Friday, September 6, 2013


For those who don't really understand WTF is going on in Syria: you're in good company, even the President stands with you. So, kindly let your humble servant (and former international military analyst for the US Government in a different time) 'splain WTF is going on.

1. Historically Syria under Assad has been an enemy of the US, but the Assad regime is NOT islamist (they're Baathists, i.e,. Arab Nazis, like Saddam.) They also hate Israel but they're not stupid enough to try to conquer them. Bashar Assad succeeded his father a few years back as dictator.

1a. Assad is not an orthodox Muslim, but an Alawite (Alawites are kinda like a Muslim Mormonism, i.e., a 'new' sect bearing only superficial resemblance to Islam). Fundamentalist Islamists hate the Alawi (is there anyone they like? Never mind.) Assad is a bastard, but less of a bastard than was his father who he replaced. He has not targeted Syria's religious minorities for bad treatment.

1b. About 18 months ago a rebel movement (=AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD) rose against Assad's Baathist government (and started attacking Syria's Christian community, Alawites, Druzes and other religious minorities).

2. Last year we got hints that chemical weapons were on the loose and Obama said that if Assad used them.... Obama would crunch his carrot and say 'You realize of course, THIS means WAR!'

3. We invaded Iraq in 2002 because (among other things) we thought Iraq had chemical weapons. A good guess, as they'd used them against civilians in the past.

4. It now appears likely the chemical weapons were given to the Syrian government before we invaded.

5. Three weeks ago a chemical bomb (Sarin, a form of human RAID) was set off in a suburb very near Damascus, killing 500. The veracity of this incident is not in doubt.

6. Obama sez it was set off by Assad, President of Syria.

7. Assad says it was set off by the rebels (AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD).

8. It was set off near the capital. What kind of an idiot gasses his own capital?

9. It is very likely the weapon was set off (perhaps askidentally) by the rebels.


11. Obama wants to bomb Assad. That would help the rebels (=AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD).

12. Yesterday Obama talked about sending US "trainers" (SPECIAL FORCES!) to train the Syrian... REBELS (=AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD).

13. (WTF?)

14. Assad has Putin on his side, and the Chinese.

15. Obama realizes that he should have kept his mouth shut and said he'd ask Congress their opinion (damned decent of him as the law requires it).

16. Congress realizes that they just got a hot potato thrown on their lap.
16a. The Libertarians and Tea partiers HATE the idea of going to war with Syria.
16b. The GOP elite hate the idea but hate being blamed for not backing the President more.
16c. The hard left hate the idea but they hate Republicans more.
16d. The rest of the Democrats are robotically backing the President as usual.

17. Joker in deck: word from Egypt is that we gave $billions to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to bribe them for their support. This would explain Obama's support for the rebels (=AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD) in Syria.

18. So who gave the chemical weapons to the Syrian government? Three possibilities: Given to Assad by Saddam before our invasion in 2002 (and then stolen by the rebels (AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD). Or manufactured by Assad (they have the capability; they have chemical processing plants) (and then stolen by the rebels (AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD). Or given to the Rebels by an outside power--Saudi Arabia most likely as they're funding the rebels (AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD).

18a. Why are the Saudis paying for the Rebels (=AL QAIDA/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD)? Bribing them to not carry out operations within Saudi Arabia. A successful AQ/MB revolution in Saudi would likely cause full scale US/European intervention, not to mention the likely extermination of the entire Saudi royal family.

19. How do we find out for sure whodunit?

20. Beats the hell outa me!

21. Many people of good conscience say that it does not matter; it is not our fight. I disagree.

21A. A legitimate (i.e., internationally recognized) government that uses WMD against civilians has forfeited its right to exist. We invaded Iraq over this issue (among others) and it was also why we intervened in Bosnia. We didn't have "a dog in that fight" until the genocide at Srebrenica.

21b. It is our problem because of the Convention Against Genocide, to which we are a signatory. Given the use of Zyklon-B against civilians in the big one the use of Sarin in the same general circumstances can be called genocide.

21c. If the rebs use them, this gives us cover to arm Assad. An Assad who is an American-dependent puppydog would not hurt peace prospects either in the larger sense.

22. Finally (and salute to my friend Karen M. for pointing this out) it also would serve
 as a shot across Iran's bow that if they have/use nukes, they'd better expect to see a bad moon a'risin'.

23. My friend Dan adds "I'm tired of this the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend crap." Yep. Me too.

I reserve the right to add to this analysis as comments roll in (both here and on my FB account).


One of my friends (who wishes to remain anonymous) comments as follows:

A lot of pundits have latched onto this idea (#10, we don't know).  While it may be true, they have not been listening.
Because, Kerry says:
- that it was a ROCKET, not a bomb;
- that it was launched from government controlled territory;
- that it landed in a rebel controlled area of the capital;
- that that particular part of Damascus had been a tough nut to crack for Assad;
- that government "chatter" told government troops to get their gas masks ready before the rocket;
- etc.
Now, given that in the build-up to the Iraq war, we were sold the same bill of goods by the administration at the time, once bitten, twice shy....

/anonymous friend

All I can say is that I assume anything that damned commie traitor Carry says is a lie, including 'but' and 'and'. If he said the sky was blue I'd look out a window to confirm. 

If it WAS a govt strike, then we're morally correct in smacking Assad as chemical strikes against civilians are intolerable. But still it would be politically insane to do so.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it clean for gene.