This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
At issue is Obama advancing the ball closer to war. Washington readied plans long ago. Timing alone remains undecided. Plans now may be set. Most likely the Serbia/Kosovo/Iraq/Libya model will be repeated.
In 1999, Washington bypassed Security Council approval. It claimed NATO authorization alone mattered. It set a precedent. Henceforth international and constitutional law could be circumvented. Going to war became as simple as ordering bombs away.
On June 6, Hillary Clinton suggested it's coming. Her official State Department press release said:
"Recent events, including the killings at Houla, have exposed the Asad regime's determination to continue waging war on the Syrian people.""The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won't...."
Clinton stressed "transition(ing)" to a new Syria. At issue is regime change. Earlier she said Washington and the "international community" must "intensify" pressure on Assad "whose rule by murder must come to an end."
Heated rhetoric advances the ball for war. So do Western-directed death squad massacres falsely blamed on Assad.
In late May, Joint Chiefs head General Martin Dempsey said there's "always a military option....(I)t may come to a point with Syria because of the atrocities."
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf Council states also urge direct military intervention. So do Western-recruited Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Council (SNC) members.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
