Obama’s “Authorization to use force in Iraq” suggests that the President of the United States of America believes all the domestic authority he needs to carry out attacks comes from the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the 2002 Authorization which provided the domestic legal basis for the Iraq War. That is, to say the least, debatable. What, however, is not debatable is that there is absolutely no international legal justification for strikes on Iraq.
Therefore, when MPs in the British parliament vote by 524 to 43 to sanction the UK air strikes in Iraq, what we effectively have is the United Kingdom entering an illegal war as it, once more, lines up behind the US-led drive to reassert control over the entire Middle East. That is why, before the British extend their campaign to Syria, which they have put on hold for the time being, it is worth reminding ourselves of just some of the consequences of the *great game” that these madmen play out when they pursue their plans for a new Middle East.
The major consequence is, of course, mass murder being perpetrated and when the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights , an EU funded propaganda front, asserts “36 non-combatants, many of them women and children” were killed in American air strikes on an oil facility, a modicum of cognitive processing will allow us to deduce that not only are innocent men, women, and children, once again, being slaughtered in an illegal war, but that the number of reported deaths might only be the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, the modicum of cognitive processing is invariably neglected and when the same article informs us that another 147 people have died in those attacks the senseless slaughter is justified. Queen Reason takes a back seat, it all gets very irrational, very emotional, and aren’t these ISIS guys very nasty people?
The evidence would seem to suggest they are. However, there is evidence to support the contention that they are also a US strategic asset. For instance, when Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at the University of Mainz, in Germany, says that “the most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” what we have is someone who can hardly be accused of an anti-Western or anti-US position directly pointing to the West’s allies as being the banker behind ISIS. Michel Chossudovsky goes further when he asserts that the creation of ISIS is all part of Washington’s plan to carve up the Middle East.
However, while that thesis is worthy of consideration, it might be appropriate to look specifically at Britain’s more immediate aim in lining up behind the US. According to Paul Mitchel that aim is “to use ISIS as a pretext to reverse the climbdown last year, when plans to bomb Syria were derailed.” Remember, a resolution to bomb Syria was defeated in the UK parliament last August? Well, of course, you don’t, and if you could, you are hardly likely to put two and two together. The fact is the nasty men being shown on your television screens are only a pretext for another illegal war.