The U.S. retaliated against Syria for an deadly alleged chemical weapons attack approved by President Bashar al-Assad.
Russia warned Washington is now ‘a step away from war.’
Tehran and Moscow have demanded an independent probe into the alleged assault.
Mainstream media parroted the official narrative without demanding proof.
As the United States leaps haplessly closer to all-out war in several geopolitical hotspots, an imperative to prove the necessity of putting U.S. troops — and, indeed, the entire American public — in harm’s way, lands squarely with President Donald Trump and his administration.
But, without proper, independent investigation of an alleged chemical weapons attack ostensively carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and with world nuclear war no longer an inconceivable prospect — Trump illegally launched a deadly retaliatory offensive, catapulting the U.S. into direct conflict with Syria, and inches from the same with its ally, nuclear-capable, Russia.
Dismissing temporarily the fact this aggressive act in no way followed Constitutional or international law, the catalyst for Trump’s head-first plunge into a war with potentially calamitous repercussions must be examined independent of the State, so Americans can grasp how farcical the premise upon which innocent people have and will lose their lives.
First, the ‘official’ narrative, parroted without question by every major corporate media outlet in the United States and much of the West; here, as the Guardian somberly explained it:
“At least 70 people have been killed in northern Syria after being exposed to a toxic gas that survivors said was dropped from warplanes, an attack that sparked comparisons to the most infamous act of the country’s six-year war […]
“Condemnation mounted throughout Tuesday as the US, Britain and EU blamed the Syrian government for the carnage, hours before the start of a donor conference on Syria in Brussels.
“Donald Trump denounced the carnage as a ‘heinous’ act that ‘cannot be ignored by the civilised world’. But he also laid some of the responsibility on Barack Obama, saying in a statement that the attack was ‘a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution’.”
Apparently channeling his inner tough guy, Trump dispensed with congressional approval before ordering the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles from two destroyers into an area believed somehow connected to the putative Assad-ordered attack.
This has since, unsurprisingly, exploded briefly latent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia — now operating in the same theater after having suspended a ‘deconfliction line,’ which previously linked the two as a courtesy to avoid accidental live fire engagement.
To wit, the Kremlin exhorted the Trump administration its amplification of aggression in Syria puts the two nations ‘one step from war’ — a noteworthy statement, considering months of U.S. posturing, punishing sanctions, and chilled diplomacy thus far failed to provoke more than castigation and the occasional snide insult.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev railed against Washington’s abrupt offensive against “the legitimate government of Syria” broke international law for failure to seek approval with the United Nations, stating,
“This military action is a clear indication of the US president’s extreme dependency on the views of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticised in his inauguration speech.
“Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump’s election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months.
“The last remaining election fog has lifted. Instead of an overworked statement about a joint fight against the biggest enemy, ISIS, the Trump administration proved that it will fiercely fight the legitimate Syrian government.”
Both Russia and Iran have implored an independent investigation be conducted into the putative chemical attack — reported, but not yet confirmed, to have been performed with various agents, from sarin to phosphine — to determine decisively both extenuating circumstances and culpable entity.
Moscow and Tehran also back Assad’s account that a chemical munitions cache operated by al-Qaeda affiliates preparing to ship to Iraq, had indeed been the target of a conventional weapons bombing — the resultant deadly miasma having then blown in unusually strong winds into a nearby village, where as many as 86 innocents perished.
It must be noted the former Secretary of State John Kerry declared the U.S. had overseen the removal of every last chemical munition in Syria, ostensively meeting obligations from an agreement the prior year. That the U.S. “got ‘100 percent’ of chemical weapons out of Syria,” as Kerry claimed, was originally deemed Mostly True by PolitiFact — until, that is, the Trump administration and corporate media demonized anyone as a friend of the villain for questioning the proffered Assad narrative.
U.S. officials categorically deny the act as anything but an atrocity at the hands of a despotic dictator — who, incidentally, heads a regime the Western political establishment has sought to depose for many years. Assad has, they say, earned a reputation as a murderous brute for good reason — never mind the inexplicable timing at the first promising push toward peace — gassing his own people wouldn’t be out of character.
Although this account now consumes the whole of Western, mainstream media, unassailable proof has yet to surface in solid support of a driving narrative — meaning, not only has Trump jumped the shark bombing a sovereign nation, but the supposed government watchdog in illustrious media titans like the New York Times, who have a journalistic obligation to exhaust all avenues to ferret the truth, have instead turned tail and pledged fealty to corporate masters.
So, which is it? Did Syria torturously murder dozens of civilians with a deadly gas for no reason? Or does the official U.S. account require fastidious examination?
When contemplating these crucial points, be well-advised the very real possibility of world, if not nuclear, war looms nearer by the day. Should the spark for such a harrowing conflagration really come with an avoidable, unnecessary, and reckless act of force?
Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey.