Another trick is to get a surrogate country, such as Turkey right next door, to "take the lead." Soon, there are provocations which we are told threaten Turkey's sovereignty or safety. Then we need to "help the Turks" who are, after all, our allies.
So it comes as no surprise that the US is deploying hundreds of troops and two Patriot air-defense missile batteries to Turkey to guard against "potential threats" from Syria. Now, let's think about this logically. The president of Syria is struggling to stay in power and he's looking to attack other countries? Countries far stronger than he is? Countries whose allies would immediately retaliate against Assad, guaranteeing he would be driven from power and probably killed?
To drive home the idea that it is Turkey's fight, and that the US is just concerned for its well-being, Secretary of Defense Panetta has been dispatched to very publicly visit bases over there.
Just to ensure that Assad's back is truly against the wall, and to prompt him to take desperate measures (like using chemical weapons), the UK is drawing up a plan to provide military training to the Syrian rebels, along with naval and air support. As the excellent UK paper The Independentnotes with skepticism not seen in its American counterparts:
"Britain, France and the US have agreed that none of their countries would have 'boots on the ground' to help the rebels. The training camps can be set up in Turkey. However, the use of air and maritime force would, in itself, be highly controversial and likely to lead to charges that, as in Libya, the West is carrying out regime change by force."Furthermore, any such military action will have to take place without United Nations authorisation, with Russia and China highly unlikely to back a resolution after their experience over Libya where they agreed to a 'no-fly zone' only to see it turn into a NATO bombing campaign lasting months.
"The plan will also draw accusations that the decision to station NATO Patriot missile defence systems at the Syrian border, at the request of Turkey, was, in reality, to camouflage intervention."
Obama, in an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, recognized the Syrian opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime." And Assad recognized the Occupy movement as "the legitimate representative of the American people in opposition to the oligarchically-dominated regime in Washington." (Actually, we made up the last claim -- but you get the ridiculousness of Obama making that determination.)
Meanwhile, over in Bahrain, where the people truly hate the Western-backed regime, neither Obama nor Walters talked about the long prison sentence for a real "legitimate representative" of the Bahraini people -- a prominent human rights activist. Were top journalists willing to discuss the news in context, we might soon sense a double standard when it comes to concern for democracy and freedom.
I Like Ike -- After the Fact
Truth be told, without public outcry, one cannot expect a Walters or an Obama to do very much to reverse the inevitable, even if they wished to do so.
The economy of the United States (like that of its allies) depends on unending military intervention and alleged new threats. Just check the statistics on the enormity of the military and military-related contracts to the private sector. How many companies might go under without All-Sparta-All-The-Time? For a sampler, see this article in the Dallas Morning News, headlined "North Texas economy relies on military contracts, so cuts would hurt."
Of course, the gravy train should, theoretically, come to a halt once every independent regime is eliminated. But places like Afghanistan and Libya (and Iraq and once-ally Iran) have a tendency to turn against the West, and so the money is likely to keep flowing to America's "military-industrial complex," an insatiable entity which a former-general-turned-president warned us about half a century ago.
Evidence of this is found in a recent, little-noted development in which Iraq, "liberated" at great cost by the United States, freed Musa Ali Daqduq, a senior Hezbollah commander who was directly involved in the death of five American soldiers. As former American diplomat Peter Van Buren writes:
"...in summation: U.S. invasion fails to achieve our national goals at the cost of some 4900 American lives, ally Iraq releases a known killer under Iranian pressure and the U.S. is left with the grisly option of droning his ass to death because that's all we really can do anymore, lash out like some giant of a kid frustrated at his own failings."
Meanwhile, the New York Times, whose motto might be "the first to figure things out -- after the fact" shows why the Western money establishment loves these interventions: money. It recently published a piece about how Americans who helped Kosovo get its independence from Serbia are back there getting a piece of the action as entrepreneurs.
For a reminder of what a mess Westerners can make in these places, especially in installing faux "help-the-people" initiatives designed to justify further intervention if needed and to protect investments, see this WhoWhatWhy piece on the American University of Iraq.
War Propaganda R Us
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
