Lest I be accused of whataboutism, that's not what I'm saying here; I'm complaining about the selectivism, the timing, and the likely consequences. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
What is the conflict in Syria about?
Per this report, this is why there's civil war in Syria:
Economic problems and a lack of freedom caused resentment toward Assad's authoritarian rule. His forces responded to protesters in 2011 by killing hundreds of them and imprisoning many more as other pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring were taking place across the Middle East.
As public anger intensified, the growing chaos attracted extremist fighters throughout the region, including remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq and an offshoot that became the Islamic State, or ISIS. Eventually, a full Syrian rebellion was mounted against Assad's regime. Some of these rebel groups started fighting each other as well as Assad's military forces because of sectarian divisions, complicating the situation. - Syria conflict explained: How did we end up here? by Kim Hjelmgaard for USA TODAY
It's as good an explanation as any: basically, it's complicated, and the West is getting involved on one side and Russia and Iran on the other. Syria's strategic location is the catalyst for all of this and no side is going to come out of it looking good down the line.
What is being done about it?
Sod all. Per USA Today:
A U.S. strike will be designed to punish Assad, but it probably won't alter the balance of power in Syria, where a civil war has entered its eighth year and shows no sign of ending. - Syria conflict explained: How did we end up here? by Kim Hjelmgaard for USA TODAY
Per the BBC:
At a Pentagon briefing shortly after Mr Trump's announcement, Gen Joseph Dunford listed three targets that had been struck:
Syrian state television said government forces had shot down more than a dozen missiles, and claimed only the research facility in Damascus had been damaged.
- A scientific research facility in Damascus, allegedly connected to the production of chemical and biological weapons
- A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs
- A chemical weapons equipment storage site and an important command post, also near Homs
...
UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights suggested more targets than the three listed by the Pentagon had been hit.
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told journalists there were no reports of US losses in the operation.
In his earlier address, President Trump had said: "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."
But Secretary Mattis said that "right now, this is a one-time shot". Gen Dunford confirmed the wave of strikes had ended.
Gen Dunford said the US had specifically identified targets that would "mitigate" the risk of Russian casualties. But the Pentagon said that Russia - which has forces on the ground in Syria in support of the government - had not been given advance notice of the targets.
UK strikes in Homs
UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force". - Syria air strikes: US and allies attack 'chemical weapons sites' by BBC News
Why can't something be done to end the civil war?
Ending the civil war would mean addressing the causes thereof but now that foreign intervention has complicated matters, good luck with that. As I have shown, the strikes are not about ending the Assad regime but about maintaining the status quo. The powers that be want to keep the civil war ticking over nicely so weapons manufacturers can get rich off of human suffering. Meanwhile, the only plan they have for the refugees is to demonise them, exploit them, or to try to send them back to the hell they were trying to escape from.
What about Brexit?
Think about the selectivism, the timing, and the likely outcome of the air strikes on Syrian targets. This is about Britain being seen as a player on the world stage standing shoulder-to-shoulder with
Prior to the launch of more than 100 missiles against Syrian chemical weapons factories and military sites this morning Russia expert Justin Bronk claimed Brexit could be one of the reasons the UK joined with the US and France in military action – even without full parliamentary approval.
He told BBC's Victoria Derbyshire: “I think this probably has more to do with Brexit, in the sense that the UK has left itself in a position where it is really desperately in need of support from the United States as well as other countries around the world.
...“The UK wants to be seen as a global player to offset some of the influence it is losing within Europe. “To then not back a very personal US call to action from President Trump, especially when the prime call went to President Macron, which was already a bit of a humiliation there. “I think it is almost impossible diplomatically from Theresa May here.” - REVEALED: Why Brexit is the REAL reason UK joined US and France into the war in Syria, by Darren Hunt for The Express
Now go and read some more of their Brexit coverage. It's usually framed* in terms of "EU bad. EU very bad. Seriously, they're bad." Look again at the story on Mr. Bronk. They're not even trying to disguise the hand up the puppet, are they? I can clearly see Trump's lips move when May is speaking.
Is Brexit all bad, then?
It's actually a mixed bag. If you're rich, you'll be fine. If you're not, you're screwed. If you're poor or nearly poor and foreign-born you're screwed, even if you've lived here for decades. Meanwhile, potential trade partners aren't even bovvered to get in the queue to set up an agreement with us. Funny, that. India is not in a hurry and Canada is using CETA as the guideline, which means that it's the hand and we're the puppet. America will of course foist the rejected TTIP on us. Don't even blame Trump for this; Obama would totally have done it.
It's the economy...
That the country hasn't totally collapsed is due to the fact that we've had a fairly strong economy, which Tony Blair inherited from Thatcher and which survived the Credit Crunch under Brown, then austerity under Cameron. We're resilient. There's also the fact that the low £ makes it cheaper for foreign entities to buy from Britain, so they buy more. On the flip side, it's more expensive for us to buy from abroad, so production is starting to shift back home. It's a mixed bag, is what I'm saying, and not as bad as some of us (including myself) predicted. That said, we have taken a hit. Many of the shops in Manchester's Arndale centre and in Bolton's city centre are closed and boarded up as limited income tightens people's purse strings. In a consumer economy, that hurts. I'm seeing increasing numbers of homeless beggars and Big Issue sellers on Manchester's streets. Disturbingly, many of these are women. Is Brexit working? Not for them.
What now?
Well I can't really see much in the way of change. The heart of the Syrian conflict is about money and as long as there's money to be made by keeping people fighting with each other it will continue. And as long as our economy requires a thriving arms trade it will continue. Make no mistake, our military-industrial complex is making out like bandits since Brexit. Honestly, if we want to see change in Syria, we might have to take the role of Brexit into consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment