******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
So, "another invasion of Iraq", a new "US regime change operation", "if the US replaces Assad the new ruler will be just as bad" etc, the endless regurgitation we've had to put up with over the last 24 years at least now may stop. So, three targets - genocide air-bases and chemical weapons facilities - were hit, and US, UK and French leaders all fall over themselves to declare that "this does not signify a change in policy", the US focus remains the defeat of ISIS, and "the attacks were not an attempt to depose the Assad regime". Like, duh. For anyone actually watching what has been going on in Syria the last 7 years none of this comes as any surprise. No I am not claiming we have great intelligence, nor powers of clairvoyance. Yes, we can also get things wrong. But regarding the big picture, I am claiming that an analysis of basic facts and of *the actual interests* of the western imperialist powers should be able to tell us that they do not and never have had any interest in getting rid of Assad. Sure, some may have preferred a palace coup or some other kind of cosmetic change of head while keeping the regime overwhelmingly intact, given how destabilising the figure of Assad himself is. But none of them, least of all the US, ever wanted to help the revolutionary forces eject the regime as a whole. Never. NEVER. And everything that has happened in 7 years confirms this. And yes, Trump's hit of a single empty airbase after Assad's sarin massacre last year - empty because he had warned Putin who warned Assad - likewise confirms this. Trump was being entirely truthful when he said last week that, having defeated ISIS, it is time for the US to pack up and go home, having Assad safely in control. Trump raised not a peep while Assad just killed 1700 people in 4 weeks in Ghouta and defeated and destroyed the entire Ghouta Assad-free zone. Assad took this support as encouragement and decided to yet again test the imperial "red-line" on the use of chemical weapons - all the "conventional" wmd that Assad and Putin have used in the Syrian genocide for 7 years are no problem to Trump and the US. But "why would Assad use chemical weapons when he had defeated Ghouta, and risk western retaliation"? ask the conspiracists who think the Ghouta people gassed themselves, or the CIA, or ISIS, or Turkey or whoever did it (and of course even the non-conspiracists who know Assad did it can still reasonably ask why he did). So let's just think of Assad's cost-benefit analysis. One part of Ghouta - the town of Douma - was still resisting, refusing to be "cleansed" off to Idlib like the rest of Ghouta had been. Assad launches his chemical attack. The next day the militia in Douma signs the agreement to leave for Idlib. Benefit. Cost? The US hits a couple more air-bases or chemical facilities. Probably also emptied since again Trump and Macron told Putin what would be hit. Assad clearly got a great deal. Hope the crack-pot "anti-war" movement enjoyed themselves perched on their street corners yelling out against "regime change", after ignoring 3.5 years of actual US bombing of Syrian civilians, in its war against anyone-but-Assad. US, UK France launched 105 weapons against three targets - Pentagon Jamie Grierson https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/apr/14/syria-donald-trump-announcement-chemical-attack-live?page=with:block-5ad1fd81e4b0db851d627486#block-5ad1fd81e4b0db851d627486 The chief pentagon spokesperson, Dana W White, is giving an update alongside Lt Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff (DJS), a senior military adviser to the US president. White said the attacks were not an attempt to depose the Assad regime and do not signify a shift in US policy. She said the airstrikes had been launched to “cripple Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future” and had “successfully hit every target”. She insisted the strikes did not “represent a change in US policy or an attempt to depose the Syrian regime” and that the US focus was to defeat the Islamic State terror group. But, she added: “We cannot allow such grievous violations of international law.” McKenzie took reporters through the airstrikes, saying 105 weapons were deployed against targets. He said the strikes will deter use of chemical weapons in the future. McKenzie said: “I’d use three words to describe this operation - precise, overwhelming and effective.” _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
