The World Shouldn’t Give Trump a Blank Check to Destroy Syria

Rasa - The United Nations Security Council failed to ratify a resolution introduced by Russia to condemn the recent US-led raids at Syria. The next best thing the Security Council could do is to ensure US President Donald Trump wouldn’t get a blank check from the UN to go to war with Syria virtually on any pretext.

News ID: 437248

Date: 17 April 2018 - 23:28

RNA - It would be hard to overstate the depth and breadth of the international civil society’s anger and concern about this latest narrative as witnessed in many cities around the world. Protests have erupted in many parts of the world, including the US and Britain, against the US-led missile attack against Syria. The US, Britain and France launched joint airstrikes in Syria early on Saturday in response to what they called a chemical attack on civilians by the Syrian government.

This is while Syria has denied any use of chemical weapons in the war against terror. Russia also says it has evidence that the suspected chemical attack in Douma, which was used as a pretext for the US-led raid, was a false flag operation orchestrated by British spy services.

Trump, however, claims “Mission accomplished.” But he never says what exactly the illegal strikes have accomplished. It is now a telling yarn that the military impact of missile attacks is limited. Such actions often are symbolic, and in reality they signal weakness, not resolve.

The cruise missile strikes further made the Syrian government look stronger than ever because its air defenses responded to the attack and hit two in three of incoming missiles. More so, the strikes backfired, because many people poured into the streets in Damascus afterwards in support of their government, celebrating what they saw as victory in resistance.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, a total of 103 cruise missiles were launched during the attack against Syrian military installations, and at least 71 of them were intercepted by Syrian air defense forces. It means what it means; air power alone has many limits if there is no force on the ground to magnify its impact. The bombing will equally do little to advance American goals in Syria. It is not going to alter the current trajectory of the war which is in favor of Damascus.

Instead, the strike has drawn global outcry because it was carried out before the international chemical weapons watchdog could probe the alleged chemical attacks in Douma. Mind you, even if Syria had chemical weapons, the US had no right to hit its military installations. There are legal frameworks and guidelines at the UN as to how to deal with a country that allegedly has chemical weapons.

At any rate, Trump is being mocked for using this phrase in a tweet to praise what he claims was a “perfectly executed” airstrike against chemical weapons facilities in Syria. This recalls George W. Bush’s egregious evocation of the phrase in 2003 to claim an early end to the US entanglement in Iraq, which is still ongoing fifteen years later.

History made a fool of Bush for that proclamation, which was printed on a banner behind him as he delivered his speech proclaiming an end to the Iraqi conflict on the deck of an aircraft carrier. But Bush’s foolish and lethal incursion to Iraq had the backing of virtually the entire national-security establishment. So did Donald Trump’s bombing attack on Syria last Saturday.

At the end of the day, there are still more questions than answers:

- Why couldn’t the US wait for inspectors to do their jobs?

- How does the public know it is being told the truth?

- Why isn’t the full range of US activity in Syria getting more coverage?

- Why is there widespread under-reporting of US support for Al-Qaeda-allied militants inside Syria?

- Where are the advocates for International Law at the UN Security Council?

- How come no one bothers at the UN to uphold the international norm against aggressive military action, build international support for and participation in Syria dialogue?

- How come no one tells US Ambassador at the UN Nikki Haley that you cannot uphold international norms by violating International Law - in this case violating Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity?

Long story short, the ostensible pretext for the attack remains the unsubstantiated allegation that Syrian government forces employed chemical weapons against militias in Douma. One reason we don’t know the truth is that an international inspection team’s arrival in Douma was pre-empted by the US attack. Unable to provide any evidence for its claim, the US admitted to a deliberate mistake, doubled down, and attacked Syria. Was this unmitigated hubris a repeat of Iraq War II?

If the warmongers in Washington are not willing to give some honest answers to these pressing questions, that’s because they don’t care about the rule of law. These are dangerous times indeed. Expect greater disinformation campaign over the coming weeks and months by those who have aligned themselves with the Trump White House and terror proxy forces in Syria.

Source: Fars News Agancy

847/940