The Syrian Bear Trap Part 2.

“He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties….”

You might be thinking that this is an excerpt from an Obama press conference citing the reasons for a strike against Bashar al Assad’s Syria. Yet, these words were spoken by George W Bush at the United Nations on 13 September 2002, and the above quote ends with…,

“Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.”

Some things never change.
With the UN weapons inspectors pulling out of Syria with the “possible” evidence of chemical attacks, it seems that the US is hell bent on attacking Syria and “punishing the country for using chemical weapons”. It must be noted that the weapons inspectors would only have evidence concerning the occurrence of chemical attack and not who did it. This leaves the field open for the US to assert its “moral authority” to attack Syria based on its own “reliable” intelligence. The possible US attack on Syria would again throw the region into geopolitical turmoil the likes of which can only be matched by the Iraq invasion disaster.
But the US is not alone. France –fresh and confident from its adventures in Mali and Libya- is ready to assist the US in “punishing” Syria for using chemical weapons. The UK’s parliament has thankfully voted against any intervention.
The American public, in a latest poll, has voted against any intervention in Syria. 53% say that they are against US military intervention in Syria, though it must be acknowledged that the numbers were higher in the previous week (60%).  Even the officers in the US military have doubts regarding the wisdom of attacking Syria when they are already coping with the economic and military battering that the US has received from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian and Hezbollah threat is always present. Thus, the case against any intervention in Syria is strong.
So why is the American administration hell-bent on engaging in another military adventure which nearly everyone thinks will probably end like another Afghanistan?
The answer can be sought in the preparations that the jihadis in Syria are making for the coming American strike. Many jihadist organisations are shifting bases, evacuating headquarters, moving equipment and even finding safe hiding places in the mountainous terrains. They think that the coming US attack would also be aimed at jihadist organisations that control vast swathes of land in the northern and eastern provinces of Syria. In a statement, the jihadi outfit Fatehul Islam has said that,

“For every US missile that hits a regime target, another will strike a jihadi base.”

The bread and butter of any standard jihadi outfit depends on how well it fights and speaks against US hegemony. This might be a heaven sent opportunity for the jihadis to entangle the US in another war.
It must be asked that who will benefit if the US destroys President Assad’s military strike capability.
The only winner in that case would be Jabahat-al-Nusra and other jihadi outfits who have travelled all across the world to take part in the war. Indeed, it is now becoming increasingly evident that if President Assad falls and when the Syrian civil war is over and done with, Jabahat al Nusra would eventually fall out with Free Syria Army (FSA) (endorsed by the US and NATO and is the official rebel army in Syria) and with seasoned fighters coming from Iraq and other neighbouring battlefields, it would eventually succeed in stopping the FSA from gaining further power and quite possibly open the way for bringing the Syrian war into Iraq against the Shiite government over there, led by Nouri Al Maliki. The Syrian war would spill all over the middle-east and the chemical weapons that Assad allegedly possesses might fall into very wrong hands.
This might be reason as to why the US wants to have a presence in Syria; to stop the jihadists from gaining any further control and chemical attacks were only an excuse. Other than that, we only have the “USA has a moral duty” explanations, and no one in the post-World War II history has ever bought that.
The US might find itself caught in a bear trap that it laid for the Soviets.

This blog of mine was  published on Express Tribune on August 31, 2013. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/18694/the-us-war-on-afghanistan-is-over-syria-is-the-new-project/

Black Contents of a White Memo

Image Courtesy www.boilingfrogspost.com

This is in response to the recent blog on The Express Tribune by the name of, Can the US Government kill American Citizens?

Although I agree with the author on the point that any person found guilty of treason should be punished, I would like to add a few points of my own, and clarify some confusion caused over the White memo.

A brief summary of the White memo is provided below:

1) The White memo lays down the legal justification for targeting persons through drones. US Citizens, who are al Qaeda operational leaders, members and sympathisers, are the intended targets.

2) USA assumes that al Qaeda is continually planning terrorist activities and thus US drones can strike al Qaeda suspects anywhere, any time. Even if the attack was never planned in actuality, nor had any threat appeared, but just on the off chance, US Administration can authorise a drone strike so that any ‘supposed’ threat might be neutralised.

3) If you can’t capture a “suspected” terrorist for questioning and interrogation because you “think” that, your troops might encounter mortal risk, then just carry out a drone strike and save the trouble of interrogation and tedious judicial process.

4) According to the memo, even if there is no evidence that the suspects are an imminent threat, but only believes and suspects that they “might” be an imminent threat, the USA has the authority to strike them whenever and wherever.

5) Without even confirmation from interrogation and just on the suspicion that the suspect has not renounced the terrorist activities, the USA can assassinate him.

6) USA assumes that killing of suspected al Qaeda members before they even become imminent threats is justified because the US Administration thinks so. So, please repose your faith in it and don’t question it.

7) The memo doesn’t define the word ‘imminent’. It doesn’t tell how imminent a threat has to be in order for a drone strike to be called. From the document, one gets an impression that if US officials think that such and such persons will come together to plan something sinister, they become qualified targets.

Dear readers, this is an extraordinary document, the implications of whose contents are horrific.

USA is fighting violence with more extreme violence. The issue is not about killing known terrorists who are US citizens. The issue is about killing “suspected terrorists” about whom the government will not share any information, nor the decisions will be available for judicial review, so that the government is not answerable to judiciary and cannot be held responsible even if the drone strike missed the intended target and killed innocent civilians.

There is a huge difference between killing a suspect and killing a known terrorist.

Yes, those US citizens who are promulgating extremism and threatening the US president must be brought to book, but killing and assassinating before the crime was even committed?

Before they are even brought under trial?

That is just plain barbaric and puts US administration at par with al Qaeda.

Through this memo, one gets the impression that the US government is advocating a ‘shoot first ask questions later’ policy and one has to ask, whom will it benefit?

image courtesy  blogdogcicle.blogspot.com

The first benefactor of this drone war would be al Qaeda itself. Remember, al Qaeda and its allies are fighting not just on the military front but on the ideological front as well. It is a hateful and detestable ideology that won’t be just eliminated by drone strikes but only gain followers due to unjustified American violence.

The second benefactor would be the neo-cons and defence contractors. The neo-cons, thanks to Obama, have just continued George W Bush’s policies without any hindrances and the appointment of Bush era CIA torturer John Brennan proves that.

The defence contractors would benefit because of increased orders for more drones and associated technologies, which would mean more cash rolling in.

Even if we assume that drone attacks have achieved intended military results (corroborated by the near wipe out of top al Qaeda cadre), then do they guarantee that the hateful ideology of al Qaeda would just disappear with it leaders?

Thanks to continuous military adventures and arrogant outreach efforts by USA, al Qaeda’s offshoots have spread far and wide, who act quite independent from the mother organisation and are even more eager to spread destruction.

If the American drone policy remains the same as evident from the White memo, then the issue of Islamic radicalism might never be resolved.

Frankly, I found the White memo as repugnant as Mein Kampf.

Read more by Jamaluddin here or follow him on Twitter @einsjam