Please understand, any U.S. military action in Syria means that we're being dragged into a proxy war

.

There is no reason for this soldier, iraq war veteran and NCO to believe (based on his past actions) that this president is 'being pulled into a proxy war'

is it so difficult to beleive that he simply wants to try and stop Assad from using chemical weapons? to degrade - yes, that is a very real military term - (ie, 'degraded operations' for MLRS) the anyone from using chemical weapons. hit some installations, some equipment, some airfields. Call it a day.

no invasion, no 'war'. Actions. Actions have ends. Not very dramatic is it. no wonder the left cant buy into it!

Maybe you've missed the news that the CIA has been arming the insurgents for some time, and that the U.S. has recently pledged to increase the amount of arms going to them? What kind of "ends" does this lead up to except regime change?

And maybe you've also missed the news that Saudi Arabia has promised to entirely bankroll a U.S. strike on Syria? Yes, those well-known humanitarians, the House of Saud, has offered to pay for using U.S. muscle to "degrade" Assad's capabilities. Entirely out of concern for the dead children, I'm sure.

And Israel, who had no problem with using white phosphorus in poplulated areas of the Gaza Strip, is becoming rather concerned that the U.S. might not go through with bombing Syria. APAIC is planning on a busy week lobbying our Congresscritters.

I stand by what I posted.

Thanks for sharing all your work and insight.

All of this has been so odd I just don't understand why President Obama has become so willing to bomb Syria, yet another country that has not attacked us. WE all know the definition of insanity, doing the same things over again and expecting different results. When will our leaders realize bombs for peace doesn't work? I believe there are other ways to punish Assad other than bombing him, and the US needs to explore every one of them! Sadly, the main reason why so many Republicans in congress have suddenly become Peaceniks is because they do not support anything our President does.

However, to have our Democratic leaders become so willing to start another WAR in the middle east, especially when our country's the poor and elderly are starving and need shelter, our roads and bridges need to be repaired, our unemployment rates are growing hire, and meanwhile we haven't really done anything to prevent Wall Street and our financial system from collapsing, is very disturbing and creepy! I really think they're "Pod" people and their brains have been sucked out and replaced with war mongering Reagan type Republicans.

Barack Obama's a smart guy, and even though I disagree with him deeply here, I think his heart's in the right place.

Problem is? He's not the only smart guy in this picture. Bashar Assad's a smart guy. King Abdullah - both of them, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - are smart guys. Khamenei is a smart guy. Netanyahu is a smart guy. Putin's a smart guy. Erdogan's a smart guy. There's all these smart guys involved in this, and they're all pulling in their own directions.

So while we can acknowledge that here's this thing that Obama wants... we also need to realize that there's also all these other things that he doesn't want, but are still very likely to happen despite his desires and efforts, because 1) he's not operating in a vacuum and 2) nobody can know everything.

Maybe Mike Tyson isn't on the same tier as those smart guys, but he does have at least one smart thing he's said - "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

What I'm getting at is that even if we grant the president is a good guy, a smart guy, doing his very best for the best result possible... we can't take that as a guarantee that that is how things will actually go. And in this case, the possible numbero f bad, even horrible outcomes - not just for the US but for everyone involved vastly outweigh the handful of best-case scenarios.

but after those reports last week about the Saudis basically telling Putin, "Nice little Olympic Games you got here, be a shame if anything were to happen to them...", it seems like it still comes back to Saudi Arabia.

the more it looks like a proxy war between Gazprom and Aramco.

?

Of course, the stage sets are coming down, and the corps feel empowered to openly run the wars now.
maybe

Thanks for the thread, scarletwoman.

This is exactly the plan, and it doesn't end with the US being benign conquerors. It ends with the US people being conquered themselves by leaders they didn't elect because of the folks that hold the purse-strings.

I think that's what we're already up against - what with the MIC/Surveillance State we're living under.

but I think we have a chance to change the tide.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

I hope more people are waking up - although generally I prefer to avoid "hope" altogether. But it does seem as if more folks are noticing the brick wall at the back of the theater than there used to be.

Maybe when enough people have been screwed long enough and hard enough, they can't help but get a sneaking suspicion that maybe - just maybe - they are, in fact, getting screwed. Who knew?

I don't think that Iran would get embroiled in the war.

A win by the Jihadists would weaken the Shiite position strategically, causing Iran to retrench, move closer to the Russians and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as redouble efforts to get nuclear arms.

On the other hand, a win by the Jihadists would establish a Sunni Arab Caliphate in Damascus with the objective of overthrowing Jordan and cooperating with Saudi Arabia. It would not be dominated by the Saudi King, but the King would have no alternative but to ally himself with the Jihadists.

Ultimately, Israel will find itself surrounded by four strong Sunni Islamic powers centered on Ankara, Damascus, Riyadh, and Cairo. Old colonial boundaries of Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon will be erased, and the Sunni parts of Iraq may de facto join the Damascus power.

This new alignment will be more dangerous to Israel than Iran.

And if the jihadists get too uppity, I doubt that SA - along with Yemen, Qatar, and the UAE - will have much compunction about putting them in their place. With U.S. military help, of course.

I'm pretty sure that Iran is the ultimate target here. And frankly, I hope Iran DOES get nuclear arms. I think it would go a long way to putting a stop to a lot of this shit.

It took 200 years to remove the last European intrusion into Palestine, so we have a long time to go.

The Islamist objective is to eject the US from the Middle East, quarantine Israel, and let it wither for a while.

The nukes may not matter. Remember that most suicide bombers in the Middle East have been Sunni. The exception was the Marine Barracks bombing, and that might be considered more of a military attack than a terrorist suicide attack.

As long as the U.S. pays SA the requisite protection money (arms, oil contracts) they'll keep the jihadists out of Israel. After all, isn't that what they just offered Putin?

Since both have access to nuclear weapons, it would not surprise me if together they try to stop Iran from obtaining them. Israel has nukes outright and it is not a big secret that the Pak nuclear program was funded by SA.

IMO, this pact became much more public when both Israel and SA jointly supported the Egyptian military coup against Morsi.

These two countries are trying to force us to their dirty work in Syria.

with a poster in another thread that Sarin gas is not quite as bad as White Phosphorous, and then proceeded to detail why. The poster then declared it wasn't as bad to die in nerveless suffering in a few minutes (she doesn't really understand the physiological ramifications at all, which is why I know she is just being fed talking points) than to be essentially roasted alive for a few days.

You know, it even hurts me to know that there are people being fed such bullshit and are being forced to feed it. Lies are nasty, but to me, there is something fundamentally awful about a campaign designed to push lies.

Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

I don't like it one bit.

Sarin gas and White Phosphorus are both weapons whose use should be punished as a war crime. I really don't see that much reason to choose between the two.

They are both horrific, and excusing one while giving the other a pass is sickening justification for atrocity.

So those weapons continue indiscriminately killing for years.

It should never have been used.

Where did that sentence come from?

and please try to convince young people not to fight. I am sick thinking about all the out of work kids who will be recruited.

"War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler should be required reading for all U.S. citizens.

part of the build-up for the planned war in Viet Nam. Thereafter, he became an outspoken critic of the Viet Nam war.

He, like Smedley Butler, was a man of exceptional courage. His history, and his opposition to the military-industrial complex, should also be taught.

I will definitely look him up! I'm sorry I have not heard of him before now.

David M. Shoup: A Warrior against War by Howard Jablon,

Here's one blurb from Amazon,

"David M. Shoup was a heroic and decorated military hero. After having served stateside and in China during the 1920s and 1930s, Shoup quickly moved up the ranks upon the outset of the Second World War. For his bravery and leadership in the victory at Tarawa in the Pacific, Shoup was awarded the Medal of Honor. Following the war, Shoup continued his service, eventually being named Commandant of the Marine Corps. Yet, despite this clear dedication to his life-long career in the armed services, Shoup became a fervent and outspoken critic of the Vietnam War. His very public opinions won him the respect of protesters and the loathing of many fellow officers and friends.

"In this fascinating ... biography, historian Howard Jablon chronicles the career of this soldier turned war protestor.

great post!

the Islamic leadership of Saudi Arabia will be drinking and gambling their brains out in Monaco.

Recommended and thanks for the well thought out post.

When a person stops falling for all the sleight of hand - "look over there!" - reality starts standing out.

I would never in a hundred years have imagined we would be at this point.

...and much, much more. We the People, have in the past been easily diverted from the main path of reality. We've been so easily caught-up and manipulated by our own fears or prejudices, which were used by those in power to rope us into their dramas.

But they're finding it harder and harder to make that happen this time. Their system of faux-democracy is imploding in on itself. That is why the monied interests are trying to convert all their ''dollars'' into tangible assets. Why they can threaten to sink global economies if they aren't bailed-out. They want the money. Why they can foreclose on homes that have no mortgage or are eligible for TARPing. They want the land. Why they can buy US Treasuries at negative interest rates. They want it all.

This war in Syria is the same war we've always been caught-up in. Same music, different stanza. We've come to think of them as ''our wars'' when in fact, it is no such thing. It's their wars against each other and we are the blunt instruments they use to wage it. The rich and the powerful hijacked this government long ago. And as Frank Zappa stated so eloquently:



- The scenery is in the process of coming down......

K&R

Exactly!

When the illusion of democracy does become too time involved, too expensive, and everything does get pulled away except the back of the brick wall at the back of the theater, we will find ourselves facing the firing squad. Or sarin gas, for that matter.

- It always has been.

From, the mysterious "The Insider" - it suggests that rather than my suggesting Obama cleanup his act, or that the Big Bankers clean up theirs, that I clean up mine.

Which is always very easy to do, until that first "idiot" cuts me off in traffic. Or I have to deal with a neighbor or a friend whose conversational frames and methods are different than mine. And who wants exactly the opposite of what I feel I have to give.

- We make it that way, to learn who we really are......

I also try and keep the goal in mind as well:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=580811811965290&set=a.174248849288257.33656.174217295958079&type=1&theater

Sunni versus Shia Islam. This is someplace we simply do not to be...

Even though they don't technically exist anymore and the only options that have been discussed have all been small, strategic attacks aimed at knocking out chemical weapon dispersal. Still, it could be about oil.

But what evidence is there to suggest your claim? Are you claiming that the rebels are fighting for Saudi Arabia and will do its bidding if the rebels succeed in Syria? And somehow the U.S dropping bombs just plays into all three sides, but so what cause...oil?

but their plans live on in those disposed to that particular world view.

As for Saudi Arabia, it's been reported for some time that they are funding at least certain factions of the "rebels", and it was just reported in the last day or so that SA have offered to pay all the costs of a U.S. military strike on Syria. Sorry I don't have a link handy, but it's been posted several times on DU over this weekend.

It's also no secret that SA is worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - this has been a long-standing theme of several year's standing.

Along with the Sunni (SA)/Shia (Iran) thing, the relationship between SA and Iran is not disimilar to the relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the early beginnings of the Cold War. SA wants to make sure Iran doesn't get nukes, because SA wants to remain the dominant power in the region.

this sounds like something I heard from the talking heads on any given channel in the Bush years.

Must have missed that warning.

You have properly described one-half of the problem.

The one you have left out is perhaps the most important one: american leaders have their own agenda, and they are the real ideologues behind the PNAC plan. The israelis, are part of the elite, so are the Saudis, but they do no make decissions on their own, without consulting washingtyon. Washington does make them without them, thought.

And it is not mentioned in your post. By your original account, american leaders have very little to do with today's situation. It is something about others, "them", whetever and whoever "they" are. And that's very wrong.

During the Clinton years,--at the very end of the Cold War--, it started with the idea of fighting two wars simultaneously, concocting a plan under the guise of maintaining " regional stability". In reality, american leaders, --democrats at that time--, knew it was due to the failure of the so-called "peace dividend", a failed clintonian plan, rescued from Bush father, to convert 47 percent of the defense department into tool and goods for a newfound peace.(the fall of the ussr). (note: at some point try to find out why the "peace dividend" was shelved.. hint: first bombing of the WTC took place the same week the plan was permanently shelved by congress).

After 911, the plan was to destabilize regimes throughout the world, (just like it was done during the Cold War, for different reasons back then). But specially important was to do so in the Middle East, where close to 60% or more of the oil was located. The idea was not to "use it" but to controll it. Why? to make other regional, rising powers, accept american leadership demands. Think tanks offered differnt words for it: they said " to prevent the rise of any power capable of challenging american leadership".

I wont extend anymore. You should guest the rest, after reviewing the facts outlined above. This is not an israli, saudi, syrian, iran, problem only.

USA, infofar as the elite is concerned, is purposedly subverting the international order, for its own benefit. At least, american political leaders know it. American citizens, for the most part, are completely unaware, sometimes obliviuos at the implications of such policy.

I did not intend to imply that it wasn't down to American political leaders at its core, and I thank you for expanding on that.



I agree completely. Thank you.

This is the clearest, most logical exposition I have seen. It all seems so simple the way you lay it out.
And even more clear after reading all the posts so far, and your further comments.

many thanks..

Thank you for the K&R!

I would only add that at this point, it is still simply a civil war in Syria. It is the Sunni Arab states -- those states that are eager to 'foot the bill' for our actions -- who are tryhing to make it into the proxy war you suggest. And if we become involved, that is exactly what it will become.

Here is something I posted on Facebook yesterday, along the same lines:

And, of course, I totally agree with you. It IS "utter madness for the U.S. to insert itself into this situation in any way, shape or form."

I really appreciate your bringing your comment to this thread, as I appreciate all your contributions to the discussions on DU.

The best that oil money can buy!

Next up...USAF becomes the Al-Quida Air Force!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3623555

(the quoted text is from the 1991 Gulf War)

(my bold)

Complete thread here: You think I want to send my son to die in Kuwait?

By one war get one free!
Drag enough sides into it an we might hit the trifecta.

He notes that we are trying to build a Sons of Syria style group to take out AQ and that the strike threat is to prevent the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons because it would prevent the US from building such a group to begin with. ie, Assad would end the war quicker if he could use chemical weapons at the scale he allegedly used them.

The US wants to prolong the thing for several years to build the internal Sons of Syria group.

from Iran to the coast - and they want to pump it through Syria. That pipeline is going to go in whether Assad wants it or not.

And that is the whole thing summarized in two sentences.

(the other stuff is always going on in that region - but make no mistake that our involvement has nothing to do with that - our involvement has to do with the profits)

even Israel, may be little more than a matador's cape for Saudi Arabia, to draw attention and ire of anyone Saudi Arabia considers to be a threat

In the first gulf war, missiles went into Riyadh Saudi Arabia

911 hijackers were nearly all saudis

911 results in iraq being taken out

Saudi Arabia benefits from almost everything we do, they have unbelievable influence wealth and power, yet they are almost never mentioned

It will not end well if we get anymore involved than we already are.

If we take military action, that will be what we chose to do.

We the People will suffer the consequences, whether we want this military strike or not.

circumstances beyond their control.

in the US like to label these religious aspects without really knowing anything about either. The principal divergence of belief between mainstream Sunnis and Shiites is in who the "official" heirs of the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad actually were. There are some smaller differences, but this is the main one. It's not even as big a "schism" as that existing between Catholics and Protestants. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-19

The problem with Saudi Arabia is that the official and dominant form of Sunni Islam there is Wahhabism, which is often described as 'puritanical', 'intolerant' or 'ultra-conservative' Islam, which makes it exactly as intolerant as similar puritanical religious beliefs in the most intolerant of Jewish or Christian ultra-conservative religious communities. Wahhabism has only been the dominant form of religion there for 200 years or so, consolidating its strength in the early 20th century.

Many Muslims dispute that Wahhabism is even a form of Sunni Islam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Iran's version of Shiite Islam, since the ayatollahs came to political power in 1979, is more akin to Wahhabism than it is to mainstream Shiite Islam. It is every bit as puritanical, intolerant and ultra-conservative.

Insofar as Saudi Arabia and Iran are concerned, it is not simply the religious aspect that usually has them at political odds, although we in the West like to focus rather simplistically on that. It is also that Iran and Saudi Arabia have different peoples, cultures and languages, different histories, different geopolitical concerns and different agendas. What they share is that the West covets the resources of both and has thus interfered in the internal politics of both, especially since the discovery of OIL in both.

I concur with the "proxy war" focus in the case of Syria. But I think that BOTH Iran and Saudi Arabia would be absolutely overjoyed to see the US interfere militarily in Syria and squander any hope of ever regaining international goodwill, along with all the other adverse consequences including the real potential for being dragged into WWIII.

That is all the more reason for us to stay out of this fight ... except in meaningful diplomacy to ensure that whoever used chemical weapons NEVER uses them again and to end the fighting, and also to join in meaningful humanitarian relief efforts that will help the displaced to return to their homes or to relocate to neutral areas. All of these are, of course, much more difficult that simply bombing away, which seems to be the only thing that will satisfy US blood lust.

Yes, PNAC and Likud (fwiw, there are many individual Israelis who feel exactly as we "Peace Purists" do; please do not tar them with the same RW brush) are both standing by cheerleading and egging on "war" efforts. Perhaps even worse. But in doing so, they are exceedingly short-sighted. They are literally cheering on their own destruction. About the only "friend" with any clout that Israel has is the US. If the US is no longer in a position to protect Israel on the global stage after squandering any remaining international good will that we have by using military force when the world overwhelmingly does not support it and letting our own domestic concerns go down the tube, that will be curtains for Israel. Perhaps not militarily, at least for a time. But certainly economically.

The US needs to address its own problems meaningfully. If only Prez Obama would use the same "full court press" he is using to sell his efforts to bomb Syria to address our own problems. If only ....

see where you would get your assumption that that is all we know about it.

It was just that reading through the comments to the OP, I saw a lot of responses - even where we agree as to non-intervention - who did not seem to understand. So the media and the GOP seem to have done a good job.

Anyway, please take my comments for what they are worth. If even one person learns something that s/he didn't know before, I'll be happy.

Thank you for posting.

I definitely simplified a number of issues in my OP. It was meant to be basically an outline - touching on what I saw as key points for consideration.

Your expanding on and elucidating some of these points in deeper detail is a welcome contribution to this thread.

They figure they can make more money by nuking us.

A nuclear first-strike is in the neocon/neoliberal plans.

But don't worry, it will be an "unbelievably small" nuclear attack.

Is the Christian Zionist inspiration for all this. Look up Greater Israel and see it's biblical borders, it will open your eyes as to what the fanatical elites who promote all this death and destruction are motivated by. A fairy tale of what Genesis says about Israel! Wake up. Killing is wrong, we all know it with out without God.

Especially self-described "liberal Democrats"... the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines will take liberal Democrats as soon as they'll take anyone.

Otherwise, no one wants to hear about your newly-realized warmonger tendencies and your opinion that it's the right thing to support "Pres O". When you actually put yourselves in harm's way for your country (and pushing drone-buttons doesn't qualify) you'll have the right to bitch about how we should take action against Syria.