Syria as a Game-Changer: US Political Impotence in the Middle East | Ramzy Baroud

[Tace]

Ramzy Baroud -- World News Trust

May 22, 2013

In an article published May 15, 2013, American historical social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote, “Nothing illustrates more the limitations of Western power than the internal controversy its elites are having in public about what the United States in particular and western European states should be doing about the civil war in Syria.”

Those limitations are palpable in both language and action. A political and military vacuum created by past U.S. failures and forced retreats after the Iraq war made it possible for countries like Russia to reemerge on the scene as an effective player.

It is most telling that over two years after the Syrian uprising-turned bloody civil war, the United States continues to curb its involvement by indirectly assisting anti-Bashar al-Assad regime opposition forces, through its Arab allies and Turkey. Even its political discourse is indecisive and often times inconsistent.

Concurrently, Russia’s position remains unswerving and constantly advancing while the United States is pushed into a corner, demonstrating incapacity to react except for condemnations and mere statements. This is to the displeasure of its Arab allies. Russia’s recent delivery of sophisticated anti-ship missiles and its own buildup of warships in the eastern Mediterranean is a case in point. The move was condemned by the Obama administration as one that is “ill-timed and very unfortunate,” according to a statement by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported in the LA Times on May 17.

more

http://worldnewstrust.com/syria-as-a-game-changer-us-political-impotence-in-the-middle-east-ramzy-baroud

[delrem]

1. Why impotent? Because the driving element in the FSA is allied with aQ in Iraq?

The US already did that, training and arming aQ to go after the old Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Why not repeat a winning strategy?

In my opinion aQ is not somehow "worse" than right-wing death squads trained at the School of the Americas, operating in Central and South America. aQ is the same. bin Laden had a shitload of money...

Because Saudi Arabia and Qatar, fingers overflowing with $1K bills and a call for fighters, buy up a very mixed crew, a crew weaned on this war, who grew up during this war? Because Blackwater/Xe/academi necessarily hire from these same pickings and even worse, from all over the world? Because when war is commercialized and privatized like this there can be no pretense left of it serving *ideals*. Privatized war is war for the sake of war.

Because 10's of $billions$ of arms deals flow back and forth between the US and its puppets even while this goes on? Isn't that a plus for the USA? Because the only thing secured in Libya is the oil fields, these being secured *at once*? Isn't that a plus, as well?

Because the ultimate game changing lie of this war in Syria is a Hillary Clinton promotion, "The Friends of Syria (tm)", a lie told near the beginning, and because building on such a lie, on such a fiction, is impotent?

I'm not suggesting that Hillary knew she was telling a lie. Just that the gang of swindlers and thieves in her "Friends of Syria" conferences aren't people that one would want to high profile.

If this (whatever) policy made the USA "impotent in the middle east", why would Obama so closely follow W in pursuing it? Obama infuriated "the left" by doing this, so expended a shitload of his political capital, and he had to have known that he was doing it. Furthermore, isn't the very word 'impotent' almost obnoxiously inappropriate when describing the USA?

The USA knows that it isn't militarily challenged by any country on the planet. Within reason, of course! A person has to presume that no country capable of doing it would engage in a war the end result of which would be a pile of nuclear dust and nothing else. But the USA has overwhelming conventional forces and loves to experiment with new tech. How else can ya sell it, hmmm?

The USA (and the UK) knew that they weren't militarily challenged by Iraq. The notion is laughable anyway, but esp. after so many years of UN certified disarmament programs and what, 10 yrs? of US bombardment and interdiction? Yet the USA/UK destroyed Iraq on the pretext that Iraq posed a "WMD threat" of "mushroom cloud" proportions, just minutes away from delivery. "Pundits" have yet to come close to explaining the enormity of such a lie, or to acknowledging the enormity of the consequences.

bin Laden is dead. The crows are still singing.
Even though no evidence of this will ever be shown.
"Just sayin ..."

The USA is still in Afghanistan, american citizens still castigate Karzai for not being the puppet they want.
American citizens still berate the liberated Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, etc., for not being sufficiently appreciative of their liberation. For being incapable of understanding "freedom". Incapable of understanding Western Ideals.

I don't think the US is on a good track - one that might lead to peace. (insert 'humor' icon here).
But impotent? No.