WASHINGTON—Secretary of State John Kerry hedged when asked whether intervention in Syria could lead to American “boots on the ground,” saying that while neither he nor President Barack Obama wanted that to happen, he was not willing to rule out the option.
Somehow, Secretary of State John Kerry has developed a case of amnesia, in which he has forgotten he lost his presidential bid to George W. Bush. And Bush, after two terms, was replaced by President Barack Hussein Obama by a substantial majority in lieu of the Republican chicken-hawk John Cain and his ditzy running mate, Sarah Palin.
So why, I ask, is Kerry bucking the will of the American people, who are overwhelming against attacking Syria and involving us in still another Middle Eastern war, when we don’t have unchallengeable information that Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader, was responsible for using chemical weapons on his people?
In fact, that’s why I wrote my article, The tragedy of starting a war in Syria. I wrote that “he [Bashar al-Assad] invited Doctors Without Borders to hospitals around the country, shortly after claims were made that 1,000 [Syrians] were chemically gassed and 300 of them died. Why would he be willing to make himself culpable and vulnerable if he committed the heinous act? Sounds like s false-flag operation to me.” We have all too often seen “regime change” like this before.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, Kerry was asked by committee Chairman Bob Menendez, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, if the administration would agree to a prohibition of American “boots on the ground” as part of a congressional authorization for force.
“It would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have ‘boots on the ground,’” Kerry said. Baloney! The last thing America’s over-committed military needs is another war on its hands, given that Iraq is still raging, Afghanistan is still a Taliban hotbed, as well drone-bombed Pakistan, where local Al Qaeda are planning retaliation.
Yet, undaunted, Kerry continued, “But, in the event that Syria imploded, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of” someone who should not have chemical weapons, “then clearly in the interest of our allies . . . to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements,” Kerry said later. He added “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States.”
Firstly, there are more ifs, buts, and ands in that statement than insurance companies gave Hurricane Sandy victims. And since when can he, Kerry, comment with that bland confidence on any of those statements. He works for the president. Wake up, John!
No wonder Kerry was later challenged on that response by Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee, who chided that, “I didn’t find that a very appropriate response.” Neither do I, Senator Corker, even as a liberal Democrat.
In a somewhat sulky response, Kerry clarified: “There will not be American ‘boots on the ground’ with respect to the civil war.” Would that Kerry would be ready to tell that face to face to Vladimir Putin, who has vowed to protect Syria from any unsubstantiated claim that it was Assad who gassed his own people.
In my last article, How dumb can pursuing a G-20 chemical war on Syria be? I wrote:
Putin began by stating that the horrific Damascus chemical weapons attack was being used by the Western allies as an excuse to attack Bashar al-Assad, adding: ‘I am sure this was no more than a provocation by those looking to drag other countries into the conflict and obtain the support of powerful international players, particularly the United States.” Kudos for Putin!
He also shrugged off the West’s accusations, pointing out that ‘claims that the proof exists but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody are beneath criticism,’ while he challenged Mr. Obama to come clean once and for all:’” “If the US has proof that the al-Assad regime is responsible for that attack, then submit that evidence to the UN Security Council,” which would then, no doubt, make a unanimous decision. Obama did not reply . . .
Putin continued, ‘Common sense points to the perpetrators being that wide assortment of criminal fighters wreaking havoc inside Syria, which include the Al-Qaeda offshoot Al-Nusra, [aka ‘Syria Freedom Fighters’ and Syrian National Council], armed, funded and trained by the US. Putin added: ‘In such conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for foreign military intervention is foolish nonsense.’ And I would add, dangerously apocalyptic.
All this leads me to believe that Kerry, still in his amnesia, is assuming presidential powers that even Obama doesn’t want to exercise. He’s already in enough hot water and the last thing he needs is to jump into some more.
Lastly, once you get involved with “a measured strike” meaning an air or rocket strike, you have to “have boots on the ground” to protect your diplomatic and medical personnel. Otherwise you could end up with another Benghazi mess. A friend of mine, a former Army Intelligence officer, whispered that maxim in my ear, “A measured strike’ must have ‘boots on the ground’ or it all ends up very ugly.”
Doesn’t Kerry’s end-run around the American people’s wish for non-involvement in a dire Syrian conflagration have that possibility? Let’s call it a day on this one, at least till, as Putin recommended, we have more credible and complete information. Or we could easily get involved in WW III. It boggles my mind that Kerry, a former naval officer, can’t put this together. And I wonder if he’s the right man for secretary of state, even if he did claim, he “was thinking out loud” on this one. Some things are better left unsaid.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. He has also written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of Intrepid Report (formerly Online Journal). Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
It sickens me that so many have adopted the euphemism “boots on the ground” instead of calling it what it is, endangering lives for foreign occupation. Even worse than “boots on the ground” is the tacit alternative, drone bombs and cruise missiles, which reduce “boots on the ground” from our side but kill far more innocent civilians, making it politically expedient.
So easy to be seduced by the rhetoric of the U.S. “hands” on the Middle East. A C-Span broadcast of a Brookings Institution forum on Syria, while occasionally informative, nevertheless lulls an audience into a world where the U.S. is just an innocent observer of events. Much bemoaning of a supposed lack of an overall strategy. Our best and brightest are supposedly devoted entirely to humanitarian efforts and the spread of wholesome democratic regimes. I had to splash cold water on my face to awaken from the stupor much of what these propaganda professionals are paid to induce. Shortly after the talk, there was a report on more covert aid to the rebels, the Orwellian “Free Syrian Army.” I thought, “Good lord, if we don’t have a strategy, who is authorizing the covert aid we have been giving these thugs?” My suspicion has been all along, and I don’t consider this at all far-fetched, that the whole Arab Spring hokum was a U.S. ploy to at least neuter the area. The story that we gave out that Assad was just callously shooting down peaceful unarmed demonstrators at the onset of this episode never did ring true and has all the earmarks of our constant disinformation efforts.
RE VINCE: “Boots on the Ground” is basically a military term, “hands on the Middle East” sounds like a strategy which we’ve been conducting as far back as Teddy Roosevelt’s Imperial Cruise. There is a strategy. And that is to colonize as much of the world as possible. There may at one time have been “A Free Syrian Army” but not now, just CIA cutouts and some Al-Qaeda bandits. As to the Arab Spring being hokum, a U.S. ploy to neuter the area, that’s possible as well. But this is our government doing all these things. So how do we stop it. Or do we roll over and let the DOD roll over us? Thanks for writing.
Jerry Mazza
RE LUTHER BLISSET: “Boots on the Ground”, Luther, as I said above, is just military terminology. Drone bombs and cruise missiles are the names of vicious weapons. A bit more serious. Speaking of “cruise missiles”, Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today, reported that Israel launched “a sparrow missile”, claiming it was ‘partnering with the U.S,’ in a test of our Eastern Mediterranean Missile System. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a strong denial. Oh how Israel wished they really could do it and get away with it. As to killing more innocent civilians, these individuals are not human. They are beasts, committed to killing civilians or “boots on the ground.” All they need is the opportunity that perhaps the CIA or DOD could provide. Be well.
Regards,
Jerry Mazza, Associate Editor.
Pingback: Clearing the FOG Radio