Why Obama Needs a War with Syria

By Robin Phillips

American President, Barack Obama, has begun another week of trying to persuade the American people that it is in the nation’s best interest to go to war with Syria.

The President’s unrelenting publicity campaign follows on the heels of a tense G20 conference in St Petersburg, where he clashed with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, over whether an attack against Syria would be justified.

Vladimir Putin has made clear that if America attacks Syria, Russia will stand by Bashar al-Assad, while Iran and China have also shown support for the Syrian regime. The grisly prospect of having to fight a war on three fronts (Syria, Iran and China) has not deterred President Obama from his goal of trying to convince the world that everyone will be safer once America starts launching bombs into Damascus.

In a press conference on the problem (see video below or transcript here), President Obama argued that the nations of the world need to “set aside [their] differences” and attack Syria.

(Those who are accustomed to hearing President Obama speak are used to hearing him talk of “setting aside our differences” as shorthand for “everyone needs to just agree with me.”)

Obama argued that “unless the international community is willing to put massive numbers of troops on the ground” that “we’re not going to get a long-term military solution for the country.” Short of a full solution, however, he said he would be satisfied if “this particular problem of using chemical weapons on children” could at least be dealt with.

Taken at face value, this means that Obama would be satisfied merely to ensure no further chemical attacks even if the rest of Syria’s problems (i.e., their the civil war) are not dealt with.

Secretary of State, John Kerry, was one person who apparently took the President at his word. In a press briefing in London earlier today, Mr Kerry announce that Syria could avoid an American attack if Assad turns “over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community within the next week…”

Embarrassed by Mr Kerry’s proposal, the war-eager Obama had his administration rush to clarify what Mr Kerry had really meant, claiming he was merely “making a rhetorical argument.” But before the White House could kill Mr Kerry’s proposal with the death of a thousand qualifications, Russia put forward a concrete plan for implementing Kerry’s conditions. Assad subsequently welcomed the plan, which would involve turning over his arsenal of chemical weapons to international control.

This would be a convenient way to end a conflict that has brought the world perilously close to World War Three. If all parties accept this proposal, America could claim that their fighting talk paid off, that Assad backed down when faced with the prospect of an American attack. But al-Assad could also save face, claiming that his willingness to hand over his chemical weapons proves that he has nothing to hide because he never used them in the first place.

Unfortunately, it is uncertain whether Obama will agree to such a straight-forward solution, or whether he will try to impose additional demands that he knows al-Assad cannot agree to accept. The problem, of course, is that Obama’s moral outrage with al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons was never the real issue for him, even though he has used this as the justification for needing to go to war.

The fact is America was covertly supporting the Syrian rebels long before the recent issue of chemical weapons came up. In March this year, the New York Times reported that the America’s Central Intelligence Agency had expanded an airlift of arms and equipment to insurgent militants that had been occurring since early 2012, totalling around 3,500 tons of military equipment in total. This coincided with a series of rebel victories. America kept up the momentum, and in June this year Ben Rhodes, U.S. deputy national security adviser, revealed that America was stepping up the assistance it was giving to rebel groups, hoping to finally tip the balance to help the insurgents overthrow al-Assad’s government. The announcement coincided with the emergence of new lethal weapons in the hands of rebel forces.

Notice that this support of the rebels was before the 21 August chemical attack, which is now being used as justification for America getting involved. The fact is that Obama was already fighting an unofficial war against al-Assad long before the chemical attack allowed him to claim the moral high ground. That would explain why he was initially hesitant with a solution that merely guaranteed al-Assad would hand over his chemical weapons, and why his first reaction was to try to squash the significance of Kerry’s diplomatic proposal.

Behind the smoke-screen of humanitarian concern lies America’s support for the, so called, ‘Arab Spring’ movement.  Any time radical Muslims group together to try to overthrow a dictator, Obama has been right there to support the radicals. Many people don’t realize it, but the United States is also currently training rebel groups in both Jordan and Turkey.

Obama has said that if the international community does not react to an incident of gassing, then “international norms” all over the world will begin crumbling. If Obama really did believe this, then he would be obligated to bomb America, who has been complicit in far more chemical attacks than al-Assad. (See ‘10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About‘ and ‘How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran.’)

then he would have attacked North Korea long ago. It is well-established and uncontroversial that for decades North Korea has had Nazi-style concentration camps where inhuman practices occur that include gassing people to death. If the United States is really tasked with the job of acting as an international police force against rogue nations, and if Obama really is being motivated by humanitarian concerns, why has he focused on Syria and ignored the far greater human rights violations in North Korea?

So what has really been motivating Obama?

Gaining control of Syria is central to America’s long-term ambition of crippling Russia. Russia has never been a team player, while their prioritization of national interests creates barriers to the spread of global consumer markets.

Controlling Syria would also enable America to cripple Russia’s military. Russia has a strong naval presence along the major Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus, giving them access to the Mediterranean. If Syria falls into the hands of America, then so would these strategic ports.

Oil is another important issue. In order for the West to suppress Russia and gain control of the energy markets, they must gain control of Syria. Currently oil is supplied to Western Europe through Russia’s Druzhba pipeline. Syria is a key alternative energy transit route to Europe that would break the West’s dependence on Russia. That is why, in 2009, America supported Qatar’s proposal for a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey that would travel through Syria to the Mediterranean and into Europe. But al-Assad refused to play ball, making deals with Russia instead, and refusing to let the Qatar pipeline pass through their land. If the United States assists in a regime change in Syria, then they will be in a position to control the future government of the nation, enabling them to revisit the Qatar pipeline idea. (Syria is also the site of a proposed pipeline controlled by Iran and its allies, which would supply Western Europe and undercut America’s energy interests in favour of Russia. America is against this idea, but to prevent it from happening they must control Syria.)

It is also possible that Obama’s own pro-Muslim sympathies may be playing a significant role in his eagerness to attack Syria. It is no secret that al-Assad’s regime, for all its problems, has kept at bay the fundamentalist Muslim elements that would otherwise turn Syria into a Muslim state. Already we are getting a foretaste of what would happen if the rebels are victorious. Since the civil war began, Christians throughout Syria have been being killed, tortured, and raped at the hands of the very rebels that Obama has been supporting. (This gruesome video shows just how far the Obama-Backed Syrian jihadists are willing to go in their blood-thirsty activities.) Last Saturday the Free Syrian Army, which Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain have both described as ‘moderates’, attacked a Christian village and posted videos of the slaughter on Youtube.

We know Obama is pro-Muslim, as that much is clear from his video congratulating ISNA, a group linked to both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. “My administration is proud to be your partner,” he said in a video praising the achievements of the group whose mother organization has been burning churches in Egypt. Obama has also aligned himself with those who have sought to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Moreover, though it has yet to be substantiated, many believe there is evidence that President Obama is actually a member of the Muslim brotherhood. Saad Al-Shater, the son of imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al-Shater, claims his father “had in his hand” information, documents and recordings that could put Obama in prison. As the evidence has not yet been made public, we are not in a position to comment on it. But this much is clear: Obama has been supporting the jihadists who have been systematically butchering Syria’s struggling Christian population.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.