Syria and a Policy Coup

Posted on by

Nothing happens outside of context. Why are we intent on a military strike against Syria? Is it a matter of compassion?

Retired General Wesley Clark spoke about a “policy coup” at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Russ Baker writes: “In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

“[General Clark] was told: ‘We learned that we can use our military without being challenged …. We’ve got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us.’”

Click HERE for the story and the speech by Wesley Clark. This is one of those articles I wish I hadn’t read. Life is much more comfortable in a bubble of ignorance. But truth eventually bursts every bubble. So…is our “national interest” related to the issue of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, or is this great tragedy the pretext for implementing a policy coup to take out the regimes in the Middle East formerly aligned with the Soviet Union in the Cold War?

Please take eight minutes to listen to the speech and chime in with a Comment here on Views from the Edge to share what you think.

14 thoughts on “Syria and a Policy Coup”

  1. I am so angry about war mongering Democrats. The word pariah has been used a lot. Good word… I know a pariah when I see one and the Dem. war mongers are on my list. Blow’n people and stuff up is wrong, no matter where the …boots are. “Boots on the ground…” what disgusting imagery. USA has more military personnel and mercenary forces distributed around the world today than any nation in history. USA needs to learn to focus on it’s own self. I need a better political party than Dems and Repubs.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Robert, It’s so strange, isn’t it, that John Kerry, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Keith Ellison, among others are taking the military strike position. I guess if you belong to “THE PARTY’, you walk and talk the Party Line. I got the same thing from Al Franken’s office. Neither party deserves our support.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  3. I believe your last comment referring to the possible bombing of Syria as a means to take out the formerly Soviet allies as true.
    What goes even beyond Gen. Clark’s analysis is that the foreign policy establishment is all about the fact that we inherited a 100+ yr. old geostrategic theory in 1945. This is also known as the post war George Kennan strategy for containment of the Soviet Union thus the Cold War & a nuclear arsenal to accomplish it.
    The problem is almost everyone buys into its essence because of our belief in “American exceptionalism”. The policy establishment understands this & so we have a strategy that has the POTUS asking Congress for a green light but their gamble is only a small one considering most citizens will cave after 68 yrs. of being propagandized with the notion of containing the evil ones out there, i.e., communism then & now Islam.
    Thanks again Gordon for getting this out there.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Gary, thanks for contributing this reflection: the information about the Kennan strategy, coupled with Cold War psychology (and, in fact, it’s a theology, if truth be told) of good guys and bad guys, and the calling of the exceptional (superior) nation to contain and eliminate the evil one. It all ties together so clearly for those with eyes to see. Thank you for introducing me to Russ and the http://www.whowhatwhy.com blog.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • The real meaning of an attack on Syria becomes more clear when we consider that our concern for the deaths of children didn’t seem to include those 600,000 children that died as the result of our blockade of Iraq.

      Consider that Sec. of State Madilyn Albright when asked if the deaths of those children was justified said she thought it was worth it.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Gary, Yes, the U.S. government has consistently played it both ways – ignoring the suffering and death of innocent people at our own hands, while rushing to proclaim moral imperative when the suffering comes from a different hand. One is rationalized and deemed “worth it.” The other is deemed evil. We’ve been there too often. Too many times. And I’m afraid we will be there many times more until the people of the world say Enough. Until the American people say Enough. But the American people still depend for their news on sources that make no distinction or that make it, but do not have the courage to portray it.

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • A week or so ago Kathy & I were driving down the road and I made a sort of Freudian slip. There was news on the radio & I commented on a story about the Egyptian crisis. The slip was that I referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as the “Lutheran Brotherhood”. Of course I grew up Lutheran so it was understandable I guess. I said it not once but twice.

        The more I thought about it though, it became apparent that even though the ME scene is pitched to us as a Sunni/Shite conflict it is in fact a Protestant/Islamic conflict, i.e., a Lutheran Brotherhood/Muslim Brotherhood conflict. Considering the roots of capitalism as in, “The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism”, it is easy to see the issue as one between an Islamic prohibition of usury & a capitalism based on usury & exploitation.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • The Western economy’s practice of usury (lending for interest or increased return) lies close to the very heart of the spirit and the character of capitalism. The Islamic world and Islamic law find this practice less than human. In Minneapolis, for instance, the Somali community established alternative lending institutions that do not charge interest. They did so as a spiritual and moral matter. Sometimes slip of the tongue are… well, as you say, Freudian 🙂

          Like

          Reply ↓

Leave a comment