Vladimir Putin argues the case against a strike on Syria better than the United States government argues in favour of it. And while one may disagree with the drift of his op-ed piece in the New York Times, it is clearer and more straightforward than anything our own administration has said recently. Especially that ineffective woofling speech by our president a few days ago.
If Vladimir Putin were a blogger, he would be a 'must-read'. Whereas the man I voted for twice is not nearly so interesting anymore, and at times resembles a broken record. Or is at least far paler than when he was still young and fresh.
So, just in case you missed it, here's Mr. Putin's editorial in its entirety.
Because it's well worth reading.
Disagree if you must.
[Begin cite]
A PLEA FOR CAUTION FROM RUSSIA
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
[End cite.]
[Source and probable copyright: NYT - The Opinion Pages - A Plea for Caution From Russia.]
I have different opinions about a number of the things Mr. Putin references. But interventionism in Syria is NOT in the United States interest, and I frankly don't give a damn that some tin-pot turd-world tyrant uses roach-spray on his own people when both he and that people despise the United States and have consistently supported anti-American acts and agitation.
Both the Ba'ath Socialists and Syrian citizens have been directly responsible for numerous terrorist incidents in the past decades.
Syria is a pit. A pox on both their houses.
Let the international community get their knickers soggy over this one. To paraphrase Geert Wilders, we've done enough.
AFTER THOUGHT
Not that it's anything other than ridiculously unlikely, but if Mr. Obama wants a chance to rebut Mr. Putin on this blog, I'd be more than happy to provide the space.
The NSA knows where to find me.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
THE RATIONAL APPROACH TO THE SYRIAN PROBLEM
There are several blogs that I read on a regular basis. Many of them used to post updates daily, but in the past three or four years they've faded a bit -- rehashing everything one has already expressed is too close to talking with your psychiatrist, one fears that the dear bearded doctor may have attention deficit disorder at this point -- and it is conceivable that some of them have simply tired of the routine of exposing their innermost thoughts or underwear for a sometimes less than attentive audience.
But they are still worth rereading, and going back and rediscovering stuff that you had already forgotten about.
Among the frequent grind:
Dovbear:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/.
A thought-provoking take on Judaism and matters relating to orthodoxy. Great place to read extensive and intelligent discussions.
Midianite Manna:
http://www.midianitemanna.blogspot.com/.
Also thought-provoking, but for the past several months she's been in a funk. We hope she recovers. Miss her.
The Search for Emes:
http://search-for-emes.blogspot.com/.
Quirky, insightful, and often a provider of interesting ideas or music.
The Muqata:
http://muqata.blogspot.com/.
Realistic ire about the Middle East, with intelligent anger at times. Good. Scotch whisky is mentioned.
Dutch Pipesmoker:
http://dutchpipesmoker.wordpress.com/.
In-depth investigation of a gentle habit that appeals to intelligent men and women. Written in English. Good stuff.
And Treppenwitz:
http://www.treppenwitz.com/.
Meandering, often with excellent points, about raising kids in Israel, American peculiarities, sometimes linguistic stuff, and sharp cogent remarks about Israel's neighbors and their rank incompetence at being civilized, or their inability to reasonably adhere to intelligent human behavioural standards.
Concerning Syria, which represents all the foulest and most depraved tendencies of the Arab world let loose, Treppenwitz recently had this to say: "They have no trouble slaughtering one another at the drop of a hat when the mood strikes them."
In fact, I will quote his entire essay, because it accords with what I myself feel about the imbroglio that the United States may yet soon engage upon.
Begin cite:
COWARDS
I find it telling that the Arab League and Turkey (many of whom receive sizeable military aid/equipment packages from the US and other western countries), are coming out strongly in favor of a US military attack on Syria... but have no intention of lifting a finger to help.
In fact, Turkey's Prime Minister has made several public statements to the effect that a few days of firing missiles at military targets won't be enough. He wants the US to intervene militarily to remove the Assad regime.
My question is this:
Why the hell do the US and other western powers give military aid to these clowns? Why do Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have the latest jet fighters and helicopters provided by the US and Europe. Why do these countries have well-equipped armies, navies and air forces on someone else's dime if there is no expectation that when push comes to shove, they will join a coalition led by their benefactor(s)?
I've heard the old saw that 'It isn't a reasonable or ethical request to expect Muslim countries to join a US attack on another Muslim country!'
Oh really? Why not?!
Have we really all bought into their bullsh*t that Muslims are some sort of special class of humans, and to expect them to take a stand against one of their own would be tantamount to fratricide?!
Puleeze! They have no trouble slaughtering one another at the drop of a hat when the mood strikes them.
Are we really saying that we have zero expectations of these countries after all that has been done for them? Are we really okay with them, once again, standing by like some schoolyard mob pushing the hapless combatants forward, yelling, "Fight, fight, fight...", all the while staying safely on the sidelines and enjoying the spectacle?
I think the time has come for the western powers - particularly the US - to take a close look at who they supply with military aid, and make that aid contingent upon rolling up their sleeves and providing some support (troops, planes, ships, airfields, refueling tankers, intelligence, etc.), whenever a fight breaks out.
Fail to step up just once? Kiss that fat aid check good-bye.
I don't really care that this risks pushing them into the sphere of influence of Russia or China. I'd rather Russia and China be bled dry by these leeches.
Bottom line: If these countries aren't willing to vote with the west at the UN... side with the west on global issues... share their oil with the west at an equitable price...and above all, put some skin in the game when the west really needs them to have our back... they aren't really in the west's sphere of influence in the first place, now are they?
End cite.
It's time that the Turks and Arabs stick out their necks. Instead of channeling their jaw-flapping through their manipulators at the various embassies in Washington.
It's also time that America's politicians show some spine, and hold Arab and Turk feet to the fire.
Rather than having another canapé and cocktail, and telling Bandar Bin Dingbat that his mustache is so handsome, why, he looks just like Omar Sharif!
It doesn't seem too much to ask.
Let the Arab world make a stab at solving its own problems. I'm sure they'll do it with the same aplomb and capability that they've shown in the past. Or is that just a talent for mayhem and proxy-slaughter?
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
But they are still worth rereading, and going back and rediscovering stuff that you had already forgotten about.
Among the frequent grind:
Dovbear:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/.
A thought-provoking take on Judaism and matters relating to orthodoxy. Great place to read extensive and intelligent discussions.
Midianite Manna:
http://www.midianitemanna.blogspot.com/.
Also thought-provoking, but for the past several months she's been in a funk. We hope she recovers. Miss her.
The Search for Emes:
http://search-for-emes.blogspot.com/.
Quirky, insightful, and often a provider of interesting ideas or music.
The Muqata:
http://muqata.blogspot.com/.
Realistic ire about the Middle East, with intelligent anger at times. Good. Scotch whisky is mentioned.
Dutch Pipesmoker:
http://dutchpipesmoker.wordpress.com/.
In-depth investigation of a gentle habit that appeals to intelligent men and women. Written in English. Good stuff.
And Treppenwitz:
http://www.treppenwitz.com/.
Meandering, often with excellent points, about raising kids in Israel, American peculiarities, sometimes linguistic stuff, and sharp cogent remarks about Israel's neighbors and their rank incompetence at being civilized, or their inability to reasonably adhere to intelligent human behavioural standards.
Concerning Syria, which represents all the foulest and most depraved tendencies of the Arab world let loose, Treppenwitz recently had this to say: "They have no trouble slaughtering one another at the drop of a hat when the mood strikes them."
In fact, I will quote his entire essay, because it accords with what I myself feel about the imbroglio that the United States may yet soon engage upon.
Begin cite:
COWARDS
I find it telling that the Arab League and Turkey (many of whom receive sizeable military aid/equipment packages from the US and other western countries), are coming out strongly in favor of a US military attack on Syria... but have no intention of lifting a finger to help.
In fact, Turkey's Prime Minister has made several public statements to the effect that a few days of firing missiles at military targets won't be enough. He wants the US to intervene militarily to remove the Assad regime.
My question is this:
Why the hell do the US and other western powers give military aid to these clowns? Why do Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have the latest jet fighters and helicopters provided by the US and Europe. Why do these countries have well-equipped armies, navies and air forces on someone else's dime if there is no expectation that when push comes to shove, they will join a coalition led by their benefactor(s)?
I've heard the old saw that 'It isn't a reasonable or ethical request to expect Muslim countries to join a US attack on another Muslim country!'
Oh really? Why not?!
Have we really all bought into their bullsh*t that Muslims are some sort of special class of humans, and to expect them to take a stand against one of their own would be tantamount to fratricide?!
Puleeze! They have no trouble slaughtering one another at the drop of a hat when the mood strikes them.
Are we really saying that we have zero expectations of these countries after all that has been done for them? Are we really okay with them, once again, standing by like some schoolyard mob pushing the hapless combatants forward, yelling, "Fight, fight, fight...", all the while staying safely on the sidelines and enjoying the spectacle?
I think the time has come for the western powers - particularly the US - to take a close look at who they supply with military aid, and make that aid contingent upon rolling up their sleeves and providing some support (troops, planes, ships, airfields, refueling tankers, intelligence, etc.), whenever a fight breaks out.
Fail to step up just once? Kiss that fat aid check good-bye.
I don't really care that this risks pushing them into the sphere of influence of Russia or China. I'd rather Russia and China be bled dry by these leeches.
Bottom line: If these countries aren't willing to vote with the west at the UN... side with the west on global issues... share their oil with the west at an equitable price...and above all, put some skin in the game when the west really needs them to have our back... they aren't really in the west's sphere of influence in the first place, now are they?
End cite.
It's time that the Turks and Arabs stick out their necks. Instead of channeling their jaw-flapping through their manipulators at the various embassies in Washington.
It's also time that America's politicians show some spine, and hold Arab and Turk feet to the fire.
Rather than having another canapé and cocktail, and telling Bandar Bin Dingbat that his mustache is so handsome, why, he looks just like Omar Sharif!
It doesn't seem too much to ask.
Let the Arab world make a stab at solving its own problems. I'm sure they'll do it with the same aplomb and capability that they've shown in the past. Or is that just a talent for mayhem and proxy-slaughter?
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Monday, September 09, 2013
JUST LEAD AND STEEL
The message, loud and clear, from the United States administration to the government of Bashar Assad, is a firm no-nonsense demand that he continue murdering his own people with conventional weapons.
The world will NOT allow him to kill with chemistry. All slaughter in Syria must be done the old-fashioned way, no exceptions.
Bullets and explosives only, please.
Oh and cutting throats. Which is rather inefficient, very old-school, but traditional. The United States and France respect tradition.
What Kerry, Obama, and François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande have cynically realized is that in the main, most citizens are concerned about environmental impact. The world is a very polluted place. Trace elements of chemical weapons will poison the ground for years after all evidence of its victims' demise have faded, long after their lives have become a distant and uncherished memory.
It's VERY San Francisco of them.
Greenness is next to godliness.
Stop polluting, re-use, recycle.
Gotta to begin somewhere.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
The world will NOT allow him to kill with chemistry. All slaughter in Syria must be done the old-fashioned way, no exceptions.
Bullets and explosives only, please.
Oh and cutting throats. Which is rather inefficient, very old-school, but traditional. The United States and France respect tradition.
What Kerry, Obama, and François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande have cynically realized is that in the main, most citizens are concerned about environmental impact. The world is a very polluted place. Trace elements of chemical weapons will poison the ground for years after all evidence of its victims' demise have faded, long after their lives have become a distant and uncherished memory.
It's VERY San Francisco of them.
Greenness is next to godliness.
Stop polluting, re-use, recycle.
Gotta to begin somewhere.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
OBAMA IS ...
It's official: America's rightwing is off its nut. Today they averred that the President of the United States (Barrack H. Obama) is:
A communist.
A secret Muslim.
A Nazi-sympathizer.
An America-firster.
A fundie Christian.
A Malthusian.
An Islamophobic racist.
An anti-American agent.
This in addition to asserting for the umpteenth time that in their eyes he is a foreigner and stupid. Which some of them believe to be the same thing.
It should also be recognized that the impending attack on Syria is an assault on American values, subversion of our congress to the New World Order, and a plot to take away our guns and impose martial law.
And further, Senotar (stet) John McCain is a collaborator who was brainwashed by the commies while in Hanoi, as well as being a long-time member of a cell taking over the world for the Rockefellers.
The same is said about Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton.
[Apparently Ms. Clinton is Jane Fonda in drag.]
The advantage of bookmarking certain blog aggregators is that it exposes one to fascinating reading material and strong opinions clearly and succinctly expressed.
Today I read Pamela Geller, Neo-Neocon, Doc's Talk, Wake up America, Faultline USA, Yid With Lid, Joshua Pundit, Menorah, Right Truth, and several other feuilletons.
No, it was not a monumental waste of time; I am a fast reader, and it took less than ten minutes while simultaneously scratching my balls, which is as involved and intellectual a level of concentration as necessary while reading Pamela Geller, Neo-Neocon, Doc's Talk, Wake up America, Faultline USA, Yid With Lid, Joshua Pundit, Menorah, Right Truth, and several other feuilletons.
It was only a minor waste of time.
I find it hard to believe that Obama can be so many things: Anti-American, Islamophobic, Malthusian, Fundie, America-first, Nazi, Muslim, and a commie to boot. That takes multi-tasking ("multi-faceting") to a level which I scarce expect of my public servants.
It's much more complex than just sitting at a computer avidly scratching members of one's anatomy!
Folks, can you please agree on just one of those things? Then all get on the same page in one massive group-grope of angry rhetoric?
My balls will thank you.
Note to several regular readers: Yes, I know that America's rightwing was off its collective nut years ago, there is no need to point that out. It isn't something new, and it didn't suddenly become apparent to me today. That's just for effect. They've been batshit crazy for eons.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
A communist.
A secret Muslim.
A Nazi-sympathizer.
An America-firster.
A fundie Christian.
A Malthusian.
An Islamophobic racist.
An anti-American agent.
This in addition to asserting for the umpteenth time that in their eyes he is a foreigner and stupid. Which some of them believe to be the same thing.
It should also be recognized that the impending attack on Syria is an assault on American values, subversion of our congress to the New World Order, and a plot to take away our guns and impose martial law.
And further, Senotar (stet) John McCain is a collaborator who was brainwashed by the commies while in Hanoi, as well as being a long-time member of a cell taking over the world for the Rockefellers.
The same is said about Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton.
[Apparently Ms. Clinton is Jane Fonda in drag.]
The advantage of bookmarking certain blog aggregators is that it exposes one to fascinating reading material and strong opinions clearly and succinctly expressed.
Today I read Pamela Geller, Neo-Neocon, Doc's Talk, Wake up America, Faultline USA, Yid With Lid, Joshua Pundit, Menorah, Right Truth, and several other feuilletons.
No, it was not a monumental waste of time; I am a fast reader, and it took less than ten minutes while simultaneously scratching my balls, which is as involved and intellectual a level of concentration as necessary while reading Pamela Geller, Neo-Neocon, Doc's Talk, Wake up America, Faultline USA, Yid With Lid, Joshua Pundit, Menorah, Right Truth, and several other feuilletons.
It was only a minor waste of time.
I find it hard to believe that Obama can be so many things: Anti-American, Islamophobic, Malthusian, Fundie, America-first, Nazi, Muslim, and a commie to boot. That takes multi-tasking ("multi-faceting") to a level which I scarce expect of my public servants.
It's much more complex than just sitting at a computer avidly scratching members of one's anatomy!
Folks, can you please agree on just one of those things? Then all get on the same page in one massive group-grope of angry rhetoric?
My balls will thank you.
Note to several regular readers: Yes, I know that America's rightwing was off its collective nut years ago, there is no need to point that out. It isn't something new, and it didn't suddenly become apparent to me today. That's just for effect. They've been batshit crazy for eons.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Saturday, August 31, 2013
SYRIA USED POISON GAS -- WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
Were chemical weapons used in Syria against civilians? Yes, without any doubt. Does this justify a strike -- limited or extended -- against the Syrian regime? Probably. But should the United States do it?
No.
We do not have a dog in this fight. Far worse atrocities have been committed in Syria, and throughout it all, both the regime and the population there have taken turns screaming at us, castigating us, and indicating that they would like our uncritical support, but do not wish us to be in any way involved. Not just Syria; all the Arab world.
The message, irrespective of whichever side speaks, has been that we should mind our own business, believe only what we are told, and with suitable ignorance and credulity lend approval.
And given that Syria is not an important trading partner, doesn't share deep cultural similarities, and at all levels despises us -- not only our government, also our society and our institutions -- it seems clear enough that we have NO need to go at it.
Does the United States HAVE to act when war-crimes are committed outside of our orbit? Put differently, do we have any legal, strategic, or moral reason to go to war with another country over what it does to its own citizens?
And in this case, what purpose would be served by our doing so?
Let the Arabs step up to the plate. They've demanded for years that we keep our big noses out of their affairs. They have asserted time and again that American involvement does far more harm than good, creates disasters, denies them their right to manage their own affairs, which, they aver, would be quite well settled indeed were it not for our meddling.
Many people around the world agree with them. If we strike Syria, it is fairly guaranteed that infuriated protesters in Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brussels, and other hotbeds of civilization, will storm our embassies and boycott our brands.
Even our alleged friend and ally Turkey, which saw its fingers burned by the Assad regime, is home to millions of America-haters.
No, it's not the fear of anti-Yanquismo that persuades me that we should not get involved.
It is, rather, the firm belief that the rest of the world needs to stick out its neck for a change. They are the ones concerned, they are the sides who have horses in this race.
Why should our tax money and our efforts be wasted on a people and a country where everything we represent is considered vile?
War is not corrective surgery.
Let's save our missiles for when we have to change the map instead.
Which we may need to do in that part of the world soon anyway.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
No.
We do not have a dog in this fight. Far worse atrocities have been committed in Syria, and throughout it all, both the regime and the population there have taken turns screaming at us, castigating us, and indicating that they would like our uncritical support, but do not wish us to be in any way involved. Not just Syria; all the Arab world.
The message, irrespective of whichever side speaks, has been that we should mind our own business, believe only what we are told, and with suitable ignorance and credulity lend approval.
And given that Syria is not an important trading partner, doesn't share deep cultural similarities, and at all levels despises us -- not only our government, also our society and our institutions -- it seems clear enough that we have NO need to go at it.
Does the United States HAVE to act when war-crimes are committed outside of our orbit? Put differently, do we have any legal, strategic, or moral reason to go to war with another country over what it does to its own citizens?
And in this case, what purpose would be served by our doing so?
Let the Arabs step up to the plate. They've demanded for years that we keep our big noses out of their affairs. They have asserted time and again that American involvement does far more harm than good, creates disasters, denies them their right to manage their own affairs, which, they aver, would be quite well settled indeed were it not for our meddling.
Many people around the world agree with them. If we strike Syria, it is fairly guaranteed that infuriated protesters in Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brussels, and other hotbeds of civilization, will storm our embassies and boycott our brands.
Even our alleged friend and ally Turkey, which saw its fingers burned by the Assad regime, is home to millions of America-haters.
No, it's not the fear of anti-Yanquismo that persuades me that we should not get involved.
It is, rather, the firm belief that the rest of the world needs to stick out its neck for a change. They are the ones concerned, they are the sides who have horses in this race.
Why should our tax money and our efforts be wasted on a people and a country where everything we represent is considered vile?
War is not corrective surgery.
Let's save our missiles for when we have to change the map instead.
Which we may need to do in that part of the world soon anyway.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
STAY OUT OF SYRIA
Reports out of Washington, London, and Paris, indicate that the Western World is preparing to act with force against Syria over its alleged use of poison gas on civilians.
And, in calling it "alleged", it should be remembered that although there seems to be a preponderance of evidence that a chemical event did indeed happen, the details are by no means clear, the actual circumstances have not yet been determined, and, above all, historic precedent shows that spurious facts have been used to justify military intervention in the past.
Tonkin Gulf. Saddam's WMDs. Coups d'état in several countries.
Oh heck, let's also throw in the invasion of the Philippines over a century ago which caused the death of one fifth of the population of the place.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we have no business being there. The Syrian people are of little interest to us, have a well-known antipathy towards the United States, and will likely not appreciate our meddling in the long term. Or likely even in the short term.
Do we really need to get into another interminable involvement with a bunch of pustules who hate our guts?
Especially when we have a history of supplying warring Arabs with the means to kill each other........
When Iraq and Iran used gas on the front line, we and the Europeans provided it.
Our opposition to mass murder is questionable.
In the last five decades, Arabs have killed over six million Arabs.
This is very much the natural order of business.
We've been fine with that till now.
Far better to let our supposed allies -- Western Europe -- get their hands dirty. For one thing, their reputation in that region is better than ours at present, and it's high time they get into an international mess that yields mega-eggface instead of us. They still have not forgiven us for Balkan One and Balkan Two -- many of them haven't forgiven us for WWI and WWII either, and continue to slam the United States for using nukes -- and there is bitter resentment over our leadership in Afghanistan as well as innumerable other affairs.
Libya, Tunis, and Egypt are good examples of the horrible mess that results from local talent mixed with United States attempts at problem-solving, Afghanistan and Pakistan hate everything about us with psychotic fury and have become dangerous permanent liabilities.
Europe itself despises and distrusts America.
Last, but not least, our Iraq adventure suggests we would do well to step back, keep a low profile, and let the moral paragons step in and do what they have repeatedly told us they can do better.
In short: The Syrian people are no concern of ours, not as far as 'real-politik' is concerned. Moral imperatives are a grey zone ("quagmire") that will get us criticized no matter what we do. And involvement in the Arab zone is a complete waste of time.
The Middle East hates us worse than the Europeans; both of those groups thoroughly deserve each other, and should spend some time together.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
And, in calling it "alleged", it should be remembered that although there seems to be a preponderance of evidence that a chemical event did indeed happen, the details are by no means clear, the actual circumstances have not yet been determined, and, above all, historic precedent shows that spurious facts have been used to justify military intervention in the past.
Tonkin Gulf. Saddam's WMDs. Coups d'état in several countries.
Oh heck, let's also throw in the invasion of the Philippines over a century ago which caused the death of one fifth of the population of the place.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we have no business being there. The Syrian people are of little interest to us, have a well-known antipathy towards the United States, and will likely not appreciate our meddling in the long term. Or likely even in the short term.
Do we really need to get into another interminable involvement with a bunch of pustules who hate our guts?
Especially when we have a history of supplying warring Arabs with the means to kill each other........
When Iraq and Iran used gas on the front line, we and the Europeans provided it.
Our opposition to mass murder is questionable.
In the last five decades, Arabs have killed over six million Arabs.
This is very much the natural order of business.
We've been fine with that till now.
Far better to let our supposed allies -- Western Europe -- get their hands dirty. For one thing, their reputation in that region is better than ours at present, and it's high time they get into an international mess that yields mega-eggface instead of us. They still have not forgiven us for Balkan One and Balkan Two -- many of them haven't forgiven us for WWI and WWII either, and continue to slam the United States for using nukes -- and there is bitter resentment over our leadership in Afghanistan as well as innumerable other affairs.
Libya, Tunis, and Egypt are good examples of the horrible mess that results from local talent mixed with United States attempts at problem-solving, Afghanistan and Pakistan hate everything about us with psychotic fury and have become dangerous permanent liabilities.
Europe itself despises and distrusts America.
Last, but not least, our Iraq adventure suggests we would do well to step back, keep a low profile, and let the moral paragons step in and do what they have repeatedly told us they can do better.
In short: The Syrian people are no concern of ours, not as far as 'real-politik' is concerned. Moral imperatives are a grey zone ("quagmire") that will get us criticized no matter what we do. And involvement in the Arab zone is a complete waste of time.
The Middle East hates us worse than the Europeans; both of those groups thoroughly deserve each other, and should spend some time together.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Friday, September 11, 2009
PEACE WITH SYRIA?
Is peace with Syria likely or even possible?
A better question would be whether Syria is a worthwhile peace partner.
The answer to either question is 'no'.
Peace with Syria is not likely, nor is Syria a worthwhile peace partner.
Over the past forty years, Syria has backed several groups which have killed Americans and Israelis. Presently, Hamas is the darling of Damascus, though Hezbollah has also benefited immensely from the favours of the Alawite dictatorship.
Both groups have shown a complete disregard for civilian lives - Arabs, Israelis, and Americans have all been slaughtered opportunistically by both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hamas, as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim brotherhood, was an unlikely candidate for the position of 'most favoured terrorist gang', given that Assad père slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members and civilians in the city of Hama to quell the Syrian branch of the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, and his son Bashar Al Assad has shown as little love for Islamic revolutionaries as his father.
[The Hama massacre (Arabic: مجزرة حماة) occurred on February 2, 1982, when the Syrian military bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 7,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre .
Hafez Assad's brother Rifaat Assad boasted of having killed 38,000 people, and there are estimates that over fifty thousand perished. This does not include several thousand Islamists executed by the Syrian regime before or since, in addition to other dissenters.]
REGIONAL POWER AND INFLUENCE
But, for both father and son Assad, Syria's rightful role is as a regional power, and they have shown an appetite for "Islamic" brutality outside their borders in their aim to make Syrian influence count. Hezbollah, of course, would not have stood a chance against the other factions in Lebanon were it not for Damascus, and Hezbollah in turn assisted the Alawites in crushing the aspirations of Sunni Muslims in both it's own bailiwick as well as parts of Mediterranean Syria, in addition to terrorist acts in other countries. They have proven themselves useful and loyal thugs while providing the Syrian regime with plausible deniability.
HAMAS
So also Hamas. For Arab regimes, the main plus-point of Hamas is that it is not the PLO, not Fatah. While little positive can actually be said about Arafat, all agree that whatever corruption existed in his network during his life, it existed only by toleration, NOT by the express design of outsiders seeking to harness so potent a terror organization for their own ends.
If Fatah did on occasion commit crimes on behalf of the Arab regimes, it did so on its own terms, and strictly for concrete benefits in return.
Hamas, on the other hand, represents an organization whose associates in places like Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Baghdad, gratefully remember any assistance given. Consequently aid to Hamas in Gaza is repaid by Muslim Brotherhood quiescence (and even co-operation) elsewhere.
Since the mid-1990s, Hamas has been headquartered in Damascus, and operational funds have been transferred by Syria to operatives in Israel. Weapons and materiel have been smuggled by Syrian agents to Hamas via Syria and Syrian-Lebanon, as well as at times through Jordan and other Arab countries.
In return for Syrian patronage, Islamic radicals in Israel and elsewhere have softened their tone towards the Assad regime, no longer delivering denunciations and pronunciamentoes as they had during the eighties and nineties. Where previously the Islamic Brotherhood had refrained from violent actions against Israel in favour of internal struggle, now its attention is equally divided between fomenting unrest in Arab societies that are not on board with its aims, and organizing terrorism against Israel and the Western World in Gaza and the West Bank.
[There are Hamas organizers and Muslim Brotherhood cells in Europe and America. Sofar they have not made their presence much known. What their impact will eventually be can as yet not be estimated.]
MUSLIM BROTHERS IN GAZA
In the eighties the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (through its front the Islamic Center - Al Mujamaa al Islami) administered a large number of nominally benevolent institutions, such as schools, clinics, and food-distribution centers. After the outbreak of the intifada in 1987, Sheikh Yassin and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders decided to create a second organization that would spearhead violent action, founding the Harakat Al Muqawamah Al Islamiyya (since more commonly referred to as Hamas) in 1988.
Due to Israeli counteractions, by the early nineties most of the leadership was in custody, in hiding, or in exile.
Oslo in 1993 put Hamas at odds with most of the Palestinian political leadership, and made them the only significant group still solely devoted to terrorism for most of the nineties, during which period they received funds and supplies from Iran and Jordan.
[King Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan had a longstanding modus vivendi, whereby in return for support to Islamic causes, the MB would advance Hussein's influence in the West Bank and Gaza. Though Hamas activists were barred from certain activities in the Hashemite kingdom, they had a great deal of operational freedom.]
The situation changed in 1994 when Jordan signed a treaty with Israel. In mid 1995, Jordanian authorities acted against Hamas, and several leaders fled to Damascus. By 1996 it was evident that the military wing of Hamas in Damascus was preparing actions against both Israel and Jordan, and that Syrian officials were providing support to the organization. Under international pressure, Damascus imposed gag-orders on Hamas claims of responsibility for attacks and arrested several activists, then quietly released them. In the meantime, Hamas cadres had full operational freedom in Syrian-Lebanon, and with Syrian and Iranian encouragement recruited thousands of new members in the Palestinian camps.
By 1999, the remaining public figures of Hamas had established themselves in Damascus or Beirut, and the separation between the Jordanian Islamists and Hamas was complete. Since 2000 it has been clear that cells in the West Bank and Gaza take orders from Damascus.
When the Al Aqsa Intifada broke out in September 2000, Hamas (and Syria) were perfectly positioned to diminish the influence of moderates in the PLO by taking the lead in violence, and aggressively recruiting new members. As a result, many of the deadliest attacks can be ascribed to Hamas (and its paymaster Syria).
Internationally and internally, Syria wholeheartedly supported the wave of terrorism, defending the murder of Israeli civilians, praising attacks, and pressuring clerics to justify terrorism with fatwas, in addition to smuggling explosives and weapons to Hamas via Lebanon and Jordan.
THE PRESENT SITUATION
All of this has contributed greatly to peace within Syria, with only Sunni extremists from Iraq spoiling the calm by the occasional act of insane violence. The Islamic Brotherhood in Syria, in so far as it does not represent the Palestinian Terrorists, is virtually extinct - in any case, incapable of action, and largely irrelevant. Syria and Iran both benefit, albeit in different ways, from their alliances with well-organized terror groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) and each other, and have at this point no reason to even consider destroying such fertile relationships.
Perhaps most crucially, the American intervention in Iraq removed a source of competition to the Syrians, both as regards the legitimacy of Baathist Socialism within the Arab nationalist camp, and as far as destabilizing influence in neighboring countries is concerned. Since the fall of Saddam, co-operation between Iran and Syria has thrived as never before. There is no strong Sunni voice in the Levant to counter Shia and Alawite political aspirations, no Arab country that realistically competes for influence in Syria's backyard. By removing Saddam Hussein and his clique, American actions have strengthened both Iran and Syria, and in retrospect it seems that American influence itself has faded everywhere in the region.
CONCLUSION
Without repercussion and extreme disadvantage to the Syrians on their own soil, it is utterly unlikely that Syria will break its bonds with Hamas and Hezbollah. And unless that happens, there is little point in considering Syria a potential peace-partner, nor is there much benefit in any discussions with Damascus.
==========================================
The article above has been cross-posted at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/
Here:
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2009/09/peace-with-syria.html
Feedback welcomed.
==========================================
A better question would be whether Syria is a worthwhile peace partner.
The answer to either question is 'no'.
Peace with Syria is not likely, nor is Syria a worthwhile peace partner.
Over the past forty years, Syria has backed several groups which have killed Americans and Israelis. Presently, Hamas is the darling of Damascus, though Hezbollah has also benefited immensely from the favours of the Alawite dictatorship.
Both groups have shown a complete disregard for civilian lives - Arabs, Israelis, and Americans have all been slaughtered opportunistically by both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hamas, as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim brotherhood, was an unlikely candidate for the position of 'most favoured terrorist gang', given that Assad père slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members and civilians in the city of Hama to quell the Syrian branch of the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, and his son Bashar Al Assad has shown as little love for Islamic revolutionaries as his father.
[The Hama massacre (Arabic: مجزرة حماة) occurred on February 2, 1982, when the Syrian military bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 7,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre .
Hafez Assad's brother Rifaat Assad boasted of having killed 38,000 people, and there are estimates that over fifty thousand perished. This does not include several thousand Islamists executed by the Syrian regime before or since, in addition to other dissenters.]
REGIONAL POWER AND INFLUENCE
But, for both father and son Assad, Syria's rightful role is as a regional power, and they have shown an appetite for "Islamic" brutality outside their borders in their aim to make Syrian influence count. Hezbollah, of course, would not have stood a chance against the other factions in Lebanon were it not for Damascus, and Hezbollah in turn assisted the Alawites in crushing the aspirations of Sunni Muslims in both it's own bailiwick as well as parts of Mediterranean Syria, in addition to terrorist acts in other countries. They have proven themselves useful and loyal thugs while providing the Syrian regime with plausible deniability.
HAMAS
So also Hamas. For Arab regimes, the main plus-point of Hamas is that it is not the PLO, not Fatah. While little positive can actually be said about Arafat, all agree that whatever corruption existed in his network during his life, it existed only by toleration, NOT by the express design of outsiders seeking to harness so potent a terror organization for their own ends.
If Fatah did on occasion commit crimes on behalf of the Arab regimes, it did so on its own terms, and strictly for concrete benefits in return.
Hamas, on the other hand, represents an organization whose associates in places like Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Baghdad, gratefully remember any assistance given. Consequently aid to Hamas in Gaza is repaid by Muslim Brotherhood quiescence (and even co-operation) elsewhere.
Since the mid-1990s, Hamas has been headquartered in Damascus, and operational funds have been transferred by Syria to operatives in Israel. Weapons and materiel have been smuggled by Syrian agents to Hamas via Syria and Syrian-Lebanon, as well as at times through Jordan and other Arab countries.
In return for Syrian patronage, Islamic radicals in Israel and elsewhere have softened their tone towards the Assad regime, no longer delivering denunciations and pronunciamentoes as they had during the eighties and nineties. Where previously the Islamic Brotherhood had refrained from violent actions against Israel in favour of internal struggle, now its attention is equally divided between fomenting unrest in Arab societies that are not on board with its aims, and organizing terrorism against Israel and the Western World in Gaza and the West Bank.
[There are Hamas organizers and Muslim Brotherhood cells in Europe and America. Sofar they have not made their presence much known. What their impact will eventually be can as yet not be estimated.]
MUSLIM BROTHERS IN GAZA
In the eighties the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (through its front the Islamic Center - Al Mujamaa al Islami) administered a large number of nominally benevolent institutions, such as schools, clinics, and food-distribution centers. After the outbreak of the intifada in 1987, Sheikh Yassin and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders decided to create a second organization that would spearhead violent action, founding the Harakat Al Muqawamah Al Islamiyya (since more commonly referred to as Hamas) in 1988.
Due to Israeli counteractions, by the early nineties most of the leadership was in custody, in hiding, or in exile.
Oslo in 1993 put Hamas at odds with most of the Palestinian political leadership, and made them the only significant group still solely devoted to terrorism for most of the nineties, during which period they received funds and supplies from Iran and Jordan.
[King Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan had a longstanding modus vivendi, whereby in return for support to Islamic causes, the MB would advance Hussein's influence in the West Bank and Gaza. Though Hamas activists were barred from certain activities in the Hashemite kingdom, they had a great deal of operational freedom.]
The situation changed in 1994 when Jordan signed a treaty with Israel. In mid 1995, Jordanian authorities acted against Hamas, and several leaders fled to Damascus. By 1996 it was evident that the military wing of Hamas in Damascus was preparing actions against both Israel and Jordan, and that Syrian officials were providing support to the organization. Under international pressure, Damascus imposed gag-orders on Hamas claims of responsibility for attacks and arrested several activists, then quietly released them. In the meantime, Hamas cadres had full operational freedom in Syrian-Lebanon, and with Syrian and Iranian encouragement recruited thousands of new members in the Palestinian camps.
By 1999, the remaining public figures of Hamas had established themselves in Damascus or Beirut, and the separation between the Jordanian Islamists and Hamas was complete. Since 2000 it has been clear that cells in the West Bank and Gaza take orders from Damascus.
When the Al Aqsa Intifada broke out in September 2000, Hamas (and Syria) were perfectly positioned to diminish the influence of moderates in the PLO by taking the lead in violence, and aggressively recruiting new members. As a result, many of the deadliest attacks can be ascribed to Hamas (and its paymaster Syria).
Internationally and internally, Syria wholeheartedly supported the wave of terrorism, defending the murder of Israeli civilians, praising attacks, and pressuring clerics to justify terrorism with fatwas, in addition to smuggling explosives and weapons to Hamas via Lebanon and Jordan.
THE PRESENT SITUATION
All of this has contributed greatly to peace within Syria, with only Sunni extremists from Iraq spoiling the calm by the occasional act of insane violence. The Islamic Brotherhood in Syria, in so far as it does not represent the Palestinian Terrorists, is virtually extinct - in any case, incapable of action, and largely irrelevant. Syria and Iran both benefit, albeit in different ways, from their alliances with well-organized terror groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) and each other, and have at this point no reason to even consider destroying such fertile relationships.
Perhaps most crucially, the American intervention in Iraq removed a source of competition to the Syrians, both as regards the legitimacy of Baathist Socialism within the Arab nationalist camp, and as far as destabilizing influence in neighboring countries is concerned. Since the fall of Saddam, co-operation between Iran and Syria has thrived as never before. There is no strong Sunni voice in the Levant to counter Shia and Alawite political aspirations, no Arab country that realistically competes for influence in Syria's backyard. By removing Saddam Hussein and his clique, American actions have strengthened both Iran and Syria, and in retrospect it seems that American influence itself has faded everywhere in the region.
CONCLUSION
Without repercussion and extreme disadvantage to the Syrians on their own soil, it is utterly unlikely that Syria will break its bonds with Hamas and Hezbollah. And unless that happens, there is little point in considering Syria a potential peace-partner, nor is there much benefit in any discussions with Damascus.
==========================================
The article above has been cross-posted at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/
Here:
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2009/09/peace-with-syria.html
Feedback welcomed.
==========================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
GRITS AND TOFU
Like most Americans, I have a list of people who should be peacefully retired from public service and thereafter kept away from their desks,...
