Three Analyses Condemning the US attack on Syria in April 2017
As the international community struggles to make sense
of Donald Trump’s reckless Tomohawk missile assault on Syria, it has also had
to deal with the shocking and awesome idiocy of the American media’s reaction
to it. Nothing could top television “journalist” Brian Williams' ignorant,
out-of-context citation of a Leonard Cohen song to remark on how he was “guided
by the beauty of our weapons” as they flew toward their targets. He, along with
millions of other citizens and political leaders in Western countries will fail
to recall another Cohen song which came after First We Take Manhattan, the source for Williams' awe. The Future:
When they said repent, repent,
I wonder what they meant...
Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it
is murder
Few Western media outlets report on the news
conferences of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the statements made the Russian
representatives at the UN, and they also fail to make the logical analyses of
the situation and raise the obvious questions that can be found in many
excellent blogs and alternative media sites. The three excerpted below cover
the main points that have appeared in the many excellent analyses that are
available to anyone with an interest in looking beyond the willful ignorance
that is being sold on the pages of the New
York Times and other leading journals.
1. Excerpts of an analysis by retired US Col. Patrick LANG
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile
strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days
the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria
did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is
what happened:
The Russians
briefed the United States on the proposed target. The United
States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the
Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels. The Syrian
Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to
see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke,
chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic
rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The
chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind
and killed civilians. There was a
strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and
caused casualties.
We know it
was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders"
handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have
died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live
Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
The base the United States hit was something of a
backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He
is a fool... This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump
authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more
disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director
Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade...
It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars
of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit... Whatever hope I had that Donald
Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a
child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault
is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department
of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a
war crime.
2. Excerpts from
And then there is this simple point. Why
would the Syrian government use gas at this stage in a war it has recently
begun to win with conventional munitions? You don’t have to believe that the
Assad state is saintly to ask this question, and I don’t believe that... Wicked
and brutal they may well be, but they would have to be stupid and possibly mad
to do such a thing, just as an important conference convenes in Brussels to
discuss the future of Syria... The military advantages would be tiny. Chemical
weapons have not been widely used since the 1914-18 war not because soldiers
have been especially tender, but because, though very nasty, they are not an
especially effective weapon of war.
3. The entire transcript of an interview with Lawrence
Wilkerson Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic
Politics, The
Real News Network, April 7, 2017/04/09
Former
Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, tells Paul Jay that
the Syrian Government may not be responsible for the chemical attack and that
Trump's response was motivated by domestic politics and was a violation of
international law.
Paul Jay: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Paul
Jay.
The response to the American attack on the air force
base in Syria, amongst the broad section of the American political leadership
and elite, has been generally applause. Leadership of the Democratic Party,
Republican Party, most of the mainstream media, even supposedly progressive
media, for example, Rachel Maddow, have all been encouraging and supportive of
this attack, vilifying, of course, the Syrians for committing this heinous
crime against humanity of dropping sarin gas on a populated area. The question
of who actually dropped it is barely raised. We’re told by the American
government that the Assad government did it. One wonders how they know so
quickly. The one person that actually raised this question rather seriously and
straightforwardly was in the United Nations meeting of the Security Council
Friday morning. And here’s what the Russian ambassador to the UN had to say:
Those
who undertook this attack are in no way into interested in an impartial
investigation by the competent international authority to find out exactly what
took place in Khan Sheikhoun, and I will say more: you are afraid of such an
investigation. You are afraid of a real, genuine, independent investigation.
What would happen if the outcome of this investigation contradicted your
anti-government paradigm?
So is the accusation of the Russian—I should say deputy
ambassador to the United Nations—is his accusation correct? Why did United
States act so quickly? Now joining us to discuss this issue is Larry Wilkerson.
Larry joins us from Falls Church, Virginia. He was former chief of staff to US
Secretary of State Colin Powell, currently an adjunct professor of government
at the College of William and Mary and a regular contributor at the Real News.
Thanks for joining us Larry.
Larry Wilkerson: Thanks for having me, Paul.
Paul Jay: So what do you make of the ambassador’s
accusation? But the bigger question is why did why did the Trump administration
act so quickly? How could the intelligence be so definitive so fast?
Larry Wilkerson: Oh, I don’t think they cared. I think
they were looking for a provocation. This one was suitable and so they acted. I
think the reason for their act, if I can attribute any rationality to it at
all, was this: They wanted to use US force in a very guarded—and it was a very
limited way—70 million dollars-worth of [Tomohawk missiles]—but still that’s a
very limited way, given the circumstances—to gain thereby some leverage in the
coming talks because, after all, we have not done anything against the Assad
regime, not really directly like this, and so this is a Trump-like move. This
is a move to gain a higher ground, if you will, when the talks come along, to
give us more leverage. I think personally that the provocation was a Tonkin
Gulf [type of] incident or [like the] Iraq failure-to-disarm by February 5th,
2003 [ultimatum] at the United Nations Security Council. In other words, it was
not exactly good intelligence. In fact, most of my sources are telling me,
including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons, including
people in Syria, including people in the US intelligence community, that what
most likely happened—and this intelligence, by the way, was shared with the
United States by Russia in accordance with the de-confliction agreement we have
with Russia—that they hit a warehouse that they intended to hit, and had told
both sides, Russia and the United States, that they were going to hit. This is
the Syrian Air Force, of course, and this warehouse was alleged to have Isis
supplies in it, and indeed it probably did, and some of those supplies were
precursors for chemicals, or possibly an alternative [theory is] they were
phosphates for the cotton growing, fertilizing the cotton region that’s
adjacent to this area. And these conventional bombs hit the warehouse and
because of a very strong wind and because of the explosive power of the bombs,
they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people.
And incidentally, as […] pointed out in a good article
that I just read, we have killed more people incidentally in our strikes, and
Assad has a number that were killed in this incident and Assad has a number of
ways, including his artillery, which, by the way, a no-fly zone would not stop,
of killing people, and killing people in much greater numbers than this, as he
has demonstrated over the past years. So this is nonsense to call this the kind
of provocation of what we did, unless one considers the rationale that I just
suggested.
Paul Jay: Now there are journalists on the ground that
have gone there, Western journalists who’ve been looking for the warehouse that’s
been spoken of. One, I think from The Guardian, had photographs of what was
supposed to have been the warehouse and it looked empty. There’s apparently
another story that this is all supposed to have happened in some barn and they
went in there and found only a mule. Wouldn’t there be some evidence of such a
warehouse?
Larry Wilkerson: Yes, there would be, but I think this
is probably the kind of speculation that takes place when something like this
happens, and I agree with the Russian ambassador that it would be good if we
had an internationally-sponsored and hosted, UN for example, investigation and
a forensic team that would accompany that, but I don’t think we’re going to get
that. And by and large I would think that the people who perpetrated this shall
we say hoax would have the area cleaned up as much as possible before such a
team got there, so I’m not sure that would do anything.
As I said, in the bigger scheme of things, Paul, we
kill more people with our airstrikes, incidental collateral damage, if you
will, than this did. We did in Mosul recently, and Assad has killed tens of
thousands of people with his barrel bombs and his artillery and so forth, so
this is really not that significant an incident.
And yet look what we did, Paul. We made it a Tonkin
Gulf. We made it Iraq WMD so that we could make our strike. We had no concern
with whether it was a genuine provocation or not. We just wanted something on
which we could base our strike and we got it.
Paul Jay: Well here’s another clip from the Russian
ambassador because they’re saying that this was a violation of international
law, that these strikes are illegal. Let’s roll that clip:
We
describe that attack as a fragrant violation of international law, and an act
of aggression. We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the US. The
consequences of this for regional and international stability could be
extremely serious.
Paul Jay: So what do you make of that, that this was
illegal?
Larry Wilkerson: He’s right. But let’s look at what he’s talking about. We did the same thing to Iraq. Iraq was a sovereign state that we recognized as such, and we attacked it in 2003. Let’s look at what we’re doing with drones right now. My information tells me, and I think it’s pretty accurate, that we are flying drones right now across the borders of seven countries, six of whom we are not at war with, even under the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force], and we’re killing people across those borders in those countries. So when you talk about violation of international law, we’re leading the world in that respect.
Paul Jay: The report comes to Donald Trump. I’m
speculating here. The intelligence agencies come to him and they say that they
have evidence that the Syrian government has attacked. In the normal course of
things one would think you would take your evidence and you’d go to the
Security Council, and even if you think that the Russians are likely to veto
and so on, that you would at least create a world moral stage where you would
show your evidence. They didn’t do any of that.
You’re suggesting the reason to go ahead and just
strike is really for political objectives. It has nothing to do with really
being concerned about the chemical attack or the deaths of people, but there’s
more to the politics, too. There are these coming talks you’re referring to. At
some point there will be these talks to discuss the political outcome of the
Syrian situation, one assumes, at some point, but in the shorter term, isn’t it
more even just [about] domestic politics? Now all of a sudden Trump has stood
up to Russia. Trump is taking on Assad. Trump gets to shut down the whole
conversation in Washington, which is all about his connections with Putin and
Russia, and now he has stood up against them. I mean it seems so obvious that
it’s unbelievable it isn’t more of a talking point on corporate media.
Larry Wilkerson: Thank you. Do you want to come teach
my seminar? That’s what I teach every Monday for three hours: domestic
political context in international circumstances. Those are all elements of my
framework: how those things impact fateful decision-making, decisions to send
young men and young women to die for state purposes. They do affect that
decision-making. Anybody who thinks they don’t is naive as hell, and they’re
affecting Trump’s decision-making in many of the ways you just suggested.
Paul Jay: [Let’s talk about] the things you have heard
from some of your connections within the intelligence community and some of the
agencies that look into these issues. This had to have been presented to the
Trump administration as well, that there is the possibility that this [gas
attack] was created by the anti-Assad opposition and certainly in terms of the
political gain. It’s just days after Trump announced that Assad would not be
the target. The US was not trying to overthrow Assad. There should be a broad
front to fight against Isis. Several days later, this happens. The whole thing
gets turned around. I mean it almost makes you wonder if it is an extension of
his war with the US intelligence community, that, in fact, he was kind of
cornered into doing this rather than it being his plan.
Larry Wilkerson: I wouldn’t be surprised if there were
an element of that, but I do see an element of Trump in this too. I see an
element of Trump taking advantage of the moment, and that is to say [there
were] pressures on him from a number of different directions which you’ve
suggested. And all of a sudden there comes this provocation and he can go on TV
and show pictures of babies and he can lament the fact that this is a horrible
way to die and everything. I would suggest for him that any way is a horrible
way to die, whether it’s an artillery round or a chemical weapon. And he can
use it, and this is what this guy’s principal forte is: using the moment,
reality TV, if you will, in order to impact for a moment the political
landscape. That’s what he does. That’s what he’s good at.
Paul Jay: It’s also a kind of curious coincidence
perhaps, perhaps not, that Steve Bannon leaves the National Security Council
two days before this happens. I wonder: was there some kind of fight over this
issue, or were they getting rid of him so that he wasn’t part of the
decision-making process that led to this?
Larry Wilkerson: I think we’re seeing probably some of
HR McMaster’s influence in trying to settle down the situation in the White
House and get it to be a little more cerebral, a little more rational. I don’t
know why Bannon left, but I have heard, and this sounds rather odd, I think,
from what we heard before that Bannon’s influence, at least with regard to the
use of force, it might have been positive rather than negative, and having him
leave left that use and its determination mainly to the military types.
Paul Jay: Now I’m told that there was a somewhat
parallel apparatus set up under Eisenhower in the White House. I’m not sure of
the name of it, but it was something to do with a strategic planning group,
which had to deal with the same kind of issues that the National Security
Council deals with, and that group continues to report to Bannon, and Bannon
has talked often about how we’re in the beginnings of a global war against what
he calls Islamic fascism, and he said over and over this is going to be bloody.
Is this bombing a part of an increased presence of US troops in Syria and part
of this strategy of unfolding this war against what he’s calling Islamic
fascism.
Larry Wilkerson: I certainly hope not, but you talk
about something that I think others, who know them better than I do, are
fearful of, particularly the group that has this kind of Islamophobia as its
mantra —the Frank Gaffneys of the world and some of the neoconservatives. I don’t
think that John Kelly, Jim Mattis, HR McMaster, or any of those people who might
be more sane, more sober, particularly with regard to the use of military
force, are in that group, however. But I do think—and this worries me—I do
think that all of those people, HR included, are exponents of our imperial
power, and of the military instrument as a necessary component, even maybe a
first component of that imperial power, and especially right now that
particularly Southwest Asia is so roiled. Russia looks like a threat. North
Korea looks like a threat, and China as well. It concerns me that these
military men and people associated with them, and others as you’ve suggested,
have this much influence on national security decision-making at this crucial
point in time because the last thing we need is another war, especially one
with a peer power. We might be putting the end to this imperial reign if we
start something like that. And I’d rather see us go out a little more slowly,
if you will, than precipitously.
Paul Jay: Nikki Haley at the UN, the US representative
at the United Nations…
Larry Wilkerson: An individual from my home state. I’m
embarrassed to have her there. Of all the Trump appointees, and all the people
who are wandering around pronouncing on behalf of my country, she embarrasses
me the most. She went out of her way at this UN meeting Friday morning to
connect Iran to these events—that Assad can only do such a horrible things
because Iran enables Assad.
Paul Jay: Yesterday on CNN James Woolsey, the former
CIA director, who’s now apparently an advisor to Trump—Woolsey was on saying
that we should use this moment to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and while
we’re at it, and I quote, “on the way back we’ll take out the Syrian armed
forces” or infrastructure, something to that effect. I mean, are these guys
outliers or is this part of the real thinking going on there?
Larry Wilkerson: Woolsey left the CIA directorship, you
may recall, because President Clinton wouldn’t see him. He had a real good
reason, Clinton, for not wanting to see Woolsey. Woolsey was a dyed-in-the-wool
Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney [kind of] neoconservative. I wouldn’t
pay any attention to Woolsey if he was telling me to get out of the way of a
proceeding Mack truck. Woolsey is an idiot.
Paul Jay: Well, there may be others that are advising
this policy. OK, Larry, sorry go ahead.
Larry Wilkerson: We’re talking about people like
Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney and Douglas Pipe and a host
of these other people dictating these...
Paul Jay: Dick Cheney.
Larry Wilkerson: Dick Cheney. These people lie, cheat,
steal. They will do anything to get what they think is necessary, and at the at
the bottom of most of what they think is necessary is protecting Israel. Now I
got news for them. They are setting up... we are setting up... we are creating
in the Middle East, and I’ve said this, and I’ll say it again until I go to my
grave, and that won’t be a short time away, we are setting up a condition where
Israel is going to cease to exist. We are creating the most dangerous situation
—along with Netanyahu—he’s giving us a lot of help—we are creating the most
dangerous possible situation for Israel in that region of the world because at
the end of the day when Israel is sinking, we’re not going to her rescue
because we will be in the process of sinking ourselves.
Paul Jay: All right, thanks for joining us, Larry.
Larry Wilkerson: Thank you, Paul.
Paul Jay: Thank you for joining us on the Real News
Network.
No comments: