It appears that the U.S. Congress may not approve Syrian military actions as proposed by the Obama Administration. The Senate might ratify some type of limited authorization but many sources strongly indicate there are insufficient votes at this time in the House to approve limited air strikes against targets of the Assad Government.
Last week in TMV, I wrote about my personal opposition to mindless military actions when there were no overall military or political purposes. It is not for any President to conduct military actions merely to punish a government that might have gassed 1,500 of its citizens during a continuing messy, bloody civil war while fighting against a number of insurgent groups more odious than itself.
The issue that poison Sarin gas was used is not the principle dispute. However who authorized, ordered and executed the acts are still very debatable. It has been argued that Syrian opposition forces might have created a “false flag” event to bring the U.S. fully into the civil war on their side.
The U.S. military and security industrial complex is anxious for another war – they have their strong supporters within Congress and the Administration. Many other Internet blogs have supported my prior TMV post that a principle concern is the construction and protection of natural gas pipelines through Syria. Certainly the Middle Eastern Sultanates are strongly supportive of U.S. intervention to protect their future profits.
Another reason for U.S. intervention may be to extend the power of the corrupt global banking and financial cartel since Syria was one of the few nations not to approve the surreptitious deregulation plans of the Financial Services Agreement of the World Trade Organization. The recent article articulating this position can be found at Washington’s Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/making-the-world-safe-for-banksters-syria-in-the-cross-hairs.html) by Ellen Brown, http://www.WebofDebt.com.
The reasons for the reluctance of many U.S. House members to vote in favor of the Administration’s Syrian war plans is that an overwhelming majority of Americans, from both political parties who will likely vote in the Midterm 2014 elections, are strongly opposed to this poorly-conceived adventure. Many Americans are war-weary and still remember all the false hype before the Iraqi invasion 10 years ago. There are plenty of massive domestic problems, such as persistent unemployment, long-term joblessness, the long-neglect of our deteriorating transportation infrastructure, and other environmental and economic concerns that require prompt action by the Federal Government.
Most members of Congress would gladly vote in favor of a new war because their largest campaign contributors and the criminal oligarchy that owns and runs this nation are in favor of this diversion. But, on paper (The U.S. Constitution) the country has a requirement and history of being a representational democracy (a Republic) so voters may still count for something – such as deciding which members of Congress will be employed after November 2014. Most of the representatives do not want to scramble to use all their friends and connections at DC political think tanks and lobbying firms, or with prominent law firms back in the “hinterlands” (their districts) in the event they lost their re-election bids. Thus the people, through emails, phone calls, social media and regular U.S. mail, are making their opinions known to their ostensible “representatives.”
A group of radical tea partiers in Congress are voting against the proposed limited Syrian military strike resolutions because they plan to impeach President Obama in the future. The President and members of his cabinet have insisted that he already has the power (given to prior Presidents by prior Congresses) to conduct such limited military actions and he would do it even without Congressional approval this time. But a case for impeachment would be so much easier and clearer if Congress did not approve and the President ignored it.
Many TMV editors, contributors and readers know that I am no fan of President Obama. I was even less enthusiastic about his Predecessor and earlier Administrations and Congresses. I am outside the moronic matrix in which most Americans live that includes pointless partisan politics.
President Obama could be impeached on a number of grounds. For instance he committed high crimes by covering up and deciding not to prosecute egregious and massive crimes by Wall Street. He became an accessory after the fact to these crimes. He chose this policy of destroying the rule of law in the U.S. because his criminal oligarchic friends bribed him to do it. Many Republicans have supported such Wall Street crimes and have been happy to be bribed into complacency by the same oligarchy. Thus an impeachment on these grounds would be completely hypocritical – but not if the President defied Congress with respect to unapproved military actions.
If the U.S. does bomb specific Syrian government targets (with or without Congressional pre-approval) then what? Republicans are girding up for one helluva budget fight in a few weeks that could shut down the Federal Government. Could they start impeachment proceedings at the same time? It doesn’t matter if they never get enough votes in Congress to actual remove a President – the entire process would divert all Washington activities to another fabricated “survival” battle and thus gridlock the Federal government until the 2016 elections. What would happen in Washington if a real military threat appeared or a catastrophic environmental or climatic event occurred during a government shutdown or an impeachment charade?
What if the Syrian government or some of the opposition groups decide to drop Sarin gas on new non-Syrian targets? Some well-written Internet blogs have argued that prior International treaties that dealt with chemical weapons prohibited their use during a war against enemy combatants and citizens – but those same treaties were silent whether it was a violation of international; law if a government or rebel forces poisoned their own citizens or fellow countrymen in an internal civil war.
If Sarin gas killed people in Israel, or at a Mid-east U.S. embassy, would the U.S. electorate and Congress support American military intervention in Syria? What if we could not find out who planted the gas – and even U.N., French and British inspectors could not establish any viable causation links? Should the U.S. threaten Russia, Iran, or someone else? Who should we bomb and to what ends?
It is important for the U.S. Congress to stop a President who says or threatens to do something stupid. It would have been nice had prior Congresses had done that with prior Presidents but perhaps it should start now. Only war-mongering neo-cons scream about the “loss of face” or “credibility” or “embarrassment” on the International stage if Congress does not go along with the moronic proposals of a President who is an incompetent puppet of the criminal oligarchy. I think the overall standing and reputation of the U.S. might be elevated globally if our Congress actually acted on behalf of the large majority of Americans who oppose such a pointless military incursion.
I strongly urge President Obama to dump the entire Syrian fiasco in the laps of the United Nations, Russia and Iran for them to directly address. Essentially it is up to these players to decide what to do with Syria. The U.S. government can and should express its disgust with the Sarin attacks and the vicious civil war, but the U.S. military has no place in it. Even if a Sarin attack occurs in Israeli, France or England, or it occurs at an overseas U.S. embassy or consulate, such an ugly and nasty event would not be on the U.S. homeland and thus it would not justify any rogue military action by the President with or without Congressional support.
Submitted on September 5, 2013 by Marc Pascal, ranting happily from hot, sunny Phoenix, Arizona. My warmest regards to the hapless employees of the NSA, DHS, FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies and private companies who have to go over my TMV posts for alleged embedded terrorist messages.