U.N./Obama View Syria Civil Conflict as Chance for Power Grab?

The Syrian Government was a natural target for agitation and subversion by the Muslim Brotherhood alumni association and various activists following the Arab Spring of revolutions inspired by President Obama’s Cairo speech a few years ago. Restoration of the Caliphate that ended after World War One with the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire has been a goal for some Sunni restorationists since 1923. The 100th year anniversary of the fall of the Caliphate might be a good time to celebrate a partial return to pan-Arab Sunni rule. Obviously getting rid of the Assad-led Alawite Government in Syria is de rigueur for that.

The Alawi have a long history-more than a thousand years, of rugged independent living in Syria and of resisting imperial forces such as the French and Turks. The French regarded the Alawi and the Druze as the only fighters in Syria when they dominated it in the first half of the 20th century. It would be ironic if they U.S. supported crushing the Alawi Government and accomplished the traditional role of oppresor of the Alawi people-even if they are Twelvers. Maybe the U.N. should think about finding another Alawi leader and remove what they believe is a brutal Alawi leader if they must and let the civil tug-of-war proceed from that point without throwing in the towel of independence for the Alawi of Syria.
Perhaps the analysis is over-thinking the issue. When massacres occur following months of the Obama administration goading in support of the insurrection it catalyzes social horror at the extremes of civil conflict. When comfortable television viewers see the victims of social hate they are easy to manipulate into support or acquiescence for international military action. If that action coincides with development of larger political goals it would be useful to use political candor for a change and say so.
When people are marginalized socially by the established economic power for simply existing regardless of their political beliefs as may happen the oppressed realize that the only secular way to get any sort of equal rights and respect from the established class is to kill them. Generally the established class seeks to kill independents and non-conformists as a threat to their domination of the total geo-social realm of reality. Class hatred can develop as a rational response by a coalition to an oppressive class regardless of what their ideas are on academic theories such as communism, socialism, corporatism, capitalism, mercantilism or whatever. Even the illiterate may recognize the rich bad guys kicking them down because they can.
I wonder about Syria and the reality of the protagonists involved as well as the consequences of a post Alawite regime created in large part by Kofi Anan and Barrack Obama through the intermediary of 5000 Sunni civilian sacrificial victims required to stimulate an eventual resolution somewhere for the U.S. Air Force or perhaps Britain to send a Condor Legion for the Just to bomb Basher Assad and his gang of government technocrats back to the stone age with compassionate conservative precision g.p.s. directed warheads.
When it is just pure and deep class hatred who is right and who wrong between two classes? Is it the more powerful that are right because they own the propaganda media and the established powers? When the United State killed 300,000 Iraqi draftees in bunkers or wherever like shooting fish in a barrel during the 2003 war was that less cruel than the execution of civilians and their supporters seeking to destroy the Syrian Government?

My opinion is that much of the conflict of the 20th century was the result of the importunate U.S. intervention of the United States in World War One perhaps bribed by the pagan statue of a French whore with a red light held aloft in New York’s harbor. The French donated the statue after losing the 1874 Franco-Prussian war and were counting on American hicks to prop up a subsequent century of corruption and an avoidable bad chain of events from the rise of Hitler and Stalin to Vietnam that would not have occurred if we had stayed out. I believe that any further U.S. military intervention in Syria would be in service of the Machiavellian geo-megalomaniacs seeking to conquer all and step on the unemployed in the U.S.A. in the process.
One knows that all the political and media bullshit about Syria is simply a buildup for U.S. military support. I don’t think the process would fool even the voters that get to choose between perverted party A and oligarchy party B each election cycle. Without dedicated political party channels for every party with more than 5 million voters the broadcast media is the main political opinion creating a nation of observers of foreign things supported eventually by U.S. Aircraft interventions.
The United States should fix its economy, restore the health of the ecosphere, have full employment and an intelligent low-entropy economy transition and stay out of promiscuous foreign military interventions.