Obama’s War on Syria … Serving Israel

The American people have had enough of war, having waged two in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and one in Libya. These wars have cost them dearly in lives, materials and money, and nearly destroyed the U.S. economy. Obama’s opposition to these wars was a significant and direct factor in his being elected president, and his addresses in Cairo and Istanbul, in which he strongly condemned these wars, was a reason for his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now President Obama and his secretary of state are campaigning to drum up support for a strike against Syria, claiming that they want to punish Bashar al-Assad. But will shelling Damascus and other cities impair al-Assad and his government? Or will naval and air rocket-propelled grenades only kill more Syrians, among them children, the elderly and the liberals whom Washington, Europe, and well-known regional capitals have been weeping over? Another question imposes itself: How are we to believe that Obama wishes to target terrorist organizations, while a strike on Syria would allow these very organizations to spread chaos and disorder inside Syria … and perhaps obtain chemical weapons that would threaten both Syria and other nations in the region? Russian President Putin has warned Washington against the possibility of bombing nuclear reactors or chemical weapons storehouses, the consequences of which are no secret. Thus I pose to you the following: Having failed to gather a unified European stance in support of military strike on Syria, Obama came back to garner the support of the American people and Congress. In spite of that, opinion polls show that 19 percent of the American public support a strike on Syria and 56 percent oppose it. In the Senate, only 25 members support the strike, while 19 oppose it, and the remaining members have not yet finalized their stance. In the House, 14 members support the strike and 119 oppose it. Even protesters in front of the White House are shouting slogans such as “Hands off Syria.” It’s most unfortunate that even though Americans and Europeans are protesting against a war in Syria, Arab nations are beating war drums and pressuring Obama to strike Syria! The question that now comes to mind is whether Obama will actually entangle himself in an ill-fated war, first overstepping his own people and those of his allies and second overstepping international law as represented by the U.N. Security Council. Furthermore, will the al-Assad regime and its allies such as Iran and Hezbollah, and perhaps Russia, sit idly by in the face of U.S. strikes? Obama should be cautioned against becoming involved in a war whose borders cannot be contained, and in which the type of weaponry used and the possible regional factions participating cannot be determined. Such a war will be very costly to the U.S. militarily, politically and morally, and U.S. victory is not even guaranteed. Set to gain the most in all this is Israel, as all U.S. wars in the Middle East have always been for Israel’s sake.