With the news dominated by Syria and the Obama Administration’s strenuous efforts to go to war, it’s a good time to look at the reasons why. Of course we won’t be examining the proffered excuses put forth by the administration, about upholding norms of civilized behavior and the horrors of chemical weapons.
Don’t make me laugh.
But, doesn’t American, need to bomb Syria to stop a brutal dictator, as NY Times writer Nicolas Kristof plaintively argues?
This seems to be the conventional wisdom. Our media assures us that the US is just an honest broker in these sorts of affairs, trying to sort out the issues in good faith and help the belegured Syrian citizens. There is no mention that the US has been up to it’s neck in the Syrian civil war, supporting the very same Al-Qaeda terrorists that we are supposedly fighting in our endless “war on terror.” In fact, there’s a pretty good chance that these heroic “freedom fighters” that we are aiding are the ones that used the chemical weapons.
This support of Al-Qaeda is such a Orwellian story–where black is white, and up is down, that I find myself in agreement with Rush Limbugh, of all people.
And, of course, like all other US foreign policy issues, there’s a back story. Most American’s don’t know anything about our history of meddling in Syria.
“Syria offers us a prime illustration of how this ahistorical propaganda system works. The press has ensured that every American now knows that Assad is a dictator and that Syria is in the middle of a bloody civil war, yet the knowledge ends there. Virtually no one discusses the aforementioned U.S.-backed 1963 coup; even fewer acknowledge the vile history of imperialism preceding this. One, however, can understand very little about what is happening in Syria (or in the rest of the Middle East) today without such historical framing.”
So, what is the desire to attack Syria about really? Let’s connect the dots.
It has been US policy to attack and bring about regime change in certain Middle Eastern countries. General Wesley Clark detailed after 9-11 that the U.S. had already made the decision to invade Syria as early as 1991
Perhaps this proposed strike on Syria is seen as a way to attack their ally–Iran. I’m old enough to remember that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, “real men want to go to Tehran.”
“Iran refuses US currency for it’s oil trading, a direct blow to American hegemony. Dominating Iran is also seen by American war hawks as a way to control China based on the reasons stated above. These are transparently the real causes for American aggression towards Iran, a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty with every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Since the nuclear red herring isn’t gaining traction, a war with Syria is seen as the next best thing.”
Maybe the attack on Syria is because of Saudi machinations, with “Bandar Bush” returning for a cameo role.
“Really what he’s doing is he’s reprising a role that he played in the 1980s when he worked with the Reagan administration to arrange money and arms for mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and also worked with the CIA in Nicaragua to support the Contras,” says Wall Street Journal reporter Adam Entous. “So in many ways this is a very familiar position for Prince Bandar, and it’s amazing to see the extent to which veterans of the CIA were excited to see him come back because, in the words of a diplomat who knows Bandar, he brings the Arabic term wasta, which means under-the-table clout. You know his checks are not going to bounce and that he’ll be able to deliver the money from the Saudis.”
Or, perhaps this proposed attack is about something else entirely. As we have noted here many times before, US foreign policy always involves powerful domestic constituencies. Give yourself a sucker if you guessed that one of the most powerful is the financial industry.
In a recent article, investigative reporter Greg Palest examines how US banks, working with key Clinton Administration economic advisors, sought to overturn not only US financial regulations, but world wide ones as well.
“Basically, there were secret calls going between Larry Summers and the head of Bank of America, the head of Goldman Sachs, the head of Citibank and Merrill, the five big boys, to find out what should happen to the world financial policing order. And the answer was: smash it. Summers was holding secret meetings with the big bankers to come up with a scheme to eliminate financial regulation across the planet.”
But, how does the elimination of financial regulations tie into the proposed attack on Syria? Here’s where the ultimate conspiracy comes in.
Long time Wall Street analyst and writer Ellen Brown, author of Web of Debt, makes the provocative argument that the attack on Syria is part of a plan to punish the Middle Eastern countries that resist US imposed financial deregulation.
“The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In these Islamic countries, banks are largely state-owned; and “usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent extraction by private middlemen. Publicly-owned banks are also a threat to the mushrooming derivatives business, since governments with their own banks don’t need interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, or investment-grade ratings by private rating agencies in order to finance their operations.”
My iron-clad rule of modern American political-economy, is that sooner or later you will find out that the bankers are involved. They and their horrible policies are largely responsible for the descent into neo-feudalism here at home, and the policies they are pursuing worldwide are a huge contributing factor to the death and destruction seen daily on CNN.
If there can be a positive from the mendacious campaign to stampede the American public into war with Iraq ten years ago, it’s demonstrated in the overwhelming sentiment against a war with Syria. So keep it up you peaceniks, call your Congress-critters and demand that the US not attack Syria.