US fabricated excuses for military intervention from Markale to Ghouta?

One of the labels which I have been using more and more recently is the "Bosnia v5 Chechnia v4 Kosovo v3 Libya v2 Syria v1" which refers to the fact that the Empire uses exactly the same trick over and over again to justify its military aggressions.

Though history is replete with false flag attacks, the end of the Cold War saw a systematization of a specific complex of measures designed to give a sophisticated illusion of an undeniable fact.  Here is how this works:

I will present a theoretical model and one example:

First, a high-visibility target is identified.  During the war in Bosnia, the most "visible" location was the city of Sarajevo, and the most "visible" location inside Sarajevo was the Markale market.  By "visible" I, of course, mean "visible to the media".

Second, a specific moment is chosen for the attack.  It can be right before or after a crucial negotiation, it can be made to coincide with an election, it can be matched to a religious or secular holiday or whatever other optimal moment in time is preferred.  In Bosnia the first "Markale market massacre" was intended to justify the use of NATO airpower against Bosnian-Serb artillery position while the second Markale market massacre was intended to justify a second wave of airstrikes against Bosnian-Serb forces.

Third, the actual false flag attack is conducted with the triple aim of having a maximum amount of killed civilians, to secure the maximal amount of media coverage and to coincide with the exact moment when the forces needed for the military intervention are ready.  The need for this maximization of casualties and coverage is explained by the fact that enough military specialists on the ground will inevitable have the expertise to see through the false flag and try to challenge the official version.  In Bosnia, the official narrative about the Bosnian-Serb responsibility was almost immediately challenged by no less than the UNPROFOR Commander Sir Michael Rose (for the first massacre) and by the UNPORFOR Sarajevo Intelligence Chief Colonel Andrei Demurenko (for the second massacre).  And, just in case anybody has doubts about this, I would note here that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has had to acquit the Bosnian-Serbs initially charged with the crime.

Finally, even if the accusation is absolutely ridiculous (like Gaddafi giving Viagra to his soldiers to rape Libyan woman), the vast majority of Western politicians will go along with it just to avoid appearing not "strong" enough "on" whatever entity dares to resist the Empire.

As for those who actually conducted the attack, all they need is "plausible deniability" (a CIA-coined expression meaning that it is possible that the US was not behind the attack).  I would even say that all the Empire needs is "short term plausible deniability" just because even if with time the false flag nature of the attack is proven beyond reasonable doubt, nobody cares.

Think of 9/11.  By now the fact that the destruction of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 was caused by controlled demolition has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  I would even argue that the US government has implicitly admitted to this through its NIST report on WTC1 and WTC2 and almost explicitly admitted that through its report on WTC7.  So what?  Does anybody even care by now?  Of course not.

Most of the imperial false flag operations have been debunked, in most cases rather rapidly.  But in a world ruled by political expediency and, let's be honest, an almost total indifference to the very concept of "truth", that kind of debunking, while historically important, is operationally easy to ignore.  "We lied?  So what?  Whatcha gonna do about it".  After Saddams non-existing WMD the very notion that being caught lying is a problem has vanished.  Now the imperial politicians can lie all they want, with no consequences for that at all.

Which brings me to so-called "Ghouta" chemical attacks.

Key imperial politicians, Fabius in France, but also UK and Sweden and others, have already stated that this was an attack by Syrian forces.  They were in such a hurry to apportion blame that they could not even wait for any investigation.  They just "knew"!  Fabius even said that the guilty party should be punished by "force", but something tells me that he did not mean bombing the insurgents should the UN report blame them.  Besides, France is *already* bombing al-Qaeda in Mali, how could it possibly do the same thing in Syria were al-Qaeda are the "good guys"?

According to the Anglo media, the US is preparing for cruise missile strikes.

Now, to understand what that really means, one has to understand what cruise missiles stand for in the collective psyche of the US Democrats: Democrats use cruise missiles not only to destroy a target, but also to simply "appear strong" and get the Republicans off their backs.  I am thus quite sure that even if the White House fully understands that the Syrian military did not use chemicals 2 days after the arrival of the UN investigation team (if only because the attack might have been organized by the CIA), this will not at all prevent Obama to launch a series of cruise missile strikes just to appear strong, macho, with hair on his chest.  It will be easy to tell, by the way:

If the White House launches a sustained cruise missile strike campaign of at least 5 days, with each round of damage assessment followed by repeat attacks - then they are trying to intervene militarily on the side of the insurgency and tip the balance on the ground.

If the White House launches a one time series of cruise missile strikes lasting 24 or less, and then declares victory and stops, then its just a way to deal with the crazy Republicans and Neocons who always want blood, blood and more blood.

Finally, if the White House orders no strikes at all, then this means that this false flag operation was not a US or NATO one, but an "independent" effort of Wahabi crazies, probably with Saudi or Qatari complicity.

We shall know very soon.

The Saker