The rats are jumping ship.\u00a0Obama’s strongest allies can’t stomach the stench of lies that are the foundation of the war effort against Syria. Even England, whose entire foreign policy is reduced to asking “how high?” when the U.S. says “jump,\u201d opted to stay grounded for Obama’s war drive.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
The Arab League<\/a>, too, having long been considered a puppet show by U.S. foreign policy, has cut its strings.\u00a0The UN Security Council \u2013 after having learned not to trust Obama in Libya \u2013 also refuses to give permission for an attack. Which leaves France \u2013 the former colonial master of Syria \u2013 to fill England’s shoes as the token “important” European nation to give the attack a thin coat of “international” support.\u00a0But England’s insolence will surely make an impression on the French public, who voted in a “socialist” president, presumably not to act as a warmonger.<\/p>\n Obama has offered zero evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the most recent chemical weapons attack.\u00a0<\/span>UN investigator Carla Del Ponte<\/a> blamed the U.S.-backed rebels for a previous chemical weapons attack, so if one were to presume guilt, it would flow towards the rebels.<\/p>\n While foreign nations instantly recognized Obama’s war song as a plagiarism of President Bush’s lyrics used to start a war on Iraq, sections of the American public have been fooled by Obama’s mellowing tone.\u00a0The soft, reassuring sound of “limited strikes” that will last “hours, not days” has a calming effect on the nerves of the American public, who are essentially being told that Syria needs a light slap on the wrist for being “bad,\u201d after which everything will return to normal; no U.S. troops need die. No big deal, really.<\/p>\n But, of course, any military action in the Middle East is a big deal. With each new war the U.S. wages in the region, tensions rise, self defense preparations are made, and regional alliances are readied to act as deterrents.\u00a0The nations not aligned with U.S. foreign policy \u2013 and there are many \u2013 are desperate to stop the U.S.’ bloody march across the Middle East.<\/p>\n Americans don’t understand how the Iraq war fundamentally changed the Middle East.\u00a0The U.S. Government is deeply hated by the vast majority of people in the region for having destroyed Iraq, once viewed by many as a proud Arab nation. Attacking another nation in the heart of the Middle East \u2013 that millions of Arabs have an equally strong affinity for \u2013 will create massive “blowback.\u201d<\/p>\n No matter how “limited” the strike, bombing a foreign nation is a major act of war.\u00a0In fact, after WWII the Nuremberg trial concluded that the Nazis\u2019 “supreme international crime” was not genocide or holocaust, but waging aggressive war, since all other war crimes were spawned from this original sin.\u00a0Of course, Obama’s aggressive war plans<\/a> involve more than tossing a couple of missiles at some Syrian tanks.\u00a0That is why he’s moved five Navy destroyers into the region<\/a>.<\/p>\n It is also presumably why \u2013 as reported by the French daily Le Figaro<\/a> \u2013 hundreds U.S. Special Forces and “trained militant fighters” entered Syria on August 17.<\/p>\n It has widely been speculated that the real intention of attacking Syria is to prop up Obama’s ailing rebels, who have received massive U.S. support in the form of guns, training, and money, for \u2013according to The New York Times<\/a> \u2013 almost two years now, and possibly longer.\u00a0It’s an undisputed fact<\/a> that Islamic extremists militias are the most powerful fighting forces in the opposition to Assad; if he falls then they will be in power.<\/p>\n If only a tiny bombing campaign is launched, then it’s certain that more bombings will take place at a later date because the U.S.-backed extremist rebels need much more assistance than that to have any hope of beating Assad.\u00a0To change the balance of forces between Obama’s essentially beaten rebels and the Syrian government will require a massive bombing campaign, along the lines of Libya.<\/p>\n One shouldn’t forget the chain of events in Libya: After the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels were facing defeat, Obama exploited the UN’s \u201cnaivety\u201d by claiming that “immediate action” had to be taken to prevent the slaughter of thousands of Libyans.\u00a0The UN stupidly agreed to a vague resolution about “protecting civilians,\u201d which Obama immediately used as a pretext to wage aggressive war and regime change,\u00a0dropping thousands of bombs on Libya via fighter jets that attacked both military and civilian targets, tearing apart the nation’s seams in the process.\u00a0Vijay Prashad’s excellent book, \u201cArab Spring, Libyan Winter<\/a>\u201d covers the conflict in depth.<\/p>\n After the Libyan example, the UN is immune to Obama’s lies.\u00a0So now the hardest part about waging war against Syria is starting it.\u00a0And after the war foot is in the door, the logic of war immediately takes over, which instantly creates new, unforeseen dynamics, usually in the direction of expansion. It’s very possible that this “unforeseen” element of war is exactly what Obama is planning on.<\/p>\n For example, any sane military analyst expects Syria to defend itself.\u00a0And Syria is much more capable of doing so than Libya or Iraq were.\u00a0The American public isn’t prepared for this, since it essentially has been told that Syria would submissively accept its punishment, perhaps after throwing a loud tantrum.<\/p>\n