U.S. President Barack Obama has admitted that there is great and sharp division, both inside and outside the United States, over attacking Syria. However, Obama declined to say whether he was going to go ahead with the strike on Damascus or not, if Congress votes against it. He reached this conclusion after receiving authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate with a simple majority, with ten voting in favor, seven against, and one abstaining. More or less the same result had awaited Obama in the G20 summit, where he could not convince many of his allies to back his plan, not to mention the BRICS countries that remained opposed to any attack on Syria. Yet Obama's admission did not prevent the leaders of certain countries, both large and small, from showing their enthusiasm for the war, without consulting their parliaments. Indeed, they are only waiting for Congress to decide, as though it was their peoples who had voted in its members. These leaders include in their ranks French President Francois Hollande, who presented the issue to the National Assembly (parliament) but has not put it to a vote. To be sure, Hollande feels that participating in a strike against Damascus would be opportunity for further rapprochement with Washington. According to Regis Debray, Hollande is taking revenge on Britain, which had participated in the Iraq war and secured concessions in that country, while France, which had opposed the war, came out empty handed. The famous writer also said that the rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy sought to mend relations between Paris and Washington, while the Socialist President imagines that the time is right to reap the fruits of what was planted by his predecessor, regardless of public opinion, and disappointments in Libya and Mali. Enthusiasm for the war is not limited to Obama, Hollande, and other politicians. In the United States and the Arab World, there are enthusiastic writers, who believe that the United States is the only country able to lead the world and impose its moral values, based on its history in this regard since its inception, and since bombing Hiroshima with nuclear weapons. These writers cite many reasons why the United States has been unique in enforcing norms against villains by force, including the fact that Europe, which has similar values, is financially and militarily not able to handle this humanitarian mission, and that the Old Continent is little more than a museum for antiquated weapons. The Arabs, meanwhile, are divided, in addition to their military weakness, which cannot be offset by money. As for the Arab League, it is paralyzed, and incapable of taking decisions beyond giving political cover for a strike, which Washington does not need anyway, as long as its campaign will target evil in Damascus, Iran, and Hezbollah. Eliminating this axis, or at least weakening, will not happen except with a strike against Syria, which lies at its heart. These writers and their Arab and non-Arab colleagues base their views on what they call indisputable axioms. The first axiom is that the United States is the largest and most powerful democracy, and it is up to it to run this world. If the United States makes a decision, then everyone must abide by it, without discussion, and must defer to its morality and legitimacy. If the United States launches war for its interests, then everyone must acknowledge these interests, even if they conflict with theirs, or even if they come at the expense of their peoples. The Palestinians for example, must recognize Israel's claim to their land, and bow to the will of the Jewish state, if they want to avoid angering Washington. Washington's scorn knows no bounds, and could manifest itself in anything from assassinating their leaders to arming their enemies further, and blacklisting them and banning them from travelling both in their countries and outside. As for their dispossessed children and refugees, the UN will keep them alive, in camps where generations have died and other generations have been born. It is prohibited for the UN to blame those who caused them to be dispossessed from their own country, meanwhile. Today, America is the policeman, judge, and prosecutor in the world. It is democracy at home, but the worst kind of dictatorship abroad. American pundits, except the outcast ones, see democracy only in their country. The oppression of others, waging war on others, appointing the leaders of others, serve their interests and boost their democracy. There are countries in the East and in the West, waiting for a decision from this democracy to rid it from the villains. Once again, this is the equation of occupation that saves from tyranny, which history has already proven wrong.
