How long can USA play the police man of the world?

At the height of their global hegemony, they attributed to themselves to be the only super power in the world. Since the cold war, unrivalled and unchallenged, USA played both instigator and implementer of the new world order.  History tells us that every power, to whom Allah gave authority, when they failed to uphold the trust bestowed upon them, they had to write their obituary by their own hand. It is possible; we are nearing to that pinnacle to witness 21^st century super power writing its own obituary. All indications are, Iran, and Russia will not relinquish Syria from the sphere of their influence easily. They both stated that in case of an attack on Syria, they will help Syria to the best of their ability without stating how this will be done. The stake of loosing Syria is too high for both Russia and Iran; geopolitically Syria is very important country for both of them. Russia has their only naval base in Syria, and Iran access to Hezbollah and maintaining the doctrine of resistance requires strategic partnership with Syria. The second factor is the religious divide that is contributing to the support of Bashar Assad from its Shiite population. Each factor is very strong which determines how far Syria will go to defend itself from an attack before capitulation. One thing for sure, this war has all the possibility to ignite a bigger regional war. USA may find itself in a quagmire. As usual, more people will die of America’s action than inaction. Below are some data since 1990 of Washington’s involvement in global policing that contributed to civilian and military deaths.

 

 

August 2, 1990 — February 28, 1991

First Gulf War

Rationale: To rebuff Saddam Hussein’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
 
Type of operation: Airstrikes and ground invasion.

U.S. involvement: Massive investment of military resources, including at least 575,000 troops at vanguard of 34-nation coalition.

Outcome: In conducting the war, 294 U.S. personnel were killed; Iraqi deaths – both civilians and soldiers -- numbered between 20,000 and 40,000

 

 

December 5, 1992 — March 3, 1994

Somali civil war

Rationale: To protect U.N. food deliveries threatened by warlords.

 Type of operation: Initially, peacekeeping and humanitarian. Later added goal of defeating powerful warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed.
U.S. involvement: Contributed some 25,000 ground troops in overall force of 37,000.

Outcome: Traumatic battle of Mogadishu, the botched operation depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down," left 18 U.S. soldiers dead. Somali casualties are unknown, but estimates put civilian death toll at close to 1,000. U.S. soldiers withdrew from the UNOSOM II mission less than a year later without defeating Aideed and leaving a country that remains without an effective central government.

 

August 30, 1995 — September 20, 1995

Bosnia war
Type of operation: Airstrikes.

U.S. involvement: Led aerial bombing campaign. Part of 60,000-member peacekeeping force until 2004.

Outcome: Bosnian Serbs lost between 25 and 27 fighters. No NATO personnel killed. Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian leaders signed Dayton Peace Agreement in December 1995 to partition the former Yugoslavia.

 

 

February 28, 1998 — June 11, 1999

Kosovo war

International authority: NATO. No U.N. Security Council authorization.

Type of operation: Airstrikes against Serbian security forces in Kosovo and against military and economic targets in Serbia.

U.S. involvement: Led 78-day air campaign, launching more than 10,000 combat sorties. Contributed as many as 7,000 troops to peacekeeping force.

Outcome: No U.S. combat deaths. While estimates of Serbian military personnel and civilians killed are difficult to ascertain, most estimates put the number between 5,000 and 18,000. Three journalists died when NATO inadvertently bombed Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. The bombing campaign prompted Serbian withdrawal from now-autonomous province that remains under protection of NATO Kosovo Force, which includes 750 U.S. military troops.

August 20, 1998

Afghanistan/Sudan cruise missile strikes

Rationale: To retaliate for twin al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in 1998 that killed 223 people in East Africa.

International authority: None.

Type of operation: Cruise missile strikes.

U.S. involvement: Multiple strikes against alleged al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and an alleged chemical weapons facility in Sudan.

Outcome: Missiles sent to Afghanistan may have killed between six and 20 people, but had little effect on al-Qaeda's capabilities. Strike on Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum sparked controversy, as allegations that it produced chemical weapons have never been substantiated.

December 16, 1998 — December 19, 1998

'Operation Desert Fox' bombing of Iraq

Rationale: To punish Saddam Hussein’s regime for expelling U.N. arms inspectors.

International authority: None. The United States argued that action was justified by previous U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Type of operation: Airstrikes against Iraqi military targets thought to be linked to production of weapons of mass destruction, though four-day bombing campaign also targeted security forces.

U.S. involvement: Led airstrike operations with British allies.

Outcome: No U.S. or British casualties. Iraqi military casualties are unknown; Iraqi civilian casualties estimated at about 100. Iraq’s military capability was severely reduced. Tensions between Iraq and Western nations continued, culminating in 2003 U.S. invasion following return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

October 7, 2001 — August 31, 2013

Afghanistan war

Rationale: To retaliate for 9/11 attacks, overthrow Taliban harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

International authority: None initially. In December 2001, U.N. Security Council established International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to secure post-Taliban Afghan transitional government. NATO assumed ISAF leadership in 2003.

Type of operation: Airstrikes followed by Special Forces-led ground offensive coordinated with local anti-Taliban allies. Large-scale occupation, nation building and counterinsurgency operations followed.

U.S. involvement: Led air campaign and ground offensive. More than 100,000 troops deployed at height of operation in 2011.

Outcome: Taliban overthrown. More than a decade later, after the longest war in U.S. history, Washington still props up embattled Afghan government against a resilient insurgency amid nascent peace negotiations. Discussions are underway over continued troop deployments after 2014, It is estimated about 80000 people have so far died from war

November 3, 2002 — August 28, 2013

Drone campaign – Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia

Rationale: To eliminate alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

International authority: None.

Type of operation: Deployment of unpiloted aerial vehicles to launch missiles at targets judged by U.S. intelligence to represent a violent threat to United States or its allies.

U.S. involvement: CIA program began under George W. Bush administration following the 9/11 attacks. Has been substantially expanded under Barack Obama.

Outcome: At least 440 drone strikes that killed between 2,044 and 3,377 people in Pakistan and between 630 and 876 people in Yemen. U.S. officials say vast majority of those killed belonged to violent groups, though claim is impossible to verify. The program has been controversial in targeted countries. Domestic critics have urged Obama administration to implement greater oversight rules.

 

Getty Images

March 20, 2003 — December 15, 2011

Iraq invasion and occupation

Rationale: To oust Saddam Hussein on suspicions that he possessed weapons of mass destruction.

International authority: None. U.S. formed ad hoc "coalition of the willing" that included Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries.

Type of operation: Ground invasion followed by occupation and counterinsurgency.

U.S. involvement: Huge deployment of military forces, peaking at 176,000 troops at height of counterinsurgency campaign in 2007.

Outcome: Saddam Hussein ousted, later captured, tried and executed. Short-lived Coalition Provisional Authority replaced after internationally supervised elections. Resulting governments have been ambivalent toward the U.S. while maintaining friendly ties with Iran. By end of U.S. military involvement in December 2011, 4,487 U.S. service members had died. Death toll for Iraqi civilians, insurgents and soldiers is at least 100,000 and may total five times that number. Iraq still struggles to recover from the war as a new insurgency gains traction. War’s cost to U.S. is calculated by some economists at more than $1 trillion.

 

Getty Images

March 19, 2011 — October 23, 2011

Libyan uprising

Rationale: To stop forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi regime from overrunning rebel-held Benghazi.

International authority: U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at protecting Libyan civilians, though critics charged that Western and Arab countries used it as cover for a regime-changing military campaign.

Type of operation: NATO-led airstrikes, supported by Jordan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Sweden.

U.S. involvement: Although Britain and France played larger role than in previous NATO air campaigns, U.S. still did much of the heavy lifting in the seven-month campaign.

Outcome: Aided rebel overthrow of Gaddafi regime and its replacement by interim National Transitional Council. Political and security situation in Libya remains turbulent, as seen in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, dead.

 

Can America stand to justify a war on Syria on moral grounds while they have committed so much crime with conventional, and unconventional weapon

What is the diffrence between Assad and America, just ask those people living on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, they will tell you those mean machine over their sky raining on them death, and turning a quiet peacful land in to a living hell. So it’s rather interesting to see Western powers get all high mindedness about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Western nations have a history of not just inventing and manufacturing these deadly chemicals; they have helped with their supply and production when offered the right opportunity and price. In fact, Israeli peace activist, Gilad Atzmon, quoting the Daily Record claims that British firms, defying EU sanctions, sold chemical components needed for production of nerve gas to the Syrians, AFTER the beginning of the popular uprising.

Not only did Western nations aid Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in setting up those infamous plants to produce chemical death, the CIA actually helped the tyrant gas thousands of Iranian troops during the eight-year long catastrophic war that claimed nearly a million lives.

The Americans also looked the other way when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988. Under Reagan, Rumsfeld, who later brought ‘shock and awe’ to Iraq as George Bush’s defense secretary, even visited and advised Baghdad during the conflict with Iran. And who could forget what Israel unleashed on the Palestinians in full view of the world in the last blitz on Gaza, using white phosphorus and cluster bombs? The world didn’t see any red lines there.

Besides, Western nations are in no position to lecture Assad or anyone else for that matter on the use of chemical weapons or other deadly equivalents. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? More recently in Vietnam, Agent Orange, a deadly defoliant, was used to kill thousands. Certainly the west is as guilty as any dictator.

 

Washington’s Syria policy is driven by geopolitical motive rather than purely establishing democracy in the Middle East

Reflecting on some of the comment I had received on my previous thoughts on Syria, I can only say to those who did not agree with me is that any writing is subjective: one may find it interesting and agreeable and others will criticise it depending on individuals understanding and taste, but for me I write what I perceive to be the reality, although, I may be wrong. And I strongly believe America’ long term intention in the Middle East is not conducive to peace, unity and stability in the region, so allowing them the opportunity to bomb Syria is unwise. Now from this thought, many of you may infer that I am supporting a dictator, absolutely not, contrary to this, I do not support dictators or monarchs, but I believe any good Washington will be achieve by bombing Syria far outweighs the evil that they will bring in with their action in the region.

 

I believe there was chance to bring an end to Assad regime by negotiation, but the foreign powers did not allow this to happen. This is the same reason why Mursi could not find a compromise, because the elements that had other agendas in Egypt did not allow the opposition to come to a peaceful solution. Look at Bangladesh, when Awamileague came to power with a huge majority, they had a chance to govern the country and enjoy prosperity, progress and popularity. If they had been wise and not fall in to trap of the leftist, ultra secularist and Indian agenda’s, they could have had a good relationship with the opposition and may even could have been fairly voted in power again, but those people with vested interest did not allow this to happen, as they can not achieve, or get what they wanted from the government if there was political harmony in the country. So they advised the leadership wrongly and achieved their interest, but destroyed Sheikh Hasina’s chance of a re-election victory.

 

Even if Asad is removed, the next government in Syria will be pro western puppet, and an instrument of America’s agenda in the Middle East. If any one is over excited about Syria’s Nusrat front, they need to think twice because their dream will be shattered as soon as Israel and America has its way. Post Syria will not have civil and religious peace but will witness daily and monthly killings similar to present day Iraq. Many people will not understand the reason behind

 

Now consider Iraq, why is it that after so many years since Americas soldiers left the country, apart from the agreed trainers, having a democratically elected Prime minister and a parliament, each month almost a 1000 people are getting killed ?  Where is the peace and security that everybody talked about when attacking Iraq? Well, I have to say the same reasons are behind insecurity in Iraq, because foreign powers don’t want a Shia dominated Iraqi government. This goes against democratic principle, if they believe in democracy that is, as 65 % Iraqi population are Shia’s, hence the outcome is natural, but The Saudis, and Washington axis don’t like this Iran friendly government, so they finance instability and killings in Iraq. The Saudi’s don’t even have diplomatic relationship with Iraq due to their enmity. Now, many of the extreme salafist will say so what; kill them all, they are Shia kuffar. Well brothers, you can say this, but this principle is wrong. You don’t kill people because of their belief.

 

Before the Iranian revolution, Iran was most hated by those who had some consciousness about right and wrong, about promotion of vice and demotion of virtue. About political persecution and killings by its secret service called savak.  Irans Shah promoted western way of life, and plundered the countries wealth to benefit the few and left behind many. When people ask question about Akida, they fail to understand Akida is to do with Iman and religion, but justice is universal. A Muslim can not stay silence when he sees unjust committed to its fellow humans regardless of colour, religion, race or sex. When Saddam started a war with Iran on the dictate of USA and Arab kings, that had resulted in death of millions on both sides, was that war anything to do with Shia verses Sunni, or was it more to do with removing Iranian clergy dominated government from power, and replacing it with one that was more friendly with Zionism and American Imperialism?  In that case, if one had supported the victim rather than the aggressor, how would you have labelled him? Would you have said that he had lost his faith due to supporting a Shia country? Certainly not, for, standing against unjust does not diminish or put ones Akida in to question. Allah will judge between Shia and Sunni, between Christian and Jews, between individual faiths. But we have a moral obligation to be just and fair when conducting our affairs in the worldly matters.

Some people fail to understand that international politics is different from local politics. There is a bigger picture from which one analyzes and sees a different end result that may be detrimental to Muslim Ummah as a whole. So if one sees an apparent support for a country, it does not mean support in Akida but rather supporting to foil the bigger ploy that the Zionist and its friends have designed.