Weissman writes: "Both the US and Russia play by the rules when it suits them.
Both are rattling nuclear sabers, and not just in Syria. Both refuse to take
their first-strike nuclear option off the table. And both are playing an
imperial role in Syria, as are the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and Iranians."
Residents of the besieged Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp wait to leave, on
the southern edge of the Syrian capital Damascus, February 4, 2014. (photo:
Reuters)
How David Petraeus and Vladimir Putin Are Risking a Syrian Armageddon
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
28 October 16
We did a no-fly zone to support the Iraqi Kurds for the better part of a
decade or so following the Gulf War until we ultimately went into Iraq to take
down Saddam Hussein,” Gen. David Petraeus explained in September in an
interview with Charlie Rose.
A major figure in America’s winless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus went
on to serve as Obama’s CIA director until he was forced to resign for revealing
high-level classified information to his mistress and then lying about it to
the FBI.
“It’s not too late to declare a safe zone” in Syria, he said. “It’s not too
late to declare a no-fly zone. And indeed if the regime air force, for example,
bombs folks we are supporting or we’re concerned about, we tell them we’re
going to ground your air force.”
“You don’t even have to enter their airspace, although we’re already there. You
can do it with cruise missiles, air launched, sea launched and others.”
Petraeus was not talking about shooting down a lone Russian plane, which
Hillary Clinton did not want to talk about in the third debate. Petraeus is
calling for using cruise missiles against Assad’s air force bases, planes,
runways, radar, other air defenses and infrastructure.
In his time as CIA director, Petraeus backed the so-called moderate rebels
backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and he now defends a no-fly zone and safe
havens as a way to protect those rebels and their families. Like Hillary and to
a lesser degree President Obama, he backs the Saudi and Qatari effort to
overthrow the Assad regime. This ensures that the civil war ‒ and the slaughter
‒ will go on and on.
Petraeus spoke only of taking out Assad’s air force, and said that he did not
want to “provoke some war with the Russians.” But the cruise missiles would
kill Russians and wreck their aircraft, since they share military bases with
the Syrians. They also have their own long-distance missiles, and their lone
aircraft carrier and flagship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and other ships are now
steaming toward Syria.
“You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against
the Russians,” a senior administration official told the Washington Post.
Whatever one may think of Petraeus – or of Putin – the danger is all too real.
Until now, the US and Russia have engaged in a proxy war. An American-imposed
no-fly zone risks a direct military confrontation between two nuclear-armed
powers. Neither side wants a nuclear war. But the more the US and Russia
confront each other militarily, the greater the threat that Syria will become
an atomic Armageddon.
What, then, of Russia’s role?
Over a year ago, I challenged the small minority of Russia’s supporters on the
American left with a simple question: “Is Bombing Syria Any Better if Putin
Drops the Bombs?” Aleppo answers the question, full stop.
No matter that Assad heads Syria’s legitimate government and has every right in
international law to invite the Russians to come to his aid. International law
did not stop the Americans from covertly putting together the coup in Kiev that
overthrew the legitimately elected government of Ukraine’s pro-Russian
president Viktor Yanukovych, with hands-on help from Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Nor did international law and explicit treaty obligations stop Putin from
annexing Crimea.
Both the US and Russia play by the rules when it suits them. Both are rattling
nuclear sabers, and not just in Syria. Both refuse to take their first-strike
nuclear option off the table. And both are playing an imperial role in Syria,
as are the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and Iranians. As I previously quoted
journalist Patrick Cockburn, the conflict in Syria is infinitely complex, much
like three-dimensional chess played by nine players and with no rules.
Is there a solution? The only one I can see would be a grand bargain among all
the imperialists. Nothing short of that will work in the long term, and I
frankly don’t think the players are ready for anything close. I hope it won’t
take a nuclear blast to open their minds to change.
In the near term, the American people need to push President Hillary to stop
open and covert support for the Saudi and Qatari-backed rebels, drop any idea
of an American-imposed no-fly zone, back away from her Cold War, anti-Russian
thinking, and look for new agreements of mutual interest similar to the one
that removed most, though not all, of Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons. Putin
was more than open to that agreement. Washington needs to work with him to look
for others.
Pushing Clinton will not be easy. Neither were the movements for civil rights
and against the war in Vietnam.
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine
writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is
researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks,
Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Residents of the besieged Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp wait to leave, on
the southern edge of the Syrian capital Damascus, February 4, 2014. (photo:
Reuters)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
How David Petraeus and Vladimir Putin Are Risking a Syrian Armageddon
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
28 October 16
e did a no-fly zone to support the Iraqi Kurds for the better part of a
decade or so following the Gulf War until we ultimately went into Iraq to take
down Saddam Hussein,” Gen. David Petraeus explained in September in an
interview with Charlie Rose.
A major figure in America’s winless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus went
on to serve as Obama’s CIA director until he was forced to resign for revealing
high-level classified information to his mistress and then lying about it to
the FBI.
“It’s not too late to declare a safe zone” in Syria, he said. “It’s not too
late to declare a no-fly zone. And indeed if the regime air force, for example,
bombs folks we are supporting or we’re concerned about, we tell them we’re
going to ground your air force.”
“You don’t even have to enter their airspace, although we’re already there. You
can do it with cruise missiles, air launched, sea launched and others.”
Petraeus was not talking about shooting down a lone Russian plane, which
Hillary Clinton did not want to talk about in the third debate. Petraeus is
calling for using cruise missiles against Assad’s air force bases, planes,
runways, radar, other air defenses and infrastructure.
In his time as CIA director, Petraeus backed the so-called moderate rebels
backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and he now defends a no-fly zone and safe
havens as a way to protect those rebels and their families. Like Hillary and to
a lesser degree President Obama, he backs the Saudi and Qatari effort to
overthrow the Assad regime. This ensures that the civil war ‒ and the slaughter
‒ will go on and on.
Petraeus spoke only of taking out Assad’s air force, and said that he did not
want to “provoke some war with the Russians.” But the cruise missiles would
kill Russians and wreck their aircraft, since they share military bases with
the Syrians. They also have their own long-distance missiles, and their lone
aircraft carrier and flagship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and other ships are now
steaming toward Syria.
“You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against
the Russians,” a senior administration official told the Washington Post.
Whatever one may think of Petraeus – or of Putin – the danger is all too real.
Until now, the US and Russia have engaged in a proxy war. An American-imposed
no-fly zone risks a direct military confrontation between two nuclear-armed
powers. Neither side wants a nuclear war. But the more the US and Russia
confront each other militarily, the greater the threat that Syria will become
an atomic Armageddon.
What, then, of Russia’s role?
Over a year ago, I challenged the small minority of Russia’s supporters on the
American left with a simple question: “Is Bombing Syria Any Better if Putin
Drops the Bombs?” Aleppo answers the question, full stop.
No matter that Assad heads Syria’s legitimate government and has every right in
international law to invite the Russians to come to his aid. International law
did not stop the Americans from covertly putting together the coup in Kiev that
overthrew the legitimately elected government of Ukraine’s pro-Russian
president Viktor Yanukovych, with hands-on help from Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Nor did international law and explicit treaty obligations stop Putin from
annexing Crimea.
Both the US and Russia play by the rules when it suits them. Both are rattling
nuclear sabers, and not just in Syria. Both refuse to take their first-strike
nuclear option off the table. And both are playing an imperial role in Syria,
as are the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and Iranians. As I previously quoted
journalist Patrick Cockburn, the conflict in Syria is infinitely complex, much
like three-dimensional chess played by nine players and with no rules.
Is there a solution? The only one I can see would be a grand bargain among all
the imperialists. Nothing short of that will work in the long term, and I
frankly don’t think the players are ready for anything close. I hope it won’t
take a nuclear blast to open their minds to change.
In the near term, the American people need to push President Hillary to stop
open and covert support for the Saudi and Qatari-backed rebels, drop any idea
of an American-imposed no-fly zone, back away from her Cold War, anti-Russian
thinking, and look for new agreements of mutual interest similar to the one
that removed most, though not all, of Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons. Putin
was more than open to that agreement. Washington needs to work with him to look
for others.
Pushing Clinton will not be easy. Neither were the movements for civil rights
and against the war in Vietnam.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine
writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is
researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks,
Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize ;
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
