Syria: West vows to increase backing for rebels
The determination of France, the United States and Great Britain to wage war against the Syrian people and to support the insurgency of fighters from Chechnya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and even the al- Qaeda linked groups, is as astounding in its hypocrisy as it is in its cynicism. Since this civil war started around two years ago,"the west" led initially be Great Britain and now joined by the French and the Americans, have been fervently seeking excuses to become involved in the conflict and to bring about, by any means, regime change in Damascus.
The plans were thrown into some confusion when the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, voted against a government resolution authorising the use of force, closely followed by President Obama referring the question of force to Congress, where it seems that they too would reject the prospect of yet another military adventure in the Middle East. thus, the French were left in the position of being the only "western" power maintaining the bellicose posture of immediate aggression.
Enter the Russians and their "straw" for America and Great Britain to grasp at, following the John Kerry "gaff" (if that is in fact what it was) remark about putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control. Grabbing this face saving lifeline, the Americans immediately constructed an "agreement" with the Russians to bring about the disarmament of Syria to the extent of chemical weapons at least within a specified timescale with the threat that the matter would be referred to the UN security council in the event of Syrian non-compliance. This "agreement" was enthusiastically welcomed British government.
The impatiently awaited report of the chemical weapons inspectors after their return from Damascus was as had been expected. It concluded that chemical weapons had been used on a massive scale and that the chemical was predominately Sarin. Someone would have had to have been on the planet Zog for the last eighteen months to be unaware that this was the case. What the report did not say and was not tasked to say was "who" was responsible for the use of these weapons. In this matter, conviction on the "balance of probabilities" is not enough and certainly does not justify military strikes against an alleged perpetrator.
This however does not deter London, Paris and Washington from leaping to the conclusion that the report "proves" that Bashar al-Assad was responsible, and prompts William Hague to remark that "We have always believed that this was the work, the responsibility of the Assad regime and everything we can see in this report is fully consistent with that." A remarkable leap of faith when considering what the report actually says.
This perception though mistaken, is certainly enough for Kerry, Fabius and Hague to essentially consign the "agreement" to the back burner and revert to their belligerent positions of two weeks past with all sorts of threats of the "military option", pouring more weapons, supplies and money into the opposition groups and shifting the goal posts by introducing the notion of a "transition of power" in Damascus which, although not a completely new idea as far as the west is concerned, is something not mentioned or considered at the Geneva three day conference.
By reading into the words of the Chemical Weapons Inspectors Report, something that only the most hardened warmongering commentator could interpret from the text, it seems that French, British and Americans are seeking to regain the initiative for some sort of military intervention, dismiss the Russians to the sidelines and as a starter have agreed to strengthen the Syrian opposition.
This latest western "initiative" is a recipe for disaster.