My latest article in Counter Propa talks about the end of the world. Literally.
President Trump possibly starting World War III with another Syria airstrike isn’t hyperbole.
Russia has 7,300 nuclear warheads.
The U.S. has 6,970 nuclear warheads.
Two former Cold War adversaries possess thousands of nuclear weapons, and are now without communication while fighting a proxy war in Syria.
What could go wrong?
Russia dropped its “No First Use” nuclear policy in 1993. Therefore, both the U.S and Russia reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first; without an adversary launching the initial strike.
Pertaining to the next nuclear apocalypse, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists states we’re closer to Doomsday than ever. Regarding the Doomsday Clock, “The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.”
Keeping Bashar al-Assad in power is Russia’s primary objective in Syria. Vladimir Putin is fully committed to this goal.
CNN highlights Russia’s military commitment in a piece titled “Russia’s military in Syria: Bigger than you think and not going anywhere” and states “There are no reliable numbers on Russian troop levels in the country but it appeared to us that there were at least several thousand troops on the ground along with modern weaponry and infrastructure.”
Vladimir Putin has vowed to “immediately destroy” any threat to Russian forces in Syria.
For Russia, Syria correlates directly to its national interest, with decades of close military and political ties. Aside from Iran, Syria is Russia’s closest ally in the Middle East.
The U.S. doesn’t have these bonds with Syria, which means Russia will never allow Trump or any other president to forcibly remove Bashar al-Assad.
Also, Russia would never have allowed Hillary Clinton or any other American leader to defend a no-fly zone.
According to The Daily Beast, Russia Is Launching Twice as Many Airstrikes as the U.S. in Syria and “With Russian jets providing cover, regime ground forces are steadily pushing back against ISIS and rebel fighters in western and north-central Syria.”
President Trump faces a Democratic Party that thinks he worked with Russian hackers to undermine Clinton. Thus, his motivation for the recent Syria airstrike is likely domestic politics; bombing Syria removes the “Putin puppet” label. Most Senators support Trump’s Syria airstrike and his approval rating is higher after the military intervention.
Though not the fault of the brave men and women who fight the wars Bush, Obama and Trump have sent them to fight, America has lost every major war since 9/11 because of shortsighted and selfish politicians. Both the GOP and Democratic Party have become enamored with George W. Bush’s failed neoconservative philosophy. It’s almost as if American media and Congress are oblivious to any lessons learned from catastrophic U.S. attempts at regime change.
Despite the fact over one million American soldiers have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with thousands of Americans who’ve lost their lives (suicide has caused more American casualtiesthan both wars), America’s political establishment finds numerous incentives to promote devastating military conflicts.
America’s neoconservative interventionists failed in Iraq.
America’s neoconservative interventionists failed in Afghanistan.
America’s neoconservative interventionists failed in Libya.
America’s neoconservative interventionists apparently think Syria will be different, with Russian nuclear weapons as the world’s Sword of Damocles.
In terms of U.S. national security, Syria is not a big oil producer nor can it threaten the United States militarily. Therefore, the only reason we’re interested in Syria is because it’s a way to battle Russia, without firing shots directly at the Kremlin.
But what about Assad’s use of chemical weapons?
Before you remark on the humanitarian aspect of Trump’s airstrike, read a Guardian piece titled West ‘ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria’s Assad step aside.’ Then, read a Huffington Post article by Jeffrey Sachs titled Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath:
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence – Clinton’s intransigence – that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
It’s never been about the Syrian people for Clinton, Obama or Trump. It’s only been about removing Assad; even if hundreds of thousands died and millions were forced to become refugees.
President Trump could start World War III with any further missile strikes or attempts at regime change. Any further escalation could lead to unintended global consequences, especially since Democrats have used “Russian hackers” as a therapy session for Clinton’s epic defeat.
Nobody has a plan for any post-Assad world and few in America’s dreadfully ignorant “intelligentsia” have learned any lessons from all the wars fought since 9/11.
In terms of leading politicians opposing the next war, only Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has enough courage to question the legitimacy of Trump’s airstrike.
Congresswoman Gabbard called for an independent investigation into whether Assad used chemical weapons, causing outrage from a Democratic Party that cheated Bernie Sanders and supports regime change.
Disgruntled neoliberals like Neera Tanden and Howard Dean apparently love failed wars as much as failed presidential campaigns. As for Bush’s neocons, they’re overjoyed with another failed war on the horizon.
Neoconservatives like Max Boot, Robert Kagan and other hawks still feel the Iraq War was a good thing. However, this time it’s different. Syria represents a standoff with Russia. Bill Kristol won’t be able to write articles titled “We were right to fight in Iraq” (written in 2015) if Trump’s Syria intervention results in Russia retaliating with nuclear weapons.
Right and left in this country have united on war. The goal of Hillary Clinton and other establishment Democrats for years has been Syrian regime change.
George W. Bush’s neoconservatives even raised money and supported Clinton politically. Their goal, after years of failed military interventions from Iraq to Libya and Afghanistan, is another quagmire in Syria.
For this reason, Democrats and most media outlets have provided a surprising level of support for Trump’s Syria airstrikes. Trump’s recent military intervention was welcomed with open arms by even staunch critics. They’re caught between defending Clinton’s foreign policy and hating Trump; a position that ultimately gravitates towards supporting endless conflict. NBC’s Brian Williams even had the audacity to describe Trump’s missile strike as beautiful. I explain my thoughts on describing warfare as beautiful in the following YouTube segment.
Trump seems willing to give Democrats like Clinton and neocons like Max Boot another chance at destabilizing the Middle East. They want Assad out of power and the only thing stopping them is Putin.
Russia wants Bashar al-Assad to remain at all costs, and stated in clear terms that Russian national interest is directly at stake.
Do you trust President Trump to do the right thing and stay out of nuclear confrontation with Russia?
When Democrats cheated Bernie Sander in 2016, they left America with two hawkish candidates. Now Russia is once again an adversary, yet this time we don’t have a JFK, or even a Bernie, to oppose the advice of war hawks. According to the Doomsday Clock, IT IS TWO AND A HALF MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT. Sleep well, knowing that Trump, Clinton and Robert Kagan have a stellar track record in advocating peaceful solutions to protracted conflicts.