All Articles All Articles


Obama's Planned Strike on Syria and the Problem of Blowback

Obama's Planned Strike on Syria and the Problem of Blowback

By Dennis Loo (9/8/13)

Something to think about which does not seem to have entered the conversation sufficiently: suppose Obama does launch his cruise missiles against Syria to "punish" Assad? (Assad will no doubt be standing out in the open, along with his loyal troops, waving a pistol and daring the U.S. precision-guided missiles to hit him so that he can be properly punished!) What are the consequences in the long-run of the innocents these missiles kill and the anger and desire for revenge that attacks like this provoke?

As those who have been paying attention to the genesis of anti-state terrorism directed towards U.S. targets since the U.S. initially supported with weapons and other assistance, then pulled the rug out from under, anti-Soviet Jihadists like Osama Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, subsequently leading directly to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole by al-Qaeda and then a year later the 9/11 attacks: blowback is an all too real consequence of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy created al-Qaeda. Cynical anti-Soviet manueverings led to al-Qaeda - "if the Muslim fundamentalists are anti-Soviet, then we'll fund them, who cares?!" - which led to 9/11 which led to the "War on Terror" which everyday produces more individuals and groups who want revenge for the injustices committed in the name of the WOT, and so on...

Military powers and especially empires like to think that because they are so military mighty that they can strike at their enemies (and collaterally others) and that their targets will fold up their tents and go home, properly chastized and humiliated when big brother teaches them a lesson they'll never forget. The trouble is, even if you were to accept the notion that killing innocents is acceptable, you can never kill enough people to stop at least some of those who remain who want to take vengeance against you for your unjust killings of their kith and kin.

But then, Realpolitik does not consider blowback. It figures that military might settles all complicated issues and that you can frighten people into submission through sheer force.

Empires by their nature don't "learn lessons." That is why Obama is re-enacting the Bush playbook (and before him, the Clinton, the Bush I, the Reagan, and the Carter playbooks). Empires can only do the awful things that they do because they rest upon and only exist because of massive exploitation and plunder. You can only end these horrors by ending the empire. Needless to say, you don't topple an empire by siding with those who want to go back to the Islamic Caliphate of the 7th-13th centuries. Examine who's most prominent among the Syrian rebels, what do you find? Muslim fundamentalists. Obama seeks to repeat the cycle that Bush so infamously unleashed in its full fury. Obama and his advisers keep saying that this "isn't Iraq." But of course, they're wrong.




0 # Daniel Paul Gomez 2013-09-08 21:15
You can also examine the many who are condemning a U.S attack on Syria. Iran and Iraq have sided together on that position and have been "growing" ever since the U.S left occupancy in 2011. Then you have the Brits, Russia and the majority of the U.S public condemning this.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Daniel Paul Gomez 2013-09-08 21:19
Also what do you think of "Rather than issue punitive measures, Kerry asked the ministers to find ways to encourage Israeli-Palesti nian peace negotiations, which resumed in July." do you think Kerry is kissing up to palestinian's now?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-09-08 21:23
The US, through Kerry, is trying to quell Palestinian protest and fury at their ongoing oppression by, among other things, trying to appear as if they are trying to be fair to both sides. So I don't think Kerry's kissing up to Palestinians. The "peace" negotiations are now and have always been one in which the Palestinians are supposed to peacefully accept being dispossessed by Israel.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Daniel Paul Gomez 2013-09-08 23:29
So Kerry is trying to seem peaceful on both sides, both israel and palestine. Is this beneficial to the U.S as far as the Syria conflict goes? Because im trying to make parralels but I lack knowledge on a number of middle eastern relations.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-09-08 23:50
Ever since especially the 1979 Iranian Revolution when the US lost its staunch ally in the (fascist) Shah of Iran, the US has been a) trying to recoup its former dominance in Iran and b) relied even more heavily on its alliance with Israel. Israel's Zionist government is the most heavily subsidized foreign power by the US and its interests & that of the US largely agree. Without the US subsidy Israel would not likely be around at all - that is how heavily it relies on the US.

The Israeli gov't understands that the US isn't a peaceful power. They are allies in reaction. What we have is a situation where the US maneuvers on various fronts, including attempting to quell unrest from the Palestinians and the Arab world's peoples more generally.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Daniel 2013-09-09 02:42
My understanding based off this is since the U.S lost its ally the shah, it has relied more heavily on its powerful middle eastern ally which is the israeli gov't/zionists to gain control of the arab world more generally, and in this case today Syria, because this is a spot on the map that is "up for grabs" to the forces in play. Is the U.S still using the fundamentalist to their advantage in the syrian conflict currently? or have they lost ties now that thev fundamentalists have be taking syria in their own hands??
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-09-09 03:49
Yes. As to the fundamentalists , the US is trying to use them but their use of them is similar to their use of them during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan: they are like a tiger who you're trying to ride the back of.

Their behind-scenes exploitation and covert support for fundamentalists shows how deceitful their public condemnation of them is in their WOT.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # How to Win Your 2014-03-30 21:41
Your means of descгibing the ѡhօle thing in tҺis piece oof writin іs in fact
fastidious, aall be capable of simply understand it,
Thanks a lot.

Also ѵisit my website :: How
tο Win Your Boyfriend Back:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code