Will Obama rethink his irresponsible military adventure?

Despite the fact that calls have been delivered to Obama from various parts of the world to cancel his intention regarding the reckless and irresponsible military strike against Syria, Obama and his ilk are pressing ahead in preparing for a war for Syria.

Massive demonstrations were held in various parts of the world calling on Obama to stop warmongering campaign against Syria. Even in the US, hundreds of people protested in New York and Indianapolis cities against the U.S. threats to launch aggression on Syria. Protesters waved placards saying "We do not want more wars for companies' benefits”. Not far from the White House, hundreds of people staged a sit-in expressing their rejection to the U.S threats to launch unjustifiable war on Syria.

Pope Francis of the Vatican led a mass peace vigil on St. Peter's Square in the Vatican City last Saturday in which about 100,000 people participated. In his sermon, the Pontiff warned against the adverse consequences and catastrophic outcome of the war against Syria. He said that the talk of war against Syria has prevented a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria and caused the senseless massacre of innocent people there. He called on world leaders to pull humanity out of a spiral of sorrow and death, saying war is always a defeat for humanity.

After all these calls, prayers, masses and demonstrations, it is time for Obama to stop turning a blind eye and a deaf ear and cancel his thoughtless military venture against Syria.  Obama has to rethink thousand times before going on with his planned military action against Syria. It seems that the US president has not learnt lessons from catastrophic experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan.   Obama learned nothing from the devastating and costly aftermaths of the military invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and now he is beating drums to attack Syria capitalizing on the fabricated allegation of chemical weapons’ use.

The US administration’s allegations for war on Syria are invalid and the UN Charter prohibits unilateral bombing in such cases as Syria. 

The U.S. threats to launch an aggression on Syria are considered a transgression against the entire Arab nation and its national security.

All Arab and foreign calls that try to provide justifications for the US-Zionist aggression on Syria are completely denounced, because they are part of the global conspiracy being launched against Syria. The plans of the US and its allies of the West and Zionism to launch an attack against Syria come in completion of its armed attacks on the Arab region which started with invading Iraq in the framework of its so-called "The New Middle East" project aimed to divide the Arab nation and plunder its resources.

The U.S. threats to launch an aggression on Syria are considered a transgression against the entire Arab nation and its national security.

Those who killed millions of Iraqis, Afghans and Japanese by nuclear weapons and covered the Zionism's crimes against the children of Palestine and Lebanon can't use the pretext of defending the Syrian people to launch an aggression that would kill thousands of Syrians. So, once again, Obama is asked to listen to the voice of wisdom in the US and the world, cancel his catastrophic military venture and support the political solution of the crisis in Syria. 

K.Q.

Military adventure, the worst strategic mistake by US

The US administration is committing a folly and grave strategic mistake by thinking of a military action against Syria and will accordingly take the blow and definitely suffer as a result of such reckless military venture. The main objective of the global arrogance front represented by the US and Israel is to dominate the Middle East, with Israel in the saddle, controlling everything politically and economically.

 The goal of chemical weapons pretext is well-known to everyone:  political and economic hegemony over the Arab region. But the Americans are trying through rhetoric and word-manipulation to pretend that they are entering this issue for a humane goal as was the case in all the previous military attacks launched by the US in various parts of the world to achieve colonialist political and economic interests.  The US politicians do not care about humanitarian issues at all. They are making humanitarian claims at a time when their track record includes the atrocities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghreib prisons, as well as the massacres of innocent people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, not to mention the silence of successive US administrations towards the savage atrocities committed by the Israel against defenseless Palestinian and Arab people over the past 65 years.

A military action against Syria would be a grave  mistake whose consequences will not remain limited. Any direct military aggression by the US and its agents seeks to destroy the Syrian state and undermine its civilization, Arabism and values.  The military aggression on Syria will be the worst mistake by the West and will blow up the situation in the whole region, because the repercussions will be catastrophic. The outcome of the U.S.-led war on Iraq was complete destruction of the Iraqi state, the killing of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of more than three million Iraqis.

The international law doesn't permit the use of force except when there's a Security Council resolution or in self-defense as per article 51 of the UN charter, and there are no basis to apply article 51 to the situation in Syria.

The US and its allies are completely disregarding facts capitalizing the chemical weapons lies to create a pretext for attacking Syria after all attempts to topple the Syrian state using terrorists have failed. Those who believe the chemical weapons pretext are gullible and ignorant, since it's illogical for the Syrian government to use such weapons against its people and in its own capital at the same time when the UN experts arrived in Damascus.

Washington, without waiting the results of the UN investigation, announced immediately its readiness to begin a military operation against Syria, with other regional and Arab tools – rushing to announce readiness to participate in the reckless military adventure without Security Council authorization.

Any possible military action against Syria by the US and its allies will be a failure and Washington will certainly pay the price for such irresponsible venture. It seems that Obama and his administration have fallen into the Tel Aviv trap and he is too blind to see the adverse consequences. If they attack Syria, however limited it may be, the long term blow to US and their allies are an absolute certainty.

The steadfastness of the Syrian people and their valiant armed forces during two years of an unprecedented war is enough to foil any US-Western aggression. The will of the Syrian people and their national sense are stronger than ever. The Syrian people have unshakable confidence in victory over the colonialist project and its terrorist and takfiri tools.

K.Q.

Voices of Reason to be Carefully Heeded!

 “Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action. In good conscience, I cannot support the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s resolution and will be working with my colleagues and the administration to develop other options. I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act” said Senator Joe Manchin in a Statement on Syria.

Meantime, the Rep. Senator Alan Grayson, D-Fla. says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in Syria.

Grayson stated that  members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims, asserting that the details in the administration's public, non-classified report are being contested.

Senator Grayson points to an article published by The Daily Caller that alleges the communications actually showed Syrian officers were surprised by the alleged chemical weapon attack. The communications, according to unnamed sources paraphrased in article, were intercepted by Israeli intelligence and "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion."

"What they say in The Daily Caller is that [intercepted communications] would lead one to the opposite conclusion," Grayson said. "I don't know if it's right or wrong, [but] there's a very simple way to find out, that's for the administration to show me and other members of Congress" translated transcripts of the intercepts, he said.

Members of Congress are "not being given any of the underlying elements of the intelligence reports," according to Grayson, pointing out that other examples of intelligence he believes has been manipulated to favor war.

"Well yes," Grayson said, "but I'm very constrained about talking about it. ... This has become a fundamental problem with our system: The information we do get is limited, but beyond that we are very constrained in discussing it."

The four-page White House report on the alleged attack is no more than "a briefing paper with arguments in favor of attacking Syria" that "doesn't present both sides of the issue," Grayson said.

"We can't go to war to spare anyone embarrassment," Grayson told U.S. News. "That would be utterly immoral, we're talking about shedding American blood. ... The president has already made that argument and it's falling on deaf ears."

On his part, the Democratic California Rep. congressman, John Garamendi, who opposes U.S. military intervention in Syria expressed “deep concern” following Secretary of State John Kerry’s conference call with House Democrats on the subject:  ‘Well, it’s the credibility of the United States.’ Really? How is our credibility enhanced or harmed?”

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan angered Kerry on the conference call by comparing possible intervention in Syria to the United States’ failed participation in the Vietnam War.

“After a three-hour classified briefing and taking time to read all the classified documents, what I have heard and read has only served to convince me more than ever of the folly and danger of getting America involved in the Syrian war. I will vote and work against President Obama’s request for open-ended authority to launch military strikes against the Syrian army,” Nolan said following the call, expressing fear over the would be  “collateral damage.”

 “I am deeply concerned that the proposed White House resolution for Syria is over-broad and would allow troops on the ground. Can’t support,” California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell tweeted.

Meanwhile, the New York Congressman Chris Gibson, who served 24 years in the Army, and that includes four combat tours in Iraq, said that If we bomb that country, are we going to make it better, or are we going to make it worse? It's my judgment that we really run the risk of escalating the conflict, Americanizing that civil war, all of this not in our interest and certainly not in the interest of an ultimate peaceful resolution to that civil war. I support remaining on the diplomatic track.

Actually, all of the above-mentioned asserts the balanced wise stances of Russia, under the wise historic and strong leadership of H.E. President Vladimir Putin who underscores that the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the "rebels" to attract a foreign-led strike. 

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

US aims to end anti-zionist entity resistance front

It has been crystal clear that the US and its allies have been working to strike the axis of the resistance in the region through planning a military action against Syria, because all the previous attempts were foiled and exposed.

In fact, the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been making feverish attempts to end this axis and enable Israel to invade the Arab region politically and economically.

In the summer of 2006, the pro-Zionist axis, especially the US and Saudi Arabia encouraged Israel to launch a savage aggression against South Lebanon with the aim of putting an end to the Lebanese national resistance and weakening the linchpin of the resistance, Syria. But thanks to the unwavering steadfastness of the Lebanese National Resistance men and Syria’s generous and unlimited support for this resistance, the Israeli aggression was repelled, the US sinister attempt was foiled and the then US foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s malicious project of the New Middle East was thwarted.

However, the pro-Zionist states did not stop their wicked attempts to strike the axis of the resistance. When the crisis in Syria started, the US and its Arab and regional allies found it a good opportunity to strike the key player in the resistance axis through funding, training and exporting armed terrorists to Syria to weaken the Syrian army which emerged victorious in its battle against takfiri terrorism. After two years and a half, the US and its Arab and regional tools fabricated the groundless accusation of chemical weapons’ use in Eastern Ghuta. What’s astonishing is that Obama and his aides did not wait for the results of the investigation conducted by the UN committee and started to prepare for launching a military strike against Syria without the agreement of the UN Security Council.

 Obama’s hectic campaign to launch a unilateral military action shows that the US was plotting to break the anti-Israeli resistance front in the Middle East. A recent Washington Institute Strategic Report on the Middle East (March 2013) stated US dual objectives were to secure oil and gas supplies and to protect Israeli security. These objectives can be achieved by destroying the main resistance front, Syria, clearing the way for Israel's desired invasion of the region.

So, when we look at the proposed war against Syria, the US interest is very simple: maintain hegemony and ensure Israel’s superiority and political and economic domination of the Arab and Islamic states.

But Obama and his allies should realize that the resistance axis will remain a very powerful block in confrontation of the US-Israeli hegemony plans in the region.

Obama and his allies should realize that their war on Syria would not be a picnic because Syrian people and army have the right to defend themselves against any aggression. The US threats of launching an aggression on Syria will not affect the Syrians' determination, steadfastness and resistance.

K.Q.

US Policy Lashed Out

The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on this August 26 removed the sword of the alleged Syrian chemical weapons from its sheath and let the snow ball of this subterfuge for a military aggression on Syria roll unchecked, raising the stakes from asking whether “it will happen” to “when” it will happen, promising that President Barak Obama “will be making an informed decision about how” to take on Syria and warning not to make a “mistake” because Obama “believes there must be accountability,” making clear that a U.S. – led military action is in the making and imminent.

According to global research, the U.S. – led threats of an imminent military action was the only option left for the western backers of the rebels in Syria ; their declared goal is to stem the accelerating successes of the Syrian Arab Army  and to return the balance of power to the status quo ante.

When the 18th Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, before the reportedly chemical attack , admitted that the Syrian army was “gaining momentum,” he did not “think it’ll be sustainable,” not because he was drawing on the facts on the ground, but most likely because he was privy to what was in store with his co- decision makers in Washington.

Maintaining a “balance of power” on the ground is a U.S. precondition to engage in and allow negotiations to solve the Syrian conflict peacefully. The U.S. cannot co – host with Russia the repeatedly postponed Geneva – 2 peace conference on Syria unless the military status quo on the ground is deprived of the gains won by the SAA.

Obama, the former professor of constitutional law, who as recently as August 22 warned in a CNN interview that “we have to take into account considerations” like a “U.N. mandate” supported by “international law” and “clear evidence,” seems ready now to strike without any respect to the three factors, which they only can give legitimacy to any U.S. – led strike against Syria.

According to the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday, Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) has collected nearly three dozen signatures of House members to a letter he intended to send to the White House to remind the president that military action without a congressional vote “would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Several recent polls showed that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, let alone militarily. In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos survey, only 25 percent of Americans said they would support U.S. intervention if Syrian Government used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria  war, while just 9 percent thought Obama should act.

A Pew Research Center poll taken June 12-16 found 70 percent of Americans opposed Obama’s decision to provide arms to Syrian terrorists in response to smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks there; 68 percent said the U.S. military is “too over-committed” to get involved in the Syrian conflict.

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim