[Marxism] Pentagon: strikes not “an attempt to depose the Syrian regime” (duh)

mkaradjis mkaradjis at gmail.com
Sat Apr 14 09:22:38 MDT 2018

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


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

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.”

More information about the Marxism mailing list