Germany Rejects Military Intervention in Syria while NATO troops are already on the ground

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 6, 2012

Germany’s Defense Minister, Thomas de Maizière, said Sunday that Germany opposes military actions against in Syria and emphasized that the resignation of the Special Envoy of the UN and the the Arab League, Kofi Annan, does not mean that the Germans will change their position on the issue.

“The failure of diplomacy should not automatically entail the beginning of the military action,” said De Maizière in an interview with German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

The German Defense Minister also said it is “frustrating to have to witness these murders without being able to do anything. “We need humanitarian aid and support democratic-minded elements in the opposition (Syria), but nothing more,” he added.

The policy of humanitarian aid is what countries like the United States use as an excuse to militarily aid rebel groups in countries it wants to conquer. So the declaration of the German minister does not come as a surprise. His country supports the same policy of interventionism by arming groups that oppose the governments the west wishes to bring down, and most of the work previous to a military invasion is done by rebel forces aided by the US and NATO.

The use of psy-op double speech is a common occurrence when western military powers decide it is time to hype the ghost of war on their populations, while painting military force as a tragedy, but only when others use it. “The call for intervention because of the terrible human rights violations is, in principle, the most popular, but as a responsible politician, I must stress that safety must be the only criterion for the deployment of soldiers,” De Maiziere said. While the German minister publicly opposes war, in private Germany and all other NATO members are seriously involved on destabilizing Syria from the inside, or though proxy neighboring governments.

Mr. De Maiziere also said that “there must be a balance of benefits and damages, on the efforts and costs on proportional means and the final death rate and on the possibility of achieving the objectives at the end”. As many politicians and military heads have said before, the death of innocent people is just part of the game, as he points it in his declaration. The death of soldiers and local people is seen as a statistic which can not be violated beyond whatever they think is moral.

“Stopping the massacres in Syria would not be achieved with the establishment of a no-fly zone. We would need to deploy troops on the ground, tens of thousands to stop the violence. That is not possible nor justifiable,” he added. Once again Mr. De Maiziere lies, because NATO has had ground troops in Syria for a long time before combat began. That is how ignorant western leaders think the public is. They believe they can simply lie and people will believe whatever they say.

While the German Defense Minister lies publicly, Syrian troops continued  to fight the rebel groups in Aleppo, one of the largest cities of in the country. At least 50,000 people have been displaced due to the combat and many of them have escaped to Turkey, a nation that is allied with the west and that has served as a launch pad for military attacks led by US and NATO forces. As a result of the Turkish aid to the western forces, Damascus has warned that it may provide weapons to Kurdish military groups that will take retaliation against Turkey.

The success of rebel groups aided by the west seems to have been a result of Turkey lending its military bases to bring together multiple groups, including members of al-Qaeda affiliates, to enter Syria quickly take over the city of Aleppo. It is seen as impossible for a total of 5000 rebels to keep control of an are populated by 20,000 Syrians who do not support their invasion. Additionally, the Assad regime has deployed some 20,000 soldiers to take the city back.

The conflict created by rebel groups trained and prepared by western forces are the ones causing the death of more innocent people in Syria, as well as attacks on members of the Syrian government. This is the traditional strategy employed by the western military forces of divide and conquer. In the case of Syria, however, it seems that conflict will extend to other countries such as Turkey, whose government is pretty tied up with the agenda of the NATO-led military. You would not know that from watching the western main stream media, which portrays Assad as the only bad actor in the movie.

Obama Administration: Don’t Need no Stinking Congressional Approval

While the current US president seems to have forgotten what law he must obey, and as US and NATO bomb Tripoli, Obama says such military action does not qualify as hostilities.

The administration also lies about the “no troops on the ground” claim. Intelligence shows US special operations troops are already in Libyan territory.

Washington Post
June 28, 2011

A State Department lawyer arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday with two difficult tasks: Convince a Senate committee that the Obama administration didn’t need Congress’s approval for its military operations in Libya.

Then: Convince the Senate to give Obama that approval anyway.

He didn’t seem to make a lot of headway on either front.

Facing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, legal adviser Harold Hongju Koh laid out a flurry of legal arguments to justify the campaign. He did not, at least initially, seem to win over several skeptical senators on the panel.

“I think you’ve undermined the credibility of this administration. I think you’ve undermined the integrity of the War Powers act,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “You’ve done a great disservice to our country.”

Koh told the committee that while the law says presidents must obtain congressional authorization before sending troops into hostilities overseas, what’s happening in Libya doesn’t constitute hostilities.

And what if legislators don’t agree? In that case, Koh said, they should still support the campaign, because to do otherwise would help Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

“We can all agree it would only serve Gaddafi’s interests” if Congress forced U.S. forces to withdraw, he said.

The hearing followed a long-running pattern in the White House’s handling of the Libyan conflict. Whenever it has tried to pacify unhappy members of Congress, the Obama administration has usually had the opposite effect.

On Tuesday, senators said that the White House had declined to send lawyers from the Pentagon and the Department of Justice, agencies that that had reportedly disagreed with Obama’s decision on Libya.

Instead, it sent Koh, who had reportedly agreed with the president.

“Are you glad that you basically created an issue where no issue had to exist?” Corker asked Koh when his testimony was finished. “Basically sticking a stick in the eye of Congress?”

“If you felt that a stick was stuck, that was not the goal,” Koh said. He conceded, however, that “this controversy has probably not played out as some would have expected.”

Tuesday marked the first time that an administration official has appeared in a formal hearing to defend Obama’s finding that the Libyan operation does not constitute “hostilities.” That finding — designed to exempt the Libyan operation from the 1973 War Powers Resolution — has only inflamed anger on Capitol Hill.

Last week, the GOP-led House voted down a measure that would have authorized the campaign, in a gesture of pique at Obama.

Later Tuesday, the Foreign Relations Committee will hear from independent legal experts and then consider a resolution from Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass. ) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to authorize limited conflict in Libya.

In his testimony, Koh told the panel that the White House would like this authorization but doesn’t need it. His argument focused on the word “hostilities.”

The Libyan conflict does not meet that definition, he said. That’s because U.S. forces play only a limited role in the NATO-led operation, and because there is little danger to them from the battered Libyan forces. While U.S. troops are mainly in supporting roles such as intelligence-gathering and aerial refueling, there have been strikes on ground targets by American planes and unmanned drones.

“Hostilities is an ambiguous term of art,” Koh said. In the absence of a formal legal definition, he said, Obama had decided it did not apply in Libya.

That argument seemed acceptable to Kerry, the committee’s chairman. “In Libya today, no American is being shot at. No American troops are on the ground, and we’re not going to put them there,” he said. Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) said that Koh’s argument was “largely compelling.”

But other senators on the committee were dubious.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) called the argument an “incredible assertion.” Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) said it was a “contorted legal definition.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) echoed others in his concern about the precedent of letting presidents begin military operations without congressional approval by asserting that the other side wouldn’t shoot back effectively

“It seems to be hard to say that doesn’t involve hostilities,” Lee said.