By Gilad Atzmon 

It doesn’t take a genius to grasp that the American president doesn’t really want to attack Syria. He doesn’t want to topple Assad’s regime - He doesn’t have an alternative partner on the ground. Instead of ‘Shock and Awe’ this time the Pentagon is talking about ‘surgical attack’. The English speaking empire, famous for its destructive inclinations, makes the potential attack on Syria sound like a ‘cosmetic effort’. No one in America, Britain, France or Israel is yet to suggest what is the goal of such an attack. What are the military initiatives? But the most crucial question is what could be the positive outcome of such a military assault? I guess that we have to admit that Obama’s administration is almost as confused as the situation on the ground is.

It seems as if in a relatively short time, the American administration has managed to fall into every possible trap. It is now affiliated as well as conflicting with Al-Qaeda (assuming there is such a thing), Wahhabi war-mongers, Salafi terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood and their enemies - the Arab seculars and nationalist revolutionary forces. America has tried to appease them all, but it obviously failed in every possible front.  Dropping bombs on Syria is not going to provide the goods either. A ‘surgical’ assault on Damascus is not going to appease America’s Wahhabi partners, it may even achieve the opposite. I guess that time is ripe for Obama to re-examine America’s entire interventionist doctrine, but can he?  Can an American leader think for himself? Can an American leader think for America?   Can an American leader think at all, or is he or her just reacting to Lobby pressure?