A military revolt against the Obama administration’s plan to launch a potentially disastrous attack on Syria is gathering pace, with both top brass and regular service members expressing their vehement opposition to entangling the USA in the conflict. Yesterday, the backlash began to spread on social media with numerous members of the military posting photos of themselves holding up signs stating that they’d refuse to fight on the same side as al-Qaeda in Syria. Others have posted their photos on Twitter alongside the hashtag #IdidntJoin.
As the Obama administration prepared to present a draft resolution to lawmakers that’s by no means “limited” in its scope and, in fact, would grease the skids for an open-ended war, John Kerry and other US State Department officials signalled that Obama would simply ignore Congress, if it votes no, and launch the assault anyway. This would do little to reassure a growing number of influential figures in the American forces who’re becoming increasingly recalcitrant about the USA becoming embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East. The Washington Post reported, “The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the US military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers”. Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) also took to Twitter, stating, “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear… Please, vote no on military action against Syria”. A series of tweets from military veterans followed Amash’s statement, also expressing their opposition to the attack.
Business Insider’s Paul Szoldra also spoke to “sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military”, and asked them if they supported military escalation in Syria, writing, “Most have responded with a resounding no”. He quoted an active duty First Class Sergeant who stated, “We’re stretched thin, tired, and broke”, adding that the USA “(doesn’t) need to be the World Police”. Former Corporal Jack Mandaville, a USMC infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq, added, “Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is keener to avoid this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we’re being ignored”. Not only are military personnel going public with their concerns, Politico reported that leaks of attack plans are also “emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council, or Obama himself. These unauthorised disclosures have the White House “peeved”.
2 September 2013
Voice of Russia World Service
The American forces are now in the position that most European armies were in at the beginning of 1917… that is, there’s been no open rebellion yet, but the soldiers are war-weary and might not go forward if ordered. The USA is paying for the “all-volunteer” arrangement of its armed forces. The powers-that-be did this after the end of the Vietnam War to minimise the political fallout of any future warmongering. Unfortunately, the USA has been at war since 2001, and the soldiers have reached their limit. There’s a potential for a Spithead Mutiny… the forces are loyal, but they’ve had enough. It’s time for the USA to return to a conscript army… it’d minimise the risks of future adventuring (besides, it’d spread the risks of service amongst more classes of society). Our soldiers have taken enough…