Having failed to secure domestic and international support for missile strikes on Syria, President Obama has retreated on military action only to win time for a better war pitch, according to Sarah Sloan of the Answer Coalition who spoke to RT.
The US President asked Congress on Tuesday to postpone a vote on
military action in Syria, agreeing to the Russian proposal to put
Syria’s chemical weapons under international control.
Despite the US backing away on its plan to carry out airstrikes,
the threat of military action against Syria remains, believes
anti-war activist, National staff coordinator at the Answer
Coalition, Sarah Sloan. In an interview with RT, she said she is
convinced that President Obama is likely to stay committed to the
plan of replacing the current Syrian government with a puppet
one.
RT:What goal was President Obama pursuing in his
address to the nation? Do you think he has succeeded in securing
more support from people, the majority of which are strongly
against any military action against Syria?
Sarah Sloan: President Obama gave this speech out of
necessity. If it had not been scheduled, I do not think he would
have spoken tonight. The reality is he is in retreat. He was not
necessarily looking for this at this point to win people over. I
do not think he did win people over with this speech. He is
involved in face saving measures because he has faced such vast
domestic and global opposition to his plan for military
intervention in Syria that he has had to move away from it. And
now he is trying to talk himself out, work his way out of the
situation that he was placed in.
RT:Obama keeps on stating that the Assad regime was
responsible for the chemical attack without offering any sound
proof of this. Is he going to convince the nation while feeding
them with sweeping statements?
SS: That is absolutely not going to convince the nation.
Once again tonight President Obama did not provide evidence,
because in fact the US government does not have evidence that it
was the Assad government that used chemical weapons. In fact
there is plenty of evidence that the opposition forces did so.
The Obama administration admitted when they went on the Sunday
morning talk shows circuit that they did not have irrefutable
proof, but just had a common sense test, which means they have no
proof and it showed again tonight that they have no proof. And
the reality is that common sense test tells us, it was not the
Assad government who did this, because the Assad government at
this particular moment certainly has no interest in doing
something that would trigger a wider US intervention. It is only
the opposition forces who want the US to intervene more heavily,
who want US bombing of their own country, who had an interest in
carrying out a chemical weapons attack.
RT:President Obama has spoken both about the
possibility of a military strike and about a diplomatic solution.
Is there a decision in sight?
SS: The bottom line is regardless of the exact nuances of
the speech tonight, the Obama administration remains committed to
the overall US objective which is the overthrow of the Syrian
government. The US government through Democratic and Republican
administrations alike seeks to overthrow any independent
nationalist governments that exist in the oil rich Middle East.
Obama has been committed to that strategy over the past two
years, and although there haven’t been military strikes yet, they
have provided economic, financial support to the opposition
forces, they’ve provided them legitimacy by recognizing them.
Talking about sanctions, we know weapons inspections were used in
Iraq as a pretext for a wider war. These are all different
tactics that have been pursued with the same objective. And we
believe the Obama administration remains very committed to that
objective. We don’t believe the threat of war has been completely
averted. But we can see that the path has had to be altered
because of the domestic and international opposition, which the
Obama administration could not overcome. So we see now a turn to
the use of different tactics, to the continuation of the tactics
they’ve used over the past two years and potentially other
tactics like what the Bush administration did in Iraq, where
although there were UN weapons inspections that Iraq was
complying with, although they were disarming in accordance with
the UN resolution, the Bush administration declared that they
were not in compliance and carried out a new invasion and a new
war. So we believe we must still remain very vigilant in building
opposition to the US government’s war designs in Syria. And
there’s still certainly a threat because the US government
certainly still has an interest in installing a puppet regime in
Syria.
RT:Obama keeps on assuring that should a military
strike take place, it will be targeted and there will be no
long-term involvement. How can he guarantee that?
SS: Even if it is just one or two days of missile strikes as
Obama claims that will cause great death and destruction for the
people of Syria. We oppose military intervention even if it could
possibly be as limited as Obama is pitching it. We know what that
really is – it’s his attempt which is a failed attempt to win
over the American public to this war because we know the American
public opposes greater US involvement and so Obama is trying to
sell the war in a way that he thinks people will accept. But the
reality is that any death and destruction caused on the people of
Syria by the US government is something that people in the United
States and around the world should oppose. And this concept of no
boots on the ground – which is really code for saying that all
the death and all the bleeding will be on the Syrian side is not
acceptable. It does not matter which side the bleeding and the
destruction is on, this is the US government using a pretext just
like they always do to carry out expanded intervention in a
country where they have their own designs, that are not in the
interest of the American people, not in the interest of Syrian
people, not in the interest of the vast majority of the people of
the world. Certainly Syria is part of the larger long-term
objective that the United States has to control.
RT:We've heard some positive comments about the
Russian proposal from Washington. Is this a way forward?
SS: It appears at this point for the Obama administration
to be a way out of carrying out military strikes at least in the
short term as they are unattainable given the level of opposition
that exists both within the military establishment in the US,
within the government, and amongst American and world public
opinion. We do believe the Obama administration is going to
pursue this proposal that there may be other issues that arise
through this process where there’s an attempt to use the type of
international courts and tribunals that are being used against
other countries that the US targets and hopefully that would be
something that China and Russia would oppose being included in
the resolution. But at this point it has become a way out for the
Obama administration. They are clearly pursuing a route to avoid
taking military action at this point.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.