war lies from the Ministry of Truth?

[David Morris]

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.html

… Obama has also been getting substantial pressure from the French and
British to do something, and French intelligence has been the most vigorous
in pressing the case that the Baath regime in Syria crossed the red line of
chemical weapons use. France and Britain have longstanding imperial
interests in the Levant, and both fear that the Syrian civil war could
produce terrorism that spills over onto Western Europe. Unstated is that it
may also produce a refugee crisis in which tens or hundreds of thousands of
new immigrants wash up on European soil. Immigrants and terrorism are two
key issues in French and British politics, and may be spurring them to
action.

Likewise, the Baath and Hizbullah counter-attacks against the opposition in
the past two months have yielded battlefield victories and the reassertion
of Damascus over parts of the country that had been lost. Russian support
appears to have increased in kind and quality, and Iran is playing the
Shiite card. If someone doesn’t intervene soon on the rebel side,
Washington hawks realize, the war might soon be over and the pro-Iranian
regime will survive (just as Algeria’s did).

Obama seems to be attempting to find a face-saving way of getting a little
involved but not too much, by sending light
weaponry<http://www.voanews.com/content/un-nearly-93000-dead-in-syria-conflict/1680828.html>
(which
of course is not what the rebels need). [and now by a few strategic strikes
from the air.]

[Bill] Clinton compared what the US could do in Syria to Ronald Reagan’s
effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. But that covert
operation of giving billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry to Afghan
jihadis was a huge catastrophe, contributing to the creation and rise of
al-Qaeda and setting the background for the emergence of the Taliban. It
surely would have been far preferable to let the Soviets try to build a
socialist state in Afghanistan, as they tried in Uzbekistan. The whole
thing would have fallen apart in 1991 anyway. (There is no truth to the
notion that the Afghanistan war bled the Soviet Union or contributed to its
collapse. Soviet military spending was flat in the 1980s). The Reagan jihad
destabilized both Afghanistan and Pakistan and left us with a long term
terrorism problem. We let the Soviets alone in Kazakhstan, and we never
worry about today’s Kazakhstan.

You never, ever want to encourage the rise of private militias and flood a
country with high- powered weaponry.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, wrote:

> Who or what is obliging the President of the US to act against the
> interests of his country, David?
>
> LK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Morris **
> Sent: Aug 27, 2013 7:03 PM
> To: "kelber at mindspring.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'kelber at mindspring.com');>" **
> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" **
> Subject: Re: war lies from the Ministry of Truth?
>
> His intentions might not be willing.  They might be obligatory.
>
> There is no gain for the US in this war.  That's why Obama has been so
> reluctant to arm the rebels or to act in any other military way.  This is
> obvious.
>
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, wrote:
>
>>
>> There's nothing secret about Obama's intention to get the US involved in
>> Syria - it's a matter of open discussion, with the situation escalating by
>> the hour. As the Washington Post put it yesterday:
>>
>> "President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would
>> be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for
>> Syria's use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the
>> United States out of deeper involvement in that country's civil war,
>> according to senior administration officials."
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
>>
>> What a curious explanation for bombarding a country -- one wracked by
>> civil war, its citizens oppressed, murdered, and in flight -- with
>> long-range missiles: "punishment." Not: "it will save lives," or "it will
>> pave the way to negotiations (not that I personally think missiles can ever
>> do that, but still ...)" The goal is "punishment." I agree absolutely with
>> Joseph that Obama and Co.'s motivations have little to do with the
>> interests of the Syrian people (who will apparently be unscathed by the
>> "limited" rain of bombs upon their country, or if scathed, will presumably
>> prefer being maimed and killed by US bombs over their own government's
>> purported chemicals), and are of no use to the American populace as well.
>> And it's become abundantly clear that the rebel forces are not, as a whole,
>> pillars of democracy. So why send in the cruise missiles? It's great for
>> military contractors, that's for sure. Or an extremely expensive (in terms
>> of lives, money and political instability) to "send a message" to Iran.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> If you think Obama secretly wants to get the US involved in Syria, then I
>> suggest your logic is akin to the Egyptians who think we are secretly
>> allied with the Muslim Brotherhod.  No matter what the US does in Syria,
>> its interests would be better served by NOT doing.  Most everybody can see
>> that reality, but some would like to ignore it.
>>
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, Joseph Tracy  wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else wondering about the convenient setting up and crossing of the
>> chemical weapons red line in Syria. Those photos of children who look like
>> they are holding their eyes closed make anyone else a bit nervous? Anyone
>> else smell a little yellow cake, some WMD, Gulf of Tonkin? Why should we
>> trust the people who start these wars, and then go to extreme lengths to
>> prevent the truth of what they do from being known? Haven't they lied every
>>  time?
>>
>>
>>
>> What makes it ok to kill children in a drone strike, or to endorse
>> Saddam's use of nerve gas against Iran but wrong for the Syrian government
>> to " defend itself" .  We sell every weapon known to man except nuclear, ok
>> Israel's use of white phosphorus,  use cluster bombs, depleted uranium.
>> Isn't Killing civilians just wrong? Shouldn't we start by cleaning our own
>> house?  Is the US government the one in a position to scold and set things
>> right after the debacle in Iraq?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it that we are only deeply concerned about the human rights of a
>> people when we want to go to war with them or starve them?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there really some massive groundswell of US citizens desperate to
>> intervene in a civil war in Syria?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is Obama really  the superman of truth, justice and the American way
>> whose only problem is the nefarious use of kryptonite by evil republicans?
>>  Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of American militarism on the go!
>> We spy on you because we love you. It's for your own good.
>>
> ******
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130828/9fd9c57b/attachment.html>