The Dogs of War are Off the Leash

“The timing is certainly suspicious. The Assad regime had nothing to gain and everything to lose from dropping chemical bombs on civilian targets. The Syrian government is winning the war. The rebel forces are in retreat. ISIS is a splintered force. Europe is desperate for a resolution to the Syrian war and an end to the tide of refugees.” Jeffrey St. Clair

I had been thinking about capitalism this week and had planned to write something about it when Tiny Hands Trump decided to launch cruise missiles against a country that hasn’t attacked the US directly, making Trump no different from many of his predecessors. American presidents love cruise missiles because they are big and flashy, launched from distance, look great on TV, and rarely endanger the lives of American servicepeople. What’s not to love?

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams actually referred to the Pentagon’s photographs of cruise missiles arcing across the night sky as “beautiful.” No mention of the poor souls on the receiving end, though one can assume all beauty ceases on impact. Williams isn’t unusual -- most of his elite media colleagues puff up with pride when the US goes to war. Shock and awe, you know?

There are a number of problems with Trump’s action, most notably that the US cannot know with any certainty that the Assad regime was behind the use of chemical weapons. As Jeffrey St. Clair noted for Counterpunch, the Assad regime had no compelling reason for launching a chemical attack now because government forces are winning the conflict. US crocodile tears about the gassing of infants and small children are cynical as well as hypocritical: how many innocent human beings has the US killed during the past 16 years of its insane War on Terror? While Uncle Sam may hang his head and sob, his hands are smeared with blood. When it comes to determining friend and foe in the Middle East the US is clueless. We can’t sell enough arms to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and of course our support for Israel never fails.

Trump ordered the strikes without approval from Congress, an investigation into who was responsible for the chemical attack, or with a resolution from the United Nations. Given the lapdog nature of Congress, Democrats as well as Republicans will applaud Trump, giving Tiny Hands a needed respite from all the turmoil he and his henchmen have created. Trump certainly needed a “win” of some kind to nudge his lagging poll numbers up from the doldrums, and launching missiles rarely fails to do the trick. After nearly two decades of continuous war, American citizens are numb and blind to the consequences of military actions taken in their name.

One must always ask who the beneficiaries are when an empire like the US decides to attack. Clearly, the attack on Syria benefits Tiny Hands, at least in the short term; Trump can bask in a rosy military glow for a few days, pass himself off as a decisive and “strong” leader, grab some decent press, and also take shots at the weakness of his predecessor; the markets are up today, so Trump can take credit for that as well; the arms makers and dealers always reap rewards; Israel will be pleased.

But then what? Will Syria cease to be a problem area, even if Assad falls? Will Russia just bow out of the region? We exterminated Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the colonel in Libya and those countries are hardly models of stability and prosperity. I can’t wait to read what Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn have to say about this latest twist.

Why is the US’s first inclination always to bomb? If we really wanted to help the long suffering Syrians, we would provide massive quantities of food, medicine, portable shelters, and other necessities of life, not more death and destruction. We can comfort our consciences by calling these strikes limited or surgical, but the likelihood is that innocent people are going to be killed or injured.