It is possible that an attack on Syria by NATO forces was forestalled by popular opposition. From what I can see a large majority of people in both the US and UK are opposed to military intervention despite what seemed to be a near consensus from the mainstream media (MSM) that Assad should be punished for his alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Using the website writetothem.com, I wrote to my MP Stephen Timms saying:
I am concerned and distressed to learn that the British Government is planning military action against Syria because of an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on citizens in a rebel held area of Damascus. I think that such action is morally and logically indefensible for the following reasons:
1. We have no clear evidence that the chemical weapons attack was perpetrated by government forces.
2. We know that in previous, smaller scale, incidents involving the use of chemical weapons that evidence points to the rebels rather than the government being the perpetrators.
3. There would be no benefit to the Syrian government in perpetrating a chemical weapons attack since they have been winning the war and to use such weapons would invite exactly the response that we are seeing from the US/UK and their allies.
4. However deplorable the record of the Syrian government in repressing opposition they appear to have the support of the majority of the Syrian people so any military action would not simply be an attack on an oppressive regime but an attack on the Syrian people.
5. An attack on Syrian forces would aid the rebels who have a record of atrocities against many sections of the Syrian people. Patrick Cockburn in an article in today’s Independent writes that “over the past week, anti-government rebels have been carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Syrian Kurds in the north-east of the country, forcing 40,000 of them to flee across the Tigris into northern Iraq in less than a week.”
6. A military strike against Syria cannot be limited as it will elicit a response which will lead to further escalation.
7. Previous military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have not been successful in establishing stable governments and security for their people.
I urge you to take all possible action to forestall this rush to war.
Maybe thousands of messages like this had some impact. At any rate the Labour party said that it would not support a resolution permitting immediate military action against Syria. I’m glad to hear this but we should remain wary that agreement on any less specific resolution is not used as permission to proceed with the use of force a few weeks down the line.
Although both the US and UK seem to be backing off immediate military action they are keeping that option open and continue to insist that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. A balanced account of the chemical attack is given in this Democracy Now interview with Patrick Cockburn and Razan Zaitouneh:
Razan Zaitouneh has no doubt that the attack was perpetrated by the Syrian government, Patrick Cockburn is not so sure. Both seem to agree that atrocities have been committed by both sides. I am sceptical of the narrative that paints Assad and the Syrian government as monsters capable of anything and the certain perpetrators of the Ghouta attack. To understand what it happening in Syria we need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
It is no secret that the the US/UK have had plans to attack Syria long before the rebellion began. A NATO general, Wesley Clark admitting that there is a plan to systematically destabilise and attack several Middle East countries including Iraq, Syria and Iran is open enough:
Roland Dumas a former French Foreign Minister also openly says that the UK had plans for regime change in Syria since 2009. This is apparently okay with him, he just thinks people should know about it:
It is easy to see the chaos in the Syria and the Middle East as part of a plan to extend the economic and military dominance of what has been variously called the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the Global Elites, the Corpratocracy, the Globalists etc. To understand what is happening in Syria and the Middle East we must have some awareness of this plan.
John Perkins, author of the book and documentary “Confessions of a Economic Hitman” shows how, since the 1950’s, the US MIC has undermined democratic governments in a number of countries through bribery, assassination, incitement of coups and rebellions and finally direct invasion in order to advance their interests. I consider this video a really useful and accessible summary:
Mimi Al-Laham, aka Syrian Girl, suggests that the Ghouta attack is a direct or indirect consequence of the Globalist game plan. In this interview she also contextualises the situation in the Middle East:
Mimi is worth following. Her posts offer a good counterweight to what is coming out of the MSM.
I think we need to understand all this. We don’t need to be history geeks or political geeks but we need to pay attention and have some understanding of contexts because as citizens of a democratic country where to some degree we can discuss stuff and hold opinions and vote for representatives we have responsibility for what our leaders do abroad as well as domestically.