By Jaime Ortega.

President Barack Obama put his foot in his mouth, by initially evoking a strike on Syria and is now excusing himself saying “the International Security Council is to blame for the political actions that might take effect,” excluding himself from his own remarks.

Obama and Foreign Diplomat John Kerri have alerted about the possibility of Syria using weapons of mass destruction and have raised enough confidence inside congress to lift down a few skeptic eyebrows from Democrat and Republican senators in order to support a military strike against Assad’s forces.

Arizona’s republican senator, John McCain has been one of the key figures to support the strike, with additional support from Secretary Hillary Clinton who also promotes an attack on Syria.

But is there solid evidence to conclude that the chemical attack on innocent civilians was launched by the SAA? is it a good idea in the long run to invade a country where division has caused 100,000 deaths and over 6 million refugees? And moreover, is invading Syria a good premise to support a “one time strike’ that supposedly just targets stockpiles of chemical weapons scattered all over Syria?

The ‘shadowed’ side of the Coin

We all know by looking at the news, the mainstream one-sided flip of the coin toss blames Assad for using chemical weapons. The Media backs up the idea that chemical weapons were probably used in several battles to attack innocent civilians, and it ‘could’ be accurate, but they’re not going out of their way to conduct a serious investigation.

But a topic not stressed enough in congress, is the fact that at least 30% of FSA casualties and losses are not caused by SAA forces, as one might expect! Actually, it turns out that FSA guerrillas are mostly composed by civilians who have no previous military experience. Lacking how to use sophisticated weapons, which results into a high volume of accidents caused by their own commandos that leads to many deaths and serious injuries.

Also SAA loyalist who defected Assad’s forces to join the FSA, might have provided the Rebels access to “classified information” about hidden factories full of chemical weapons, as the Rebels now control a wider range of  territory that was once part of Assad’s military.

It could end up, that the chemical weapons used against innocent civilians might have been caused by an “unprecedented accident” from rebels that had access to hidden stockpiles. Thanks to the individual collaboration of Syrian army defectors that know the logistics in the area, where these secret facilities store many of Assad’s ballistic missiles.

If this possible explanation ends up to be a valid argument, It would be hard for Russia and China to not intervene in the war, and help Assad supply more sophisticated weaponry to counter the FSA, possibly now backed-up by the U.S..

Remember that the U.S. is not an ally of Syria, but Russia and China are indeed, so its really ‘their war’ to counter radical Islam and its their personal interest on stake. The U.S. would only interfere to show off its power, rather than to really support Al-Qaeda? Doesn’t make sense.

Putin has a valid point

Vladimir Putin is right, in that the U.S. evidence for the chemical attacks launched supposedly by Assad’s forces  ‘lacks clarity’ and has not been overcomed by credible facts that would prove otherwise certain, instead it looks like the evidence comes first without the real facts.

It would be absurd to suggest that just because Obama affirms chemical weapons were used by Assad, his venerable words should be taken as undeniable proof, without any reasonable evidence to support it.  And Putin holds the rights to be an skeptic.

The Iraq war to remove Saddam Hussein’s, Weapons of Mass Destruction reflects to some instance the forgotten ghost that lead to an undeniable lie promoted by Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and king George W. Bush.

The CIA, and the DIA also had evidence in 2002, where the “WMD’s” were kept stored, but it ended up a fantasy, a fantasy not forgotten by Russia and China.

So Putin and the U.N. hold the rights to question Obama’s administration and his so call ‘proof’, which by the way, comes from Israeli intelligence and individual activist groups outside the Syrian border.

Should the U.S. go for it?

The short answer is ‘absolutely’ not. Not only is Syria the biggest chemical weapon’s producer in the world, but also one of the countries with the wildest religious, cultural and uncontrolled political instability in the Middle East.

It is reported that Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda front led by Mohammed Al-Golani is presently supporting the FSA rebels. Al-Nura is providing Kalashnikov rifles, Aka-47’s, hand grenades to the rebels and also IED technology currently used in Afghanistan to blow up tanks, and armored trucks.

The FSA have also attacked and killed many Coptic Christians and targeted Alawite villages, a Shia sect that has been traditionally supported by Bashar Assad, as he himself is an Alawite.

As seen in Iraq, Hezbollah militants have been supported by Iran and Lebanon factions, and have started a campaign against Al-Qaeda to drive them out of Syria.

But what most news won’t promote in their coverage (don’t wonder why!) is that Al-Qaeda is now secretly supported by the Arab-League comprised by a majority of Sunni Muslims that don’t want Iran to take over Syria, as currently observed in Iraq. As Muslim Sunni countries don’t want Hezbollah to lead Syria, to avoid Shia control over the region, to therefore not allow Shiism to widen and affect other Sunni countries in the Arab-League.

It wouldn’t be the first time Al-Qaeda gets secret support from countries like Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to help fight Iran’s religious militant groups. Partly afraid of Iranian political influence on the region.

Why would you help the enemies of your enemies?

The United States should not conduct special operations on Syrian territory, because its simply a war without any allies, with no potential friendship. Even by the end of the supposed U.S. military “lighting campaign” Obama presented for Syria,  If they won, it would end up leading to the same difficulties experienced in Iraq.

It wouldn’t just be a one time strike and ” lets leave”, no, the Syrians will retaliate and the short mission would escalate into a larger conflict, possibly involving Israel.

And that is exactly what the future holds for Syria, another Iraq. Only this time, Al-Qaeda would hold control of the region, now fully armed thanks to all the scattered facilities stocked with weapons deserted by the SAA regime. And also having wider access to chemical weapons, Scuds and a small supply of air and land military hardware, which would propose a serious problem for the U.S. Military.

Another obvious problem, is that It would be completely illogical and stupid to join forces with Al-Qaeda and supply them with weapons, considering they’re responsible for killing U.S. soldiers and helping the Taliban which have caused thus far over 50.000 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. And many U.S. veterans are calling this “treason”, and they’re not wrong to feel that way.

Obama does not seem to show the ‘radiant brilliance’ expected from a Commander-In-Chief, at least in his ability to logically understand the problem he faces with a possible strike. Would you really help rebels who scream, “Death to America,” and who behead people and eat enemies hearts as a form of victory? (No comment…)

Are taxpayers willing to pay for another unconvincing war?

Our government has built up too much debt. …At $16 trillion and rising, our national debt is draining free enterprise and weakening the ship of state.

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

China Amount of U.S. Debt Owned (January 2013): $1.26 trillion, and that itself does not include Japan, Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Hong Kong. …And the list goes on.

For the U.S. to step inside Syria, it is estimated it would take 75.000 foot soldiers, which sum up to at least to $2 trillion for the next 3 years. Can the U.S. really afford a war, destined to help their own enemies?

As soon as soldiers step in Syria, so will DynCorp, AEGIS, KBR, Halliburton, BlackWaters, AECOM… And other transnational companies ready to supply the U.S. Military. These companies will suck the ‘living cash’ out U.S. Taxpayers. You willing to pay for it?

What is the best solution for Syria?

Its simple. Historically, the Middle East has proven too convulsive and problematic to control. The only successful empires to ever fully grasp and control the rebellious nature of the area, were the Roman Empire and the Mongols. One could possibly argue England, but rebellions sparked under their authority as well.

It takes a very rigid, cruel and powerful hand to dominate the M.E.. And the U.S. does not posses the vicious nature any of those two empires named above possesed.

The best way to deal with Syria is to let it “filter itself out” without interfering in the process. That’s what the U.S. needs to learn, because they’re not and will not have the dominant presence required to deal with that part of the world. Its out of reach and too complicated.

Chemical weapons are destined to kill, but the U.S. knew for decades that Assad’s family produced it. Why didn’t they act before, if they’re so concern about an attack now? No one builds chemical weapons to celebrate a happy birthday.

But foremost, never help those who will later call you an “infidel,” those who scream for help now, but will rebel later. Not a good idea, even though the Muslim activist whom are against Assad’s regime for dictatorial reasons, want the U.S. to intervene? Too hypocritically funny. Let Syria filter itself out, because it won’t filter the U.S..