As everyone knows America is renown for its global humanitarian interventions Imperial interventions.
Syria is the latest. Although under the transparent excuse of humanitarianism (if only) America intends to bomb the Assad forces only "narrowly" and "limited".
As if to cut of the right hand of an abusive father and to kill half of his children - as collateral damage - in order to teach him and future abusive fathers a Humanitarian lesson.
Obama previously had stated chemical weapon usage would be a red line, chemical weapons have been used (by whom it us unknown), therefore military action is apparently warranted.
Many commentators have focused on the fact that the use of chemical weapons in Syria hasn't broken international law technically and that US engagement without UN backing would be technically illegal.
This is not i believe the major point, although the hypocrisy that is highlighted regards reports that the US gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons is revealing.The real question is what's in it for America (it always been about whats in it for America where ever it goes- from Mexico to Iraq).
Oddly America is not proposing defeating the Assad regime itself, or properly intervening in the civil war. Just to level the playing field, as in recent months the Assad forces have strengthened their position, and analysts have suggested that
the Opposition being The Free Syrian Army cannot, as it stands, likely make a comeback.
The USA is of course not simply the big bad guys in all of this, its nothing to do with pro American and anti-American but conflicting interests between countries and spheres of influence. Russia has imperial interests too. Its appear to be more obvious
The question becomes what are Americas interests in Syria to the point they risk upsetting the American populous and the international community ?
Syria under Assad has not been the best of friends with America, its been quite happy to form alliances with Iran who America has been gearing towards war, and Syria is an important player in the middle east regards Israel and the Palestine conflict.
The Syrian Crises is going to prove difficult for America, although it has presented an opportunity. It cannot leave Assad in Power, but it cannot allow Fundamentalist who have the most powerful armies within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to take over political power.
But whilst America pretends to police a civil war, thousands are dying, approx. 2000 a month (and this is without the chemical warfare using the "permitted" weaponry).
The only solution is going to be political, even with Assad out of the way The FSA is composed of many conflicting political tendencies not to mention religious sectarianism- (with barbaric acts committed by members of the FSA such as beheadings and even heart eating). Recent events in Egypt have demonstrated the problems of irreconcilable political opposition. The revolutionary movement that led to the Civil war in Syria has not disappeared, any beginning positive steps for Syria is for its return and a political leadership to be formed. Otherwise the Military will, Al-Qaeda will , America will or Assad will continue his reign of terror.
Regarding American Interests, again, this should of course be studied not merely assumed no matter how implausible the American Administrations concern about Chemical weapons and Civilian casualties and its new found Humanitarianism. The linked document is an interesting read (although admittedly I've only skimmed through) although with faults.
Syria is the latest. Although under the transparent excuse of humanitarianism (if only) America intends to bomb the Assad forces only "narrowly" and "limited".
As if to cut of the right hand of an abusive father and to kill half of his children - as collateral damage - in order to teach him and future abusive fathers a Humanitarian lesson.
Obama previously had stated chemical weapon usage would be a red line, chemical weapons have been used (by whom it us unknown), therefore military action is apparently warranted.
Many commentators have focused on the fact that the use of chemical weapons in Syria hasn't broken international law technically and that US engagement without UN backing would be technically illegal.
This is not i believe the major point, although the hypocrisy that is highlighted regards reports that the US gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons is revealing.The real question is what's in it for America (it always been about whats in it for America where ever it goes- from Mexico to Iraq).
Oddly America is not proposing defeating the Assad regime itself, or properly intervening in the civil war. Just to level the playing field, as in recent months the Assad forces have strengthened their position, and analysts have suggested that
the Opposition being The Free Syrian Army cannot, as it stands, likely make a comeback.
The USA is of course not simply the big bad guys in all of this, its nothing to do with pro American and anti-American but conflicting interests between countries and spheres of influence. Russia has imperial interests too. Its appear to be more obvious
Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers.
Syrian contracts with the Russian defense industry have likely exceeded $4 billion, according to Jeffrey Mankoff, an adjunct fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Russia and Eurasia Program.
He noted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated the value of Russian arms sales to Syria at $162 million per year in both 2009 and 2010.
Moscow also signed a $550 million deal with Syria for combat training jets.
Russia also leases a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus, giving the Russian navy its only direct access to the Mediterranean, Mankoff said.
b) Ideology: Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region.
Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.
Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.
"Russia's backing of (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad is not only driven by the need to preserve its naval presence in the Mediterranean, secure its energy contracts, or counter the West on 'regime change,'" said Anna Neistat, an associate program director at Human Rights Watch.
"It also stems from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of the repressive system that he and al-Assad represent. In Putin's universe, al-Assad cannot lose because it means that one day he, Putin, might as well."
The question becomes what are Americas interests in Syria to the point they risk upsetting the American populous and the international community ?
Syria under Assad has not been the best of friends with America, its been quite happy to form alliances with Iran who America has been gearing towards war, and Syria is an important player in the middle east regards Israel and the Palestine conflict.
The Syrian Crises is going to prove difficult for America, although it has presented an opportunity. It cannot leave Assad in Power, but it cannot allow Fundamentalist who have the most powerful armies within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to take over political power.
But whilst America pretends to police a civil war, thousands are dying, approx. 2000 a month (and this is without the chemical warfare using the "permitted" weaponry).
The only solution is going to be political, even with Assad out of the way The FSA is composed of many conflicting political tendencies not to mention religious sectarianism- (with barbaric acts committed by members of the FSA such as beheadings and even heart eating). Recent events in Egypt have demonstrated the problems of irreconcilable political opposition. The revolutionary movement that led to the Civil war in Syria has not disappeared, any beginning positive steps for Syria is for its return and a political leadership to be formed. Otherwise the Military will, Al-Qaeda will , America will or Assad will continue his reign of terror.
Regarding American Interests, again, this should of course be studied not merely assumed no matter how implausible the American Administrations concern about Chemical weapons and Civilian casualties and its new found Humanitarianism. The linked document is an interesting read (although admittedly I've only skimmed through) although with faults.
Knowing now that the motive for invading Iraq was strategic (to use Iraq as a permanent military operation base), taking over Syria would give the United States strategic depth in the region, allowing for the creation of a Sunni-dominated state to counterbalance the Shia in Iraq and Iran, in turn tipping the balance of power even further in favor of the United States’ regional allies Israel and Turkey.
A regime change in Syria would serve the United States in at least three specific ways:
1. First, the new regime would likely be dominated by the country’s Sunni majority. Given
the Sunnis’ deep seated rivalry with the Shia, such a regime would benefit the United
States by enabling it to gain leverage in regional politics, particularly vis-à-vis Iran and
Iraq.
2. Second, a pro-U.S. regime in Syria would tip the region’s balance of power toward Israel .
Accordingly the United States and Israel would be in position to dictate a peace
settlement to the Syrians over the Golan Heights.
3. Third, with the establishment of a pro-U.S. regime, the United States will have completed
its final stage of encircling Iran. This would further tip the region’s balance of power in
favor of Israel , and ultimately would open new doors for the United States to be actively
involved in toppling the Iranian regime.