Tags

, , , ,

If you listen to the religious wackos, war in Syria is about prophecy. Isaiah 17:1 states:

“See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins.”

Thankfully, those nutjobs are few, and Syria is about something else.

The Syrian civil war has been ongoing since the start of the Arab Spring in Winter 2010/2011.  Recently Assad has started to gain the upper hand, so why risk international reprisal now? I think the proof of chemical weapons use is incontrovertible, the proof of who used them is what is ambiguous. If it was not in Assad’s interests to use chemical weapons, then “cui bono” from drawing the US into the conflict?

The rebels in Syria are reported to be 10-20 percent Al Quida allies, they have committed uncounted atrocities against non-combatants particularly Christians.  They would benefit from gaining the US as their de facto airforce.

Israel and Syria have been at war (of varying degrees) since 1948, with 3 major conflicts during that period. Borders, water, weapons transfers and support for terrorism are all at play.  Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria and has made numerous, if periodic, airstrikes into Syria since then. Israel would benefit from a US attack on Syria.

Obama is under fire. Attention is focused on the continuous leaks of documents related to the NSA’s extra-Constitutional actions under the current (and previous) US regime.  Diverting attention must be a primary subject of any Obama strategy meetings. With active troops out of Iraq and our defeat in Afghanistan, numerous psychologically scarred and battle hardened troops are preparing to join the US unemployed. What do you think will be the result of this on domestic tranquility? There is little doubt that Obama will gain in numerous ways from an attack on Syria (and even more from a prolonged occupation).

If chemical weapons is really what the current saber rattling is about, the logical reaction would be to insert a strike team and isolate, secure, and extract the chemical stockpiles.  But of course, you can’t do that with cruise missiles.  Then again, this was never about chemical weapons. Cui bono?

Advertisements