‘Obama administration searching for *casus belli
in Syria before Trump takes over’
By GPD on November 23,
2016
Claims by the White House about what the Russian
and Syrian government are doing are becoming highly speculative, emotive and
without any real evidence to back them up, says Greg Copley, president of the
International Strategic Studies Association.
According to the US State Department, Russia is
responsible for anything the Syrian regime’s doing, so can be blamed for all
manner of things.
The State Department has accused Moscow of
allegedly attacking Syrian hospitals and insists the information comes from
credible sources.
RT: Washington
says Russia is always guilty simply because it’s backing Assad – what’s your
take on such a ‘guilty by association’ policy?
Gregory Copley: It
is becoming more and more ludicrous by the day. What we do see is that the
Obama administration is moving as fast as it can to create a *casus belli for
the US to get militarily involved directly in Syria and in Yemen before it
leaves office. We see the growth of unsubstantiated claims by the State
Department in particular and attempts to bring the US into a direct
confrontation as it continues its claim that the Syrian government is the cause
of all the problems. We can expect to see this escalate continuingly until
January 20. The Trump transition team is resisting the urge to allow both the
Obama administration and some Republican hawks like Senator John McCain to get
the US militarily involved in these adventures. The Trump administration is now
looking to play this down, it is looking to find solutions to this. And
frankly, I think this is becoming evident to a lot of people that the Obama
administration’s claims about what the Russian government and the Syrian
government are allegedly doing are becoming highly speculative, emotive and without
any real evidence to back them up.
To cite the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,
which may intend to do well, but as a ‘credible source’ doesn’t amount to
credible intelligence. All these are allegations. And we know that all of the
external bodies, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, are relying
on very tainted information sources. So, I wouldn’t put a lot of credibility on
their statements or particularly on the State Department. I think this is an
outrageous situation. There are a lot of even former State Department officials
are decrying the lack of professionalism here.
If you look at the number of allegations that
have been made against the Syrian and Russian forces in the region, none of
these hospitals would be left standing the number of times the State Department
has alleged that they have been attacked. And we have to remember also – as
with the chemical attacks – there are a lot of false flag attacks by the
Islamist groups, particularly those controlled by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and
Qatar. We saw the Ghouta attack in 2013 in the suburbs of Damascus claiming to
be a Syrian government chemical attack which was nothing but a pre-placed
Saudi-built sarin device. We are seeing those sorts of things going on again
today.
RT: In the
past couple of months Washington’s gone from blatant accusations to basing
these allegations on various sources, however, questionable these sources are.
Why such change in rhetoric?
GC: I don’t think there
has been a change in rhetoric. I think we’ve seen the Obama White House pushing
harder and harder to get the US involved in the war in Syria, which it was
complicit and starting, particularly with the Turkish, Qatari and Saudi
government to try to promote the idea of an Arab Spring in Syria. It created a
civil war and kept it alive by feeding in weapons and fighters from outside to
keep this war going. The Obama administration tried in 2013 to get Syria to
cross the red line and do something which would evoke a US military response.
That failed. But the Obama administration has not ever given up on that
objective.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in
this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
*Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" (literally, "a case of war").[1] A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact.[2][3] Either may be considered an act of war.
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.