Sunday, September 1, 2013

Obama's Statement on Syria Throws the West in Disarray

Since Obama's statement yesterday about military action in Syria, the Western world has descended into chaos. Obama is waiting Congressional approval after September 9



Consensus isn't truth and it certainly doesn't bring a solution any closer. 

Obama yesterday hasn't laid down a vision, nor has he made things any clearer. Channeling every thinkable, uninformed opinion doesn't bring the conflict any closer to a resolution either. The world is in chaos. The war for the moment is focusing on Syria. But this conflict can't be viewed from under a telescope. It must be watched from a great distance for the ligaments and the cross currents to become apparent. 

The Arab Spring is a co-project of the Democrats and a few neocons in the US. Obama is their straw man. The idea is to bring the Muslim Brotherhood democratically into power as the 'moderate' compromise between secularism and Saudi Salafism.

These parties are vying in the broader Middle East for hegemony with Iran, that focuses on the destruction of Israel, but seeks to assert its supremacy on the entire Islamic world. Gas is playing an explosive role in this conflict in which the interests of the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians are pitted against those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Europe and the US. 

But Iran has an apocalyptic vision of Islam and it believes a war of total destruction will lead it to take its 'rightful' place as head of an Shiite version of the Caliphate. A country that is waging war with a morality of 'winner takes all' is a formidable opponent indeed. 

Iran is the invisible hand behind the puppet Assad. Bashar is the youngest generation of a dynasty that has been oppressing its people in a Socialist dictatorship for over four decades. The empathic champions of victimhood on the left side of the aisle have never uttered a word of indignation about it. 

The West is waging its wars by an ethical standard, the so called "Just War Theory" (JWT). In essence, military action is not allowed in self-defense, but is justified if it aims to save the lives of others. Altruism is mandated under this doctrine.

It explains Bill Clintons campaign in Bosnia that was ostensibly waged to prevent 'genocide' of Bosnian Muslims. Hence Obama's red line, the use of chemical weapons. Under JWT these are the only legitimate causes to wage war. 

Western culture makes a distinction between civilians and combatants. Islam doesn't recognize any separation of powers: there are no 'innocent civilians', since the Islamic collective sees them as soldiers for Allah. The live of an individual is irrelevant when the interests of the collective are at stake. This is why Muslims from all over the world come together in Jihad during conflicts in Iraq, Egypt and presently in Syria. 

But apart of that, citizens are always reponsible for the government of their nation. Even dictatorships are passively supported by the people. It is tragic the West has not openly and whole-heartedly supported the Green movement in Iran, but instead chose to appease the mullahs. 

The West has been involved in the war in Syria for a long time. Even from the start there have been special NATO forces covertly on the ground in Jordan and in Turkey, just over the border with Syria. Rebel forces of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) are being trained. The Benghazi scandal is now known to have been about the delivery of Stingers from Libyan arms depots to the rebel forces in Syria

What looks on the face of it a very complicated conflict, is actually quite simple. The dilemma whether the West should retaliate for Assad's use of chemical weapons is in fact a red herring. 

The UN can ascertain whether chemical weapons were used in the attack on Damascus, but not by which party. There is no question whether gas was used, the question is by whom? The Obama administration has no doubts, but that begs the question, if they knew before hand, why didn't they raise the alarm? 

In the end the question about the use of chemical weapons is not relevant: for the West it is important in so far as it offers moral cover for military action, but this is superfluous. Assad is Iran's puppet and both regimes have been oppressing their peoples for over four decades; and they are the hideous masters of terrorism. Regimes that violate rights have no right to exist in the first place. Both should be knocked out of existence. 

It doesn't feel good to have rights abusers like the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks, the MusBro and Al Qaeda as allies. This is because they are only gradually less abject than the enemy. This is why the West would be justified to take out both the Shiite and the Sunni camp.

It's just not going to happen. Obama isn't the leader of the free world. A hero demands an objective vista, a moral standard, knowledge of good and evil, and integrity. The nihilistic anti hero Obama, on the contrary is led by the moral equivalence of good and evil.