OBAMA'S SPEECH ON ISIS, IN PLAIN
ENGLISH
By David Frum Sep 11 2014.
INTRODUCTION by Hugo Adan
9/11/14
Apparently David is against wars (How does this war benefit America? ) but in fact
that is not the case. His point of departure is that other wars (Iraq, Afganistan, Somalia, .. you named) did benefit
America, this one not. This one benefit
only Iran and Syria and to David Frum: America’s new unspoken allies in the
anti-ISIS war actually represent a greater “challenge to international order”
and a more significant “threat to America’s core interests”. So David share with the neo-nazis in America,
the neocons, the thesis that Obama is betraying the nation because of his hidden
support to Assad and the mullahs in Iran. To me Obama speech was an incoherent false
flag in four counts.
1st, no war abroad benefit America as a nation, it benefit
only those who manufacture weapons and the financiers involved in such nasty
business.
2nd, this new war (assumed against ISIS) departs
from the idea that the new regimen in Irak represent all nationalities in equal
proportion (sunis, chias and kurds) and that is not the case. The case is that
Kerry was received with bombs that clearly said “we do not want American
here”. So Iraq remain deeply divided,
and the war announced by Obama is using
this division initiated by Bush and supported by his regimen to get the main
objective : to depose the Assad regimen and divide this nation too. Who will
benefit from this open objective, not American of course but Israel. The Zionists in Israel are behind this attack
on Syria, they have interest on the oil in the region. So there is not
intention to benefit Iran as the neocon David Frum assume, instead this war is open the Pandora box of
Israel and Iran conflict. This war will be the path to destroy Iran, once Syria is totally divided
and destroyed. In other words, Obama is switching the conflict form Europe (Ukraine)
to the Middle East. Why? easy target?
3rd, the story tale that the bombing of Syria will
discriminate on friends of Asad and his rebels is childish. The civilian
population supporting Assad will be the target. ISIS forces might be used as
ground force to complete their unfinished work to later be blamed for the
barbarian bombing and/or be left alive and free if they dissolve. We train them to kill, we arm them directly
and indirectly, they are just mercenaries collected from jails and poor slums
in Europe, people left without future by the neoliberal system and if they are
muslims they are mostly sunnis provided by Saudis and Qatar (this sunis are not
hidden as beneficiaries in Obama speech). The aim of this war is not to punish
the killers of US journalists, the aim is to dissolve the Asad State-regimen,
in Obama words “to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all”.
4th, If the 150 attacks with bombs on ISSIS was
successful, as mentioned by Obama, why not continue them, why to attack the
State of Syria? If ISSIS mercenaries are
so powerful inside Iraq, why not to
destroy them there? Are they really
enemies of the Iraq new government? Or both are part of the same crusade against Syria and Iran. What if the
planes send by US-Israel to bomb Damascus
are shoot down by Russians, Iranians and their allies? Is Obama strategy considering
the event of escalation of this war toward a nuclear war? This is a war against Syria and Iran and
it is a very dangerous game the one Obama just opened .
======
Here the view of David Frum:
The president
didn't answer the most important questions about his war in Iraq and Syria.
How does this war
benefit America? The
question was unanswered because it is unanswerable. at least, not answerable in
any terms likely to be acceptable to the people watching the speech and paying
the taxes to finance the fight ahead.
Qua speech,
Barack Obama’s address
Wednesday on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was surprisingly terrible:
a disorganized mess, insincere and unconvincing. To appreciate just how bad and
bizarre it was, compare the president’s speech announcing a new air campaign in
Iraq and Syria to Dwight Eisenhower’s 1958 statement on his
decision to intervene in Lebanon with 14,000—14,000!—troops.
There was no
such declarative clarity in Obama’s speech last night. The real fault in the
address, however, was not its delivery or its writing, but rather its content.
The president spoke to the nation without answering the most important
questions that such a speech raises.
Q: Why are we fighting ISIS? Is the group a threat to the United States or American
allies?
A: No, not
really.
“ISIL poses a
threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East—including
American citizens, personnel, and facilities. If left unchecked, these
terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the
United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our
homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”
In plain English: The threat is to Syria and Iraq,
both Iranian client states. The threat beyond the region is completely
hypothetical and rhetorical.
Q: Do we have a plan to defeat ISIS?
A: Again, no,
not really.
“We cannot do
for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab
partners in securing their region.”
In plain English: Without competent forces on the
ground, U.S. airpower alone won’t decide anything.
Q: If the U.S. isn’t fighting the ground war, does it have
capable allies who will?
A: Nope.
“We will also
support Iraq’s efforts to stand up
National Guard units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from
ISIL’s control. Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military
assistance to the Syrian opposition.”
In plain English: We’re desperately casting about for
allies who aren’t Hezbollah or Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Q: Won’t Iran’s ayatollahs and Syria’s Assad regime end up
the real winners?
A: Um, are we
on the record?
“[W]e cannot
rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people—a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has
lost. Instead, we must strengthen the
opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary
to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”
It will take
more than a line or two to translate those
sentences into plain English. Note the beauty of: “We cannot rely on
an Assad regime… .” Not: “We will not work with
the Assad regime.” Not: “The Assad regime will not be the beneficiary of our
military campaign against ISIS.” And certainly not: “I remain committed to my statement
of August 18, 2011 that Syria’s Assad must step down.” Instead, the president’s words about legitimacy
delivered a strange compliment to Bashar al-Assad,
implying that his regime had been legitimate at some point in the past.
As for Iran, Hezbollah, and the
Revolutionary Guards—they
got no mention at all, even as an Iranian armored brigade has
crossed the border into Iraq to fight ISIS on the ground in defense of its
client in Baghdad. (August 25, 2014. Iran
Sends Tanks to Iraq to Fight ISIS. M-60s Could Devastate Militants' Trucks. By
Jassem
Al Salami : http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/08/25/iran_sends_tanks_to_iraq_to_fight_isis_107389.html)
Q: What ultimately are you hoping to achieve?
A: It’s
complicated.
“We stand
with people who fight for their own freedom, and we rally other nations on
behalf of our common security and common humanity. … [This strategy] is
consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against
anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners
wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.”
In plain English: we don’t really have a plan. We don’t
have a definition of success. We see some evildoers and we’re going to whack
them. They deserve it, don’t they?
And sure,
ISIS does deserve it. The group is a nasty collection of slavers, rapists,
thieves, throat-slitters, and all-around psychopaths. The trouble is: so are
the people fighting ISIS, the regimes in
Tehran and Damascus that will reap the benefits of the war the president just
announced. They may be less irrational and unpredictable than ISIS. But if
anything, America’s new unspoken allies in the
anti-ISIS war actually represent a greater “challenge to international order”
and a more significant “threat to America’s core interests” than the vicious characters the
United States will soon drop bombs on.
The question before the nation is, “What is the benefit of
this war to America and to Americans?”
That was the
question the speech left unanswered. And the ominous suspicion left behind is
that the question was unanswered because it is unanswerable—at least, not
answerable in any terms likely to be acceptable to the people watching the
speech and paying the taxes to finance the fight ahead.
----------
My final comment:
In plain English:
I like his style but not his content, that David Frum said in this article is just b..…t
========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario