Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Syrian Gambit

James’s blog – WinterPatriot – 09/11/2013

Russia has played a new opening move in the contest with the United States and it could be called “The Syrian Gambit”. In the tradition of chess, a “gambit” is a move whereby a chess player gives away a minor piece to position him or herself better to defeat their opponent. To the beginner chess player, a gambit appears counter-intuitive because their opponent deliberately suffers a loss and the advantage only makes itself apparent later. By which time, if the gambit has been played well, the neophyte player is already suffering a disadvantage.

John Kerry now famously made a rhetorical offer to Syria that if it gave up all its chemical weapons they could avoid an attack from the US. Much to Kerry’s consternation, Sergei Lavrov, the very capable Russian Foreign Minister, said he thought it was a good idea and would discuss it with President Bashar al-Assad. That same day Assad agreed to give up Syria’s chemical weapons in exchange for not being attacked. The Gambit was offered. And now the US is very rattled and nervous about accepting. Contradictory messages from various US administration staff seem to follow each other almost by the hour.

Many commentors on the internet are saying that it is a dangerous move because both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi got rid of their chemical weapons and both of their countries were subsequently invaded and decimated. They ask, ‘why will Syria not suffer the same fate?’

The reason Syria won’t go the way of Iraq or Libya is because of one fundamental and decisive difference: Russia is standing firmly by Syria’s side (with its warships off the coast of Syria) and has said repeatedly that it will not allow Syria to be attacked by the US or anyone else. Assad, in explaining why he agreed to the Russian initiative, said it was because he had full confidence in Russia’s protection of Syria.

So Syria is offering to give up an asset from amongst its arsenal of weapons. How will it gain from it being accepted?

The chemical weapons (CW) were becoming a liability and their military value is very limited. So not much, if any, value is being surrendered. Assad has said that the idea of CW was to counter the threat of nuclear weapons. But how likely is israel to attack Damascus with nuclear weapons with both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem little more than 210kms (130mls approx) away as the wind blows?

On a battlefield, chemical weapons need to be deployed by specially trained troops and these soldiers need to be in the right terrain at the right time with the right weather conditions for them to be effective and not be harmlessly dispersed, or worse, not blow back on their own soldiers. If the enemy soldiers have gas masks, any advantage quickly dissipates.

Holding CW may have value as a deterrent against the civilian population of a neighbouring country contemplating an invasion. But once they are fired at said population, the deterrent value evaporates while leaving the offending country open to being targeted by other surrounding countries and/or abandoned by their allies. Targeting the enemy’s civilian population does nothing to improve the immediate military situation at hand.

The US is able to say Syria was responsible for the false flag that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians because Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons. It would be impossible to say that if it was known that Syria no longer had chemical weapons. Indeed, a day or two after this proposal from Russia came news that another CW false flag operation was being planned by the NATO mercenaries against israel. (see video in comments section below)

So making the announcement to surrender the CW nipped that false flag (and any others involving CW) in the bud.

On the plus side, it takes away the excuses of the US to invade. They no longer have to prevent Syria from using them or prevent them falling into the ‘wrong hands’ (assuming those are different hands from the ones that the US and Saudi Arabia are already supplying with CW).

Syria can be seen as serious about working for peace and as an example to all the countries that are condemning Syria who ALL have stockpiles of CW! All these countries and especially the US and israel are now on the defensive.

Syria now has the ‘high ground’ (or centre control) by jettisoning a liability – a pawn that was actually in the way.

September 12, 2013 - Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , , , , ,

1 Comment

  1. contrary to the statement that cw needs to be deployed on the battlefield and can be nullified with gas mask and involves complex risk calculations, the strategic rather than tactical use of cw is its deployment not on the battlefront but against the logistical support and rear echelon where it functions to slow and narrow the logistical support pipeline for an invading ground force regardless of the scale of capital and infrastructure support the invaders have. Syria can defend itself against air power and extract a huge punitive cost on an air power invasion which is amplified by restricting the ground force supplies, logistics and mobility with CW. CW is more like a minefield than it is like artillery. When Syria offers to dispense with CW as a means of stalling and concentrating invaders into persistent high value logistical targets, it is offering up a hugely valuable force multiplier. This is a huge peace offer. No one plans on using gas as was used by Iraq against Iran on the basis of tactics, the Iraqi’s were well paid by the US to use it against Iran despite its utterly poor performance on the battlefield and or in ethnic cleansing against Kurdish “facts on the the land”. CW is a valuable tool against an invader’s ground forces but it begs a disproportionate response from the invader to use it against concentrated civilian populations. Both Egypt and Syria are invested in CW not for the purpose of ethnic cleansing or even urban guerrilla warfare as seems to be presumed by the USA, but for the capacity of CW to compel rear echelon costly, time consuming and ultimately wasteful defensive responses. If there is any appropriate use of CW then it is to make a foreign invasion of a sovereign nation much more costly and much less likely. Syria is being invaded by the US and despite the character of the US and related allied terrorists and mercenaries, Syria is forcing the US puppeteer of these forces to show himself and defend his banal puppets with official aggressive US air and naval support. Syria’s objective is to expose the puppeteer hiding behind the scenery who is orchestrating destruction and suffering on behalf of its colonial and commercial interests. Syria has been responding to this type of exploitation supported by western militarism for decades and has developed responses which are not amenable to bribery nor undermined with vague promises about national security. Syria government represents the extent of liberalism within the context of huge persistent external national threat. Syria faces an existential threat –the same one that Israel characterizes as its nemesis. Thank-god for Russia, China, Hezbollah and Iran –these are good allies in a fight and they will never forget the sacrifice of Syria to draw a red line for the globalizing corporations and their mercenary force aka the USA.

    Like

    Comment by M\\\ | September 13, 2013


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.