The lesson of modern Middle Eastern history seems to be that legal channels can be discarded when NATO sees an opportunity to cement its hegemony in this politically volatile region (the fact it’s their fault this region is so volatile is of course not to be mentioned). The world waits with baited breath to see if Washington’s politicians will follow the example of their London peers and reject the suggested act of heinous aggression.
Unfortunately though, as of now it would be incredibly difficult not to hear the drums of war being once again beaten, and beaten to a rhythm eerily similar to the one in 2003. Syria is poised to become a new Iraq, a new Afghanistan, a new Libya; a new victim of NATO’s Middle Eastern policy. As mass graves once again rear their ugly head in the Middle East and the powder keg of extremism and violence explodes, throwing shrapnel, earth and limbs into the sky of the Levant. The people of the world must reflect upon the nature of this conflict and if ‘the slap on the wrist’ tactical strike will shorten the bloodshed.
Obama seems unsatisfied with his barbarous bombardment of Libya, and filling the sky with terror via drones has not quenched their blood lust. Once again it is non-existent evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction that could be the pretence for illegal aggression against a sovereign nation. The faces of the leaders may have changed, the political party’s in power may also have changed but apparently the ‘civilised world’ still resents diplomacy and lusts after the sight of its former colonies burning.
The talk of chemical weapons and massacres which reeks so pungently of hypocrisy have gripped the headlines of the world’s media networks and refused to loosen their grip. But how hollow the words of Cameron and Obama are! Both nations claim to be sure of the Assad government’s responsibility in the 21st of August supposed chemical attack yet neither dare publish evidence to the United Nations Security Council, why? Is it because no substantial evidence of the Syrian government’s involvement exists? Is it because NATO powers need not answer to anyone? Whatever the answer it certifies the illegality of the tactical strike currently being considered.
We must ask ourselves two further questions, will America join the rebels by destroying the world’s oldest cities? And why is NATO/The West liquidating Al-Qaeda in Mali and rhetoric but supporting them in Syria? The first question will resolve itself and hopefully the answer will be negative, the second question is slightly more complex and requires a geopolitical and historical analysis of America’s foreign policy in the region. America certainly planted and fertilised the seedlings of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to weaken the USSR, of course the radical Islamist sect has had somewhat of a falling out with the superpower since. America reinforces its military and political strength by keeping its opponents weak. The alliance between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran is one which poses a serious challenge to America’s unipolarity, thus it must be crushed by Uncle Sam’s fist. A weak Syria means a weakened opposition to Israel and more US influence over the Levant and the wider region. Iran’s soft power seems to be ever more threatening and the Islamic republic doesn’t seem as isolated as America dreamed it was, China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran’s other friends seem somewhat more loyal than Washington would have hoped.
One final question must be asked ‘Can The West morally justify any military action on Syria or even lecture it on chemical weapons usage?’ The answer to both parts of that question is a resounding no. Recent CIA leaks show the US granted approval for Saddam - a monster both loved, hated and then executed depending on which epoch you look at- to use chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and the use of white phosphorus in Iraq in 2003 is a crime of a far worse nature than Assad’s most brutal atrocities, these two examples of America’s involvement in illegal warfare may be selected from many, many others but they serve the purpose. The British were the first to use chemical weapons in the region during WW1 in their fight against the Ottoman Empire and the French seem all too happy to dive headfirst into the Syrian conflict, ready to ‘tactically’ strike away at their former colony. One solid conclusion can be drawn from the current examination of the Syrian crisis and that is that an illegal act of aggression towards Syria would only help the Syrian rebels and lengthen this humanitarian crisis. Assad’s recent victories worry the West, the rebels who they fear and fund may not drag this bloodshed out long enough to damage Iran and strengthen Israel in a substantial way. The people of Syria have certainly been substantially tortured and bloodied though; the people of Syria will further curse Israel and America. If the ‘tactical’ strikes go ahead the streets of Homs, Aleppo, Hama, Damascus and every other Syrian city will see only more corpses piled upon the sides of streets and the roads awash with the blood of both loyalist and rebel.
No one can deny the racism of the US legal system, this is surely proof of how little the nation has changed.