David Plouffe, a “former senior adviser” to Obama, says that whether Congress is about to give the green light for “another war” is the question that has to be answered and it is up to the administration in Washington to convince every one of the “rationale and limited nature of the response.”
Well, before looking at the “rationale”, it might be worth reading Stephen Zunes article in the ‘Huffington Post’ and it might be concluded that this “limited response” would be illegal (When did that ever bother Washington?), it would lead to more death and destruction and it would isolate the United States internationally. Added to that Plouffe claims that an attack would actually strengthen the Syrian regime and that it has no strategic value for a United States, which itself has little credibility when it comes to chemical weapons.
Now, all of this can be discussed and is, at the very least, worthy of that type of serious debate, which is required before more innocent men, women and children die. Sentiments, no doubt, which are neither shared by the hawkish John McCain, who appears to think that playing poker on his iPhone during a congressional hearing on the topic is alright, nor by the “journalist” Jon Lee Anderson who writes:
“At any time since the chemical attacks, has Assad expressed any feelings of sorrow for those killed in them, including the many children? Did I miss a statement of regret? Even if Assad’s lack of compassion doesn’t demonstrate his complicity in the atrocities, it says a great deal about the character of his regime.”
Now, while I am not actually sure if there was a statement of regret, Mr Anderson appears to have missed a number of points. Firstly, atrocities by Assad’s opponents have been revealed time and time again, and there has been no statement of regret from those responsible for them. Secondly, the only thing that Assad possibly should be regretting is that the United States and its allies have concocted a cock-and-bull story that will mean the death knell of his regime and, finally, is there any statement of regret from the United States for their illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is there a statement of regret from the United States for their drones killing thousands of innocents in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere?
No, there is no “rationale” for an attack in Syria, apart from a desperate effort to maintain global hegemony and, most certainly the “rationale” is not the 1,429, dead including 426 children, which David Samel quite rightly points out would have justified an attack by Russia on Israel after the slaughter in Gaza in 2008-2009. However, such a suggestion would have the hypocrites remind us that apart from the white phosphorus used to kill some of those women and children, Israel’s did not use chemical weapons when it attacked Gaza. Moreover, as Mr Samel implies, any such Russian attack on Israel might have been viewed as hypocritical considering Moscow’s slaughter in Chechnya and it would have been.
Nevertheless, for the United States, after Hiroshima, after countless dirty and illegal wars, after agent orange and napalm, white phosphorus and depleted uranium, after displacing elected governments here, there and everywhere, to actually believe in 2013 that it has the moral authority to start another illegal war in Syria is all together absurd and the more we confront the mind-boggling hypocrisy the more we enter into the realms of another greater absurdity and one which even Kafka would have found difficult to come to terms with.