"In August 1914, most Germans regarded the armed conflict they were entering in spiritual terms. The war was above all an idea, not a conspiracy aimed at German territorial aggrandizement. To those who reflected on the matter, such aggrandizement was bound to be an offshoot of victory, a strategic necessity, and an accompaniment to German self-assertion, but territory was not what the war was about. Until September, the government and military had no concrete war aims, only a strategy and a vision, that of German expansion in an existential rather than a physical sense.Syria is facing an existential crisis, as well as the rest of the Middle East. The stakes couldn't be higher. Various plots are coming to a head in Damascus.
The idea that this was to be a "preventive war," to forestall the aggressive designs and ambitions of the hostile powers surrounding Germany, was certainly a part of the thinking of men like Tirpitz and Moltke. Yet these defensive considerations, while often discussed, were invariably subsumed by a grand sense of German power, whose time, it was felt, had come. The two aspects, the practical and the idealistic, were not mutually exclusive, as so many historians who have debated the war aims have implied; both were essential ingredients of the German personality on the eve of the war.
Despite sufficient evidence from the Crimean War, the American Civil War, and the Boer War that a major conflagration would involve long, drawn-out, and bitter fighting, few strategists, tacticians, or planners, German or any other, foresaw anything but a quick resolution to a future conflict. Despite a growing preoccupation by the military in the course of the nineteenth century with size and numbers, with war as a mass phenomenon, the vision everywhere was still of a war of movement, heroism, and quick decisions. Railways would get men to the front promptly; machine guns would be used in attack; mighty ships and mighty artillery would overwhelm the enemy in short order. However, although materiel was important, war was regarded, especially in Germany, as the supreme test of spirit, and, as such, a test of vitality, culture, and life. War, wrote Friedrich von Bernhardi in 1911 in a volume that was to go through six German editions in two years, was a "life-giving principle." It was an expression of a superior culture. "War," wrote a contemporary of Bernhardi's, was in fact "the price one must pay for culture." In other words, whether considered as the foundation of culture or as steppingstone to a higher plateau of creativity and spirit, war was an essential part of a nation's self-esteem and image.
At the outbreak of the war Germans were convinced, as Theodor Heuss, a staunch liberal and certainly no rabid nationalist, put it, of their "moral superiority," their "moral strength," and their "moral right." For Conrad Haussmann, also on the liberal left, the war was a question of will: "In Germany there is a single will in everyone, the will to assert oneself." Of course this was to be a national effort, this war, but only because it was to be an effort by every German." - Modris Eksteins. "Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age." (1).
"And this, I think, has been a wake up call from hell. It is telling us you have the power now to act. Summon the will, because the terrorists have the will to destroy America, to destroy freedom, to destroy all of America's allies and all the democracies, Israel being simply on the front line. They have the will, but they don't have the power." - War criminal and totalitarian liar Benjamin Netanyahu speaking about the meaning of the false flag 9/11 events on NBC on September 13, 2001. (2).
"Over the past sixteen months of the destabilization of Syria, NATO and the GCC have created a situation without exit that might well degenerate into global war," wrote French journalist Thierry Meyssan on Monday, June 11. (3).
NATO's military aggression against Syria is testing the members, unity, and vision of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). So far, they seem to be meeting the challenge, having met last Thursday and concluded that "they unanimously rejected military intervention as a way to resolve international hotspot issues," (4).
The portrayal of the conflict in Syria has proven to be more important than the conflict itself. Impressions and perceptions spread through the airwaves are driving this war, not facts on the ground.
But the roadblock of truth has stopped those who are once again committing highway robbery on the road to war by stealing people's minds and hearts with fabricated facts and fake images.
The Western mainstream media's abysmal failure to sell a false narrative about Syria based on NATO propaganda has forced NATO and its allies to change strategy and use the option of good old fashioned warfare to bring down Syria. The delusional media war planners in Washington have forgotten the basics of war. You know, the kind of warfare that involves armies and soldiers, not cameras and images.
Washington didn't face unified armies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. But Syria and Iran are different stories. These are not media wars. These are real wars against nations that can shoot back. An eye for an eye is now the motto. The criminal maniacs in Washington, NATO, and Israel won't be the only ones who will dish out pain on history's grandest of stages.
War is not about rooting for the good guys against the bad guys while watching bombs go off on television, as we have come to know it in the West. War is a very dirty business. Many millions will die if the insane leaders of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel continue to wage their campaign of terror, mass murder, and destabilization throughout the Middle East.
For Syria to go down, brainwashed NATO troops will have to get directly involved. The "Free Syrian Army" is in reality the Controlled Foreign Terrorists (CFT). The CFT cold-bloodedly murders women and children in their sleep. They can bomb Syrian churches and clinics all night, but they can't take Syrian cities by day.
"The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year," wrote Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on Friday, June 8. "The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruited and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar," (5).
The writer of the website, "Moon of Alabama," says that the Syrian army is getting its act together and making moves against the foreign-backed terrorists, writing:
"Some UN people said that Syria is now in a civil war suggesting a somewhat even balance between the parties. I think that is hugely exaggerated. Western media claimed that the revolt in Syria was by all parts of the Syrian population and only now changes into a sectarian conflict. That is simply wrong. The fighting was from the very beginning sectarian with the rebels naming each Friday after this or that Sunni hero. These foreign supported, and partly foreign led, Sunni rebel groups will have huge difficulties to survive a real onslaught by the united Syrian army." (6).The bigger picture of the conflict in Syria has been reduced to occupy the background space of history, while fake humanitarian cries for intervention from the media brainwashed Western world have taken center stage.
There is every indication that the NATO-instigated crisis in Syria will draw out for a long time, bringing in Iran, Russia, and China into the picture. Save a new alliance between America and Iran, war will consume all the nations of the Middle East, cause the death of millions, and lead to America's final act of strategic suicide in the region.
Such a global tragedy can only be prevented if wise men retake control of America's policy towards Iran and end the feud before diehard fanatics lit the fuse and make Iranians and Americans fight against each other over nothing.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two former senior officials in the National Security Council, have repeatedly warned against a U.S. military attack on Iran. On May 28th, they wrote:
There is "a very analogous logic at play in the Middle East." The United States "tried being the hegemon" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the region. The results are clear: America's pursuit of hegemony in the Middle East "doesn't work"; in fact, "it actually makes us weaker." Just as the United States had (and has) interests in Asia, it has "critical interests" in the Middle East. And it can only protect and promote those interests by "having positive relations with all of the important players in the region--and especially with Iran." This, however, is "a strategic logic" that the Obama Administration "seems no more capable of embracing than its predecessors in the Bush 43 Administration." (Or, one might add, the Clinton and Bush 41 administrations.) It is a profound "strategic failure." (7).The consequences of attacking Iran will be far-reaching and ultimately tragic. Only madmen are for a war against Iran. Washington must come to its senses, send packing the god of hubris, and rejoin humanity.
1. Modris Eksteins. "Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age ." 1989. Key Porter Books: Toronto. Pg. 90-91.
2. NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. Air date: September 13, 2001.
3. "Russian Warning Shots", by Thierry Meyssan , Voltaire Network , 11 June 2012, www.voltairenet.org/a174586
4. "Half Of Humanity: SCO Opposes Global Military Interventions", Voltaire Network , 10 June 2012, www.voltairenet.org/a174570
5. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky. "Confronting Iran, "Protecting Israel": The Real Reason for America's War on Syria." Global Research. June 8, 2012.
6. Moon of Alabama. "Syrian Army Is Now Taking The Initiative." June 13, 2012.
7. Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. "Nuclear Talks With Iran Highlight The Downsides of America's Ongoing Quest For Middle East Hegemony." The Race For Iran. May 28, 2012.