On September 11, 2013, President Vladimir Putin of Russia wrote an article that was published in
the New York Times under the title: “A Plea for Caution From Russia” and was
given a subtitle by the editors of the Times that reads as follows: “What Putin
Has to Say to the Americans about Syria .”
What is interesting about this event is that the Putin
article came only a day after two very telling articles dealing with the same
subject, appeared in National Review Online. One article was written by Daniel
Pipes under the title: “Forget Syria ,
Target Iran ”
and the subtitle: “A limited strike against Assad is the worst possible option,
and Iranian nukes are the real threat.” The other article was written by Dennis
Prager under the title: “Obama's 'Small, limited kind of' Doctrine” and the
subtitle: “An 'unbelievably small, limited kind of effort' would be worse than
doing nothing.” Both were published on September 10, 2013.
When you read the Putin article, you find it to be honest
and easy to follow. He begins by saying there is not enough communication
between the Russian and American societies which is why he speaks directly to
the American people and their political leaders. He then talks about the United
Nations which he says must not suffer the fate of its toothless predecessor,
the League of Nations . But this can happen, he
adds if “influential countries bypass the UN and take military action [against Syria ] without
Security Council authorization.”
Putin then explains why an American attack on Syria would be
a bad idea. He says more innocent people will die, and the conflict will spread
wider both inside and outside of Syria . There will be more violence
and more terrorism in the world. The attack will also get in the way of
resolving the Iranian nuclear problem, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine . It will
further destabilize the Middle East North Africa region and throw the system of
international law and order out of balance.
He describes the conflict in Syria as being an “internal
conflict, fueled by foreign weapons.” He goes on to say that mercenaries from
everywhere are flocking into the area which “threatens us all” because these
people could repeat what happened after the fighting in Libya . There,
the fighting moved to Mali ;
the one in Syria
could move to “our countries.”
To avoid those bad outcomes and protect international law, Russia has
advocated peaceful dialogue among the various parties in the Syrian conflict,
says Putin. This is preferable to attacking Syria which would be an act of
aggression contrary to the rule of law. And he criticizes the United States
where “military intervention in foreign countries has become commonplace.” It
is a failed policy, he says, as shown by the failures that America has piled up from Afghanistan to Libya .
Putin then makes a poignant observation. It is that if
countries cannot count on international law to protect them, they will seek
other ways to ensure their security. This would be the acquisition of weapons
of mass destruction. Thus, an attack on Syria will erode nonproliferation
rather than strengthen it, he goes on to say.
We now come to the Daniel Pipes article where we encounter
an oddity. He too says “Forget Syria ”
but that's only because he wants to “Target Iran .” To explain his logic, he
lists three possible options to deal with Syria , one of them being to launch
a limited attack on it. But this is the worst of the options, he insists, so
why not attack Iran
instead. And this is what he points to as being his “advice to the members of
the United States Congress.”
This done, he turns his attention to the mullahs in Teheran
who “are getting closer to the point where they can order nuclear bombs to be
made and readied for use.” Because he knows that the American people have had
it up to here with characters like him incessantly trying to scare them into
paying for the promotion of Israel
and for protection from its own suicidal tendencies, he finds it necessary to
escalate the rhetoric.
And so, here is the new and improved version of that
rhetoric: “Unlike the use of chemical weapons, the [Iranian] prospect could
lead to an electromagnetic-pulse attack, suddenly resulting in a couple of
hundred million fatalities.” That's 2 out of every 3 Americans dropping dead. Whoa!
Man! Oh man! Oh man! Will these people ever see a limit to what they can blurt
out? Even Hollywood
could not come up with a horror story like this.
That was Daniel Pipes. But what does Dennis Prager have to
say? Well, after making fun of John Kerry and his doctrine – which he nicknames
USLKOE – he does better than Pipes in that he lists 5 reasons why doing nothing
about Syria
is a bad idea. And this is why he wants to “injure” the Assad regime. Doing so,
he says will weaken “Iran 's
most important ally” which he insists is “the most dangerous regime in the
world at the present time.” As you can see, it all comes back to Iran again.
And so, Prager makes his final judgment: “Ironically, the
Obama doctrine is the only good reason to oppose an attack on Syria .” Perhaps
you noticed that the Kerry Doctrine has become the Obama Doctrine. It is the
American habit of blaming the man at the top for every real and every perceived
sin they see in themselves.
Let history record that the story of Vladimir Putin, the man of peace;
and that of Daniel Pipes and Dennis Prager, the Jewish dogs of war – symbolizes
the struggle between good and evil in this era of ours.