In April 2017, a sarin attack slammed into Khan Sheikhoun in Syria; 80 people, many of them children, lost their lives in horrific images that quickly spread worldwide. In response to this, President Donald Trump, quickly pinning the blame on Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, authorised the US navy to launch 59 tomahawk missiles (each costing about a million dollars each) at Assad’s air force bases. From here Trump is now openly intervening in Syria and more recently said that NATO has regained its relevance, his first major U-turns since coming to power in January. His decision to hit Syria is extremely dubious for not consulting congress first and the fact that the cost of a tomahawk missile could have easily gone towards other sectors including education and infrastructure. On top of all that, we had no idea who carried out the chemical attack, but now there’s plenty of evidence that points to the American government’s point of view being a fabrication, a sham to justify the further use of more powerful and expensive weapons that do nothing but exacerbate current conflicts and give more fuel to companies consumed by a lust for profits. Appearing on the BBC, Staffan de Mistura, the UN’s special envoy to Syria said that Trump had just “given jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations”; it’s baffling that we still don’t get that dropping more bombs creates more terrorists. Ironically it was the Bolivian representative Sacha Llorenti who called out the United States for its actions and demanded further accountability and investigation at the UN itself.
The decision itself raise many questions about America’s newest president; what does he really stand for? Are the Syria strikes proof that he panders to the war profiteering business or is it a distraction to break off from his apparent collusion with Russia? In either case, it’s extremely hypocritical that Trump is more than willing to react when an atrocity occurs by dropping more bombs but fails at actually helping refugee children caught up in the horrendous attack. They say that weapons used to be manufactured to fight wars, now wars are manufactured to make weapons; it’s very telling that Raytheon’s stocks (The company who builds the tomahawk missiles) went up right after they were launched by the US Department of defence. Whether Trump himself profits from this remains unknown.
Battle lines in the Syrian conflict remain incredibly one-sided with the United States and Russia placing their own interests into the conflict with their respective allies following behind. Recently I spoke to a fellow student on my course whose family originates from Syria who had a lot to share about recent events. He believed that Assad would not use chemical weapons and risk an international incident when he is close to winning. In turn this is also backed up by other often obscure sources; the UN’s Carla Del Ponte branded investigations as “inconclusive” while pointing to evidence that rebel fighters in Syria may have access to chemical weapons. In addition, further evidence from American MIT scientist Theodore Postol said in a fourteen-page paper that the so-called crater made by the chemical bomb may have been fabricated “Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real,”. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” It all points to a suspicious event that paints a narrative of warfare masquerading as humanitarian intervention.
Throughout the week that followed, the mainstream media was utterly complacent to the use of tomahawk missiles; one particularly horrifying quote from Brian Williams of MNSBC remarked: “I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: I’m guided by the great beauty of our weapons”. In addition, many articles written about the chemical attack were framed towards assigning blame, rather than considering evidence. What does this say about the media at large? They hound Trump down all the way through the campaign for his bigotry and now suddenly they’re perfectly fine with the use of destructive weapons? World Socialist Web Site sums it up best: “No lie is too great. If the US intelligence agencies declared tomorrow that Putin was responsible for an outbreak of tornadoes or a hurricane striking the US Gulf Coast, by means of a secret Russian program to alter the weather, their claims would be presented as the gospel truth by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and Fox, while the New York Times would publish a four-page “investigative” report, complete with maps and charts provided by the CIA.” It’s indicative of the way fake news is slowly consuming modern society What better to distract the masses than with a major conflict facing further ignition by the entrance of western players? If anything wars also deliver profit for the media as they can rack up the viewership and social media hits with every nasty event that occurs far from their shores.
Most recently the United States chose to use a MOAB or mother of all bombs to target terrorists; easily the most powerful non-nuclear device ever built, it’s a further escalation of an already raging fire. Just how far can Trump and the United States go? Will the bombs ever stop dropping? As an administration and as a country, they must rethink their attitude and approach now. Pompous use of military muscle can only lead to more conflict and more profiteering at the expense of innocent people.
(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)
Sources (In order of appearance)