Syria, Gas, and Neocon Warmongers
Nelson Hultberg
But did Assad order such attacks? Would he take such an insane step when he is on the verge of winning the war against rebel troops? Right after Trump has declared that the U.S. and its anti-Assad forces are preparing to pull out of Syria? Of course not.
Whatever one may say about Assad, he's not stupid. He knows that American presence threatens his regime. He knows that American neocon policy is geared to remove him from power. Why would he do something that would reinvigorate America's desire to remove him? Why would he bring Trump back into the war? The answer is that he wouldn't? But the neocons think the American people are so stupid that they will believe Assad has gassed his own people right on the eve of winning the war against ICIS and the rebel forces.
This recent gas attack is so clearly a "false flag" attack on the part of anti-Assad rebels because they know that America's presence is vital to their cause. They are on the verge of defeat, but lo and behold, there is always the "false flag attack" to goad Americans back into support for their fight.
Such strategy is not new. It has been part of wars for thousands of years. Create a false flag attack to make it easy to justify an invasion, a major bombing strike, an intervention of some kind, etc. The world will fall for it and not blame you for your attack because you have been "victimized," or you are merely helping those who have been "victimized." The problem is that only perceptive people realize the treachery involved. The great majority of the world's citizens fall for such a war tactic every time. Wars are extended and exacerbated all the time because of such strategic moves by power lusting people.
The rebels have a motive to create such a gas attack because they are on the verge of defeat, and the neocons have a motive to believe such an attack (or at least pretend that they do) because they want American forces to take Assad out. They've been desirous of such a goal for many years now. It is all part of their "benevolent global hegemony" that they have been pursuing for the past 25 years.
Rational thinkers in the freedom movement know that the world is a ruthless, often primitive, and irrational assortment of national regimes that simply do not understand the principles of freedom. This is why Jefferson and the Founders urged upon us a foreign policy of "independence" from foreign wars. Stay out of the conflicts of the old world, they said to American patriots. Take care of our own nation. Lead by building a shinning light of liberty here at home. Make ourselves an example of freedom and justice, and the rest of the world will eventually come to our way of doing things.
In other words, don't go abroad in search of dragons to slay. Don't try to bend other nations to our will with the butt ends of our rifles. Don't try to police the world; it's always been a swamp of idiocy and cruelty, and our interventions into its conflicts can only bleed us of vital wealth and young lives. Leave people alone. Pursue truth, freedom and equal rights within our borders, and our resultant prosperity and happiness will convert the world into like philosophical approaches.
The Beginning of Interventionism
Unfortunately we have not lived up to the vision of Jefferson and our Founders. We have become over the past 120 years relentless "interventionists" under the guise that our national security is at stake, or morality compels us to intervene into helpless primitives' lives, or the world must be "stablized", and only American power can accomplish such stability, or the most recent neocon policy of "benevolent global hegemony" must be pursued.
From 1787 to 1898, American foreign policy was based on maintaining a powerful military to use only when we are under attack, or if our national security and survival are at stake in some foreign affair. Our intervention to help Cuba win its independence from Spain under the McKinley administration did not really fit that rule. Since then the sanity of the Founders' vision of independence from other nations' conflicts has been discarded in favor of muscularly intervening into those conflicts.
What did our intervention into WW I in 1917 gain us? It got us 116,708 Americans dead, and over 204,000 wounded. Yet our security and survival were not at stake.
Obviously we had to fight WW II; we were attacked. But was our intervention into Korea, resulting in 36,914 deaths and 103,284 wounded, a necessary intervention? Was American security and survival being threatened? Not really.
What did our intervention in Vietnam get for us? Disaster with 58,220 Americans killed, 304,000 wounded, and the loss of Vietnam to communism anyway. What have our interventions since the fall of the USSR into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine brought us? Billions of dollars lost, thousands of American lives lost or wounded, and still a chaotic, tyrannical Mideast with Ukraine split between Ukrainian loyalists and Russian loyalists.
Obviously we had to fight WW II; we were attacked. But was our intervention into Korea, resulting in 36,914 deaths and 103,284 wounded, a necessary intervention? Was American security and survival being threatened? Not really.
What did our intervention in Vietnam get for us? Disaster with 58,220 Americans killed, 304,000 wounded, and the loss of Vietnam to communism anyway. What have our interventions since the fall of the USSR into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine brought us? Billions of dollars lost, thousands of American lives lost or wounded, and still a chaotic, tyrannical Mideast with Ukraine split between Ukrainian loyalists and Russian loyalists.
Toward a Rational Foreign Policy
Trying to fight other people's wars and save other people's misguided regimes is not a rational way to conduct a foreign policy. Far more often than not, it brings about a worse state of affairs than what had prevailed before (and thus needless deaths). We need to get back to America First. Take care of our own. End "benevolent global hegemony" now before it ends us.
It appears that Trump understood this when he was campaigning, but has now lost his grasp of it in face of the neocon warmongers. The Pentagon-CIA-NSA complex is a powerfully persuasive set of institutions. They have converted every contrary president for 58 years to their worldview, and the one they couldn't convert, John F. Kennedy, they killed. (See my review of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglas).
The insanity of our intervention into Syria has the potential of starting World War III with Russia. The problems of Syrians in this horrific conflict are certainly heartbreaking, but the world is filled with heartbreaking conflicts. It always has been, and will be, I'm sure, for many thousands of years into the future. We cannot be the world's policeman.
For some rational analysis of the Syrian "false flag attack," see the following:
Also here are some examples of contemporary "false flag attacks":
------------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, TX and Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: NelsonHultberg@afr.org
posted by Chuck Demastus at 6:41 AM
0 comments
