering a tiger by grabbing its tail.

In times of revolution the masses are less tame than any tiger, and have a greater capacity to think. They cannot be so easily led by the tail — or the leash — back into the cage.

Vijay Prashad writes about the dynamic aspect of revolution in his excellent book “Arab Spring, Libyan Winter.” The following passage refers to the Arab Spring in general:

“More will be demanded… The Arab lands will not be the same again…In Egypt, where the appetite for the possibilities of the future are greatest, the people continue to assert themselves into Tahrir Square and other places, pushing to reinvigorate a Revolution that must not die. They do not want to allow it to settle back into the possible forms, the neoliberal security state…They want something more. For them the slogan is simple: down with the present: Long Live the Future.”

The future of Egypt depends on several factors, though ultimately it’s a race between the Egyptian people and the elites: the people must quickly organize themselves towards an independent political path, while the ruling class frantically attempts to cajole the tiger back into its cage by a mixture of repression, political maneuvering, and religious/ethnic divide and conquer tactics.

This race is more sprint than marathon; the Egyptian people don’t have forever to solve this problem, since revolutions are by nature temporary exceptions to the historic norm. Even the mightiest tiger eventually exhausts itself in struggle, becoming more vulnerable to the zookeeper.

Yes, it’s possible that the revolution may fail. But let’s not assume its failure, but encourage it to victory. Let’s criticize its weaknesses, not fetishise them. Let’s analyze its strength in order to strengthen it yet more.

It’s possible — and even likely — that the Egyptian people will rediscover their pan-Arabic, socialist roots. But this won’t be based on a stale Soviet-era vision, but a higher historic level, opening up new political vistas that gaze upon unseen social horizons, capable of inspiring the broader Middle East towards a new political project. And possibly the world beyond it.

Read more

Finian Cunningham

This article originally appeared in Press TV.

Not only are the US, Britain and France losing their criminal covert military war for regime change in Syria, these state terrorists are also caving in on the propaganda front.

Such a criminal conspiracy was bound to fail sooner or later. Now, its weight of falsehoods and lies are imploding. The arrival of the UN chemical weapons inspection team this week in Damascus marks another hammer blow against Western malicious designs on Syria. The UN seems set to finally comply with the Syrian government’s terms for investigating competing claims about the use of deadly chemical weapons in Syria. President Bashar Al Assad and the Damascus authorities have consistently alleged that it is Western-backed mercenaries who have used the internationally banned weapons, while the Western powers have charged that it is the Syrian state forces.

Syria’s government first called for a UN inspection team back in March following a deadly exposure to the nerve agent, Sarin, in the district of Khan al Assal, near Aleppo, in which some 25 people were killed, including 16 Syrian army soldiers. However, that initiative was blocked when the UN – at the urging of the Western states – demanded that its investigators be given “unfettered access” to all sites in Syria, including military installations. To be financially stable, regardless of whom is in the seat, you might want to look into playing autoanunciaบาคาร่าออนไลน์ online.

Assad’s government, supported by Russia, refused to grant the UN team such open permission because it was disturbingly reminiscent of the UN weapons inspection that had gone into Iraq 10 years ago. That team was allowed sensitive access to military sites across Iraq, which suspiciously was then followed by the US-led “shock and awe” blitzkrieg on that country beginning in March 2003.

Now, however, the UN chemical weapons top expert, Ake Sellstrom, has agreed to hold talks in Damascus at the invitation of the Syrian government. He is accompanied by UN disarmament chief Angela Kane. It is believed that the discussions will work out a modality for a proper probe in order to settle the competing claims about who used the illegal weapons.

Why have the UN weapons inspectors suddenly become more amenable to the Syrian government’s terms in the conduct of an investigation? The answer seems to be that the weight of evidence supporting the Syrian authorities’ claims has become too large to ignore.

Two developments give the Syrian government decisive credibility. In recent days, as the Syrian army pushes militants out of previously held strongholds, it has discovered a series of crude bomb factories for equipping rockets with chemical warheads. The most serious find was in the coastal city of Banias where more than 280 barrels of toxic industrial chemicals were recovered. Syria’s ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, said that the toxic quantity was “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country.”

A subsequent deadly find was in the suburb of Jobar in Damascus. After routing militants in gun battles, Syrian state forces found a makeshift chemical laboratory with supplies of highly toxic chlorine and other industrial materials. Some of the containers were stamped with “corrosive” warnings and labels saying “made in Saudi Arabia”. Among the cache were mortars intended for arming with chemical warheads.

The second major development is the latest official Russian report. These improvised chemical weapons used by the Western-backed mercenaries are consistent with a study from Russian experts that was submitted to the UN last week. The Russian investigation into the notorious incident in Khan al-Assal, near Aleppo, during March has found that chemical weapons, including Sarin, were indeed used, and that the perpetrators were Western-supported militants.

This finding not only completely negates earlier Western claims; it also exposes Western posturing, fabrication and lies told at the highest level of political office, including that of US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande.

Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said of his country’s report: “It was determined that on March 19 the rebels fired an unguided missile Bashair-3 at the town of Khan al-Assal, which has been under government control. The results of the analysis clearly show that the shell used in Khan al-Assal was not factory-made and that it contained Sarin.”

The latter point is significant. The crudely built deadly weapons in the March attack on Khan al-Assal are part of a consistent pattern with the recent discoveries of homemade chemical warheads that the Syrian army is making as it routs Western-backed militants from their strongholds.

The imminent danger to the Syrian population – as demonstrated by recent Syrian army findings and the Russian report – has probably jolted the UN inspection team to address this issue with the urgency it demands. Tacitly, the UN team’s arrival in Damascus this week is also an admission that the Syrian government has been telling the truth all along about who are the guilty parties wielding these weapons of mass destruction. That would explain why the UN team is finally giving long-overdue respect to Syrian requests.

Moreover, as the issue unfolds, it is building into a grave indictment of the Western states. The US, Britain and France have for months been claiming that they have “evidence” that it was the Syrian government forces using chemical weapons. These powers have, in turn, used this accusation to justify their decisions to begin openly arming the militant groups in Syria.

On June 13, the Obama White House stated: “Our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent Sarin.” The next day, the US announced that it planned to send arms to militants in Syria because Assad’s forces had “crossed a red line”. The move followed earlier British and French overturning of the European Union arms embargo on Syria.

In stark contrast to the so-called tests allegedly conducted by the US, Britain and France, the latest Russian study on chemical weapons in Syria meets international scientific standards. The Russian investigation has an independently verifiable “chain of custody” in the collection of samples and the analyses were carried out according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Whereas, the claims made by the Western states are based on secret information that smacks of contriving “facts” to fit their criminal political agenda of covert war and regime change. In other words, the Western regimes are engaging in baseless propaganda and lies to give themselves a license for yet more criminal war.

Western governments are therefore increasingly seen to be not only supporting depraved cut-throats and cannibals who bomb residential neighborhoods indiscriminately, kidnap, extort, murder and rape, but these same governments that preach human rights and international law are facilitating Al Qaeda terrorists in the use of internationally banned chemical weapons of mass destruction.

The visit this week by the UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria is another landmark reversal for the Western state sponsors of terrorism. Their lies and propaganda are unraveling as rapidly as the defeats being inflicted on their proxy death squads who have been operating in Syria for the past two years.

Military defeats for the Western-backed mercenaries around Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and Idlib have come with reports of murderous infighting between the fractious so-called rebels. The treachery and brutality dispels the carefully contrived Western media image of “moderates” within the much-lionized Free Syrian Army. This outfit with its tin-pot General Salim Idriss is now seen as a nonentity, which never had any sway over the dominant groups of Al-Qaeda and Salafist mercenaries.

As the Syrian army retakes control of villages, districts and cities, there is an eerie silence in the Western media about the military successes. Where are the reports of Syrian army reprisals against civilians? Where are the claims of Syrian civilians crying out for the “heroic” militants to return and save them from the “oppressive” Syrian army?

Likewise, video footage and reports coming out of areas of Aleppo still under siege from the Western-backed terrorists show civilians protesting against their captors. Again, this is a narrative that destroys the Western manufactured propaganda image of a population rebelling against an oppressive state. It is rather a scenario of the civilian population having had to endure the imposition of mercenaries, criminals and psychopaths – an imposition that has been orchestrated by the Western regimes in Washington, London and Paris, along with their regional proxies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

As Western state terrorism runs out of ground in Syria, so are its myths and lies that have covered up the crimes of Washington, London and Paris. The emerging truth about the use of chemical weapons in Syria typifies the collapsing criminal conspiracy. These criminal rogue regimes are now losing on all front

Read more

In times of crisis people strive for easy answers to complex situations. In Egypt this has resulted in absurdly digestible sound bites, where one side is labeled “good”(the Muslim Brotherhood), the other “bad” (the army), and the revolution as a whole is condemned as an atrocity. But the situation in Egypt is especially contradictory, and untying the social-political knots of the revolution requires avoiding pre-packaged catchphrases.

Contrary to the claims of many, reports of the revolution’s death are greatly exaggerated. Those who predict that Egypt will inevitably enter a long period of military dictatorship forget that the Egyptian revolution destroyed such a dictatorship in 2011, and helped topple Morsi’s authoritarian government in July. The people in Egypt have not been cowed into submission, they are still in the streets, unafraid, consciously aware of their power. The Egyptian military is very aware of this fact, as their actions testify.

Although it’s a tragedy that innocent people have been killed, it’s also true that the Muslim Brotherhood represents not the revolution, but its adversary. Especially confusing is that another opponent of the revolution — the military generals — are leading the attack against the Brotherhood, which raises the question: why would one enemy of the revolution be attacking another?

The current, bizarre-seeming situation in Egypt is actually common in the history of revolutions, having started in the modern era with Napoleon Bonaparte, who, during the French Revolution, consolidated his power by aligning with certain social classes against rival sections, and switching allegiances when necessary to offset the power of his former allies, until all political rivals were weakened, allowing him and his army to act as arbitrator and ruler. To be more financially stable, regardless of whom is in the seat, you might want to consider playing some fun and interactive sports betting games via www.aucoe.info.

This now common feature of revolutions is often referred to as “Bonapartism” in honor of its founder and is a reflection of society in revolutionary upheaval, where different social classes are powerfully asserting themselves, though unable to out-power their adversaries, allowing the military to act as the Bonapartist “arbitrator.”

Bonapartism is also a sign of the political weakness of the military, which is not able to rule without aligning with certain segments of the population (this is why the Egyptian generals recently asked for mobilizations to signal “permission” to put down the Brotherhood’s civil disobedience actions, essentially using Egypt’s political left against the political right).

Bonapartism has been practiced by military dictatorships since Napoleon. In fact, Egypt’s popular military President Gamal Abdul Nasser — who instituted many progressive measures in Egypt — was himself a classic Bonapartist, though one who uncharacteristically leaned left.

For example, after surviving an assassination attempt from the Muslim Brotherhood, Nasser used the military to destroy the Brotherhood, while enjoying support from the political left in Egypt due to his progressive policies. After dealing with the Brotherhood, Nasser consolidated his power against the growing revolutionary left, by attacking both the communist party and trade unions. This political balancing act between political left and right is the hallmark of Bonapartism.

Nasser’s successor, Sadat, also used a Bonapartist strategy when he invited the Muslim Brotherhood back into Egypt to use as a right wing political battering ram against the Egyptian left. Sadat needed the Brotherhood as a political prop to help him reverse the progressive policies implemented under Nasser.

Mubarak, too, used the Brotherhood in this fashion, for the same reasons as Sadat. It’s true that both Mubarak and Sadat used aggressive measures against the Brotherhood at times, but they both allowed the group greater freedom for political organization than any other group, since the Brotherhood was a politically perfect compliment to the president’s right-wing, neo-liberal policies.

This pro-Brotherhood favoritism led to the situation where, after the fall of Mubarak, the Brotherhood was virtually the only organized political force in Egypt. After being dragged into the revolution kicking and screaming by their youth wing, the Brotherhood then opportunistically took power, while sharing none of the goals or vision of the revolutionaries.

One common way that commentators have been confusing the situation in Egypt is by portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as Ghandian revolutionaries striving to restore democracy. But in the same breath these analysts say, correctly, ”God forbid” if the Brotherhood is allowed to implement their vision of a fundamentalist Islamic State in Egypt, since doing so would automatically reduce the liberties of women, non-fundamentalist Muslims, and religious minorities.

Yet another common mistake in assessing Egypt is to portray the conflict as secularists against Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a monopoly over Islam in Egypt. Out of the millions of people who demanded the ouster of Morsi on June 30th, the vast majority of them were Muslims of the Sunni variety, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Brotherhood’s fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam remains a minority opinion among Egypt’s Sunni majority.

A further flaw in analyzing current events in Egypt lies in forgetting how the situation developed, which requires that we delve into the not-too-distant past of June 30th, when millions of Egyptians demanded the departure of then-President Morsi. These massive demonstrations were obviously at least as large as the ones that toppled Mubarak, yet the Muslim Brotherhood failed to get the message, and have attempted to use militant civil disobedience in order to reinstate the unquestionably unpopular Morsi.

The military moved against the Brotherhood because they believed, correctly, that the majority of the population was behind them and against the Brotherhood, as evidenced by the much larger demonstrations that responded to the call of the military, not to mention mountains of other evidence documenting that opinion in working class Cairo neighborhoods has turned against the Muslim Brotherhood.

And although there are many who simply dismiss the June 30th demonstration of millions as a “conspiracy,” it’s impossible to force people to attend demonstrations with one united demand, “Morsi must go,” if they don’t want to be there. Many “pro-conspiracy” analysts simply seem not to understand the profound political significance of demonstrations of that size, as if they’re somehow common and not symptoms of a powerful revolution.

It’s true that the Egyptian generals — not to mention plotting foreign countries — are trying to implement their own agenda throughout the crisis, which always entails some conspiratorial maneuvering, but the demands of June 30th made it very clear where Egyptians stand on the issue: they spoke with their own voice.

Although the majority of Egyptians are now anti-Muslim Brotherhood, the military’s recent actions create new problems for Egypt’s revolutionaries. The power of the Brotherhood will be shattered, but the power of the military will be enhanced. To prevent the generals from abusing their power against the Egyptian working class, revolutionaries need to quickly plan a way to protect themselves while furthering the demands of the revolution.

Because the Egyptian left remains insufficiently organized, they must utilize the political strategy of the United Front, which unites broad sections of the population behind a limited number of popular demands. By doing this, the military generals will be powerless in the face of a united mass movement that is putting forth a positive program, as opposed to the current dynamic that is united around what Egyptians reject. A united front mass movement will win the hearts and minds of the rank-and-file Egyptian soldier, while also preventing the Brotherhood’s fundamentalism from gaining a fresh batch of recruits.

In Egypt the most immediate needs of the population — bread, jobs, social services, etc. — are the demands that continue to fuel the revolution and be the most uniting. If the political left put forth a plan using revolutionary methods to achieve these demands — reversing the privatizations, raising the tax rates on the wealthy, public works for employment, etc. — then the broader Egyptian working class would rally to achieve these goals, some of which were realized under President Nasser and reversed by Sadat and Mubarak.

The Egyptian revolution does not have years to solve these problems; the economy of Egypt is facing catastrophe, and drastic action must be taken immediately. This is one of the reasons Morsi was ejected from power: he thought he could continue the Mubarak attitude of doing nothing substantial for the majority of the population, half of which lives in abject poverty and the other half scrambling madly to avoid such a fate.

The higher expectations and new hopes inspired by the revolution must be accompanied by bold revolutionary actions capable of achieving these new expectations. Politics as usual is, a thing of the past in Egypt. The revolution can avoid the fate of entrenched Bonapartism only if it is unequivocally aimed at addressing the pressing basic economic needs of the vast majority of the Egyptian population.

Read more

The rats are jumping ship. Obama’s strongest allies can’t stomach the stench of lies that are the foundation of the war effort against Syria. Even England, whose entire foreign policy is reduced to asking “how high?” when the U.S. says “jump,” opted to stay grounded for Obama’s war drive.

The Arab League, too, having long been considered a puppet show by U.S. foreign policy, has cut its strings. The UN Security Council — after having learned not to trust Obama in Libya — also refuses to give permission for an attack. Which leaves France — the former colonial master of Syria — to fill England’s shoes as the token “important” European nation to give the attack a thin coat of “international” support. But England’s insolence will surely make an impression on the French public, who voted in a “socialist” president, presumably not to act as a warmonger.

Obama has offered zero evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the most recent chemical weapons attack. UN investigator Carla Del Ponte blamed the U.S.-backed rebels for a previous chemical weapons attack, so if one were to presume guilt, it would flow towards the rebels.

While foreign nations instantly recognized Obama’s war song as a plagiarism of President Bush’s lyrics used to start a war on Iraq, sections of the American public have been fooled by Obama’s mellowing tone. The soft, reassuring sound of “limited strikes” that will last “hours, not days” has a calming effect on the nerves of the American public, who are essentially being told that Syria needs a light slap on the wrist for being “bad,” after which everything will return to normal; no U.S. troops need die. No big deal, really.

But, of course, any military action in the Middle East is a big deal. With each new war the U.S. wages in the region, tensions rise, self defense preparations are made, and regional alliances are readied to act as deterrents. The nations not aligned with U.S. foreign policy — and there are many — are desperate to stop the U.S.’ bloody march across the Middle East.

Americans don’t understand how the Iraq war fundamentally changed the Middle East. The U.S. Government is deeply hated by the vast majority of people in the region for having destroyed Iraq, once viewed by many as a proud Arab nation. Attacking another nation in the heart of the Middle East — that millions of Arabs have an equally strong affinity for — will create massive “blowback.”

No matter how “limited” the strike, bombing a foreign nation is a major act of war. In fact, after WWII the Nuremberg trial concluded that the Nazis’ “supreme international crime” was not genocide or holocaust, but waging aggressive war, since all other war crimes were spawned from this original sin. Of course, Obama’s aggressive war plans involve more than tossing a couple of missiles at some Syrian tanks. That is why he’s moved five Navy destroyers into the region.

It is also presumably why — as reported by the French daily Le Figaro — hundreds U.S. Special Forces and “trained militant fighters” entered Syria on August 17.

It has widely been speculated that the real intention of attacking Syria is to prop up Obama’s ailing rebels, who have received massive U.S. support in the form of guns, training, and money, for —according to The New York Times — almost two years now, and possibly longer. It’s an undisputed fact that Islamic extremists militias are the most powerful fighting forces in the opposition to Assad; if he falls then they will be in power.

If only a tiny bombing campaign is launched, then it’s certain that more bombings will take place at a later date because the U.S.-backed extremist rebels need much more assistance than that to have any hope of beating Assad. To change the balance of forces between Obama’s essentially beaten rebels and the Syrian government will require a massive bombing campaign, along the lines of Libya.

One shouldn’t forget the chain of events in Libya: After the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels were facing defeat, Obama exploited the UN’s “naivety” by claiming that “immediate action” had to be taken to prevent the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. The UN stupidly agreed to a vague resolution about “protecting civilians,” which Obama immediately used as a pretext to wage aggressive war and regime change, dropping thousands of bombs on Libya via fighter jets that attacked both military and civilian targets, tearing apart the nation’s seams in the process. Vijay Prashad’s excellent book, “Arab Spring, Libyan Winter” covers the conflict in depth.

After the Libyan example, the UN is immune to Obama’s lies. So now the hardest part about waging war against Syria is starting it. And after the war foot is in the door, the logic of war immediately takes over, which instantly creates new, unforeseen dynamics, usually in the direction of expansion. It’s very possible that this “unforeseen” element of war is exactly what Obama is planning on.

For example, any sane military analyst expects Syria to defend itself. And Syria is much more capable of doing so than Libya or Iraq were. The American public isn’t prepared for this, since it essentially has been told that Syria would submissively accept its punishment, perhaps after throwing a loud tantrum.

But Syria has advanced weapons systems, and it would be perfectly legal and reasonable for Syria to defend itself by — for example, by bombing a U.S. Navy destroyer, or perhaps targeting Israel, who will certainly be involved in the assault on some level — and therefore is a legitimate military target. Israel has bombed Syria several times in the last six months.

It’s very possible that Obama is trying to provoke a strong reaction from Syria to give the U.S. public a reason to escalate the war. Any attack on Syria also has the possibility of bringing Iran into the conflict, since Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. And this may be the ultimate goal: to provoke Iran into getting involved militarily, so that the U.S. would have a justification to expand the war into Iran, which has been in the U.S. crosshairs for years. To be more financially stable, in case of emergencies, you might want to consider playing some fun sports betting games via mascotag.

If international and domestic pressure force Obama to merely launch a “symbolic” strike that Syria doesn’t retaliate against, then it will be a historic humiliation for U.S. foreign policy, showing the decline of U.S. international power. But even a “surgical” strike sets a very dangerous precedent, opening the door wider to future strikes which will inevitably be re-opened in the near future. A weak war effort this time will make the Obama administration all the more war hungry next time, since empires don’t simply fade away into oblivion.

If Obama attacks Syria at this point, he’ll have fewer allies than did Bush in Iraq. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, had the audacity to soil the ground where Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke 50 years earlier at the 1963 March on Washington; Obama sang the praises of the great peacemaker as he planned war against Syria.

Obama has very quickly ruined his integrity in Bush-like fashion. He’s jailed whistle-blowers like Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning — whose only crime was exposing war crimes — while now preparing an even bigger war crime against Syria. His presidency is going down in flames with impressive speed, and has the potential to drag down the rest of the country. On Saturday, August 31st, there is an international day of protest against a war with Syria. A large anti-war showing in the U.S. will convince more pro-war rats to jump ship, and an especially large showing could possibly sink the ship in one shot.

Read more

Read more

Finian Cunningham

This article first appeared in Strategic Culture Foundation Online Journal.

Observers of John F Kerry’s more than 40-year career as a successful politician on Capitol Hill note a consummate chameleonic quality in his wheeling and dealing. This dubious quality has helped him ascend from a callow anti-Vietnam war spokesman in the early 1970s to become America’s most senior diplomat who has distinguished himself in recent weeks as one of the most strident voices calling for military attacks on Syria.

According to critics, Kerry’s shameless careerism saw him marry into “old money” in order to promote his political ambitions in the U.S. senate to his present pinnacle of American Secretary of State. A former Democratic presidential candidate, it is a fair bet that the talented Mr. Kerry still has an eye on occupying the White House sometime in the future. This oleaginous operator proved his talents within hours of shaking hands with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva, when the pair appeared to come up with a ground-breaking formula to avert a military clash over Syria.

Last weekend – after three days of intense negotiations – Lavrov and Kerry emerged to announce that they had brokered a deal to eliminate chemical weapons held by the Syrian government. To the relief of many around the world, the apparent accord staved off what only days before that were threats of an imminent military strike on Syria by U.S. naval and air forces. With at least five U.S. warships off Syria toting more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles, U.S. President Barack Obama sounded more than a little unhinged when he declared menacingly: “The United States of America doesn’t do pinpricks”.

Kerry had been one of the most vociferous figures in Washington calling for such an intervention, even though such action was in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law – amounting to aggression, as Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed out in a guest editorial column in the New York Times last week. Kerry’s war rally during Congressional hearings was also in sharp contrast to American public opinion, implacably opposed to what is seen as yet another reckless overseas military adventure. The popular anti-war sentiment among the American public resonated with international opinion, which views the official U.S. push for military action in Syria as a potentially catastrophic collision in a powder-keg Middle East.

Given the high stakes and the complexity of issues, the Lavrov-Kerry deal in Geneva came as a purported triumph in international diplomacy. Russia, in particular, derived global kudos for having initiated the proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles under international control. That move seemed to placate Washington’s demand for bellicose sanctions on the Syrian government, whom the U.S. had been vehemently accusing of using such munitions in a deadly attack near the capital, Damascus, on 21 August.

Standing together and sharing smiles with his Russian “friend” at the conclusion of talks in Geneva last Sunday, Kerry said: “The United States and Russia are committed to remove chemical weapons from Syria.” Kerry also added that “there was no military solution” to the crisis. What a turnaround that seemed by Kerry-the-peacenik-turned-warrior.

While the American diplomat did reiterate calls for tough consequences in the event of the Syrian authorities not delivering on decommissioning of chemical weapons, it was noticeable that in the concluding press conference in Geneva Kerry did not repeat earlier threats of military force. It was also notable that Kerry backed off assertions that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces which had committed the atrocity on 21 August.

For his part, Russia’s Lavrov said that any future consequences for the Syrian government non-compliance would have to be worked out through negotiations among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. Lavrov clearly said that the deal was predicated on a peaceful resolution of the impasse. And, for his part, Kerry did not contradict that stated aim.

It was therefore disconcerting that immediately after the ostensible mutual accord thrashed out in Geneva that the American Secretary of State embarked on a global victory lap as if had secured a political advantage for the U.S. against Syria’s Assad. The first stop for Kerry was to greet the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. The Israeli leader could not conceal his glee on receiving Kerry and declared that “Syria should be stripped of all its chemical weapons… to make our entire region a lot safer.”

Given that Israel illegally occupies Syrian territory – the Golan Heights – for the past 40 years, and has launched three unprovoked airstrikes on its northern neighbor in this year alone; and given that Israel is reckoned to possess bigger chemical weapons stockpiles than Syria and is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as holding hundreds of illicit nuclear missiles, Kerry’s indulging in jingoistic felicitations in Jerusalem could be construed
as diplomatic bad faith, if not crass showmanship.

Next stop for the mercurial Kerry was Paris where on Monday he was flanked by the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and Britain’s William Hague. The press conference was like an all boys session, with each politician trying to outdo each other on who could sound the most muscular towards Syria. All three politicians were vowing that military force was an option if Syria did not comply with handing over its chemical weapons forthwith.

Kerry appeared to relish at sounding like the top dog in the pack. “We all agree – and that includes Russia – that there will be consequences… with military force an option on the table.”

Significantly, the American also brazenly told media that the chemical weapons deal worked out in Geneva was not a reprieve from Washington’s aim of regime change in Russia’s longtime ally Syria.

“Nothing of what we’ve done is meant to offer any notion to Assad that there is some legitimacy to his process, that he has some extended period as a leader,” Kerry said. When word got to Russia, Sergei Lavrov could not conceal his dismay at the sudden renewed belligerence emanating from the Western powers and from Kerry in particular. With magnanimity, Lavrov calmly and discreetly said: “This shows a lack of understanding about what John Kerry and I had agreed.”

So what can we conclude? The obvious point is that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is not a man whose word can be trusted. As with much of his political career, he seems adept at tailoring his words expediently to whatever audience he desires to ingratiate.

More importantly, the rapid change of political gear by Kerry and his Western allies shows that the primary ineluctable objective is regime change in Syria. The U.S. and its allies have conducted a covert criminal war for the past 30 months to get rid of the Assad governmentfor a variety of geopolitical reasons, including accommodating their regional proxies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and undermining Syria’s allies Iran, Russia and China in the vital oil and gas-rich Middle East.

With recent setbacks to the Western-backed mercenaries inflicted by Assad’s armed forces, the U.S. is preparing for an overt military intervention to implement its illegal agenda. The red line of chemical weapons use in Syria set forth by U.S. President Obama last year has always been a convenient trigger for such intervention under the guise of responding out of “humanitarian concern”. The rush to blame the Assad government for committing attacks with chemical weapons is part and parcel of fabricating a provocation and pretext for Washington’s military attack – an attack that would otherwise rightly be viewed as an outrageous aggression.

 In recent weeks, Washington and its allies have judged that the political climate around the world and in their own countries is not conducive to an all-out military strike on Syria. Or, at least, not yet.

In that way, it would appear that the deal hatched with Russia to decommission Syria’s chemical weapons is being used by Washington as an added lever for its criminal agenda of regime change, not as a genuine attempt to avert conflict in that country and the region more widely.

The haste with which the US, Britain and France have jumped to damning accusations against the Assad government over the UN chemical weapons report released this week is disturbingly consistent with their threat of military force. Shamelessly, these powers appear to be using the decommissioning of Syrian chemical weapons as a cover for legitimizing this aggression.

Read more

Read more