Well, I heard several discussions today and read one article which indicate
that the gas attack, once again, was not made by the Syrian government, but
was an explosion of weapons in rebel hands. And the CIA reported this to
Trump. One theory is that these were weapons that Hillary Clinton had
transferred from Libya to Turkey which got into the hands of rebel groups.
The theory is that Trump attacked the Syrian airfield in order to stop all
of the talk about his relationship with the Russians.
Miriam
Truthdig
Washington's Supreme Hypocrisy on Chemical Weapons and Civilian Deaths
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/washingtons_supreme_hypocrisy_on_chemica
l_weapons_civilian_deaths_20170406/
Posted on Apr 6, 2017
By Juan Cole (http://www.truthdig.com/staff/juan_cole) / Informed Comment
(https://www.juancole.com/2017/04/washingtons-hypocrisy-chemical.html)
The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army
(http://aranews.net/2017/04/chemical-attack-kills-dozens-northern-syria/ ;)
in Idlib is an atrocity and the pictures of dead children tug at the heart.
But the outrage of American politicians inside the beltway about it draws on
the myths of American exceptionalism and Alzheimer's of the political
memory. It is also very suspicious in that the loudest voices of sympathy
are the ones closest to the US military industrial complex, which has been
regretting the missed opportunity of a Syria War.
If Trump and his circle are so tenderhearted, why did they propose, on
taking office, permanently banning Syrian refugees from the United States?
If it weren't for some feisty Federal court judges, the Syrian refugee ban
would be in effect. How sympathetic can you be if you don't even want to
give children asylum from these heinous atrocities?
Then, why is how children are killed in war more important than that they
are killed? The most conservative estimate for deaths in the Syrian Civil
War is some 300,000, and you figure that although many of those are fighting
men, some large proportion (33%?) are innocent noncombatants, including tens
of thousands of children. Rebel groups have also killed tens of thousands of
people, including innocent civilians, though the regime has been more deadly
because better-armed. Why was it all right for the regime to use
indiscriminate bombing and barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods, but if
they kill some 80 people with gas all of a sudden the Beltway Bandits want
to Send in Trump?
And by the way, all the time the US was occupying Iraq, 2003-2011, it was
intensively bombing civilian neighborhoods to get at Iraqi militias. It
certainly killed thousands of innocent civilians this way, including
children. I can remember just one Saturday afternoon in 2004, the US bombed
Amara over and over again to get at the Shiite Mahdi Army militia. The
Agence France Presse had a stringer on the ground who reported 84 deaths.
They weren't all combatants. The US media refused to run the AFP report.
All this isn't new. The US has long had a doctrine that it is all right to
inflict large civilian casualties with the aim of limited troop casualties.
The United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after
which there were thousands and thousands of dead children. Some were
carbonized so quickly that nothing was left of them but shadows on the wall.
Little children. The US security elite has never apologized for this war
crime and continues to menace other nations with this kind of indiscriminate
and unspeakable violence every time it announces that "all options are on
the table."
As for chemical weapons, the US has studiedly avoided signing any of the
international instruments, beginning with the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning
chemical weapons use.
The Reagan administration shamefully ran interference for six years
(http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hussein_trial ;) as Saddam Hussein of
Iraq systematically deployed chemical weapons against Iranian troops at the
front. Everyone knew
(http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helpe
d-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/) this was going on. After then Searle CEO
Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in 1983 and famously shook Saddam's hand,
George Schultz's State Department complained about Saddam's chem, provoking
angry puzzlement in Baghdad. Did Reagan want a new ally against Khomeini's
Iran, or not? Reagan had State back down. And, indeed, when Iran appealed
to the United Nations Security Council to condemn what Iraq was doing, the
Reagan administration maneuvered at the UN to make sure that Iran's case was
not taken up.
I saw an Iranian survivor interviewed. He said he wished he had been killed
instead. His lungs had been permanently scarred by mustard gas, and every
breath he took was pure torture. Imagine how many breaths a person draws
every day.
Emboldened by Reagan's running cover for him at the UN, Saddam went on to
have his relative "Chemical Ali" al-Tikriti use sarin gas on the Kurdish
town of Halabja. Again, lots of little children were among the thousands
dead. Some were walking to school and their little hands were still
grasping lunch pails. George H. W. Bush was vice president and must have
been in the loop. His son, W., later invaded Iraq and gave as one of his
pretexts that Saddam had used 'weapons of mass destruction' on 'his own
people.'
Iraq used chemical weapons for the same reason that the Syrian army does.
They are deployed to level the playing field in the face of superior
manpower on the other side. Saddam Hussein had a country of 16 million and
invaded a country of some 40 million. US military doctrine of the time was
you should only invade at a ratio of 3 to 1. So Saddam would have needed a
country of 120 million to invade Iran. Needless to say, he lost the war
very badly after an initial lightning invasion, since Iran could always over
time raise a much bigger army than Saddam could. Hence the use of mustard
gas and sarin gas on Iranian troops at the front.
Some Syrian military units have a chem team in case they face being
overwhelmed by a more numerous enemy. The Syrian army was 300,000 before
the war. It is at most 50,000 now. That number is not sufficient to
control the whole country, though with the help of the Lebanese Hizbullah
and Iraqi militias and some Afghans dragooned by the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps, plus vigorous Russian air support, they have been able to
fight off the rebels and to take most urban areas. The small number of
troops means that when they fight in a rebel-held territory like Idlib
Province, they are tempted to deploy chemical weapons to offset their small
numbers.
But it is indiscriminate fire and reckless disregard for innocent life that
is the war crime here, and indeed a repeated pattern of war crimes is
considered a crime against humanity.
By the way, Russian bombing has often been indiscriminate, but somehow
Moscow has skated on war crimes accusations growing out of its heavy-handed
role in Syria.
As for those decrying Obama inaction they need to, like, read the news
sometime. For the past several years the US has intervened in Syria in two
ways. President Obama used the Saudis to deliver money and weaponry to some
40 "vetted" groups supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, which is
certified as having no ties to al-Qaeda or international extremism. Except
that several of these groups have in fact formed battlefield alliances with
al-Qaeda in Syria (was Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fateh Sham or the Syrian
Conquest Front).
Why in the world the US government should have backed groups like the Saudi
favorite Army of Islam, which wanted to oppress or kill non-Sunnis baffles
me. The rebel groups committed their own massacres
(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24486627 ;) of civilians.
The other US intervention has been thousands of bombing raids against Daesh
(ISIS, ISIL) in Raqqa and Deir al-Zor in Syria's far east.
Neither of these interventions has been effective to date, and both
certainly have raised the death toll in the Civil War, including the
civilian death toll.
Trump can't stop Syria from using poison gas by bombing Damascus. Since
he's such a good buddy of Russian president Vladimir Putin, maybe he could
pressure Putin to have Bashar al-Assad cut it out.
But that somehow the Syria situation can be made better if only Donald J.
Trump would stick his fingers into it is a wildly implausible premise.
The Best We Could Do
The Pandora's Box of War
Mainstream Democrats Prevail Over Sanders Supporters in California
Congressional Race
Corporate Media and D.C. Politicians Praise Trump's Syrian Airstrikes
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
gumgum-verify
ExelateDataExelateData