The mood was holiday like as an ordinary August weekend was to be added by Labor Day. But it was spoiled by incessant militarist style harangues delivered by US administration officials.
Americans have already let know their reluctance to get involved in another intervention – they still cherish a hope that the White House will take their opinion into consideration. According to Reuters/Ipsos poll held right after the chemical attack in a Damascus suburb on August 21, around 60 percent of US respondents opposed an intervention against Syria, while only 9 percent approved it. The «covert war» waged by US government was snubbed even more resolutely – 89 percent said arms supplies to rebels (or rather criminal gangs) were to be stopped. Only 12 percent said «yes» to air bombings, 11 percent favored the establishment of no-fly zones, 9 percent wanted to allocate funds for a multinational coalition, 4 percent supported the idea of US direct involvement.
America has spoken. What about the White House? It appears to ignore what the people think and say. What we hear are ingratiating assurances from Barack Obama saying he is not considering any option that would entail «boots on the ground», or bombastic encyclics by John Kerry about the Bashar Assad’s encroachments on moral norms. That’s it.
On September 5 Russia hosts the G20 summit to be held in Saint-Petersburg. The country’s President Vladimir Putin made his stance on Syria very clear, «Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions. In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense», he told reporters in Vladivostok. «Regarding the position of our American colleagues, friends, who affirm that government troops used weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons, and say that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council», the President said.
Russia has submitted the documents and videos to a United Nations Security Council’s closed session corroborating the fact that the chemical attack in Syria was a false flag provocation. To the contrary, as As-Safir, a Lebanese weekly, reports the United States has provided no documented proof to counter what Russia says.
The weekly affirms that no way the US intelligence data could contradict the conclusions offered by Russia, which say that it was a false-flag action staged by Syrian armed opposition. Late on August 21, the Liwa’ al-Islam (Islam Brigade) armed anti-government group, headed by Zahran Alloush, launched two self-made chemical agent-tipped rockets at a Damascus suburb within thirty minutes. The Liwaa al-Islam is a powerful Ghouta-based 25000 men strong armed group. According to as-Safir, the chemical weapons rocket attack was launched with the mission to frustrate the government troops offensive aimed at establishing full control over and around the capital Damascus. The planned attack took place at one o’clock in the morning in a Damascus suburban area with government troops moving to the Jobar district to clean it from entrenched militants. As the Lebanese media outlet reports, the militants retreated from Jobar ahead of the Syrian army advance and just a few minutes before the rockets containing chemical agents were fired. That’s why there are so few militants among the attack victims, who for the most part happened to be civilians…
Moscow is not the only one who considers the attempts to put the blame on Bashar Assad, accused of using chemical weapons against his own troops and population, as «utter nonsense». Manlio Dinucci, a well-known Italian reporter, wrote right after the August 21 events that it was absurd to accuse Assad of using chemical weapons at the time UN inspectors were in the country upon his invitation. It’s like a murderer calling police to his house at the time he kills a household member. The Italian analyst has no doubts the August chemical weapons provocation in Syria was a false flag operation, which is routine for Western special services…
According to him, under the conditions of raging war it’s not a big thing to deliver chemical weapons to some militant groups who would use them against civilians, then the fallout could be recorded on video to put the blame of government forces…: This is the way to create a casus belli to vindicate the further escalation to air-sea strikes and establishing a no-fly zone.
The casus belli of this dubious nature is a staple in the US administration’s public discourse. There is a strong doubt expressed in the US media that there is any strategy to back up the rhetoric. It sounds as an outright mockery when the officials call the would-be actions «symbolic strikes». A columnist of American Antiwar online outlet says sarcastically, «Secretary of State John Kerry, and then Obama not long after he finished, publicly hyped their «common sense» case for attacking Syria, insisting they have an unassailable case for attack that no one (except virtually the whole rest of the world) could disagree with».
«The whole rest of the world» is not a great exaggeration. Obama comes under harsh criticism from all directions: the Left, the Right, inside the country and abroad. An impeachment becomes a more frequently mentioned word. Not so long ago the President seemed to be inclined to find political solutions like the Geneva-2 peace conference on Syria. The opportunities are still there. There is still enough time to take a pause and think twice about it.
The last August statement Barack Obama made was the announcement of his decision not to deliver the strikes till he consults Congress.
The congressmen are to be back from recess in less than a week.
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation