Attack on Ghouta, One Year On

This week marks the first anniversary of the infamous chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

What makes that incident significant, both politically and historically, is the fact that, despite the evidence of Syrian government involvement being non-existent, the Obama administration nearly began a war with Syria using Ghouta as the pretext.

As the months have passed however, scientific studies amassing an impressive body of evidence have shown that, not only were Washington’s claims of “certainty” that Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons in their war with extremist fighters utterly baseless, but in fact the reality was quite the opposite – the rebels were the most likely culprits of the attack.

Additionally, in the year since the Ghouta attack, the nature of the war in Syria, and specifically the way in which it is understood in the West, has changed dramatically. The so-called rebels have been defeated in regular battles and skirmishes with Syrian military forces, while the specter of ISIS has emerged as the embodiment of evil in the eyes of the Western public.

While ISIS (now the Islamic State, or IS) was summarily executing Syrian civilians in Aleppo and smaller towns in Syria, they were no threat. While they were merely destroying Christian and Shiite shrines, crucifying prisoners, and sowing terror throughout Syria, they did not constitute a serious problem.

However, now that the IS has emerged on the world stage, controlling parts of Syria and Iraq, and expanding into Lebanon, the equation on the ground in Syria has changed. With the West, in particular the United States, desperately seeking to reestablish a politically dominant position in Syria and delegitimize Assad and his government, the pretext for aggression has shifted from chemical weapons and Assad’s ‘butchery’ to the inescapable need to combat the IS.

Though conditions on the ground have changed in the last 12 months, the West’s agenda for Syria has changed very little. Regime change is still the name of the game.

Continue reading...

Pakistan’s ‘Long March’: Democracy or Politics as Usual? (Part 1)

In Pakistan, the “Long March” – a major protest led by opposition politicians calling for the resignation of the government – began in earnest on August 14th. The protest, which could more accurately be described as a series of overlapping protests led by two factions, in some ways similar and in some ways different from each other, promises to bring Pakistani political life to a standstill. However, the enigmatic, and quite often paradoxical, nature of Pakistani politics means that such a development requires careful analysis.

The protest leaders – Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaf (PTI) and anti-government cleric Tahir-ul Qadri of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) – have pledged to turn out hundreds of thousands, if not millions, into the streets to demand an end to corruption and rule by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N party. But, beyond the rhetoric of “democracy” and “transparency,” both political buzzwords more indicative of public relations and marketing than genuine political program, there is the troubling possibility that what is being billed as a democratic upsurge, is merely politics as usual in Pakistan.

Of course, one should not take a completely cynical perspective on Khan, Qadri, and the other leaders and factions participating in the Long March. Indeed, many of their criticisms and allegations regarding corruption, cronyism, and electoral theft are well founded in a country that suffers from institutionalized and endemic corruption. However, one should be at the very least cautious with a movement which with one breath calls for democracy, while with another demands the resignation of the elected government.

In critically examining the nature of the protest, as well as Khan’s PTI and other organized political forces, it is clear that the outrage of the people of Pakistan is quite real, their suffering and poverty is tragic, and it is their future that is at stake. With that in mind, anyone interested in supporting peace and progress for the people of Pakistan must understand the current movement.

Continue reading...

ISIS a Pretext for US-Sponsored Regime Change in Iraq

The ousting of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is part of a broader US plan for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

 Against the backdrop of the war against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Washington has managed to kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Not only has the US removed a political leader who had proven to be problematic due to his opposition to US military presence in Iraq, as well as his staunch support for Syria and President Assad, they have also created the conditions for the dismemberment of the Iraqi state.

 The US and its allies are supporting de facto ‘independence’ for the Kurdish region in the north of the country, using the IS as a convenient pretext for openly arming and supporting Kurdish forces. Naturally, one should not look for altruism in Washington’s motives. Rather, this strategy is to benefit western oil companies with dollar signs in their eyes, licking their lips in anticipation of being able to deal directly with Kurdish President Barzani.

 Additionally, Maliki’s ouster deprives Syrian President Assad of a key ally, thereby emboldening the IS and the other militants waging war against Syria. It provides further evidence, as if more were needed, that the political future is bleak for any Iraqi leader who dares to break from the script written for him by Washington. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the US and its allies to be the leading force politically in the war against the IS, an organization created by US policy and covert operations in the region.

 In the sales and marketing industry, there is a term known as ‘solution selling’ whereby the salesperson either creates or exaggerates a problem, then presents his or her product as the invaluable solution. Indeed, this sort of sales strategy is precisely the approach Washington has taken in the region, and specifically in Iraq.

(Click here to continue reading)

ISIS, Maliki, and the US Agenda in Iraq

Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.org appears on RT to discuss the latest developments in Iraq.  Draitser explains that Washington is using the situation with ISIS as a pretext to execute its agenda which includes ousting PM Maliki, creating a servile puppet government, dislodging the Kurdish North, and dismembering the Iraqi state.  He notes that the US has had these goals for quite a while, and that the current situation with ISIS is used as a convenient pretext to achieve geopolitical and strategic goals in the region.  Draitser also describes how US policy in Iraq is designed to spread the ISIS problem to beyond Syria and Iraq, specifically to Lebanon, thereby breaking the Shia axis of resistance.