Mitchell Sieser: Column on Syria didn’t take analysis far enough
To the editor:
Aside from tepid references to the “hypocrisy and double standards” of American foreign policy, David Pakman’s column headlined “Ulterior motives and Syria” (Sept. 4) never comes close to subjecting Obama’s war on Syria to any serious analysis — a strange omission given the article’s provocative title.
Pakman’s teasing assertion that “reasons beyond a benevolent and compassionate impetus must exist when the American military mobilizes in situations such as those in Syria,” leads to nothing more than a familiar rehashing of the ulterior motives driving Bush’s war on Iraq in 2003.
He finally gets to the “ulterior” core of his own hidden agenda when he channels his discussion of the need to develop a post-victory exit plan through the petty irrelevancies of two-party politics: “There will ... be many elected officials, more Republicans than Democrats, who will ... demand a detailed and extensive exit strategy. ... Remember to find out whether that individual was demanding the same back in 2003, when Congress mostly voted to give President George W. Bush the authority to take the U.S. to war without much regard for an exit strategy.”
A Democratic president, following in the criminal footsteps of his highly unpopular predecessor, drags an exhausted nation into another unwanted war and David Pakman sets a meaningless, post-victory “gotcha” trap for recalcitrant Republicans.
The geopolitical issues driving Obama’s war, are, as I would assume Pakman knows, not much different than was the case with Iraq. The U.S. has been implementing a post-Soviet policy of military expansion which has been geared to achieve its hegemonic dominance over the resources of the Middle East and Central Asian land masses. The more immediate goals involve the toppling of Assad which helps to grease the skids for the total capitulation — or destruction — of Iran.