While Senators could not be troubled to go to a simple briefing on the NSA warrantless surveillance program and some like South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham shrugged off the importance of privacy, the same Senators are demanding the intervention into yet another war in the Middle East. It does not matter that we have major educational and environmental programs being cut for lack of funding. It does not matter that our invasion in Iraq is an ongoing nightmare. We are being told to intervene in a civil war where Sunnis and Shia are carrying out centuries of hatred with atrocities on both sides. Senators want the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone which would involve direct attacks on Serbian air forces while President Obama has already pledged to directly support rebel forces with arms.
Graham is frustrated by the delay in intervening into a fourth war: “We need to create a no-fly zone. We cannot take air power out of the equation.” His colleague, Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, has proclaimed “A no-fly zone may be the ultimate tactic that needs to be taken.”
Once again, the media is almost uniformly supporting this hawkish support by framing the question as to how far we should militarily intervene as opposed to whether we should intervene at all.
While Graham referred to the area as a “powder keg,” he is desperate for us to join the fighting through a no fly zone as well as military support. In the meantime, Russia has said it will oppose any no fly zone. Russia is of course the only nation with as conflicted a policy as our own. While denouncing Obama’s decision to supply arms to the rebels as destabilizing, Russia is of course sending massive support to the regime.
Once again, I am struck by how the media attention presupposes our intervention in some form rather than consider the possible position of non-intervention. We have a country filled with religious extremism and sectarian violence. Yet, these Senators are virtually panting to get involved in yet another war. Why?
RWL,
Since when Did you first come to believe that fact…..I’ve heard Cheney before the Iraq thing got going was figuring out his profits….they were between 10 and 50 million a year…. Shortly after …. Haliburton got lots of no bid contracts…. And moved its headquarters from Houston to The UAE…. If I recall the numbers were in excess of 20 billion…..
Bettykath,
Your article deserves more attention than mine! I had to do my homework on Yemen. Would you believe that the US sent forces in to protect the oil pipelines in Yemen?
Please read: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/oil-yemen-idUSL5N0EW3NE20130620?feedType=RSS
This is all about oil. According to wikipedia, Yemen’s oil reserves will become empty by 2017. Hence, our greedy nation is heading to Syria’s oil fields.
Tony C.,
Right! I do apologize for posting the article twice. It is an excellent read!
RWL: I cannot say I would be surprised if that was the real motivation.
So it isn’t just the 400,000 barrels of oil a day Syria is already producing, it is also about their reserves and strategic geographic positioning and the economic resource of the pipeline.
Sounds like Exxon wins again.
The US Wants Syrian Oil, Not Democracy
By Carl Gibson,
Reader Supported News
18 June 13
“… the Persian Gulf, the critical oil and natural gas-producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.” -John Bolton, George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations
All the hubbub over Syria is all about oil. And if you don’t believe me, believe John Bolton.
When there’s something being talked about in the news on a regular basis, and if one angle of the story is being consistently reported by various reputable news organizations, you can be sure there’s something else to the story that isn’t being told. Matt Taibbi called this “chumpbait” when referring to the media’s unified dismissal concerning Bradley Manning’s court-martial. The same applies to the latest corporate media stories speculating on US military involvement in Syria.
If the US were really concerned about spreading Democracy in the Middle East, we’d be helping the Occupy Gezi movement oust Turkish Prime Minister Ergodan and condemning his violent suppression of human rights, rather than assisting the Free Syrian Army. And the only reason the powers controlling the US would be interested in intervening in Turkey would be if Turkish protesters or government forces shut down the highly-productive Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which goes from Iraq through Southern Turkey.
All of the media has been atwitter about whether or not the US should get involved in the civil war unfolding in Syria by supporting anti-government forces. The atrocities recently committed by the Free Syrian Army are reminiscent of the kind committed against the Soviets in the 1980s by the Afghan mujahideen, whom we actively funded and supplied with arms. (Remember the movie Charlie Wilson’s War?) It should be worth noting that the same mujahideen fighters we funded to fight our enemies for us in the 1980s became our enemies even before the 9/11 attacks.
In a roundabout way, the US media is making the argument that because the Assad regime is using chemical weapons on the Syrian people, the US military should intervene by arming and training the Free Syrian Army in the hopes of overthrowing President Assad. On the surface, most Americans would agree that Assad is a brutal dictator and should be removed from office. But if you asked most Americans whether or not the US military should intervene in Syria to make sure the profit margins of oil companies remain strong, it’s likely most rational folks would say no. Digging just beneath the surface, it’s easy to see that US interest in Syria isn’t to provide Democracy to Syria, but to ensure the Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline will be restored to profitable status. Even President Obama’s press secretary said that foreign policy isn’t driven by what the people want, but by what is best for “American interests.”
The Kirkuk-Banias pipeline runs from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq, to the Syrian town of Banias, on the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Lebanon. Ever since US forces inadvertently destroyed it in 2003, most of the pipeline has been shut down. While there have been plans in the works to make the Iraqi portion of the pipeline functional again, those plans have yet to come to fruition. And Syria has at least 2.5 billion barrels of oil in its fields, making it the next largest Middle Eastern oil producer after Iraq. After ten unproductive years, the oil companies dependent on the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline’s output are eager to get the pipeline operational again. The tension over the Syrian oil situation is certainly being felt by wealthy investors in the markets, who are thus dictating US foreign policy.
It’s easy to see why the oil-dominated US government wants to be involved in Syria’s outcome. The Free Syrian Army has since taken control of oil fields near Deir Ezzor, and Kurdish groups have taken control of other oil fields in the Rumeilan region. Many of the numerous atrocities that Assad’s government committed against unarmed women and children were in Homs, which is near one of the country’s only two oil refineries. Israel, the US’s only ally in the Middle East, is illegally occupying the Golan Heights on the Syrian border and extracting their resources. The US wants to get involved in Syria to monopolize its oil assets, while simultaneously beating our competition – Iran, Russia and China – in the race for Syrian black gold.
Big oil’s ideal outcome would be for US troops to back the FSA’s overthrow of the Assad regime, meaning that sharing in Syrian oil profits would be part of the quid-pro-quo the US demands in exchange for helping the Syrian rebels win. It would be very similar to when the US, under Teddy Roosevelt, backed Panama’s fight for independence in exchange for US ownership of the Panama Canal. But even after numerous interventions, including the kidnapping of Panama’s head of state, the Torrijos-Carter accords gave control of the Panama Canal back to Panama in 1999. The imperialistic approach to Panama turned out to be more costly than it would have been if we had just left Panama alone in the first place.
George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we don’t learn from our past mistakes, like basing foreign policy goals on greed-inspired imperialism, Syria will blow up in our faces.
Oil….Oil…Oil………..A Great Read:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/17981-the-us-wants-syrian-oil-not-democracy
The US Wants Syrian Oil, Not Democracy
By Carl Gibson,
Reader Supported News
18 June 13
“… the Persian Gulf, the critical oil and natural gas-producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.” -John Bolton, George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations
All the hubbub over Syria is all about oil. And if you don’t believe me, believe John Bolton.
When there’s something being talked about in the news on a regular basis, and if one angle of the story is being consistently reported by various reputable news organizations, you can be sure there’s something else to the story that isn’t being told. Matt Taibbi called this “chumpbait” when referring to the media’s unified dismissal concerning Bradley Manning’s court-martial. The same applies to the latest corporate media stories speculating on US military involvement in Syria.
If the US were really concerned about spreading Democracy in the Middle East, we’d be helping the Occupy Gezi movement oust Turkish Prime Minister Ergodan and condemning his violent suppression of human rights, rather than assisting the Free Syrian Army. And the only reason the powers controlling the US would be interested in intervening in Turkey would be if Turkish protesters or government forces shut down the highly-productive Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which goes from Iraq through Southern Turkey.
All of the media has been atwitter about whether or not the US should get involved in the civil war unfolding in Syria by supporting anti-government forces. The atrocities recently committed by the Free Syrian Army are reminiscent of the kind committed against the Soviets in the 1980s by the Afghan mujahideen, whom we actively funded and supplied with arms. (Remember the movie Charlie Wilson’s War?) It should be worth noting that the same mujahideen fighters we funded to fight our enemies for us in the 1980s became our enemies even before the 9/11 attacks.
In a roundabout way, the US media is making the argument that because the Assad regime is using chemical weapons on the Syrian people, the US military should intervene by arming and training the Free Syrian Army in the hopes of overthrowing President Assad. On the surface, most Americans would agree that Assad is a brutal dictator and should be removed from office. But if you asked most Americans whether or not the US military should intervene in Syria to make sure the profit margins of oil companies remain strong, it’s likely most rational folks would say no. Digging just beneath the surface, it’s easy to see that US interest in Syria isn’t to provide Democracy to Syria, but to ensure the Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline will be restored to profitable status. Even President Obama’s press secretary said that foreign policy isn’t driven by what the people want, but by what is best for “American interests.”
The Kirkuk-Banias pipeline runs from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq, to the Syrian town of Banias, on the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Lebanon. Ever since US forces inadvertently destroyed it in 2003, most of the pipeline has been shut down. While there have been plans in the works to make the Iraqi portion of the pipeline functional again, those plans have yet to come to fruition. And Syria has at least 2.5 billion barrels of oil in its fields, making it the next largest Middle Eastern oil producer after Iraq. After ten unproductive years, the oil companies dependent on the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline’s output are eager to get the pipeline operational again. The tension over the Syrian oil situation is certainly being felt by wealthy investors in the markets, who are thus dictating US foreign policy.
It’s easy to see why the oil-dominated US government wants to be involved in Syria’s outcome. The Free Syrian Army has since taken control of oil fields near Deir Ezzor, and Kurdish groups have taken control of other oil fields in the Rumeilan region. Many of the numerous atrocities that Assad’s government committed against unarmed women and children were in Homs, which is near one of the country’s only two oil refineries. Israel, the US’s only ally in the Middle East, is illegally occupying the Golan Heights on the Syrian border and extracting their resources. The US wants to get involved in Syria to monopolize its oil assets, while simultaneously beating our competition – Iran, Russia and China – in the race for Syrian black gold.
Big oil’s ideal outcome would be for US troops to back the FSA’s overthrow of the Assad regime, meaning that sharing in Syrian oil profits would be part of the quid-pro-quo the US demands in exchange for helping the Syrian rebels win. It would be very similar to when the US, under Teddy Roosevelt, backed Panama’s fight for independence in exchange for US ownership of the Panama Canal. But even after numerous interventions, including the kidnapping of Panama’s head of state, the Torrijos-Carter accords gave control of the Panama Canal back to Panama in 1999. The imperialistic approach to Panama turned out to be more costly than it would have been if we had just left Panama alone in the first place.
George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we don’t learn from our past mistakes, like basing foreign policy goals on greed-inspired imperialism, Syria will blow up in our faces.
“We need substantive structural changes that really must include trials and prison time for some of our current and recent politicians to regain the ground that has been lost in the international community.”
Well Gene, on that we can certainly agree.
This is about Yemen, right?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18/309593/us-deploys-1500-marines-to-yemen/
US deploys 1,500 Marines to Yemen: Yemeni official
US Marines install barbed wire in the vicinity of a hotel that is adjacent to the US embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a (fie photo)
Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:58AM
The United States has stepped up its drone operations in Yemen over the past few years, killing many civilians in the Muslim country.”
The United States has deployed 1,500 Marines with advanced arms and military equipment to Yemen, says a Yemeni military official.
Some 1,500 Marines were deployed to al-Anad military base in the country’s southern province of Lahij, al-Sharea daily quoted the official as saying on Monday.
Another 200 also arrived in the capital, Sana’a, to join the American forces already stationed in the capital’s Sheraton Hotel.
The official also said that American forces usually enter the country in small groups, but the recent large deployment could be in preparation for a possible imminent incident in the region.
The United States has stepped up its drone operations in Yemen over the past few years, killing many civilians in the Muslim country.
According to the Washington-based think tank, the New America Foundation, the US drone attacks in Yemen almost tripled in 2012.
“If moral obligations are like buildings, can they not be rehabbed?”
Perhaps, RTC, but the firemen on duty presently arrived at the burning building and opted to throw gasoline on it. There is always next election, but I don’t see any candidate on the horizon who isn’t simply more of the same and hence more of the same problems rather than part of any solution. Don’t underestimate how America’s stock as a moral authority in the international community has been damaged by the current and previous administrations. There was even a mass exodus of career diplomats at State over Bush’s actions toward Iraq. We need a lot more than PR to rehab this building. We need substantive structural changes that really must include trials and prison time for some of our current and recent politicians to regain the ground that has been lost in the international community.
AY
Now that’s comedy!
And yes, I realize we’re at an impasse here and the blog will be moving on. I thank you for taking the time to respond to my statements and making me explain myself. These are not simple issues, by like most complicated issues, they need to separated out and examined solely on their own merits. Chemical warfare is a crime against humanity. We lost no American military lives in Libya. If we could stop the use of chemicals without the loss of American life, I think that is a worthy step in the right direction toward moral behavior.
If my house is on fire, I don’t care if the firemen show up are drunkards. I only hope they’re not too drunk to save the building.
If moral obligations are like buildings, can they not be rehabbed?
Some words of wisdom from about four months ago. Still valid today:
On the other hand, if — as in Iraq — the United States simply wants to wreck one of the Apartheid Zionist Entity’s neighboring Arab rivals, then the “deliberate invention of evidence justifying invasion” — like “chemical weapons” — will pose no problem for an American administration eager to take its foreign policy cues from its pet parasite, the A.Z.E. Of course, simple naked hypocrisy forbids President Obama from openly announcing such an animating reason for American belligerency where no national interest warrants it. Political cowardice and a growing taste for in-your-face duplicity, more than likely, explains things well enough.
And I found it humorous and true…..
RTC,
You misunderstand or perhaps I was unclear:
Past bad behavior does not remove an onus of obligation to do the right thing but it certainly does point to the hypocrisy of selectively doing the right thing only when it’s personally or politically beneficial and/or expedient.
It makes claiming “moral obligation” a castle with footings of sand.
Claims of moral obligation are like a building; their utility and value are in a large part based on the quality of their foundation.
In our case, IMO, our Federal government’s failures in that regard both past and especially recently are sufficient to negate any argument for action based on moral anything. On this, we may just disagree.
That’s funny Michael Murray. I’ll pass that along to my son next time he calls from Afghanistan. BTW, as an Irish American I find that offensive.
That’s funny Michael Murray. I’ll pass that along to my son next time he calls from Afghanistan. Jerk
Gene,
The fact that this and past administrations have committed egregious violations of law doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for preventing crimes against humanity. You seem to be suggesting that since we are not perfect, and haven’t been perfect in the past, we should no longer aspire to higher ideals, by that logic (uh-oh) since slavery was enshrined in the Constitution we shouldn’t bother to aspire for equal treatment among all citizens. All heroes are flawed. Would we think less of Audy Murphy’s actions if he cheated at cards or beat his wife? Would it be cherry picking of the law if John Gotti had kicked in his neighbor’s door in order to stop him from murdering his wife, or a kernel of human decency in a rotten human being. A drowning man doesn’t ask to see a credit score before accepting a life preserver.
Old joke:
A humanitarian interventionist passes by a pub and notices two drunken Irishmen brawling in the gutter. He/She pauses and asks solicitously:
“Is this a private fight, or can I send someone else’s kid to join in?”
Tony,
Okay. That’s a clarification I can live with, in fact, I almost suggested something similar but I was approaching it from a different angle. I just decided against it for brevity. Stipulation accepted.
_____________
RTC,
In re Assad, he’s been a long time general irritant in the region, but not always against us. His trouble making has largely been in pursuit of consolidating and solidifying his own personal power base and in that he is an amoral actor although not always immoral. He’s been far less directly confrontational than Ghaddafi ever was.
In re international conventions? Let’s talk about theory and reality. In theory, yes, international treaties do provide some rationale for getting involved, but does that rationale equate to moral justification in the light of the totality of actions? Get back to me when Dick Cheney and his pet monkey are arrested and charged with war crimes before we discuss international law. The hypocrisy of picking and choosing when international law is to be followed or ignored is a pill too large to swallow given our Federal government’s behavior not only recently but stretching back to the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War. We once as a nation could claim a moral high ground on legitimate basis, but that day has long since past and the final nails in the coffin were ordering torture (in contravention of international treaty, domestic Federal law and the Constitution) and claiming the ultra vires ability to execute American citizens without due process (absolutely unconstitutional). The rule of law only has value when it isn’t cherry picked or subverted into servicing men and not the principles of law.