NOVANEWS
by Ezra Van Auken
Without question, pundits to justify American intervention in the region have overly used the Syrian chemical weapon accusations that came about last week. For administration officials, complying with the mainstream and political rhetoric is pretty much mandatory. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reversed his view on Syria’s alleged chemical use just days after saying, “Suspicions are one thing, evidence is another,” calling for legitimate evidence.
Even though officials have produced zero evidence since Hagel’s initial statements, the Defense Secretary seems to think otherwise. For Sec. of State John Kerry, it won’t take much convincing to gain his support for more intervention, as the Sec. of State has been campaigning throughout Europe to garner more support for rebels. In addition, President Obama has seemed subtle but ensuring that chemical weapons would be a “game changer” resulting in more U.S. cooperation with overthrowing Assad.
On Tuesday, the President noted on “some evidence” on Assad’s regime during a press conference at the White House. However, dousing the statement, President Obama also said, “We don’t know who used them. We don’t have a chain of custody that establishes… exactly what happened.” According to Obama, Pentagon officials blitzed the idea of military intervention – giving the President multiple plans to go about toppling Syria’s current regime. Unfortunately for interventionists, the wait will be extended considering no real evidence has been filed on Syria’s chemical use.
Disregarding whether or not Syria’s government did use chemical weapons, former Representative Ron Paul said on Fox Business what’s the difference between dying from chemical weapons or common weapons? Paul explained, “So whether you’re machine gun or gassed or a drone missile kills you, it’s still very dangerous, but I think we are looking for trouble by being there.” Taking Paul’s explanation into account, some analysts of the war believe Syria’s alleged gas use is just propaganda.
Going even farther, Foreign Affairs’ John Mueller is saying President Obama should “erase the red line,” labeling the same understandings as former Rep. Paul. Mueller also alluded to the history media’s hype and propaganda of chemical weapons.
Referring to World War I and the low levels of death by chemical gas, Mueller noted, “But that view lost out to the one that the British propagandists had put forward — that chemical weapons were uniquely horrible and must, therefore, be banned. For the most part, the militaries of the combatant nations were quite happy to get rid of the weapons. As the official British history of the war concludes (in a footnote), gas “made war uncomfortable … to no purpose.”
Even when it comes to examining the public evidence, details are contradictory. SLN detailed, “The Guardian reported Saturday on inconsistencies found with the sarin attack claims, pointing to eyewitness account versus government explanation. For example, witnesses reported a white, smoky gas after the attack, which is the opposite of what sarin produces.” Other reports show that videotaped victims have symptoms, which don’t match the effects of sarin exposure, bringing more questions than answers.
Non-interventionists like Rep. Paul believe staying out of the internal situation completely is best for Western powers, especially America.
