Con artists are the most easily conned.
If ever a military incident seemed to scream “false flag,” it’s the alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma. The Chief of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, predicted a staged chemical attack almost a month prior. If Syria launched such an attack, it did so a week after President Trump spoke of bringing American troops home, when Syria was clearly winning its war against myriad rebel groups, and knowing the attack would bring global condemnation and possible military action by the US and its allies.
The losing rebel groups have chemical weapons (chlorine gas can be produced by mixing ammonia and bleach). If Syria’s government was blamed, any retaliation by the US and its allies would aid the rebel cause and further the interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel, America’s putative allies who would dearly love to see Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad deposed.
Moreover, a rush to judgment, blaming someone before an investigation commences, much less concludes, has become almost an admission that the assignment of culpability lacks credibility. The establishment and its media don’t have the power to persuade they did back in the “lone gunman” days of the 1960s. There are too many people asking too many questions on the internet. The official story line dissolved in the Skripal poisoning, and it was starting to in Syria as well. When governments and their media organs proclaim with certainty conclusions before any investigation has been conducted and any rational conclusions can be reached, what conclusion is possible other than that the narrative has been concocted?
But here’s an interesting possibility: what if the Syrian attack was a “false false flag?”
Osama bin Laden knew the only way Islam could triumph over the West, led by the US, was to get the West entangled in the Middle East, thus the 9/11 provocation (if that wasn’t a US government false flag), an engraved invitation for the US to intervene.
Seventeen years later, bin Laden’s insight has been confirmed in spades.
The US is still hopelessly bogged down in Afghanistan.
Iraq, a stalwart enemy of Iran under Saddam Hussein (aided by the US, he attacked Iran), is now virtually an Iranian satrapy. The two Shiite-majority nations made common cause against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, where they came to the aid of Shiite Assad.
US involvement in Syria has been a series of maladroit disasters. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, and millions displaced, helping fuel a refugee flow to Europe that threatens to tear the European Union apart.
The US national debt doubled from $5 to $10 trillion under George W. Bush, and doubled again to $20 trillion under Barack Obama. Take the over at $40 trillion on the debt if Trump gets eight years in office. That’s not all due to military spending, but the standard trade-off in Washington for more military spending has been more domestic spending (for example, Bush’s costly prescription drug program).
Oh, and al Qaeda, once a few hundred men in Afghanistan’s caves, is now a decentralized network wreaking havoc from Indonesia to Morocco, having recruited tens of thousands to its banner of Islamic extremism and hatred of the West.
It’s become mandatory for internet sages to ask cui bono, or who benefits, after each new suspicious incident and alleged false flag. Stepping back, SLL will ask that question about America’s involvement in the Middle East. Clearly Iran has been a big winner, consolidating a Shiite arc from Iran through Iraq and Syria to its Shiite ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and perhaps Shiite rebels in Yemen. That arc supposedly terrifies Sunni Saudi Arabia and Jewish Israel, the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East. It’s cited in their every tiresome entreaty for the US to come fight Iran for them and make the Middle East safe for their brand of dominance.
However, the two biggest beneficiaries of US intervention in the Middle East have been Russia and China.
Aside from Russia’s involvement with Syria, they have, for the most part, stayed on the sidelines. If your enemy is going backwards, you win by standing still, and Russia and China aren’t standing still.
While the US slips ever backward, Russia and China proceed with their One Belt One Road initiative. This series of projects will build out transport, shipping, and computer and communications infrastructure from Southeast Asia through Central Asia and the Middle East to Europe. They will be financed on concessionary terms mostly by China, if it can avoid its own potential debt black hole. Only Deep State lackeys are surprised that this approach wins more friends and influence than the US’s well thought out bomb first, ask questions later strategy.
Friday, Trump again executed that strategy in Syria, replaying last year’s kabuki missile lob, but with more missiles. Targets were carefully chosen so as not to provoke Russian retaliation, which has not been forthcoming so far. Perhaps the Russians actually welcome the US exercise. Like last year, it comes shortly after indications the US might reduce its involvement in Syria. Then, it was the US essentially swearing off Syrian regime change. Now, it’s Trump saying he wants “to bring our troops back home,” and that the US would be leaving Syria “very soon.”
Given the nonstop drain on the US - in blood, treasure, and moral standing - why would Russia want to see the US presence in Syria (or anywhere else in the Middle East) reduced?
Maybe Russia was behind the chemical attack it predicted, knowing that Trump and the interventionists would take the bait and respond with one-shot theatre that did no real harm to Russian or Syrian assets. Most importantly to the Russians, it keeps the US involved in Syria. There will be no talk of withdrawal now. This though the Syria-Russia-Iran-Hezbollah alliance has secured most of the country. It’s one thing to have your enemy waste resources on a losing war. It’s a stroke of genius to have the enemy continue to do so on a war they’ve already lost.
Since 9/11, the US brain trust has rejected out of hand the idea that “they” - Islam, Russia, China, and other groups and nations that don’t like us - want us in the Middle East and Northern Africa and will do everything they can to keep us there. Looking at the staggering costs intervention has imposed on the US, why is that possibility rejected? If it is indeed the case, then the US has been played for at least seventeen years, and Trump and those cheering his “decisive action” are being played once again. To say it’s not possible is to implicitly overestimate the intelligence and integrity of the Washington crowd. Con artists are the most easily conned.