by Paul Craig Roberts
Syria has a secular government as did Iraq prior to
the american invasion. Secular governments are important in Arab lands in which
there is division between Sunni and Shi'ite. Secular governments keep the
divided population from murdering one another.
When the american invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg
standard set by the US
after WWII, overthrew the Saddam Hussein secular government, the Iraqi Sunnis
and Shi'ites went to war against one another. The civil war between Iraqis
saved the american invasion. Nevertheless, enough Sunnis found time to fight
the american occupiers of Iraq
that the US was never able
to occupy Bagdad, much less Iraq,
no matter how violent and indiscriminate the US was in the application of force.
The consequence of the US
invasion was not democracy and women's rights in Iraq, much less the destruction of
weapons of mass destruction which did not exist as the weapons inspectors had
made perfectly clear beforehand. The consequence was to transfer political
power from Sunnis to Shi'ites. The Shi'ite version of Islam is the Iranian
version. Thus, Washington's invasion
transferred power in Iraq
from a secular government to Shi'ites allied with Iran.
Now Washington intends to repeat its folly in Syria.
According to the american secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Washington is
even prepared to ally with al-Qaeda in order to overthrow Assad's government.
Now that Washington itself has al-Qaeda
connections, will the government in Washington
be arrested under the anti-terrorism laws?
Washington's
hostility toward Assad is hypocritical. On February 26, the Syrian government
held a referendum on a new constitution for Syria that set term limits on
future presidents and removed the political monopoly that the Ba'ath Party has
enjoyed.
The Syrian voter turnout was 57.4%, matching the voter turnout for Obama in
2008. It was a higher voter turnout (despite the armed, western-supported
rebellion in Syria) than in
the nine US
presidential elections from 1972 through 2004. The new Syrian constitution was
approved by a vote of 89.4%.
But Washington denounced the democratic
referendum and claims that the Syrian government must be overthrown in order to
bring democracy to Syria.
Washington's allies in the region, unelected
oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, have issued
statements that they are willing to supply weapons to the Islamist rebels in
order to bring democracy -- something they do not tolerate at home -- to Syria.
For Washington
"democracy" is a weapon of mass destruction. When Washington
brings "democracy" to a country, it means the country's destruction,
as in Libya and Iraq. It
doesn't mean democracy. Libya
is in chaos, a human rights nightmare without an effective government.
Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as
president of Iraq.
He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president
to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to
arrest Sunni politicians. Syria's
Assad is more democratic than Iraq's
Maliki.
For a decade Washington has misrepresented its
wars of naked aggression as "bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East." While Washington
was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington
was destroying democracy in the US.
Washington
has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed
due process and habeas corpus. At Obama's request, Congress passed
overwhelmingly a law that permits american subjects to be imprisoned
indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches
and spying, illegal and unconstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are
now routine.
Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to
murder any american anywhere if the executive branch decides, without
presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the US government. Any
american anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the
executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the US government.
The other two "co-equal" branches have shriveled away under the
"war on terror."
Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the
exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates), Africa, Iran,
Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to constitutional rights in
america?
The rights that americans gained from successful revolution against King George
III in the 18th century have all been taken away by Bush/Obama in the 21st
century. One might think that this would be a news story, but it isn't.
Don't expect the Ministry of Truth to say anything about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want to hear from you but any comment that advocates violence, illegal activity or that contains advertisements that do not promote activism or awareness, will be deleted.