Attacking Syria may be considered as a terrorist attack in some quarters comparable to what happened in September 11, 2001 if the United States goes ahead with its threat to do just that.
Decades of despotism by the Assad family, a member of the Alawite minority has led to the popular uprising in Syria, and the Qaeda is only a small group of militants who have teamed up with the rebels to remove Assad from power. These acts of oppression and brutality lead to a split in the country that spread across the territory and beyond. Later, it developed into a full scale rebellion with both sides visiting death and destruction on each other as militants from across the globe and an incessant supply of arms poured into the country.
This protracted war has been fought with the backing of other countries that have a keen interest in its outcome with the Hezbollah, China, Iran and Russia in support of the Assad regime whereas Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Qatar read al-Qaeda and the United States siding with the rebels.
It has reached a point where the citizens of Syria are split down the middle though both sides are ready to call a truce even without removing the current regime at the moment.
Unfortunately for the U.S. leadership, the American people are not keen on getting their country into another war soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s more, the state of the economy does not leave much space for the sustenance of another military excursion outside the borders of the United States. President Obama believes that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons, but he has not won the hearts and minds of his people on going to war.
Where’s the evidence?
The U.S. finds itself in a difficult position with Russia sending warships to the location as a message meant to mean the U.S. is committing an act of aggression. Moreover, China is openly opposed to the same, as well, and Britain which happens to be the closest ally of the Americans has declined to participate in an attack on Syrian territory. President Putin of Russia would only support the U.S. position if the U.N. Inspectors who are on the ground in Syria can unearth proof that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against a civilian population. So far there is no evidence to suggest this.
Early this week, President Obama admitted to delaying an imminent strike on Syrian soil if the Russians could make the Syrian government to hand over its entire chemical weapon arsenal.
This was an attempt by the U.S. president to gain public support for his decision to launch an attack on Syria by highlighting issues of morality, and the role of America in saving innocent people from being attacked with poisonous gas. Jewish leaders in the congress are all for the idea, and invoked the memories of the Holocaust in order to muster support for their agenda.
What is of concern to some observers is why The Cable News Network’s Wolf Blitzer, a staunch Zionist did not ask Deborah Wasserman Schultz, a fellow Jew and member of the congress, why double standards were being applied in relation to the fact that Israel had used white phosphorous on the civilian population in Gaza. Others wonder why the U.S. has taken such a position yet it has used nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in war in the past while supplying them to other nations as well. All these calls for a military strike coming even before the U.N. Inspectors’ report on Syria is published.
Even former servicemen and intelligence officers doubt the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. This information on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military could be emanating from Israel that is known to have given the U.S. false information on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Even today, Israel and its allies rank among the most ardent supporters of an attack on Syria, and this includes the Saudis and AIPAC whose various lobbyists are routing for an attack on Syria. Moreover, Israel has developed a strategy for destabilizing and disarming its perceived enemies in the Middle East contrary to pursuing peace with its neighbors.
Next stop, Syria
Even though the U.S. is hell-bent on attacking Syria from the air, one cannot, but help notice the trend of events in the Middle East; first Iraq, then Afghanistan and now Syria. How would this not escalate and what about the consequences? A totally defenseless Syria would create total anarchy as witnessed in Iraq with massive collateral damage.
In reality, there is a need for a stalemate where both sides are relatively still able to defend themselves for the purpose of security and stability. The contrary opinion will merely result in the carnage of unseen proportions.
The image of the U.S. may also hurt after threatening to attack Syria, then backing down at the last minute, but this is besides the point considering what is at stake. Many find such views obnoxious because once the damage is done no one can tell when normalcy will be restored in Syria and by extension the Middle East.
It does not matter what prompted the U.S. to put an attack on hold, but other more viable options need to be considered because of the far-reaching effects of military intervention in Syria. There has been far too much death and destruction in the region in the past 2 decades, and it is a high time that there was a cessation of hostilities in the region.
View the Original article