______________________________
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
Editor’s Note:
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…
BMD
Voices from Russia 
Responding to the Syrian Crisis: Are There Shades of International Legitimacy?
Tags: Barack Obama, chemical weapons, Cold War, Ghouta, Iraq, John Kerry, Justin Amash, Middle East, Middle Eastern, peace in the middle east, political commentary, politics, Politics of Syria, Russia, Russian, Syria, Syrian Civil War, Syrian Government, Twitter, UN, UN Security Council, United Nations Security Council, United States, United States Armed Forces, US Federal government, US government, USA, weapons of mass destruction, White House, WMDs
_______________________________
Some Western states said that they possess conclusive information and evidence that the Syrian authorities were responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Ghouta. We can see that they’re preparing for a military option, including the massive build-up of armaments in the region. It’s difficult to understand these states’ true motives. After disastrous interventions in Iraq (without UN Security Council consent) and, then, in Libya (where the West abused the UN Security Council mandate) where they effectively failed to facilitate stability and interreligious and interethnic peace, they now seem to be repeating the same scenario. They’ve produced no reliable and persuasive evidence to confirm that anyone used chemical weapons, let alone who did it. Nor are there clear legal grounds for military action.
So far, the alleged use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) looks more like an act of provocation… with those responsible seeking to turn it into a casus belli without presenting any proof to the public. Besides, the opposition’s version of events in Ghouta raises many questions. One has to ask, “Cui bono?” We see no rationale in government forces using chemical weapons just at the very moment when the UN fact-finding mission arrived in Syria. At the same time, it’s clear that those involved in the incident wanted to sabotage the Geneva peace talks. One can’t help but recall that the government declared its readiness to negotiate some time ago, whilst the opposition, notably, hasn’t followed suit. Today, we can’t help seeing some external players as deliberately undermining the very prospect of a peaceful political process. We hope that common sense will prevail sooner rather than later. Russia is determined to continue efforts aimed at bringing the conflicting parties to the negotiating table.
The latest vote in the British Parliament on Syria provides convincing proof that the international community is tired of “constructive ambiguities” and ambivalence in matters of law and order in world politics. Furthermore, it’s too serious a matter to outsource it to groups of countries or “coalitions of the willing”. Acting outside international law at one’s own risk and expense is costly. Additionally, instead of helping solve problems, it aggravates the situation, and turns out to be counterproductive and self-defeating. It also looms large in domestic affairs as the weapons of mass distraction topic at the time of the war in Iraq.
Like national law and order, it’s something concrete, not a collection of abstract ideas or good intentions (of the kind that pave the road to Hell). Besides, it’s about due process and establishing facts first, and that means gathering evidence and reporting it to the UN Security Council for consideration and decision-making. Political expediency has no place in this process underpinning the international legitimacy of any action. Whether it sounds like too little or quite a lot… this is a minimum requirement for keeping the world an orderly place. Moreover, this is precisely what Russia demands of her Western partners as regards the presumed use of chemical weapons in Syria. We aren’t asking for any more, but we’ll settle for nothing less than that. Unfortunately, some drew the wrong conclusions from the end of the Cold War, which allegedly lowered the threshold for the use of force. It’s high time that those people stop deluding themselves. War is a serious business, and we have to treat it as such.
30 August 2013
Aleksandr Yakovenko
RIA-Novosti
http://en.ria.ru/alexander_yakovenko_blog/20130830/183070482/Ambassadors-Notebook-Responding-to-the-Syrian-Crisis-Are-There.html
Editor’s Note:
The “end of the Cold War” revealed factions in the USA who’re arrogant bullies and self-centred juvenile selfish brats. To put it bluntly, the USA didn’t “win” the Cold War… ignorant and self-preening simpletons conflated the end of the Cold War with the collapse of the USSR. The last twenty years showed the vacuity of American “ideals”… it’s been one military intervention after another… the USA refuses to admit that there are those who don’t want its perverted consumerism and fallacious “democratic ideology” (an ideology that it spat on with the illegitimate installation of the Bush junta after Bush lost the popular vote, and, thus, really lost the election (this negated all American criticisms of foreign elections… American elections proved to be MORE corrupt than those found abroad!)). Too many Americans have died in senseless adventures around the globe. It’s time to end it… in any case, there’s no more money and the forces are knackered to the point of mutiny. In any case, reflect on this… Republicans and Democrats, the Right and the Left, and peaceniks and soldiers all agree… NO WAR in Syria!
BMD