Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[Red Beret]

Unless al-Qaida wants the US to get involved to further their own objectives - and give them Westerners to shoot at should there be need for large scale reconstruction, post conflict.

[Mouth]

That France comment from Kerry is incredibly childish.

[Corkboy]

That France comment from Kerry is incredibly childish.

What did he say?

As far as I could recall, Kerry speaks French, which is very unusual for an American politician, or indeed any American. I googled it to make sure I wasn't imagining it and when I got as far as John Kerry Fran..., the first suggestion was John Kerry Frankenstein.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

He referred to France as 'our oldest ally'.

[Mouth]

He referred to France as 'our oldest ally'.

He might as well have said "oi Uk not yeh mate anymore" and stuck out his tongue.

Pathetic.

[Macphisto80]

Just watched footage of the incendiary attack on the school. Very, very sad to watch and it angered me. This has been going on for well over two years and this sort of thing is nothing new, but barely ever gets the coverage. I've seen stuff on Youtube that is just appalling, so much so that I couldn't watch. This is without a doubt a failure of the western world. This is Rwanda all over again.

[Corkboy]

He might as well have said "oi Uk not yeh mate anymore" and stuck out his tongue.

Pathetic.

Don't fret, sweetheart. You're too good for him. He never deserved you, plenty more fish in the sea. The French are whores, anyway.

[Mouth]

Don't fret, sweetheart. You're too good for him. He never deserved you, plenty more fish in the sea. The French are whores, anyway.

Hahaha its just very petty way to carry on when all this shit is going down.

[Red Genius]

He might as well have said "oi Uk not yeh mate anymore" and stuck out his tongue.

Pathetic.

Who gives a shit, it's posture and pandering to try and find somebody else to take half the flack.... i'm pleased we're not participating in yet another middle eastern mess with absolutely no strategy for the area as a whole, in place.

[Mouth]

Who gives a shit, it's posture and pandering to try and find somebody else to take half the flack.... i'm pleased we're not participating in yet another middle eastern mess with absolutely no strategy for the area as a whole, in place.

So am I, let them deal with it if they want to.

I just find that kind of thing stupid, its international diplomacy, its like trying to guilt us into it. So we now say ooooh no we will help, just be our mate again and not Frances, we're your real bezzies.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

As I've mentioned before, many of Syria's problems are France's fault anyway. It SHOULD be their responsibility to do something about it, not ours.

If we were talking about action under the auspices of the UN, I would contend that we should be part of it. But we're not. We're talking about an attack by one or two nations. That being the case, the nations involved should be those with a direct interest or historical responsibility in Syria.

[Red Genius]

Oh it's laughable alright, it's like a kids playground.. and not only that it's arrogant, trying to makel ole France feel important by cosying up the states bosom. But then that's politics for you.

[Scouse-Con]

USA  fuck them no one likes them after Iraq. Why the french want to get involved ill never know. Christian countries should stay away from an Islamic civil war because it has nothing to do with us, the french just want to look hard that's the reason they are willing to join America in Syria.

[Corkboy]

USA  fuck them no one likes them after Iraq.

You do recall Britain were in Iraq, too?

Christian countries should stay away from an Islamic civil war

Christian countries. I mean...

[Finn Solomon]

Just watched footage of the incendiary attack on the school. Very, very sad to watch and it angered me. This has been going on for well over two years and this sort of thing is nothing new, but barely ever gets the coverage. I've seen stuff on Youtube that is just appalling, so much so that I couldn't watch. This is without a doubt a failure of the western world. This is Rwanda all over again.

Clinton decided not to intervene in Rwanda and no one really cares. Obama decides to intervene in Syria and suddenly people are against him for no other reason than the mistakes of his predecessor.

I'll understand if the US don't want to sort out the mess in Syria, they're broke and hurting from two wars. But if America wants to put an end to innocent kids being gassed with chemical weapons, then that's more than I hoped for. Not like Russia will put an end to this, hell, they've been supplying Assad with weapons. Not like China will care. And yet they get a free pass while everyone leaps at the chance to rail against 'Western Imperialism'.

[Zend...en the clowns]

Tell you why the human race has a terminal existence, we always believe that the only way to end a firefight is with more fire.

That, and the fact that time and time again we never learn the lessons that History puts in front of us.

I'm absolutely ecstatic the government was defeated last night. The last thing a society on its arse needs is sending more of its young, working class lads to their death in a far away land. Oh and what is it they say about how to boost the economy in a recession? War? What is it good for? I think you can guess....

There are also some smack bang in your face facts which should, if you have an ounce of intelligence, be reading loud and clear.

..Assad...the same fella who we traded arms with over years, who was welcomed by our ruling elite into Buckingham palace and who was recommended for a knighthood!?!? Now, the political elite decide he wasn't quite worthy of his pedestal position of a few years back.

And strike militarily against Assad, topple his regime and replace him with who?? The so called 'opposition'...the same opposition that have murdered hundreds of the other ethnic minorities within Syria other than Muslim?...The same opposition who rip the hearts out of opposition soldiers and eat them with their livers putting them on Youtube along with the beheadings of clerics, priests and elders?..

No one knows what is truly going on in Syria. The United Nations cannot provide any conclusive evidence surrounding the chemical weapons use. Remember what happened last time we went forward without their seal of legitimacy?

If we strike against Syria it will be over a dozen muslim countries we have engaged militarily in the last decade. Think about that the next time some fundamental lunatic crashes a lorry into an embassy or blows themselves up on a London bus.

It's easier to radicalise when we give them grounds to do so. 

[Scouse-Con]

You do recall Britain were in Iraq, too?

Christian countries. I mean...

Exactly, Jack Straw, Tony Blair and George Bush have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians on their hands, sending troops to Syria in a Islamic civil war which has nothing to do with us is a big joke which is best avoided.

What we don't want is to side with the US and France and cause more bloodshed which the Syrian people don't want and think its best not to.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

USA  fuck them no one likes them after Iraq. Why the french want to get involved ill never know. Christian countries should stay away from an Islamic civil war because it has nothing to do with us, the french just want to look hard that's the reason they are willing to join America in Syria.

France is a secular nation, not a Christian nation. There is no link whatsoever between Church and State in the republic, and has not been since 1905. This concept, known as 'laïcité', is one of which the French are very proud.

[Red_Mist]

Will there not be another vote should some more compelling evidence arise?

I don't know, but this one seems badly timed (i.e. too soon). Saw on the news earlier the Inspectors are flying home tomorrow to write their report. Shouldn't we have waited for the results of that? (although to be fair to Cameron I think he said that was included in his motion).

[jaffod]

Shouldn't we just do what the rest of Europe tells us?

[Libertine]

That, and the fact that time and time again we never learn the lessons that History puts in front of us.

There are many lessons from history. We could learn from Spain 1936-39. Rwanda 1994. Bosnia 1992-95. Czechoslovakia 1938. And many other times when the world sat back and ignored tyranny.

Or the few occasions when we stood up to it - Bosnia (eventually), Kosovo, Sierra Leone, when we intervened and prevented further murder and suffering.

I'm absolutely ecstatic the government was defeated last night. The last thing a society on its arse needs is sending more of its young, working class lads to their death in a far away land. Oh and what is it they say about how to boost the economy in a recession? War? What is it good for? I think you can guess....

No-one is talking about sending people to their death and putting troops on the ground. It's about creating a deterance for Assad, degrading his capabilities to conduct assymetric war on his people and the rebels and creating a precedence that persecuting chemical warfare on civilians will not be tolerated by the international community.

[Red_Mist]

Obama decides to intervene in Syria and suddenly people are against him for no other reason than the mistakes of his predecessor.

Those mistakes have made people extremely cautious, and rightly so.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

I don't know, but this one seems badly timed (i.e. too soon). Saw on the news earlier the Inspectors are flying home tomorrow to write their report. Shouldn't we have waited for the results of that? (although to be fair to Cameron I think he said that was included in his motion).

Yes, it was very badly timed. Essentially, MPs were being asked to vote for a motion that said "in principle, we would like to bomb Syria, assuming they've used chemical weapons."  If Cameron had waited a few days and come with evidence that it actually had happened, I believe he would have carried the motion. He might also have managed to get his 30-odd missing Tories to the House (there has been very little made of the number of MPs missing from the debate and vote).

[Scouse-Con]

Shouldn't we just do what the rest of Europe tells us?

Spot on, as usual Cameron wanting to follow the US into conflict. Should listen to Europe in this one, seeing as we are a European country not a state of the USA.

[Finn Solomon]

Those mistakes have made people extremely cautious, and rightly so.

It's one thing to be cautious, it's another thing to look at this situation solely through the lens of Iraq. Just seen some idiot suggesting the US wants to get involved because of the oil in Syria when there's none there.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Spot on, as usual Cameron wanting to follow the US into conflict. Should listen to Europe in this one, seeing as we are a European country not a state of the USA.

I think he was taking the piss. Especially since Europe's two other main powers, Germany and France, have made diametrically opposite calls on the issue.

[Scouse-Con]

I think he was taking the piss. Especially since Europe's two other main powers, Germany and France, have made diametrically opposite calls on the issue.

So Germany want to intervene with the US with conflict into Syria?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

It's one thing to be cautious, it's another thing to look at this situation solely through the lens of Iraq. Just seen some idiot suggesting the US wants to get involved because of the oil in Syria when there's none there.

Hmmm. Your "idiot" is right, at least partly. Oil is the US' primary concern (not oil in Syria, but in the region, especially neighboring Iraq). What else do you think Obama and Kerry are talking about when they talk about "protecting our nation's interests in the region"?

[KUNGFUDANCER]

No-one is talking about sending people to their death and putting troops on the ground. It's about creating a deterance for Assad, degrading his capabilities to conduct assymetric war on his people and the rebels and creating a precedence that persecuting chemical warfare on civilians will not be tolerated by the international community.

We don't know who carried out the chemical attacks. Arab countries have been arming the rebels for two years now, what if it turns out the rebels carried out the attack with help from Saudis? Should the US bomb Saudi Arabia?

[jaffod]

I think he was taking the piss. Especially since Europe's two other main powers, Germany and France, have made diametrically opposite calls on the issue.

I was, but having reflected on it for a minute or two I'm not so sure. Given we can barely wipe our arses these days without EU permission what would give us the right to go charging into Syria when it's got fuck all to do with us anyway?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

So Germany want to intervene with the US with conflict into Syria?

I assume if I spent long enough trying to rearrange those words they might make sense as a question.

Germany has ruled out taking part in an attack on Syria, whereas France has very much issued a 'count us in' message to America.

[Mouth]

I was, but having reflected on it for a minute or two I'm not so sure. Given we can barely wipe our arses these days without EU permission what would give us the right to go charging into Syria when it's got fuck all to do with us anyway?

What after someone thought you might be pro-European? Well there is a shock

[jaffod]

What after someone thought you might be pro-European? Well there is a shock

My stance has changed considerably over the last few months. Needless to say I would would want to include all the other member states should we take any military action in the middle-east seeing as we are all part of the same community.

[Finn Solomon]

Hmmm. Your "idiot" is right, at least partly. Oil is the US' primary concern (not oil in Syria, but in the region, especially neighboring Iraq). What else do you think Obama and Kerry are talking about when they talk about "protecting our nation's interests in the region"?

The threat to their NATO ally of Turkey, I'd assume. The number one source of US oil imports is Canada. The new field in North Dakota might eventually yield more. With the recent advances in technology, it seems less and less likely to war in the Middle East just for oil.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

So your explanation for the spikes in oil prices when there is unrest in the region would be what? With this crisis hitting a peak, the oil price has hit a two year high, and they are fearing prices of $150. Saudi is by far and away the world's biggest producer.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that the Saudis are outspoken opponents of Assad and allies of the US.

[Red Genius]

Genuine question, has Germany ever involved themselves in a war since the reformation of east and west?

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Genuine question, has Germany ever involved themselves in a war since the reformation of east and west?

Yes.  Kosovo.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern
Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines.

U.N. chemical weapons experts visit people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters
On 21 August, hundreds - perhaps over a thousand - people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad's forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad's troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad's complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US's key allies and enemies - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran - to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a 'youth bulge', internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.

The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

A more detailed in-depth special report based on this article is available at the author's website.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

[Red Genius]

Yes.  Kosovo.

I got the impression their foreign policy is generally quite hands off, which is guess is quite natural i suppose.

[Zeb]

Genuine question, has Germany ever involved themselves in a war since the reformation of east and west?

They interpreted their constitution in a certain way up until the early 90s which meant German forces couldn't be used outside of NATO's boundaries. In 1994, the interpretation was changed to the way the German government had been reading it for a couple of years so that they could participate in multi-national peacekeeping forces for the UN or with NATO. So we've seen German troops in Somalia and working with various multinational task forces.