The
Insanity of Another Mideast War
In
1939 and 1940, Hitler conquered the great majority of Europe. You
will no doubt recall from your high school history classes that he
did very well in his military excursions, or at least at first.
Austria and Czechoslovakia fell first, then Poland, followed by
Holland, Belgium and France. By that time Spain and Italy were
already aligned with Hitler's Germany. Then, Hitler attacked Great
Britain but failed – twice – and things started going downhill
from there for Nazi Germany. Failing to conquer the British Isles got
Hitler flustered. So, by the summer of 1941, Hitler decided to attack
Russia, a country more than ten times the size of Germany, whose
military prowess was more than a match for the German armed forces.
That December, Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, which got
America involved in WW2. Germany then declared war on the US, and
vice-versa. So, Germany found itself fighting a war on 2 fronts: one
East of Germany with Russia, the other West of Germany with America.
Germany ended up getting obliterated when it took on more military
opponents than it could handle.
I
find it more than a little disturbing that our country's military is
in the process of making the same mistake Hitler made over 70 years
ago. We have troops and so-called “contractors” – a barely
concealed pronoun for “black ops” mercenaries – in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, plus the Balkans and Germany in
Europe, and that's not counting more than 100 countries globally. As
of this coming week, president Obama is going to take his case – or
more accurately that of the US military-industrial complex – to
Congress and to the American people. Speaking as a person who is
opposed to waging warfare, and having concluded long ago that war is
obscenely immoral, I am vehemently opposed to any so-called “limited”
engagements with Syria. President Bush and his advisers either didn’t
know or didn’t care about the probable consequences of their
decision to invade and occupy Iraq back in 2003. This resulted in the
following:
- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 Americans dead;
- Millions of Iraqis and Americans wounded physically and psychologically;
- Legions of young men of the region now experienced in warfare and for hire moving from Iraq to Libya to Syria;
- The Iraqi “democratic” government, which is evidently unable to control the whirlwind of sectarian violence that is now killing and maiming hundreds each week.
Although
the U.S. invaded and occupied Afghanistan under a different
rationale, it is very important to acknowledge the tens of thousands
of Afghan citizens who have been killed or wounded in the U.S. war in
Afghanistan. The further consequences of the Afghan war was several
thousand Americans dead and tens of thousands maimed, wounded or
injured. Let's now fast forward to the present day, where President
Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military
attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are repeatedly warning
about the risks. In a letter to the Senate Armed Services committee,
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey
wrote last month said, “As we weigh our options, we should be able
to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us
toward the intended outcome.” “Once we take action, we should be
prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
General James Mattis, who retired
recently as head of the U.S. Central Command, said last month at a
security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation
to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of
this, this is going to be a full throttle, very, very serious war.”
That's right, general. An all-out brawl in the Middle East which
could easily trigger World War Three. We can make some
educated guesses of what the “unintended consequences” could be:
- Syrian anti-aircraft batteries will fire their rockets at incoming U.S. missiles.
- Many Syrians on the ground will die and both the U.S. and Syrian governments will say the deaths are the fault of the other.
- The U.S. Embassy in Damascus will be attacked and burned, as may other U.S. Embassies and businesses in the Middle East.
- Syria might also launch rockets toward the U.S. ally in the region—Israel.
- Israel would launch bombing missions on Syria as it has three times in the past two years and perhaps take the opportunity to launch an attack on Syria’s strongest ally in the region – Iran.
- Iran, a country with a population of 80 million and having the largest military in the region untouched by war in the past 25 years, might retaliate with missiles aimed toward Israel and toward nearby U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, Turkey, Bahrain and Qatar.
- Iran could block the Straits of Hormuz and impede the transport of oil out of the Persian Gulf.
“What
is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a
retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning
who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military
leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime
change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.”
Could
there be an underlying reason to attack Syria that is being concealed
from the American people? There sure is. Let me give you the short
version of what's being done and why. In
an August 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret
‘End-game’ Memo, columnist, journalist and blogger Greg Palast
posted evidence of a secret late-1990s plan devised by Wall Street
and U.S. Treasury officials to open banking to the lucrative
derivatives business. The cynically named “end-game”
would require not just coercing support among World Trade
Organization members, but taking down those countries refusing to
join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including
Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. As of this writing, the only one of
those four countries still standing is Iran. In most Islamic
countries, banks are largely state-owned, and usury – charging rent
for the “use” of money, hence the name – is viewed as a sin, if
not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent
extraction by private middlemen. Not all these countries were
Islamic. Forty percent of banks globally are publicly-owned. They are
largely in the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China —
which house forty percent of the global population. To make the world
safe for usury, these rogue states had to be silenced by other means.
Having failed to succumb to economic coercion, they wound up in the
cross-hairs of the powerful US military. In this August 22nd article,
Greg Palast posted a screen shot of a 1997 memo from Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner, then Assistant Secretary of International
Affairs under Robert Rubin, to Larry Summers, then Deputy Secretary
of the Treasury. Geithner referred in the memo to the “end-game of
WTO financial services negotiations”.
The
game then in play was the deregulation of banks so that they could
gamble in the lucrative new field of derivatives. But the plan
required more than just deregulating US banks. Banking controls had
to be eliminated globally so that money would not flee to nations
with safer banking laws. The “endgame” was to achieve this global
deregulation through an obscure addendum to the international trade
agreements policed by the World Trade Organization, called the
Financial Services Agreement. Palast wrote:
“Until
the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with
trade in goods–that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules
ginned-up by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept
trade in "bads" – toxic assets like financial
derivatives. Until the bankers' re-draft of the FSA, each nation
controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new
rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to
Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives "products." And
all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own
Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the
investment banks that gamble with derivatives. WTO members were
induced to sign the agreement by threatening their access to global
markets if they refused”.
That
was the fate of countries in the WTO, but Palast did not discuss
those that were not in that organization at all, including Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. These seven
countries were named by U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) in a 2007
“Democracy Now” interview as the new 'rogue states' being
targeted for take down after September 11, 2001. He said that about
10 days after 9-11, he was told by a general that the decision had
been made to go to war with Iraq. Later, the same general said they
planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. What did these countries
have in common? Besides being Islamic, they were not members either
of the WTO or of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That
left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’
central bank in Switzerland. Other countries later identified as
'rogue states' that were also not members of the BIS included North
Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan. Does everybody else reading this see
the pattern that has developed here as clearly as I do? I am sure of
it! There was a nonfiction book published a couple of years ago
titled, “War Is A Lie”. As you can see from the above facts I
have gathered, that is absolutely true.
This
leads to a loaded question, maybe even literally. Having learned what
the American public is currently learning about all of the above, the
endless wars, the NSA spying, the unauthorized military actions
overseas, and the inescapable fact that our entire government has
been bought and paid for by corporate America as well as Wall Street
(even to the point that our country is becoming dysfunctional?),
could opposition by a war-weary American public to US involvement in
Syria lead to another series of antiwar protests such as what America
experienced from the mid-60's until the early 70's? When we add to
this mix the multitudes of unemployed, or grossly underemployed,
American workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas for pennies on
the dollar, the millions of pensioners who got cheated out of their
retirement savings when their former employers closed down, and still
more multitudes of unemployed young adults, some with Masters
degrees, who are stuck living with their parents while trying to pay
off student loans costing more than a typical mortgage, then you have
a recipe for civil unrest of the highest magnitude. The March on
Washington in August 1963 would seem like child's play by comparison.
To those who may disagree, I would only tell you to look around you,
and check out what's been happening since the 2011 Arab Spring. What
started in Tunisia spread east to Egypt, and then north across the
Mediterranean to Greece, and then west to Spain. During the
Movement's crossing of the Mediterranean, some embers fell over
Syria, and that entire country has become engulfed, and it has been
burning out of control for quite some time now. The exact same
scenario is poised to play out here in the US. All of the identical
ingredients are already there. The only remaining question is, what
will be the spark that sets it off? If not another war that nobody
wants, then it will be something else that is currently not
foreseeable. But you can bet the very shoes on our feet that it will.
Americans
will have to decide for themselves who will represent them once they
recognize and accept that both major parties are in the employ of the
corporate interests that fund their campaigns. We may as well include
the possibility that we may start all over again, with just the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the framework upon which it
will rest. When they do, they will abandon the myth of the two-party
system and realize that solving the problems threatening the
viability of the American experiment in democracy is more important
than ideology. How one wants to describe the system of government
will be unimportant if we hand complete control of it to a police
state that operates exclusively in the interest of the economic
elite.
Events
are conspiring that seem to be leading inevitably to the kind of
awakening among average Americans that we have been working towards
since it became obvious that the Anglo-American Empire is no longer
afraid of public opinion in the US or anywhere else. Just as the
power of the banks was revealed by the immunity for the crimes they
committed that crashed the US and world economies, the threatened
assault on Syria is leading to outrage throughout the majority of the
American public. The lies are so transparent that even the Washington
Post began to refer to the "alleged" use of chemical
weapons by the Syrian military in a story about the decisive defeat
in Parliament of a vote to support an illegal, non-UN-sanctioned US
attack.
It
is becoming easier to help newly alert citizens to connect the dots
that have been obvious to some of us for some time. The furious
reaction to the revelations of NSA spying have interrupted the
ongoing partisan nonsense of pundits representing the two sides of
the corporate duopoly long enough for them to agree that the
abridgment of civil liberties has gone on long enough, prompting even
Congress to act. The furor resulted in the near-passage on a
bipartisan vote of the 'Amash amendment' that would have restricted
NSA spying. Such resistance to Presidential overreach of authority to
strip Americans of basic constitutional rights would have been
unthinkable even six months ago. It is only a matter of time before
Americans collectively grasp the idea that war abroad, economic
disaster, and suspension of civil liberties at home are all symptoms
of the same problem: corporate control of the US government. When
they do, they will be ready for the solution. The only question
remaining here is, will the top 1% give back the huge chunks of
America that they have taken over the years, and will governing power
be peacefully returned to “we the people”, or will we have to
take it by force? Remember the wise words of President John F.
Kennedy who once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
There
is no doubt that corruption of the US government by corporations and
wealthy individuals is at the root of the problem. There are many
proposals to do something about it, but the one with legs is the
movement to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively reform
campaign finance and abolish corporate person-hood. When America has
the discussion about why we need such an amendment and what form it
should take, we will be ready to elect representatives who are
willing to cosponsor and vote for it. It is not hard to see that the
mood of the country is shifting away from helpless acceptance of the
theft of what they have assumed is our democracy. Surely a politician
as brilliant as Obama can see it. That raises the interesting
question. Is it possible that he knows that we will not "be the
change" he told us we have to be in 2008 unless things get so
bad that we finally have no choice but to act? Is that why he seems
to be doing nothing to counter the trend toward fascism in America?
We can always hope that those we have accused of blind faith might
have been right in claiming that Obama is playing three-dimensional
chess with a bunch of checker players. Only time will tell, and only
if the movement to take back America for the People continues to
grow. For more info visit
http://www.sandlministries.org/political_activism
and http://www.sandlministries.org/national_strike_movement