"Chemical warfare:" an excuse for increased U.S. military air for rebel forces in Syria?
Who doesn’t remember the charges of “weapons of mass destruction” just before Washington invaded Iraq? The Pentagon never provided any proof that the regime of Sadaam Hussein had those weapons, but the charge served as an excuse to justify the invasion. Now the charge is the use of prohibited “chemical weapons (sarin gas)” in Syria. The U.S. government under President Obama is a bit more cautious, not talking about invasion, only saying weapons will be provided to the “rebels” in Syria, but it is clear that the tactic is the same.
The evidence which has appeared in the press is at least flimsy, yet the long history of U.S. invasions—often provoked by the CIA—has almost become a legend. It is likewise significant that these charges should appear precisely when the “rebel” forces (including allegedly terrorist groups) appear to be loosing ground to government forces in Syria’s prolonged and bloody civil war.
If someone were to visit the earth from another planet, he would certainly be a bit taken aback to discover that a man who had won the Nobel Prize for Peace (Barack Obama) was backing one of the groups in a civil war, although if the visitor knew that the U.S. had long standing political, economic and geo-political interests in the area he might understand the situation a little bit better.
The tactics employed by the U.S. have clearly changed from President Bush to President Obama—from outright invasions to taking sides in a civil war. But the essence shows scant modification. The aim of both methods is to secure rich natural resources and win political players in an area of strategic importance in the global struggle for power.
1 comentario
Louise Imm-Cooper -