There is a weird parallel between George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and Obama's impending assault on Syria. W. Bush and Cheney insist even to this day that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), just as Joe Biden and John Kerry insist that Damascus used chemical weapons.

Cheney also maintained that there was no point for UN weapons inspectors to continue searching for WMD in Iraq. (NO wonder the arch villain is proud of his nick name!) The Obama administration also tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its weapons investigation, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, which said that unnamed "U.S. officials"(later revealed to be Susan Rice) had told the secretary-general that it was "no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless."

Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, has had the good sense to reject the U.S. call and ordered the inspectors to continue their work. He issued the eminently sensible call to give inspection the time (four days) and give peace a chance!

There is, however, a slight difference: Bush was able to cobble together only a "coalition of the willing", a motley assembly of supporters. But his major allies France and Germany resolutely opposed invasion. This time, Obama has been able to line up the entire West.

Cameron declared that Britain is to introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council, to condemn Damascus and take action to protect innocent civilians. It is rank hypocrisy to do humanitarian chores by bombing! But what would you expect from an old colonialist?

Hollande and Rasmussen, even Kevin Rudd are also on board.

U.S. missile strikes against Syria could come as early as Thursday (today), according to a senior U.S., quoted by NBC News. But Obama is flipping and flopping. As General Dempsey said it well: "There are no good options."

Syrian rebels, the "National Coalition", the Free Syrian Army and allied countries were in meetings to discuss possible targets that include airports used by planes equipped with missiles and explosive barrels, command centers, bases used to fire missiles and Scuds, and the army's Brigade 155, near Damascus. So is it to "punish" Damascus or to aid the weakening rebels?

What evidence does the Obama administration possess? It claims to possess satellite images and "intercepted communications" as if Assad does not know Edward Snowden's revelations that the U.S. is snooping. The U.S. also has intelligence provided by Israel, the biggest potential beneficiary of intervention. Another big winner would be the al-Qaeda.

Moscow warned about "catastrophic consequences" for the region, but says that it won't be militarily involved in the conflict. Similar warnings also came from Teheran.

So let us see what comes next.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://m.formacion-profesional-a-distancia.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Related

• Imperialism and chemical weapons in Syria
• Will the US attack Syria?

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)