On January 28, Arab League monitors suspended operations in Syria.
In early February, they'll decide whether to end them altogether.
League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby blamed Assad for "resort(ing)
to escalating the military option in complete violation of (his)
commitments."
In fact, he's contesting a Western-generated insurgency. League
despots support it. They also condoned NATO's Libya war, including
massacres too great to ignore.
They back NATO's plan to colonize, occupy and plunder Middle East
states, including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, as well as ongoing
atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and elsewhere in
the region.
On December 26, Arab League observers began monitoring Syrian
cities. Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi led them.
Instead of delivering the goods as planned, he called Assad
"cooperative."
Ergo, end the mission. Initiate Plan B.
At issue is regime change and isolating Iran, not democracy and
peace. America deplores both and won't tolerate them at home or
abroad.
After ravaging Libya and toppling Gaddafi, Syria was next. For
months, Western-backed insurgents killed thousands. No one knows how
many. UN estimates lack credibility by pointing fingers the wrong
way.
Washington wants Assad vilified, delegitimized, weakened and
toppled. Tactics include violence, propaganda, and attempts to pass
Security Council measures, inching closer to intervention. More on
that below.
Whether Assad survives is uncertain. So far he's hanging on
resiliently. Nonetheless, the State Department calls him "dead man
walking," and Syria's Muslim Brotherhood expects him out in months.
In fact, Israel's Ehud Barak thinks in weeks. Don't bet on it.
For now, he successfully resisted Western efforts to topple him with
Russian, Chinese, and internal popular support. Syria's military is
also strong and supportive. Loyalists run it with much to gain by
standing fast, not yielding to opposition pressure. In contrast,
so-called Free Syrian Army ranks are weak by comparison.
In addition, anti-Assad elements are divided and disorganized.
Internal National Coordination Body for Democratic Change ones
oppose foreign intervention and conflict. They want grievances
settled politically and diplomatically.
In contrast, Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC) officials
support it. They claim Syria's situation replicates Libya's. They
also represent Western imperialism against the rights and interests
of most Syrians.
Nonetheless, they're also internally split, unable to agree on a
common agenda. Many don't trust SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun. Some
call him authoritarian for unilaterally wanting SNC/NCB unity.
So far, Western and/or regional states haven't directly intervened.
Whether that continues is uncertain. The longer Assad holds on, the
greater the pressure to do so. Behind the scenes, Washington, rogue
NATO allies and Israel seek ways to replicate Libya's model, either
alone using regional proxies and/or by direct NATO intervention. The
situation remains tense.
Strong Russian/Chinese Opposition
So far, Russia and China firmly oppose intervention. As a result,
Western Security Council resolutions failed. Russia's against a new
draft. On January 27, Itar Tass headlined, "Western draft resolution
on Syria in UN SC unacceptable for Russia," saying:
Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Russia won't support
it. It "almost does not take into account our position," he said.
"The document lacks key aspects, which are essential for us."
At issue is preventing military intervention and assuring UN Charter
provisions aren't violated. It's also about vague language like in
Resolution 1973 against Libya, smoothing the way to war. It says
"additional measures will be considered" if Assad doesn't comply.
What measures, asked Gatilov? As a result, he said the "current
draft resolution is unacceptable for us."
Washington rejected Russia's draft. It focuses on "the need to
launch political negotiations between the government and
opposition...." It also stresses ending violence.
RIA Novosti quoted Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin saying:
"I made it clear that we, the Russian delegation, did not see that
draft as a basis on which we can agree." However, it "doesn't mean
that we refuse to engage."
Specifically, he's concerned about similarities to Washington's
October resolution Russia and China vetoed. Its language potentially
facilitates a "Libya scenario" both countries reject.
Russia also opposes Washington/EU unilateral sanctions. On January
26, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow will "stonewall
attempts to gain UN approval...."
Washington's inching closer to direct and/or proxy military
intervention. Rogue NATO partners including Turkey, complicit Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states, Jordan, and Israel are on board.
Ideas floated include a no-fly zone, a humanitarian corridor between
Turkey's Hatay province and Syria, and direct military intervention.
Turkey's involved in sponsoring anti-Assad insurgents. Nonetheless,
in mid-January, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara will "take
a leadership" to prevent "a religious, sectarian, racial war."
Perhaps he means by instigating more conflict than now.
In mid-January, Obama called Syria's government "unacceptable." He
wants Assad "to step aside." On December 21, a White House Press
Secretary statement said:
"....the only way to bring about the change that the Syrian people
deserve is for Bashar al-Assad to leave power....The United States
is deeply disturbed by credible reports that (his) regime continues
to indiscriminately kill scores of civilians and army
defectors....Time and again, the Assad regime has demonstrated that
it does not deserve to rule Syria."
No matter that most Syrians support Assad. In addition, Washington
notoriously backs some of the world's worst despots, while America's
making enemies faster than friends.
Syria's targeted to install a pro-Western government and isolate
Iran. Russia, China and other key countries oppose it. Nonetheless,
New York Times writer Ellen Barry says few "world capitals" support
Assad.
For months, numerous Times editorials vilified him, stopping just
short of advocating war. If Western invention follows, Times'
support is assured. In contrast, Vladimir Putin's strongly against.
Notably, he accused Washington of "want(ing) to control everything"
and make other countries "vassals." He also cited America's "missile
defense" system targeting Russia, saying:
Obama officials aren't "prepared to cooperate on equal terms either
with Europe or us. Cooperation....means determining threats together
and working out a system of response to them together. They flatly
reject that."
They also reject peace. The business of America is war, permanent
wars, plundering one nation after another for wealth, power, and
dominance while homeland needs go begging. Opposition governments
are targeted for regime change.
A Final Comment
Obama's America's latest warrior president. He spurns peace to fuel
conflicts. He supports preemptive wars, using first-strike nuclear
and other terror weapons "to keep the American people safe (and
advance) the nation's values and ideals."
Unstated, they include unchallengeable global/space dominance,
ruling by intimidation and war, and making the world safe for
capital.
As a result, America's permanent war doctrine threatens humanity. No
matter. It doesn't stop deranged officials from pursuing it -
Republicans and Democrats.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.
All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Washington's War On Syria
By Stephen Lendman
1-29-12
On January 28, Arab League monitors suspended operations in Syria.
In early February, they'll decide whether to end them altogether.
League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby blamed Assad for "resort(ing)
to escalating the military option in complete violation of (his)
commitments."
In fact, he's contesting a Western-generated insurgency. League
despots support it. They also condoned NATO's Libya war, including
massacres too great to ignore.
They back NATO's plan to colonize, occupy and plunder Middle East
states, including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, as well as ongoing
atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and elsewhere in
the region.
On December 26, Arab League observers began monitoring Syrian
cities. Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi led them.
Instead of delivering the goods as planned, he called Assad
"cooperative."
Ergo, end the mission. Initiate Plan B.
At issue is regime change and isolating Iran, not democracy and
peace. America deplores both and won't tolerate them at home or
abroad.
After ravaging Libya and toppling Gaddafi, Syria was next. For
months, Western-backed insurgents killed thousands. No one knows how
many. UN estimates lack credibility by pointing fingers the wrong
way.
Washington wants Assad vilified, delegitimized, weakened and
toppled. Tactics include violence, propaganda, and attempts to pass
Security Council measures, inching closer to intervention. More on
that below.
Whether Assad survives is uncertain. So far he's hanging on
resiliently. Nonetheless, the State Department calls him "dead man
walking," and Syria's Muslim Brotherhood expects him out in months.
In fact, Israel's Ehud Barak thinks in weeks. Don't bet on it.
For now, he successfully resisted Western efforts to topple him with
Russian, Chinese, and internal popular support. Syria's military is
also strong and supportive. Loyalists run it with much to gain by
standing fast, not yielding to opposition pressure. In contrast,
so-called Free Syrian Army ranks are weak by comparison.
In addition, anti-Assad elements are divided and disorganized.
Internal National Coordination Body for Democratic Change ones
oppose foreign intervention and conflict. They want grievances
settled politically and diplomatically.
In contrast, Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC) officials
support it. They claim Syria's situation replicates Libya's. They
also represent Western imperialism against the rights and interests
of most Syrians.
Nonetheless, they're also internally split, unable to agree on a
common agenda. Many don't trust SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun. Some
call him authoritarian for unilaterally wanting SNC/NCB unity.
So far, Western and/or regional states haven't directly intervened.
Whether that continues is uncertain. The longer Assad holds on, the
greater the pressure to do so. Behind the scenes, Washington, rogue
NATO allies and Israel seek ways to replicate Libya's model, either
alone using regional proxies and/or by direct NATO intervention. The
situation remains tense.
Strong Russian/Chinese Opposition
So far, Russia and China firmly oppose intervention. As a result,
Western Security Council resolutions failed. Russia's against a new
draft. On January 27,
<http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/328086.html>Itar Tass
headlined, "Western draft resolution on Syria in UN SC unacceptable
for Russia," saying:
Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Russia won't support
it. It "almost does not take into account our position," he said.
"The document lacks key aspects, which are essential for us."
At issue is preventing military intervention and assuring UN Charter
provisions aren't violated. It's also about vague language like in
Resolution 1973 against Libya, smoothing the way to war. It says
"additional measures will be considered" if Assad doesn't comply.
What measures, asked Gatilov? As a result, he said the "current
draft resolution is unacceptable for us."
Washington rejected Russia's draft. It focuses on "the need to
launch political negotiations between the government and
opposition...." It also stresses ending violence.
<http://en.rian.ru/world/20120128/170996595.html>RIA Novosti
quoted Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin saying:
"I made it clear that we, the Russian delegation, did not see that
draft as a basis on which we can agree." However, it "doesn't mean
that we refuse to engage."
Specifically, he's concerned about similarities to Washington's
October resolution Russia and China vetoed. Its language potentially
facilitates a "Libya scenario" both countries reject.
Russia also opposes Washington/EU unilateral sanctions. On January
26, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow will "stonewall
attempts to gain UN approval...."
Washington's inching closer to direct and/or proxy military
intervention. Rogue NATO partners including Turkey, complicit Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states, Jordan, and Israel are on board.
Ideas floated include a no-fly zone, a humanitarian corridor between
Turkey's Hatay province and Syria, and direct military intervention.
Turkey's involved in sponsoring anti-Assad insurgents. Nonetheless,
in mid-January, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara will "take
a leadership" to prevent "a religious, sectarian, racial war."
Perhaps he means by instigating more conflict than now.
In mid-January, Obama called Syria's government "unacceptable." He
wants Assad "to step aside." On December 21, a White House Press
Secretary statement said:
"....the only way to bring about the change that the Syrian people
deserve is for Bashar al-Assad to leave power....The United States
is deeply disturbed by credible reports that (his) regime continues
to indiscriminately kill scores of civilians and army
defectors....Time and again, the Assad regime has demonstrated that
it does not deserve to rule Syria."
No matter that most Syrians support Assad. In addition, Washington
notoriously backs some of the world's worst despots, while America's
making enemies faster than friends.
Syria's targeted to install a pro-Western government and isolate
Iran. Russia, China and other key countries oppose it. Nonetheless,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/world/europe/russia-sides-firmly-with-assad-government-in-syria.html>New
York Times writer Ellen Barry says few "world capitals" support
Assad.
For months, numerous Times editorials vilified him, stopping just
short of advocating war. If Western invention follows, Times'
support is assured. In contrast, Vladimir Putin's strongly against.
Notably, he accused Washington of "want(ing) to control everything"
and make other countries "vassals." He also cited America's "missile
defense" system targeting Russia, saying:
Obama officials aren't "prepared to cooperate on equal terms either
with Europe or us. Cooperation....means determining threats together
and working out a system of response to them together. They flatly
reject that."
They also reject peace. The business of America is war, permanent
wars, plundering one nation after another for wealth, power, and
dominance while homeland needs go begging. Opposition governments
are targeted for regime change.
A Final Comment
Obama's America's latest warrior president. He spurns peace to fuel
conflicts. He supports preemptive wars, using first-strike nuclear
and other terror weapons "to keep the American people safe (and
advance) the nation's values and ideals."
Unstated, they include unchallengeable global/space dominance,
ruling by intimidation and war, and making the world safe for
capital.
As a result, America's permanent war doctrine threatens humanity. No
matter. It doesn't stop deranged officials from pursuing it -
Republicans and Democrats.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
<mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net>lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.
All programs are archived for easy listening.
<http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/ |