Counterpunch on Monday published an article by Luciana Bohne that made it very plain that not only was Hillary Clinton risking nuclear war with Russia by pressing for a no-fly zone in Syria, she was also lying when she claimed that it would save lives. She wrote
In her last presidential debate, Clinton said that she wants a no-fly zone in Syria because it will “save lives”:
“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria, not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”
The “leverage” she is seeking is Russian roulette with the planet. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, noted in response that a no-fly zone in Syria might trigger a war with Russia, a nuclear power. Neither does she believe that a no-fly zone will save lives. In a closed-door speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton said:
“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”
She knows what is at stake with a no-fly zone in Syria, and yet she tells us the opposite of what she knows will happen. In other words, she’s lying.
She also makes the point that no-fly zones are illegal under international law, are not recognised by the UN, and that the Russians are in Syria perfectly legally, as they have been invited in by the internationally recognised, legitimate government of Assad.
A no-fly zone is a coercive appropriation of the partial airspace of a sovereign country. It is the arbitrary creation of a demilitarized zone in the sky to prevent belligerent powers from flying in that air space. In Syria, the “belligerent power,” ironically, would be the internationally recognized legitimate Syrian government and its legitimate ally, Russia.
According to former UN Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in an interview with John Pilger, a no-fly zone is illegal under international law. No-fly zones are post-Soviet inventions. The measure was never proposed, used, or authorized to this day by the UN Security Council until the Soviet Union virtually dissolved. This restraint was exercised by the US for the excellent reason that no such aggression on a sovereign state would have been tolerated without massive fuss at the UN Security Council and a bad rap for the US. There have been only three instances of a no-fly zone so far, all in the wake of the disappearance of the USSR: Iraq (1991-2003), Bosnia (1993-95), and Libya (2011), all initiated on the hypocritical pretense of “saving lives.”
She points out that the Queen of Chaos started pressing for a no-fly zone because the anti-Assad opposition America, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been funding and supplying, which includes as well as the Free Syrian army, Daesh and al-Nusra – the latter the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda – have been hard hit by the Russians. The American led coalition would like to overthrow Assad, but realises that they cannot unless the Russians are somehow prevented from aiding their ally. And so Hillary’s false claim that a no-fly zone would save lives. Failing that, Obama also had a plan B. This was to provide ground to air missiles to the Free Syrian army and the ‘moderate’ opposition, even if the so-called moderates were allied with the Islamists.
I mention this because on Saturday, Mike posted a piece commenting on an article by Iain Duncan Smith, which called for Britain and the West to arm the people of Aleppo so that they could shoot down the Russian warplanes.
Mike makes the same points Bohne does in her article. He states that Aleppo is being pummeled because it does contain real terrorists. Assad and the Putin are not attacking it for no reason. Furthermore, if British arms were used to shoot down a Russian plane, this would result in the escalation of further Russian attacks in Syria, as well as demands by Russia for restitution from Britain. And, he asks rhetorically, who knows what form that would take?
As the title of Mike’s article makes clear, Iain Duncan Smith is demanding we help the Syrian opposition shoot down Russian aircraft because Smudger is a ‘bloody fool’.
And in answer to Mike’s other rhetorical question, whether IDS wants us to fund terrorists – the answer is ‘yes’. Yes, America is already funding Islamist terror groups in Syria in order to oust Assad, and yes, IDS wants to give the weapons if he really believes in this stupid, murderous policy. I assume that Smitty already knows that the US and our ally, Saudi Arabia, are funding the Islamists if he has seriously studied the situation in the region. Of course, this might be demanding too much of a moral and intellectual vacuity like Smith. He showed absolutely no sense of any kind of critical intelligence when he led the Tory party and even less when he was head of the DWP. He doesn’t think about the consequences of his actions or policies, just blindly follows them no matter how many thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands may be harmed. Rather than change these policies, his strategy is to start denying his critics access to information on them, and lie through his teeth.
So I thoroughly agree with Mike’s conclusion:
There was blood on his hands at the DWP and now he is trying to get them dirty on the international stage.
He deserves poetic justice – the swift and final kind.
And let’s also bring IDS military career into the debate. For all that he claims to have been an officer in the Scots Guards, it seems very strongly to me that IDS is a chickenhawk. He was a soldier in the British army, but he was never a captain as he claims and I think Mike’s right when he says that the closest IDS has come to being bombed personally is when a bird dropped a message of its own on him. Photo in Mike’s article, above. IDS is a coward as well as a bully. How else would you describe a man, who turned up at parliamentary committee surrounded by bodyguards and armed coppers, just in case the disabled people and their carers in the gallery turned violent. Or runs and hides from protesters in hotel laundry baskets. He’s a foul individual, who has absolutely no right or business demanding that other people risk their lives for him and his political and corporate masters and colleagues.
Tags: 'Counterpunch', Al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, Aleppo, Assad, Barack Obama, Bosnia, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, British Army, Conservative Party, DWP, Free Syrian Army, General Dunford, Hillary Clinton, ISIS, Islamism, John Pilger, Luciana Bohne, No-Fly Zones, Nuclear War, Parliament, Qatar, Soviet Union, UN Security Council, Vladimir Putin