Let’s take a harder look at the “Hit him hard” option.
In the first place, Assad left alone poses no threat to us, in the West, and it is not in our national interest or anyone else’s to intervene.
The price of oil and gold is rising so it benefits people who bought gold cheaply, it benefits Arab oil sheiks and it benefits oil traders and plutocrats who own oil shares.
Hitting Assad hard destabilizes the Middle East, could tip us back into recession and will cost lives.
The lives that will be lost will be of young fighting men, not politicians, not dictatorial oil sheiks, not oil traders and certainly not employees of the Economist who really ought to know better.
–We do not yet know if Assad caused the Sarin gas attack, whether it was a false flag event, a trap or indeed who initiated it yet the Commons motion and all manner of people including BBC reporters are ASSUMING it was Assad.
–David Cameron assumes that what Obama calls a “shot across the bows” is going to end there with Assad brought instantly to heel.
Former General Dannatt, General Dempsey and other top military men do not think so, and history shows that they are more likely to be correct than the vacuous Cameron or Economist reporters who do not understand military matters or it seems human nature expressed in a man like Assad, who with his back to the wall will have no choice but to defend himself.
—Al-Nusra, the main rebel group, are affiliated to Al Qaeda, who are our enemy and according to the Americans are the people who brought down the Twin Towers at 9/11, supposedly the reason for our “War on terror” in the first place.
Is the Economist seriously suggesting that if we “Hit Assad hard” that the chemical weapons possessed by the Assad regime won’t fall into the hands of Al Nusra, bearing in mind we have “no plans for boots on the ground”?
–How does the Economist think we are going to contain what will become a wider Middle East war if Assad, as he is entitled to do, tries to defend himself?
–Has the Economist decision treed the effects of potential Russian and Chinese retaliation or what form it could take against Western interests or explained to its readers who will pay?
Assuming we “Hit Assad hard” what will the Economist say if the casualties and inevitable “collateral damage” creates more casualties and deaths than the Sarin gas even assuming that Assad’s purported culpability and complicity can be proved?
–What is Plan B, the strategic objective?
- Syria, Chemical Weapons and Military Intervention: A Personal View – John Gelmini (dralfoldman.com)
- Syria – Hit him hard – Economist lead (dralfoldman.com)
- A Hard Look at Western Military Intervention in Syria: John Gelmini (dralfoldman.com)
- The Case against further Western Intervention in Syria – A personal view from John Gelmini (dralfoldman.com)
- Syria, Cameron, UK Parliament and Risks of Military Action – John Gelmini (dralfoldman.com)
- The Western Military Intervention in Syria: further thoughts – John Gelmini (dralfoldman.com)
- The Economist’s New Cover On Syria Is Not Subtle (businessinsider.com)
- A Hard Look at UK Life Under David Cameron – John Gelmini 2/3 (dralfoldman.com)
- Jones: “There Are Russians Troops Now Piling Off Ships Into Syria” (thedailysheeple.com)
- Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where’s the evidence? (cbsnews.com)