Tuesday, 10 September 2013

The Deterrent that Wasn't

I’ve been watching a YouTube video by a very articulate young woman – Mimi al-Laham, better known as Syriangirl Partisan – condemning the suggestion that Syria destroy its chemical weapon arsenal as treason. She says it's Syria's strategic deterrent.


Chemical weapons are virtually useless against any modern army. The maximum they can do is force enemy troops to use Nuclear-Biological-Chemical warfare suits (modern military vehicles are protected by NBC systems in any case), which would make them uncomfortable but little else. They're absolutely useless against the modern tools of imperialist aggression - cruise missiles, air strikes and drones.

In fact, they were never of much use, not even back in World War One, where the Germans discovered that dropping gas on the Western Front could be counterproductive since the prevailing winds were from west to east and simply blew the gas over their own lines. Not one of the major battles of the war, from the Marne to Verdun, Passachendaele to Cambrai, was settled by the use of poison gas. Gas, when used, was only a sideshow, of little to no practical utility. Not even the very first mass use of gas, when the enemy was taken completely by surprise, produced a breakthrough. Though French colonial troops broke and retreated, Canadian forces held the line, despite the gas and all. Only four per cent of fatalities in WWI were caused by gas, and the more widely it was used the less devastating it got, which will tell you how ineffective it was. [Source]

Similarly, during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein's Western-supplied chemical arsenal hardly deterred Iran's human waves of baseej volunteers; 14 year old kids with next to no training couldn't be stopped by gas. It was the unprepared Kurdish civilians in villages who died in large numbers, not the Ayatollah’s young warriors.

In fact, despite all its fearsome reputation, gas is probably the least effective lethal agent known to man. Unlike white phosphorus, Agent Orange, and depleted uranium, which the US and its Zionist appendage rejoice in using, gas ordnance is remarkable for its harmlessness. Not only does the enemy have to be concentrated together and without countermeasures, a simple thing as an inopportune breeze can carry the poison harmlessly away. Or, you know, if it's too cold, the gas can simply freeze solid, as it did in Russia back in the Great War.

A weapon which has to depend on everything being perfectly in place to be effective isn't much of a weapon.

It was because chemical weapons were so useless that the big powers agreed to ban them - and why they didn't ban nuclear weapons, for instance. If poison gas could actually win battles, you can bet there would be a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty style “agreement” allowing only certain nations to possess them.

Now, in the Syrian situation, dismantling its chemical arsenal wouldn't be any kind of deterrent-breaker. After all, whom could Syria use chemical weapons against? The Zionists? Even the civilians - the kids - have gas masks. 

The terrorists? It’s one of the arguments against the idea that Assad used chemical weapons – he’s winning the war anyway, and he didn’t use them in 2012 when Damascus itself saw heavy fighting; so why on earth should he use them now?

A far more effective deterrent for Syria would be weapons which actually, you know, work - SAM systems to shoot down cruise missiles and intruding aircraft, midget submarines to sink destroyers and assault ships, and, going by the North Korean experience, a nuclear bomb or two. They needn't actually have to be used. Having them would be enough. Poison gas is the deterrent that isn't.

Instead, getting rid of the chemical weapons arsenal would actually gut the Evil Empire's hypocritical rush to war. Nor could the Empire ever again pretend that chemical weapons used in Syria were used by the government. 

This is precisely why the Nobel Peace Prizident Obama's mouthpiece John Kerry began backtracking on his "proposal" that Syria dismantle its arsenal. It wouldn't suit the interests of either the Empire or the Zionist entity for Assad to be proof against all further accusations of using chemical weapons. Of course, for everyone else except the warmongers and their terrorist proxies, the idea was a welcome solution, and they agreed on it; which squeezed the Warmonger-in-Chief into an even tighter corner than the one into which he'd painted himself.

So, for the moment at least, the war is on hold.

However, I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times before: Obama needs this war. He needs it to project himself as a “war president”. He needs it to distract attention from the NSA, Snowden, and the continuing Zionist occupation of Palestinian land. He needs it to protect his pet terrorists, who’re losing the war even as they lose the plot and fight among themselves. And he needs it to boost the share prices of Raytheon and his other financial backers from the military-industrial complex.

So, look for a Bush-style claim that “Syria hasn’t obeyed its international obligation to destroy its chemical stockpiles” to keep tensions running high and leave the door open for future strikes. If US or EU inspectors are allowed on the ground, they will, as they did in Iraq, act as spies and markers of targets. If they're not allowed, the integrity of Russian or other inspectors will be loudly impugned.

Obama, let me repeat, is bent on a war. The attack on Iran will almost certainly have to be left for his successor Killary Klingon (whom the "liberals" will vote for because she's a woman, just as they voted for Obama because he's allegedly black); so Obama's war will be the one against Syria. The more the terrorists lose on the ground - and, minus overwhelming airstrikes far exceeding those on Libya, they will keep losing - the more inevitable Obama's war will become.

It won’t be so easy, though, since even the American people are waking up at last.


  1. lol ;) look who is crying the terrorists want US military support calls public apathetic :))))

  2. Excellent article Bill. Your case against the Syrian government using gas is right on. Why use that when your side is winning? Indeed.
    Yes, the vile zionist entity and the Wally Street banksters love more war, they never get enough, as long as the working class and poor kids do the dirty bits. Perish the thought of their kids ever being anywhere near a war zone, goddamn cowards, the lot of them. Same for the vile zionist entity and its vile off spring AIPAC and the other assorted vile zionist gangs roaming around the US of A.
    The Americans finally starting to wake up? I am not so optimistic Bill. Having been born here and lived here for nearly 66 years, I wish they would, but I wonder. The Vietnam war should have been the wake up call, but we all have seen how that failed. No, I remain very, very skeptical and even cynical on the (not so very) old US of A and the typical 'merikkkans ability to wake up to reality. And YES, I do mean 'merikkka and not America, that nation has been AWOL for decades in my opinion.

  3. Bill,
    You may call me a sarcastic old son-of-a-bitch, but I doo NOT trust the vile drone king; aka, the (ig) noble piece prizident, Gobomber. He lies like a very cheap rug, all over the place. You know when he is lying, his lips will be moving, even though Nutty-assed Yahoo tries to make us think otherwise.
    Censor me if you feel the need. Ban me, if I earned it, no offense will be taken by me. As Dad used to say, call me anything except late for dinner. Well, I have been called nearly every thing under the sun including late for dinner, so what ever I have earned from you, I will accept with no problem.
    Stay safe and sane Bill. You are a damn good story teller and a very perceptive writer of non fiction as you show here for all to see.
    My very best to you and yours,

  4. Why on earth should I want to censor or ban you, Charlie? You're one of the few people I genuinely wish I could meet. One of the most valuable readers I have.

  5. Bill,
    You flatter me.
    Why would you take action against me? Well, as I grow older, I get more radical. My opinion, Karl Marx was chicken, he was not radical enough. I am at a point in my life where I no longer care who gets upset with me for my views. Hell, I survived the damn fool Vietnam war 1970-71 and now at nearly 66, I just quit any cares about being the "odd man out". Not that I ever gave such much care before, but as I get older, I find I am even more outspoken and radical. I am not sure why this is, but I have seen that it is true. Some pointed it out, and since W. Shrub and his pal "Mr. 5 deferments" Cheney, I know I have become more radical and have little to no care for myself or how others view me.
    I could be arrogant and say, "When you are right, why back down?". I may be right often, but I try to never be arrogant. I do try very hard each day to be tolerant of others and their views, but when they want war for no valid reason, well, I have zero respect for that and I forget the rules of polite conversation/debate and call bullshit, bullshit no matter who is in hearing range. I tend to say what I think no matter of who is near by, the old "not for polite company" be damned. LOL, OK, enough of me on me.
    Thanks for ALL you do Bill. I did not give the compliments to you in hopes of avoiding punishment or to "butter you up". I have told you before that in my opinion (and it is not very humble very often)you ARE a master story teller. I do rank you with Joseph Conrad and his native language, like yours, was not English. Also, as you show again with this article, you are a keen observer of humanity and politicians in particular. I am fascinated by your descriptions of the politics of India.
    One request, could you give me the links to where you explain the "Bunglee" or whatever you call them? Those stories are very interesting and I know you don't explain them in detail and why you don't. I do think once you said you had, but forgot or lost that link. Thanks Bill, for ALL you do here. And, I'd like to meet you in person.

  6. One last thing. If we ever did meet, you would have to venture to the US of A. I refuse to submit to the total crap the TSA puts airline passengers through. I quit flying in the mid 1980's when I had to wear a back brace after the first surgery to fuse my spine. I had to partially undress in the open terminal as some clown thought I might have a weapon or some such, even though I had a doctors' note to explain the damn thing. The stories I have read since, well, if I cannot drive or get there by boat/ship, I refuse to go. Yes, this old former US Marine still has some personal pride and does not enjoy being undressed in public, beaches and swimming pools excepted, although I do frighten some of the kids with all the scars. Poor kids..........LOL.
    P.S. I DO talk too much in person and not just in emails and/or internet blogs etc. Honest, ask any who have ever been around me.

  7. Bill, Thanks for the good perspective on chemical weapons. I really agree that Syria ridding itself of them is a relief and it's the reason why Obama and Kerry are upset that Syria has accepted giving them over. These guys are really pathetic. First of all, Obama couldn't get together his usual 'coalition of the killing' (thanks, Bill, for that one) and then, he realized he was facing a very angry public like he's never seen before. You're right - he wants this war and he'll do what he has to to start it. But this time, the warmongers will have to pay a price. Let's hope it's a very high one.

  8. . . your perceptions and the conclusions you draw, as ever, are sound and clearly expressed - I wish the broadest possible audience for your stuff.
    On the present situation, it is very much a case of 'if not this pretext, then the next'. At least there seems to be the semblance of an awakening in the US.


Full comment moderation is enabled on this site, which means that your comment will only be visible after the blog administrator (in other words, yours truly) approves it. The purpose of this is not to censor dissenting viewpoints; in fact, such viewpoints are welcome, though it may lead to challenges to provide sources and/or acerbic replies (I do not tolerate stupidity).

The purpose of this moderation is to eliminate spam, of which this blog attracts an inordinate amount. Spammers, be warned: it takes me less time to delete your garbage than it takes for you to post it.