Aussie Conservative Political Philosophy/ Landmark Posts · Australian Foreign Policy/ Foreign Affairs · Syria · The Donald Trump Presidency

America lurches closer to a new war in Syria

Animal Assad.jpg

After President Trump accused ‘Animal Assad’ of committing another chemical weapons attack, a fresh media clamour for Western intervention in Syria began.

But is the President falling for another false flag?

One year ago President Assad was universally condemned for his alleged chemical weapons attack, and President Trump responded by launching 57 symbolic cruiser missile strikes on the identified site.

But for all the uncertainty and peril these strikes caused, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis conceded 10 months later, that the US lacked evidence of Assad’s responsibility. Isn’t it curious how the mainstream media vociferously condemned Assad and pushed for interventionism last year, yet didn’t follow up their lies with any journalistic integrity?

Big questions loom over the necessary mens rea for such an egregious act: why would Assad having virtually won the war, risk his country, his regime and everything he has spent 6 years fighting for, to use chemical weapons?

According to Piers Morgan, it is because Assad has ‘gotten away with it before,’ and we are led to believe that Assad is some nefarious, depraved variety of dictator.

Say what you like about Assad’s morality: but a man who has weathered several globalist attempts to depose him unlike Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, is no fool.

The idea that Assad would engage in some final, villainous act in boundless hubris, with full knowledge this behaviour could easily provoke a US President with an ever hawkish cabinet into war, belies all rationality. Rather than benefit his regime, the sole victor from an Assad chemical weapons attack would be the military- industrial complex, desperate for fresh excuses to topple a leader, whose position they ideologically oppose.

Nevertheless, even if we are to believe the rootless internationalist elites are correct in alleging chemical weapons use, overthrowing Assad would yield negligible to nil positive consequences.

Syria’s war tormented public have been scarred enough in the past 6 years of this Western engineered war, which would continue on for several more if Assad’s stronghold was challenged. No doubt, Syrian people would naturally resent invasive Western forces in their country, which would deeply hinder any national rebuilding program.

And with America threatening Russia’s vital interest in accessing its naval bases in the Mediterranean, how would a confrontation between the 2 great nuclear powers play out?

Further, what would replace Assad’s secular government and fill the power vacuum, besides ISIS and the host of other Islamist groups currently present, who have themselves used chemical weapons? Would it be democracy, and if so, at what point would victory be considered attained? Who would protect the persecuted Christians, whose mere existence would foreseeably be threatened under Islamist rule?

Any military intervention would hinge on US engagement, and a Syrian war is nonsensical to America’s end. There is no pertinent American national interest, and Assad has never threatened the United States in any way whatsoever. Costly Middle Eastern wars have nearly bankrupted America, killed thousands of its best young men, and a Syrian war would likely to continue this trend. And whilst the internationalist establishment might cheer at the first American attack, a similar predicament played out after President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But after 8 years, initial cheerleaders for war faded in prominence, and America retreated with its global reputation in tatters.

And with upcoming America- North Korea talks and the potential for denuclearisation, there would be no greater motivation for Kim Jong un to maintain his nuclear arsenal, than witness the US topple yet another sovereign nation.

Despite the endless list of patently observable reasons for restraint, it appears the entire political and media establishment is in favour of intervention, not to mention President Trump’s neocon- heavy administration.

Evidently, the President has backed himself into a difficult position. His options are either to wage a costly, fruitless war, or appear a blowfish and a man of bluster.

Despite this reality and the extraordinary pressure he will subsequently receive, President Trump ought disregard war- hungry generals and reconsider his tweets made while a civilian.

“We should stay the hell out of Syria, the “rebels” are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO.”

Alternatively, President Trump could watch Tucker Carlson’s finest ever segment.

Leave a Reply