Friday, February 26, 2016

The Saboteurs that won't quit sabotaging

Do you remember what happened after the Iran nuclear deal was signed, sealed and delivered? The Jewish saboteurs and their echo repeaters continued their attacks on it. They worked like busy bees trying to convince the American Congress of the brain-dead it must find a way to blow up that thing before it takes effect.

Those who know do realize that this method of interacting with others is as Jewish as matzoh bread. In fact, not only do the Jews advise such course of action to the people who listen to them; it is how they proceed themselves after negotiating a deal with someone. And no one knows this reality better than the Palestinians who have tried to negotiate a peace deal with them. Time after time, the Palestinians saw the deal they spent years negotiating being blown up by the Israelis who never failed to inject the kind of last minute condition that exploded like a hand grenade under the negotiating table.

Here they come again, trying to sabotage the Syrian peace talks slated to begin soon. Here comes the icon of Jewish trickery ... the one in many, Elliott Abrams, doing his thing in an attempt to blow up the talks even before the first session is held. To this end, he wrote “Syria Delusions, Round Two,” an article he posted on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations on February 24, 2016.

To do that, Abrams looks back in time searching for straws on which to base an argument that will help blow up the talks. He goes back to the year 2012 when Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and David Petraeus had “urged President Obama to support the Syrian rebels.” He also goes back to the year 2014 when Hillary Clinton had remarked that the “failure to build a force of the people protest[ing] against Assad, left a vacuum that the jihadis have now filled.”

The author uses those examples to make the point that President Obama made a mistake when he rejected the advice that was given to him in the past. This said, he warns that the President is repeating the same mistake by rejecting the advice given to him now by the likes of Ash Carter, Joseph Dunford and John Brennan who want to “inflict real pain on the Russians” rather than sit with them in a peace conference on Syria.

But how is it morally justifiable to seek inflicting pain on the Russians at this time rather than seek to alleviate the horrible pain which millions of Syrian civilians are suffering and have been for five years? Elliot Abrams answers this question by repeating the logic that was articulated in the Wall Street Journal. It goes as follows:

[The Russians claimed military cooperation between the U.S. and Russia even though Ash Carter had explicitly ruled out such thing. The thinking is that Russia is trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its coalition partners by giving the appearance that Washington would accept Mr. Assad. Furthermore, while all this was happening, Russia's warplanes were stepping up their attacks in Syria].

But is that enough of an excuse to let the Syrians die by the hundreds of thousands and suffer by the millions? No, says John Kerry who is the American Secretary of State. In fact, he added that the peace talks have “a viable chance of succeeding,” in which case the misery will be alleviate and gradually lifted. In contrast, says the Wall Street Journal, according to Elliott Abrams, it is that “an [unnamed] senior administration official” had reported that Mr. Carter had said “he thinks it's a [Russian] ruse.”

And based on that hearsay of a hearsay of a hearsay, Elliot Abrams concludes that “Mr. Obama has an absolute right to reject the advice he got [in 2012] being commander in chief ... and be attuned instead to Mr. Kerry's view that talks with Sergei Lavrov will solve Syria.”

However, says Elliott Abrams, this is not going to happen because Obama rejected the advice he received in 2012, and because Fred Hof, who was Mr. Obama's Special Adviser for Syria, said that “during all of the years of the Assad regime, the United States failed to protect a single Syrian inside Syria.”

For these reasons, says Elliott Abrams, it is better not to have a peace conference on Syria. The option he prefers is the one that was hinted at by the Wall Street Journal.

It is to confront the Russians on the battlefield because peace has the effect of killing people whereas war has a proven record of saving lives.

Just look at the record of the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq War. Were they not spectacles to cheer the heart of an Elliott Abrams and all those like him?