Paul Craig Roberts
Washington preens itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy.” Washington uses the claim that it is spreading democracy as a justification for its naked aggression–a clear and unambiguous war crime–against other countries. Washington cloaks its illegality in democratic rhetoric despite the obvious fact that its wars are not a consequence of democratic decision.
Washington has used deception and lies to gain acceptance of its extra-constitutional and extra-legal wars, but Washington’s wars have all been launched outside the constitutional/democratic framework of the United States.
Obama’s war against Libya occurred without the participation of Congress. And now Obama is again revealing that the US is so far removed from democracy that he plans to attack Syria without a vote by Congress. Where is the democracy when a Caesar makes the decisions that the Constitution reserves to Congress?
Polls indicate that 80 percent of US citizens believe that a US military attack on Syria requires approval by the House and Senate. Yet, the Obama regime is purposely avoiding any such vote. The Obama regime has also ignored the letter signed by 162 members of the House of Representatives demanding to see evidence, debate it, and vote prior to any US military strike.
It is an act of treason for the US military to carry out any war orders without congressional authorization. Any military commander who violates his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States has committed high treason against the United States. If the US were truly a lawful democracy, such commanders would be subject to arrest and trial.
The fact that the executive branch and the military operate outside the Constitution and democratic process is proof that the US is not a democracy.
In yesterday’s columns I noted that Obama, his media whores, and worshiping Obamabots are overlooking considerations of critical importance. One is that military aggression is a war crime. In the past, Bush and Obama had cloaks for their war crimes, such as a “coalition of the willing,” NATO, some limited “congressional consultation” or vague resolution, or a UN resolution that is then stretched to cover the regime’s actions.
None of these things are adequate legal cover. Their worth comes from the fact that other countries and institutions besides the US executive branch is involved in the war crime. There is safety in the numbers. Charging the entire Western world with war crimes means only that the entire Western world will defend the validity of their excuse.
But this time the regime has no cover. There is no “coalition of the willing,” no UN resolution, no NATO support, and Obama has ignored both Congress and the American people. For Obama to proceed with his attack on Syria would be the action of an unaccountable dictator. He would have no cover for his war crime.
Obama’s effort to rush to war with Syria has already destroyed the credibility of the US government as a truthful, honest government. The entire world, even Washington’s most subservient puppet states, have recognized that Washington has no evidence to back its accusations. No one believes Obama or Kerry. Both have revealed themselves to the entire world as brazen liars.
This has destroyed all trust in the US government. And now Obama seems determined to prove that America has a dictator, not a democracy.
It is difficult to image a more serious blow to the US than the one Obama has delivered.
All of the important props for Washington’s propaganda, such as “the world’s greatest democracy,” have been kicked out from under what now stands revealed as a criminal enterprise.
Russia’s President Putin has openly expressed his contempt for the lies that are flowing nonstop from the mouths of Obama and Kerry. Putin called Obama’s claims “utter nonsense.” Putin said that if the Americans have any proof, “let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council.”
In fact, the evidence that exists indicates that the chemical attack originated with the rebels and may have been an accident caused by “rebels” transporting chemical weapons given to them by the Saudis but without instruction to correct handling. The reporter, Dale Gavlak, who spoke with the rebels, who were themselves harmed by the weapons, is a Middle East expert from the University of Chicago who has reported for the Associated Press, National Public Radio, and the BBC.http://original.antiwar.com/Dale-Gavlak/2013/08/30/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/
For another perspective unreported by the US media, see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s report in the UK Telegraph that Saudi Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, attempted to bribe and intimidate Putin into abandoning Syria to the Americans. Reportedly, Bandar offered Putin a Saudi-Russian oil cartel and offered Putin protection against Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
As farfetched as all of this sounds to Americans, it is more plausible than anything Washington says.
Washington’s claim that the Syrian “rebels” have no access to chemical weapons is obviously false. On May 30, an Istanbul newspaper reported that Turkish police apprehended al-Nusra “rebels” with sarin gas that al-Nusra planed to use in an attack
on Adana. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-316966-report-police-foil-al-nusra-bomb-attack-planned-for-adana.html
Having repeatedly declared that the use of chemical weapons requires a military response from the US, what will Obama and Kerry do when it comes clear that the “rebels,” not Assad, are responsible for the chemical weapons? Will Obama and Kerry attack the “rebels”? Will Obama and Kerry attack Saudi Arabia for giving the chemical weapons to the “rebels”? Don’t hold your breath.
My Ph.D. dissertation supervisor, G. Warren Nutter, was brought into the Pentagon by Melvin Laird as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and given the task of winding down the Vietnam War. Nutter opposed US foreign policy based on secrecy and deception. He was convinced that US foreign policy had to be transparent, consistent with the country’s principles, and carry public support. A policy based on secrecy and deception would undermine democracy and the trust of the public and foreigners in the US government.
Today there are no Warren Nutters in Washington, and there have not been such people in government for many years. As Nutter foresaw, the consequences are the lost of public confidence in government and the isolation of the US in world affairs.
Obama now stands on the verge of military aggression as isolated as Adolf Hitler when Germany attacked Poland.