(・へ・)

if, as an objective historian, you examined the last ten years of world history you would undoubtedly take away a few clear lessons

things such as "regulation of the finance sector is essential" or "treating a criminal threat as a military one can be downright costly"

but the clearest lesson, perhaps, to take from the least ten years would be: "the united states shouldn't go to illegal war with middle eastern countries"

or even, if you wished to take away a very specific lesson; "the us shouldn't rush to war in the middle east over unproven claims relating to chemical weapons"

and yet it would seem that the us (with us along for the ride, of course) is now preparing to take military action to punish assad's regime for a chemical weapon attack

never mind that barely 15 minutes ago the us launched an illegal war against a similar nation to enduringly disastrous results. never mind the fact that it has recently been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the west has no viable solutions to offer when it comes the problem of civil conflict along sectarian divisions.

the horrific killing of 1000 or so civilians was apparently a "red line". now this red line might seem strange to an outsider coming as it does against the backdrop of a war that has horrifically claimed hundreds of thousands; but hey that's realpolitik bitch. it only seems not to make sense

also strange that the killing of a similar number of similar people in a similar country has elicited nowhere near the same international response. but then egypt is larger and more powerful i suppose, plus the generals are favorable towards the us (maybe just maybe that helped too)

while it's obvious that the recent chemical weapons attack was both real and awful, many have pointed out that it was a pretty bold decision by assad to use chemical agents when:

a) things are going pretty well for him lately (so why risk a us response?)

and

b) he knew a UN inspection team visiting syria to investigate chemical weapons use was staying a scant 15 kilometers away (he knew they were there because he let them in)
 
i dont bring up those points because i believe the regime isn't responsible for the attack. but i do bring them up to demonstrate that nobody can yet be sure they did. even the UN team is only there to find evidence of the weapons themselves, not the culprits.

some would, myself included, call it a tad irresponsible to commit to a war based on assumptions. a little rash

because, hey, we've been here before remember? politicians and the media in lockstep agreement over facts relating to chemical weapons (although back then they were called "weapons of mass destruction", an intentionally sensationalist term which interestingly i am yet to hear used by the media in relation to syria)

the idea of intervening in the civil war in syria on humanitarian grounds would hold some merit were it an idea totally isolated from the preceding ten years of events in the region. but it aint

it has been pointed out that air attacks worked in lybia to end gaddafi's reign but lybia is nothing like syria in terms of strategic location and capabilities. assad, unlike gaddafi, retains significant support amongst the urban population and internationally, AND the lybia experiment still took 8 months to see results anyway.

i can't help but feel that this is another one of those situations where a professional and critical media establishment could stop us (and by "us" i obviously mean the united states and its vassals) from rushing in to another foolish war. it would be theoretically possible to report on the carnage in syria without beating the drums for war.


im really, truly bad at predicting things. even small things, im consistently off. it's remarkable i bother to keep a blog at all really.

back when the idea that labor would axe gillard to bring back rudd first appeared i said "no way in hell they would do that... it would just be so damn stupid"

similarly, when it was first proposed that the united states intervene directly in syrian war i said the same thing. "way too stupid to happen, for sure"

ominous.