Commentary on the economic , geopolitical and simply fascinating things going on. Served occasionally with a side of snark.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Syria updates - August 29 , 2013 -- US recklessly and hubris on full display plan to start Syria War - despite international support evaporating , despite absence of UN authorization and Congressional authorization , despite the UN not even having completing its chemical weapon work - and recall the US tried to preempt that work.....While some think we are projecting strength , it seems more like desperation , over reaction without full analysis , bloodlust and irrational actor conduct ! Live blog updates for August 29th - Russia Today ...
Moments ago CBS reported that the much anticipated report "proving" that the as-Assad administration used the chemical weapons, will be made public tomorrow:
Secretary of State John Kerry and other top White House officials on Thursday evening will brief congressional lawmakers about potential military action in Syria, a State Department spokesperson, but the briefing will be limited to unclassified information.
Spokesperson Marie Harf said Kerry will be joined on the 6 p.m. conference call by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No classified information will be discussed on the call because of security concerns, Harf said. Lawmakers on the call will include the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate panels that oversee national security, she said.
Questions were being raised Thursday about the evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered or knew of the use of chemical weapons against his own people. But Harf said top congressional leaders, including the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, agree with the White House assessment that the Syrian government used those weapons.
The briefing won't satisfy all lawmakers. More than 100 of them signed a letter calling Obama to seek congressional authorization before initiating any military action in Syria.
“Obviously the views of Congress are important in this process,” Harf said. “Our conversations with Congress have been extremely detailed. There’s a lot we can talk about at an unclassified level about what happened here. It will be a good discussion.”
“This meeting tonight does not represent the breadth of our conversations with Congress,” Harf said, adding that White House officials have held some classified briefings with top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence panels.
Harf said Obama “hasn’t made any decisions yet” about a military strike and will factor in the position of our allies, including the United Kingdom, which has wavered on whether to join in a military action.
Harf also sought to knock down comparisons being made between the Syria situation Obama faces and the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. Bush officials insisted at the time that military intervention was necessary because Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, a claim that later proved false. Harf said it was clear that Assad has the weapons and used them.
“Iraq and Syria are in no way analogous and we are not considering analogous responses in any way,” Harf said. “Nobody is talking about an Iraq-style intervention.”
UK Parliament votes No to War with Syria.... Coalition of the Unwilling ?
Moments ago the UK House of Commons, in a razor thin vote, rejected the Cameron proposal for military action in Syria with a vote 285 to 272. Cameron promptly said he would respect the will of the House of Commons and UK Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond confirmed there would be no UK military intervention in Syria. Incidentally, this may have been the best outcome for an already humiliated British premier who will avoid being dragged into an unpopular war having both sided with his greatest ally, the US, and also relented and listened to the voice of the people. More importantly, the "people" in the UK actually had a voice, which is more than can so far be said about developments in the US. And speaking of the US, the NYT reports that even as the Syrian war "option" is slowly being shut out for staunch US allies (except for France of course), that Obama is "willing to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria even while allies like Britain are debating whether to join the effort [ZH: and have now voted against it] and without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council" citing senior administration officials.
The ETA for a unilateral move by Obama may be as soon as Saturday:
Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will back such a decision, or whether in addition to getting the cold shoulder from his allies, Obama will also be forced to use the War Powers Act to once more stomp out popular dissent for a conflict that as previously reported, only has the support of just 9% of the US population.
The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.
It is unclear if this intelligence was obtained by the US, or through collaboration with Israeli which three days ago was said to have intercepted "Syrian regime chatter" confirming Assad was behind the attack.
Specifically, the intelligence intercepted refers to the following:
One central piece of the White House intelligence, officials say, is an intercepted telephone call from a Syrian commander who seems to suggest that the chemical attack was more devastating than intended. “It sounds like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one intelligence official said Thursday.
Curiously, Obama's proposed line of attack, pardon the pun, and distinction from comparable previous foreign policy blunders most recently by the Bush administration, is that unlike in Iraq, Obama does not seek an overthrow of the Assad regime and merely "reinforcing an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and seeking to prevent their use in Syria":
Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq — one that the Obama administration says differed sharply from its objectives in Syria — without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. In that case, they said, Mr. Bush was seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government. In this one, they argue, he is reinforcing an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and seeking to prevent their use in Syria or against American allies, including Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The current American objective, officials say, is to halt future use of chemical weapons rather than remove the leadership that allowed their use. Mr. Obama has referred, somewhat vaguely, to reinforcing “international norms,” or standards, against the use of chemical weapons, which are categorized as weapons of mass destruction even though they are far less powerful than nuclear or biological weapons.
Not surprisingly, this differs from what Hillary Clinton said over a year ago. From AFP in June 2012:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday she "made it very clear" to her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov at the weekend that the focus was shifting to a political transition in Syria.
"Assad's departure does not have to be a precondition but it should be an outcome, so the people of Syria have a chance to express themselves," she told reporters in Stockholm.
This sounds dangerouly close to intent to overthrow a government.
Finally, and perhaps worth noting, is the question of just what form of delivery did the alleged Assad regime's use of chemical weapons come in. Hopefully it was not remote-controlled toy planes. Recall from June:
Iraqi officials say they have busted a plot by an Al Qaeda cell to carry out poison gas attacks in the Middle East, Europe and North America.
The attacks could have possibly been carried out by remote-controlled toy planes, which were seized at two workshops in Baghdad, the BBC reports.
Mohamed al Askari, a spokesman for Iraq's defense ministry, said on Saturday that five suspects were detained over operations at the two facilities, where they were allegedly planning to produce sarin and mustard gas using instructions from another Al Qaeda group, Sky News reports.
Askari said the suspects had materials and formulas to make the gases -- and had a network to smuggle the toxins out of Iraq -- but they had yet to produce any weapons.
The arrests were made after an investigation by Iraq and foreign intelligence services, Sky News reports.
Al Qaeda in Iraq detonated 16 chlorine bombs between October 2006 and June 2007, the BBC reports.
Either way, the just concluded UK vote is not only a huge blow to David Cameron, and a shocking success for democracy, but leaves Obama in a truly no win position: he will be humiliated if he backs off now after having escalated the war drums to a beating frenzy, and will be blasted by all sides of the political spectrum if he proceeds to engage in a widely unpopular military conflict.
U.S. makes case at UN Security Council meeting held at Russia’s request; members decline to comment as they leave
President Obama speaks with Germany’s Merkel; leaders agree Syrian use of gas was “severe breach of international law,” Merkel spokesman says
State Dept spokeswoman Marie Harf tells reporters consultation “incredibly important,” yet “we make our own decisions in our own timeline”
Obama administration on track to release public intelligence report this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest says
White House to hold unclassified briefing for lawmakers this evening as members of Congress insist they must approve action
Speaking on condition of anonymity, 3 U.S. officials say intercepted Syrian communications provide no ironclad evidence that Assad or members of his inner circle ordered the attack
SYRIAN ACTIONS:
Syrians Move Weapons Ahead of Possible Attack: Reuters Link
Assad tells Syrians he will defend them against “threats of direct aggression” in comments reported on state television
INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS:
Putin, Merkel back efforts to find diplomatic solution
U.K. releases assessment showing it’s “highly likely” that Syrian govt was behind mass killing of civilians; govt says exceptional measures possible without UN backing
Fabius says France preparing Syria response with partners
UN inspectors to leave Syria by early Aug. 31, report to UN Secretary-General
Harper says Canada has no plans for military mission
President Barack Obama’s “robust” consultations with Congress about Syria aren’t cutting it on Capitol Hill.
Even as a select set of high-ranking lawmakers are set to jump on a 6 p.m. conference call with top administration officials Thursday night, a growing and bipartisan group of rank-and-file lawmakers were demanding that Obama seek authorization before launching punitive strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
The Hill sentiment mixes frustration at the diminished role of Congress — and the increasing power of the presidency — in committing the nation to acts of war with a belief that lawmakers are the unheard voice of a war-weary nation wary of becoming embroiled in another conflict in the Middle East.
“It hasn’t been communicated what the strategy is — what’s the end-state that any U.S. involvement is seeking,” said Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), a 29-year Army veteran who taught a class about the presidency at West Point. “What’s the strategy to accomplish that end-state? What would be the objectives — including military objectives — that support that strategy and what would a campaign look like to pursue those objectives? Four combat tours to Iraq, some of the rebels we’re talking about supporting shot at my paratroopers.
“So I think — we don’t have enough situational awareness to know what’s going on on the ground and understanding that would allow for a thoughtful campaign that would allow for the accomplishment of these objectives and strategic gains.”
For decades, presidents have asserted their primacy in determining when and how to use military force, despite the basic premise embedded in the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war. The last time Congress declared war was against a series of European countries in 1942. Since then, Congress has approved war by authorizing the use of force in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflicts. The Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution defined the terms under which the president could use force without a congressional authorization.
But dozens of lawmakers argue a strike on Syria would not fall into that category.
“While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests [such as its embassies] have not been attacked or threatened with an attack,” more than 50 House Democrats wrote in a letter to Obama on Thursday. “As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis.”
A bipartisan letter, spearheaded by Republican Scott Rigell of Virginia, demands that Obama seek congressional authorization before taking action. It has the signatures of 140 members, including a small number of Democrats who signed the Democratic letter.
The White House insists that its Thursday conference call — which will be an unclassified briefing — is only part of a larger effort to consult with members of Congress. Indeed, a group of eight GOP senators known as the “Diners Club” discussed on Thursday Syria with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, according to a Senate aide briefed on their previously planned lunch. In addition, Cabinet officials have called some top lawmakers.
Obama called Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for the first time in nearly a month Thursday. Boehner’s aides made it clear the call yielded little, with a spokesman saying it was “clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed.”
But Thursday evening’s call with top lawmakers is also expected to reveal few new details, since many of the participants were not able to find secure telephone lines. As a result, even the top congressional leaders will get only an unclassified briefing.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration has undertaken “robust congressional consultations” and is “not ruling out future briefings that would include every member of Congress.”
“It’s not the end of our consultation,” he said of Thursday’s conference call, suggesting that a more comprehensive outreach could occur “if there is a desire or a need for there to be a broader briefing once members of Congress return to Washington, D.C.”
Asked whether strikes would be launched before the end of Congress’s summer recess, Earnest said he would not “get into the time frame” of a possible attack.
But the president has a two-headed public-relations problem on Capitol Hill: Some people feel left out and others say Obama is about to launch an illegal war.
“It doesn’t say in the Constitution that leadership and the chair of three committees shall declare war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican with libertarian leanings. He said he wanted Congress to come back into session to vote on military intervention.
Of course, as displayed when the British House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s bid to endorse military intervention in Syria, legislative action is no sure thing. Several leading House Republican aides and lawmakers seriously doubted the chamber could pass a bill that would allow Obama to bomb Syria.
Asked about the recourse lawmakers can take if they think Obama is acting inappropriately, Massie said members of Congress should turn to legislation, not writing letters.
“Some people have used the impeachment word, and that’s not going to happen — not only could you not get the votes in the Senate, you wouldn’t have the votes in the House and I doubt you’d even have the majority of the Judiciary Committee, which is where it has to go first,” Massie said.
When pressed if that would be appropriate, Massie said: “It would be futile, so I wouldn’t be reading any sort of process there.”
If Obama takes military action, there are things that Congress can — and most likely will — do.
Lawmakers are beginning to apply pressure to tweak the War Powers Act — the law that governs the president’s ability to go to war. Gibson said he was swapping emails with the House Republican leadership Thursday morning about bringing up his War Powers Act Reform bill, which would require the president to seek authorization from Congress for military action more frequently.
Although lawmakers are fanned across the country, the impending Syrian crisis has reignited Congress’s desire to assert its power in matters of war.
“I’ve thought that for a long time,” said Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), a close Boehner ally who still serves in the Ohio National Guard. “This isn’t new to me. I’ve thought for a long time that Congress needs to reassert its authority. When you read the Constitution, just take a quick peruse. It’s not questionable, it’s only Congress that has authority to authorize force. Both Republican and Democrat presidents have undermined Congress’s authority and initiatives in that regard.”
Timescale for attack now up in the air; Support for military action crumbling; Hezbollah deploys troops to border; EU urges Israel to show restraint; Assad uses diplomatic back channels to deny retaliation threats
Foreign intelligence sources have claimed that The White House is using the threat of military action in Syria as a bargaining chip to make a deal with Russia, while the media in Washington is beginning to question the certainty of an imminent strike.
Intel website DEBKAfile states that its sources in Washington and Moscow claim that Obama “has applied the brakes” on military strikes scheduled for Friday or Saturday while Secretary of State John Kerry completes secret negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The site notes that the US wants to “strike a deal” with Vladimir Putin’s government:
“The US would soften its military action against the Assad regime and his army and reduce it to a token blow,” the report states, “after which the American and Russian presidents would announce the convening of Geneva-2 to hammer out a solution of the Syrian crisis and end the civil war.”
The report notes that a delay in releasing a promised intelligence report to provide evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability in chemical attacks, along with the President’s declaration this morning that he hasn’t made his mind up yet, are covers for the ongoing back channel deal brokering.
Washington insiders have also suggested that Obama’s window for making a decision on any attack is rapidly closing because he is scheduled to travel to Europe next Wednesday for the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.
“The Kerry-Lavrov back channel has not yet achieved results and so, Thursday, the fate of the US strike on Syria was still highly fluid and its timeline changeable.” Debkafile reports.
Meanwhile, it seems that the mainstream media is beginning to doubt the veracity of US threats.
Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis reports that he detects “a degree of uncertainty” creeping in against the assumption that the president is on the brink of launching military strikes “probably this weekend”:
“The problem facing White House is three-fold. First, its intelligence assessment, pinning culpability for the chemical weapons attack on Assad, may not be as watertight as many had been expecting. Second, and partly as a result of that, cracks are appearing in Congress, which is fully aware there is minimal support among the US electorate for strikes. Third and perhaps most interestingly is the lack of international support.” the Guardian reporter notes.
“Most of the experts I’ve spoken to today believe the US is still likely to forge ahead with limited strikes against Syria. But the speed at which they were moving toward that position may have been significantly reduced.” the reporter adds.
A British parliamentary revolt against military action, as well as widely circulated reports quoting inside sources saying that the intelligence does not provide a “smoking gun” or “slam dunk” against Assad has also no doubt contributed to a delay in the timeline for striking Syria.
The Iranian Fars News Agency also reports that Vladimir Putin is convinced that the Syrian government has not used chemical weapons “since they have been advancing in the war and did not need to do it.”
In a phone conversation with Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, Putin is said to have stated ” if US has any evidence to prove that Syria has used chemical weapons, as they claim, they should give their information to the UN inspectors.”
Fars also reports that Syrian Deputy Foreign Fayssal Mekdad has today presented the UN team with undeniable proof that militants, not the Syrian army, had used the weapons.
Meanwhile, during a meeting with military leaders, Assad is said to be expecting a military strike, and has pledged “This is a historic confrontation that we will come out of victorious.”
“Since the beginning of the crisis, and we were sure that the moment will come when our real enemy knocks his head into our country intervening.” Syrian newspaper Al-Akhbar reports.
In Lebanon, government sources have said that Hezbollah has declared a state of alert among its cadres and started deploying troops to the southern border amid mounting expectations of a US strike on Syria.
It has been reported that officials in Europe have urged the Israeli government to “exercise restraint in case of an assault by Assad or other ‘actors’ supporting him.”
Over the past week various Syrian officials have stated that Israel would become a target should Syria be attacked. A report in Kuwait’s al-Rai newspaper, however, cites European Union officials who have said that Assad has “used diplomatic back channels to convey that he does not intend to attack Israel as this would lead the Syrian campaign to uncharted territory.”
Senator says rebels more likely to be behind chemical weapons attack
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 29, 2013
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul says it’s more likely the Syrian rebels were behind last week’s chemical weapons attack, warning President Obama that military escalation risked provoking a major war with Russia in the longer term.
“There are some questions, it sounds more and more like chemical weapons were used but there are some questions and it should be investigated who used them,” said Paul during a radio interview, adding, “Pat Buchanan had an article the other day and he asked the Latin phrase cui bono – to whose benefit is this?….This is to the benefit of the rebels because now it’s bringing other people in on their side, so there’s a great incentive for this to have actually been launched by rebels not the Syrian Army.”
Despite the Obama administration initially claiming it was “undeniable” that Bashar Al-Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, US officials admitted to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”
Numerous different examples of rebels using chemical weapons have largely been ignored by the mainstream media as the war drums grow louder.
Warning that possible intervention in Syria was not some kind of “geopolitical chess game,” Paul said Obama seemed to have learned nothing from the Cold War.
“Are we going to slide into a major war with Russia on the other side of this and draw Russia into this war as well….this isn’t just a game of hey let’s push a button and blow up some people and tell them they shouldn’t use chemical weapons,” said Paul.
The Senator also chided Obama’s implication that a cruise missile attack would not represent an act of war, adding, “The problem is, what if one of our planes get shot down or what if some of the CIA trainers over there who are training troops get killed – then there’ll be an overwhelming outcry for getting more involved.”
In a separate radio interview, the Kentucky Senator slammed Obama for dismissing the need to secure constitutional authorization to launch a military assault, warning that American lives could potentially be lost because of “a President who is drunk with power.”
“We shouldn’t allow this, and we fight with every tool we have to try to stop him,” concluded Senator Paul.
POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON AUGUST 29, 2013 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN
The Hill is reporting something that has to go down as perhaps one of the worst justification for limiting a military mission or making an unprovoked attack on another country the world has ever seen:
A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Timesthat the White House is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.
NBC News reported earlier this week that the administration would launch three days of missile strikes, while CNN cited a senior administration official saying that the White House wanted to conclude any action before the president departs for the G-20 summit next week.
If, before now, you had any doubt about ego being involved in the Syria mission, you shouldn’t anymore. This is all about the ego of one man. And he’s willing to put the men and women of our armed forces in harm’s way in order to service that ego.
Quite simply he shot off his mouth and made a threat, those at whom he aimed his words ignored him and allegedly did what he warned them against, and now he has to back up his threat or look weak. But, being the political beast he is, he knows a “Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory” sort of response will bring condemnation and mockery. So he’s decided that he’ll just do enough to escape that sort of mocking condemnation but not enough to actually accomplish his stated goals. Apparently he thinks he won’t look weak if he does just enough to give the illusion of a real and substantial strike while knowing full well it’s a drop in the bucket of what would really be militarily necessary to back up his threat or accomplish his goal of deterrence and degradation of Syria’s chemical weapons capability. I can’t imagine a more unserious approach to this problem than this sort of response portends.
Of course, the reason he’s in the position to begin with is because of his lack of leadership on the world’s stage. He’s single-handedly managed to reduce the United States to a country that was at least feared and respected by our potential enemies to “paper tiger” status. Any weakness perceived is a direct result of his inability or refusal to lead. And now, as his favorite preacher would say, the “chickens are coming home to roost.” The pity is he’s playing with the lives of members of our armed forces in order to try to look tough.
And besides, he has important things to do. He has to party down with the G-20 and he wants this distraction with Assad and Syria over by then. He certainly doesn’t want an active military strike going on when he shows up there. Think of the protests. His fragile ego simply isn’t geared to be the focus of angry, sign-waving crowds calling him names. Don’t forget, he’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
“We are saying, uh, in a clear, uh, and decisive, uh, but very limited way we sent a shot across the bow saying “stop doing this” that could have a very positive impact on our national security in the long term…”
A “shot across the bow;” a clear, decisive and very limited response…butt we’re not interested in regime change. Wow! It sounds like Big Guy’s gone from a pout to a full-out frown with somebody in Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
I’m wondering if he might be interested in making that “perfectly clear” because so far, it’s about as clear as a double espresso. And it’s the sort of action that’s been know to start World Wars when major military powers are lined up on opposite sides of the equation. You know, like we do now.
So stand by: action figures to follow. The Commander-in-Chief, who never liked it when others played with them, is playing with his war toys again. And a harsh stare is sure to follow.
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
Could I make a few recommendations, given the objective? First I’d advise against using the Star Wars light saber. While it does look awesome wielded by the CIC,
once it’s knocked out of his hands by one little karate chop, it leaves the Big Guy looking, well, let’s just say than presidential.
Now a marshmallow cannon, on the other hand, may be just the ticket:
It’s the MP007 marshmallow cannon. It makes a big noise butt lands with a soft thud that startles the enemy. And so simple even a caveman can use it:
( Note what the " moderate " Syrian rebel has to say about the chemical weapon attack.... at Pepe Escobar's article below....Tomahawk with cheese....)
UN debate stalls US attack on Syria By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
NEW YORK - At the United Nations, despite the threat of a United States missile attack on Syria, momentum is actually shifting away from imminent action in favor of a more patient "wait and see" approach spearheaded by the secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon.
On Wednesday, the Russian and Chinese delegation walked out of a Security Council emergency meeting on Syria triggered by a United Kingdom draft resolution calling for humanitarian military intervention in Syria "to save civilian lives" in light of the recent ghastly chemical weapon attack that the US, UK and France insist without a shadow of doubt was the work of the Syrian regime.
That opinion is not shared by many UN member states, includingsome non-permanent members of the Security Council, who prefer to defer a judgment until the UN investigation team in Syria delivers its report; according to Ban, those investigators "need four days" to complete their work.
The UK's introduction of the resolution "put a mini-brake" on the possibility of an attack, according to a South American diplomat whose country is at present a member of the Security Council and spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity. "We don't want another Iraq war fiasco," the Latin diplomat insisted, alluding to the "WMD (weapons of mass destruction) hoax" of the 2003 US-led invasion of a sovereign Arab country.
Another European diplomat relayed the same sentiment, adding that the majority of European Union member states "including Germany, Austria, Italy and others" are adamantly opposed to any "preemptory strike" on Syria based on "inconclusive evidence''.
Meanwhile, Syria's envoy to the UN presented his government's case against any attack and claimed that the rebels have launched three new chemical attacks against the Syrian military, asking the UN to investigate those areas where it claimed the attacks took place. Damascus's insistence that the rebels were behind the gas attack on August 21 in a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds has been flatly rejected by the US yet somewhat endorsed by a member of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, Carlo del Ponte, who has twice - on Monday as well as May 6, 2013 - stated there is evidence that the rebels have used sarin gas.
Clearly, there is no interest whatsoever in Washington, London, or Paris in information that belies their confident accusations against Damascus. Their common chorus that absolves the rebels of any potential culpability suffers from a self-delusional oversight of what the rebels, at present on the defensive in multiple fronts, are capable of doing for the sake of turning the tide after the recent military successes of Syrian regime forces.
The case against a US attack on Syria There are, in fact, several compelling reasons as to why any US attack on Syria would be deemed illegal and unjustified from the vantage point of international law and global norms. First, the requirement of UN Security Council authorization under Chapter VII is not a minor obstacle that can be obviated by simply invoking the "responsibility to protect" doctrine which, as Pepe Escobar rightly says on this site (Obama set for holy Tomahawk war, Asia Times Online, August 27, 2013) is being corrupted into a unilateral license to wage war.
Second, there is strong circumstantial evidence that supports Damascus's defense of being clear of the August 21 attack: Damascus had consented to a UN inspection, and the investigators had arrived in Damascus to look into prior incidents, which the government insists were perpetrated by the rebels. Given the Syrian army's recent impressive victories, with help of the Lebanon's Hezbollah, the government had no need to resort to such desperate measures that were bound to backfire in the international community.
The absence of motivation on the part of Assad's regime should be compared to the desperate position of the Syrian opposition and its frantic search somehow to change the conflict's momentum in its favor.
In other words, the rebels had strong motivation, and certainly the will power and external support, to explode a deadly canister, cause mayhem and then blame the government - and thus give the US and its allies the proper excuse to launch an attack. Yet somehow, almost none of the US pundits, such as Richard Haas, the head of influential Council on Foreign Relations, who have been advocating a unilateral US strike on Syria have given the slightest attention to this important factor.
Fortunately, the international community today is more alert than it was in 2002 and 2003. That simply means that when a US secretary of State goes on record and claims solid evidence against an Arab leader, he inevitably conjures the image of his predecessor, Colin Powell, who deceived the international community about Iraq when he presented his "compelling evidence" at the Security Council in February 2003. Powell has since then come to "regret" in his autobiography his warmongering deception and, naturally, one wonders if present Secretary of State John Kerry will emulate him if the US goes to war against Syria, a war that is now labeled as a "limited strike" to take out Assad's WMD capability.
Problems and prospects of a 'limited strike' Indeed, what will be achieved by a "limited" US strike on Syria? If the intention is to target Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, then the US should be concerned about the serious human and environmental destruction caused by such a bombing. An operation aimed at "saving lives" could cost many more lives than the combined chemical attacks in Syria so far.
On the other hand, a limited strike that would not cause a substantial shift in the balance of contending forces in Syria may actually backfire on the US and send a message about a weak superpower. The Syrian army is armed with the Russian land-to-sea Iskander missiles, which can target the US naval forces in the region, thus prompting a strong US retaliation, not to mention retaliatory strikes against Israel, altogether promising a wider and more extensive war than the one at present urged through the mainstream US media.
Concerning the latter, outlets such as CNN have turned themselves into uncritical props for the US's latest warmongering in the Middle East, with the American network exceeding itself in its various news programs to instill the justification for a US strike, all but excluding an informed discussion that focuses on the possibility of a rebel atrocity.
In the event of a US attack, the chances are that the upcoming Group of 20 September summit in St Petersburg would be cancelled and US-Russia relations would sink to a new low reminiscent of the Cold War. With China standing shoulder to shoulder with Russia at the Security Council, the US is likely to harm its relations with China as well, not to mention a bulk of the Muslim world that would greet such an attack as yet another sign of Western imperialism.
Even the military junta in Egypt has opposed a US strike on Syria, in spite of the fact that the new Syria crisis has brought it timely respite in deflecting public attention away from on-going atrocities in Cairo. Perhaps the authors of the August 21 gas attack in Syria had multiple intentions that traversed Syria, often considered a "first step" toward regime change in Iran, per a 2009 Brookings Institution report.
Little wonder, then, that Iran has reacted strongly to the reports of imminent US attack on Syria and will likely assist Damascus all it can to confront the "aggressors." Without doubt, a US attack on Syria will spell doom for the prospects of a new US-Iran diplomatic engagement.
On the whole, then, the price to be paid for a "limited strike" is too high and the net gains vague and uncertain, which is why the mood at the UN is guardedly optimistic that war can be averted.
The ''responsibility to protect'' (R2P) doctrine invoked to legitimize the 2011 war on Libya has just transmogrified into ''responsibility to attack'' (R2A) Syria. Just because the Obama administration says so.
On Sunday, the White House said it had ''very little doubt'' that the Bashar al-Assad government used chemical weapons against its own citizens. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry ramped it up to ''undeniable'' - and accused Assad of ''moral obscenity''.
So when the US bombed Fallujah with white phosphorus in late 2004 it was just taking the moral high ground. And when the UShelped Saddam Hussein to gas Iranians in 1988 it was also taking the moral high ground. The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors' hotel. If you don't believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.
Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad's offer of access for the inspectors came ''too late''. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed - but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's spokesman.
As far as the Obama administration and UK Prime Minister David ''of Arabia'' Cameron are concerned - supported by a barrage of corporate media missiles - that's irrelevant; Obama's ''red line'' has been crossed by Assad, period. Washington and London are in no-holds-barred mode to dismiss any facts contradicting the decision. Newspeak - of the R2A kind - rules. If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that's because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy - all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception - all over again.
The Saudi-Israeli axis of fun The window of opportunity for war is now. Assad's forces were winning from Qusayr to Homs; pounding ''rebel'' remnants out of the periphery of Damascus; deploying around Der'ah to counterpunch CIA-trained ''rebels'' with advanced weapons crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border; and organizing a push to expel ''rebels'' and jihadis from suburbs of Aleppo.
Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol' Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ''On the Way to Attack'' and even printed the ideal Order of Battle. (see photo)
Months ago, even AMAN, the Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) concluded that Assad was not a fool to cross Obama's chemical weapon ''red line''. So they came up with the concept of ''two entwined red lines'', the second line being the Syrian government ''losing control of its chemical weapons depots and production sites''. AMAN then proposed different strategies to Washington, from a no-fly zone to actually seizing the weapons (implying a ground attack).
It's now back to the number one option - air strikes on the chemical weapons depots. As if the US - and Israel - had up-to-the-minute intelligence on exactly where they are.
The House of Saud had also telegraphed its wishes - after Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, was appointed by King Abdullah as head of Saudi General Intelligence. Abdullah's hard on is explained by his mother and two of his wives coming from an influential, ultra-conservative Sunni tribe in Syria. As for Bandar Bush, he has more longevity than Rambo or the Terminator; he's back in the same role he played in the 1980s Afghan jihad, when he was the go-to guy helping the CIA to weaponize president president Ronald Reagan's ''freedom fighters''. Jordan - a fiction of a country totally dependent on the Saudis - was easily manipulated into becoming a ''secret'' war operation center. And who's in charge? No less than Bandar's younger half-brother, and deputy national security adviser, Salman bin Sultan, also known as ''mini-Bandar''. Talk about an Arab version of Dr Evil and Mini Me. Still, there are more CIA assets than Saudis in the Jordanian front.
The importance of this report cannot be overstated enough. It was initially leaked to Lebanon's Al-Safir newspaper. Here's Bandar's whole strategy, unveiled in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, already reported by Asia Times Online. After trying - for four hours - to convince Putin to drop Syria, Bandar is adamant: ''There is no escape from the military option.''
Mix Kosovo with Libya and voila! Former president Bill Clinton resurfaced with perfect timing to compare Obama's options in Syria to Reagan's jihad in Afghanistan. Bubba was right in terms of positioning Bandar's role. But he must have inhaled something if he was thinking in terms of consequences - which include everything from the Taliban to that mythical entity, ''al-Qaeda''. Well, at least al-Qaeda is already active in Syria; they don't need to invent it.
As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama - including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks - they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo - with a Libya add-on - is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea.
Facts are, of course, absent from the narrative - including the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (a remix in Syria with the Russian embassy?) and getting to the brink of a war with Russia.
Syria has nothing to do with the Balkans. This is a civil war. Arguably the bulk of the Syrian urban population, not the country bumpkins, support Damascus - based on despicable ''rebel'' behavior in places they control; and the absolute majority wants a political solution, as in the now near-totally torpedoed Geneva II conference.
The Jordanian scheme - inundating southern Syria with heavily weaponized mercenaries - is a remix of what the CIA and the Saudis did to AfPak; and the only winner will be Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis. As for the Israeli solution for Obama - indiscriminate bombing of chemical weapons depots - it will certainly result in horrendous collateral damage, as in R2A killing even more civilians.
The prospects remain grim. Damn another coalition of the willing; Washington already has the British and French poodles in the bag, and full support - in air-con safety - from the democratic Gulf Cooperation Council petro-monarchies, minion Jordan and nuclear power Israel. This is what passes for ''international community'' in the newspeak age.
The Brits are already heavily spinning that no UN Security Council resolution is needed; who cares if we do Iraq 2.0? For the War Party, the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Syrian ''rebels'' could not promote US interests seems to be irrelevant.
Washington already has what it takes for the Holy Tomahawks to start flying; 384 of them are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. B-1 bombers can be deployed from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And bunker-busting bombs will certainly be part of the picture.
What happens next requires concentric crystal balls - from Tomahawks to a barrage of air strikes to Special Ops commandos on the ground to a sustained air campaign lasting months. In his long interview to Izvestia, Assad gives the impression he thinks Obama is bluffing.
What's certain is that Syria won't be a ''piece of cake'' like Libya; even depleted on all fronts, Gaddafi resisted for eight long months after NATO started its humanitarian bombing. Syria has a weary but still strong army of 200,000; loads of Soviet and Russian weapons; very good antiaircraft systems; and full support from asymmetrical warfare experts Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Russia, which just needs to forward a few S-300 air defense batteries and relay solid intelligence.
So get used to how international relations work in the age of newspeak. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's army in Egypt can kill hundreds of his own people who were protesting against a military coup. Washington couldn't care less - as in the coup that is not a coup and the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath.
No one knows for sure what exactly happened in the chemical weapons saga near Damascus. But that's the pretext for yet another American war - just a few days before a Group of 20 summit hosted by Putin in St Petersburg. Holy Tomahawk! R2A, here we go.
This deafeningly hysterical show of Syria as Iraq 2.0 is only happening because a president of the United States (POTUS) created a ''credibility'' problem when, recklessly, he pronounced the use of chemical weapons in Syria a ''red line''.
Thus the US government urgently needs to punish the transgressor - to hell with evidence - to maintain its ''credibility''. But this time it will be ''limited''. ''Tailored''. Only ''a few days''. A ''shot across the bow'' - as POTUS qualified it. Still, some - but not all - ''high-value targets'', including command and control facilities and delivery systems, in Syria will have to welcome a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles (384 are already positioned in the eastern Mediterranean).
We all know how the Pentagon loves to christen its assortedhumanitarian liberations across the globe with names like Desert Fox, Invincible Vulture or some other product of brainstorming idiocy. So now it's time to call Operation Tomahawk With Cheese. It's like ordering a pizza delivery. ''Hello, I'd like a Tomahawk with cheese.'' ''Of course, it will be ready in 20 minutes.'' ''Hold on, wait! I need to fool the UN first. Can I pick it up next week? With extra cheese?''
In 1988, Operation Desert Fox - launched by Bill ''I did not have sex with that woman'' Clinton - was designed to ''degrade'', but not destroy, Saddam Hussein's capacity to manufacture non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Now, the deployment of those deeply moral Tomahawks is also designed to ''degrade'' the Bashar al-Assad's government capacity to unleash unproven chemical weapons attacks.
Yet there's always that pesky problem of perennially ungrateful Arabs who, according to the New York Times, ''are emotionally opposed to any Western military action in the region no matter how humanitarian the cause''.
The deeply humanitarian Operation Tomahawk With Cheese is running into all sorts of problems with the calendar. POTUS leaves next Tuesday to Sweden - and from there he will go to St Petersburg for the Group of 20 summit, on Thursday and Friday next week. The proverbial horde of ''unnamed White House officials'' has been spinning like mad centrifuges, emphasizing that POTUS must wrap up Tomahawk With Cheese before he musters the courage to face Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders of emerging powers.
Surveying his impossibilities - with one eye to the calendar and another to the resistance to enlarge his mini-coalition of the willing - now POTUS seems to be looking for an exit strategy that in fact would all but abandon Operation Tomahawk With Cheese.
Others are way more resilient. A predictable bunch of 66 former ''government officials'' and ''foreign policy experts'' - all of them Ziocons under the umbrella of the Foreign Policy Initiative - has published a letter urging POTUS to go way beyond Operation Tomahawk With Cheese, arguing for a pizza sparing no lethal ingredients. This would be a true humanitarian mission, able to support ''moderate'' Syrian ''rebels'' and on top of it ''dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons''. A rebel, but not a jerk Let's see what a ''moderate'' Syrian ''rebel'' thinks about all this. Haytahm Manna, in exile for 35 years, is a key member of the non-armed Syrian opposition (yes, they do exist). But he's not following the script; he's resolutely against Operation Tomahawk, with cheese or with extra cheese. (See here (in French).
Worse; he debunks the US government's ''evidence'' of a chemical weapons attack as ''propaganda'' and ''psychological war''. He stresses the chemicals were launched with ''artisanal weapons''; that ties up with Russian intelligence, which is sure gas that it was delivered by a homemade missile fired from a base under opposition control (extensive details compiled here; scroll down to ''Qaboun rocket launches'').
Manna also points to ''videos and photos on the Internet before the attacks''; to al-Qaeda's previous use of chemical weapons; and to the Russians as ''seriously working for the Geneva II negotiations'', unlike the Americans.
Ooops. This is not exactly what the designers of Operation Tomahawk With Cheese were expecting. If a Syrian exile draws these conclusions, the same applies to Syria civilians who are about to be greeted by those deeply moral Tomahawks.
The Pentagon could always go for Plan B. A single Tomahawk costs at least US$1.5 million. Multiply that for 384. That's not a great bang for your buck - because even if they all go humanitarian, the Bashar al-Assad government would still remain in place.
So why not drop planeloads of sexy, Pininfarina-designed Ferrari Californias? They retail for around $200.000. Imagine the frenzy among Assad elite forces struggling to seize the Big Prize, one among 2,000 Californias. With their eyes off the ball, the ''rebels'' could easily sneak in everywhere and take over Damascus. And perhaps even stage the victory parade on a fleet of photogenic Ferraris. Call that an improvement over Libya.
Operation Tomahawk With Cheese may still happen; even with the calendar pressing; even bypassing the UN; even with a mini-coalition of the willing; even making a total mockery of international law. The White House has made it clear that ''diplomatic paralysis'' cannot infringe on its ''credibility''.
As for what is happening 10 years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it's about the US government, parts of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Britain and France) and parts of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) burying the previous, much-lauded Euro-Arab ''dialogue'' and turning into a shady Atlanticist-Islamist cabal bent on smashing yet another secular Arab republic. Talk about rotten cheese.
Once outspoken advocates of an internationalist perspective on foreign policy, the Obama Administration is now indicating their willingness to “go it alone” in attacking Syria, since virtually no one else seems to have jumped on the bandwagon like they’d hoped.
No one expected the UN to endorse the war, but there’s also no NATO endorsement, and even the Arab League is backing away from military action. Even Britain, the first nation on board, is now likely to be absent at the start of the war, since parliament wants proof of the allegations.
Even Jordan, which has been letting the US host rebel training bases in its territory, is spurning involvement in the war, cautioning the US against using its territory for the war.
The “coalition of the willing” for the Syrian War is now looking precariously small, and may just be down to France, which has so far insisted it is still on board with the attack.
(Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that Syria needed a political solution, but that could only happen if the international community could halt killings like last week's chemical attack and better support the opposition.
Hollande sounded a more cautious note than earlier in the week, when he said France stood ready to punish those behind the apparent poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in Damascus.
He indicated that France was looking to Gulf Arab countries to step up their military support to the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, after Paris said this week it would do so.
"Everything must be done for a political solution but it will only happen if the coalition is able to appear as an alternative with the necessary force, notably from its army," Hollande told reporters after meeting the head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed Jarba.
"We will only manage this if the international community can put a temporary stop to this escalation in violence, of which the chemical attack is just one example," Hollande said.
France took no part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which it strongly opposed, but joined Britain, the United States and others in military intervention that helped oust Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Hollande sent troops to the west African nation of Mali this year to drive out Islamist rebels.
French diplomatic sources said Hollande spoke with Jarba about providing more military means, after Jarba told the daily Le Parisien the opposition needed much more help from outside.
Jarba also urged Western powers to carry out a swift retaliatory strike against Assad, whom they hold responsible for the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian government denies it.
"France will give all its aid - political, but also humanitarian and material, and we will use all the influence we have in the Gulf Arab countries so that this can be organized," Hollande told reporters.
President Barack Obama has made a case for a limited military strike against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack, but any action could be slowed by the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors near Damascus and the need to ease divisions in Britain and among U.S. lawmakers.
Britain wants the U.N. Security Council to see the weapons inspectors' findings before any strike is launched, and its parliament is to hold two votes before any such action is taken.
"Assad's regime has complete support from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. We have nothing. Our allies have given us none of what we have asked for. We need real support," Jarba told Le Parisien.
"If Western states, which profess democratic and humanist values, stay quiet, Assad will deduce that there is no obstacle to him carrying out crimes. Our people risk being exterminated."
A French warship, the Chevalier Paul, has left its dock at the Mediterranean port of Toulon, shipping authorities told Reuters, though they declined to confirm a media report that the frigate was headed to Syria. Military sources said France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier was still docked in Toulon.
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the US intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, US officials and congressional aides said.
The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the 21 August attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.
Updated
Two important documents have been published in the UK, which will frame today's emergency debate in parliament and tonight's vote. They are
The letter says it is "highly likely" the regime was responsible for last week's attacks:
It is being claimed, including by the regime, that the attacks were either faked or undertaken by the Syrian armed opposition. We have tested this assertion using a wide range of intelligence and open sources, and invited HMG and outside experts to help us establish whether such a thing is possible. There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW (chemical weapons) by the opposition.
The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility. We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.
It says the UK could still take action without a resolution by the UN security council:
If action in the [UN] security council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:
(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).
All three conditions would clearly be met in this case.
For more coverage on the UK political debate surrounding Syria, see my colleague Andrew Sparrow's live blog.
and the Guardian comment on the departure of UN inspectors on Saturday.....
The UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon has said the chemical weapons inspection team will continue their investigations until Friday - that would tie in with his previous comments that they will need four days to complete their work - and leave Syria by Saturday morning, Reuters is reporting.
In the years before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, weapons inspectors looking for Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD stockpiles were usually tipped off about impending air strikes by a timely telephone call from a western official suggesting it would be a good time to leave the country. Their successors in Syria will be hoping to get a few hours notice so they are not the target of a backlash in Damascus for a military action in which they have no role.
UN inspectors raise their thumbs as they watch the departure of the inspection team at the Four Seasons hotel on 27 August, 2013 in Damascus, Syria. Photograph: Xinhua/Landov/Barcroft Media
Hmm , tune changing on the chemical weapons use charge ....
AP, NYT: Evidence lacking that Assad ordered chemical-weapons use
POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON AUGUST 29, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
According to the leaks that the media have amplified over the last week or so, the evidence is clear that the Syrian army used chemical weapons against rebels in a Damascus suburb, indiscriminately killing hundreds of civilians. Barack Obama insisted yesterday in a PBS interview that only the Bashar al-Assad regime possessed the chemical weapons used in the attack, and that radio intercepts showed that Assad’s military ordered the attack. A UN inspection team hasn’t yet finalized its report on exactly what was used, but even if the above is true — and it was always more likely that the army conducted the attack than the rebels — did the order to use the weapons come from on high, or from a rogue commander on the ground?
According to the AP and New York Times … no one really knows. The most recent AP reportsays that the US intel community says the Assad connection is no “slam dunk”:
The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say. …
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.
The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies’ concerns would affect their plans.
More intelligence was being sought by U.S. officials. While a lower-level Syrian military commanders’ communications discussing a chemical attack had been intercepted, they don’t specifically link the attack to an official senior enough to tie the killings to Assad himself, according to one U.S. intelligence official and two other U.S. officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence publicly.
The White House ideally wants intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle, to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military acting without Assad’s authorization.
That quest for added intelligence has delayed the release of the report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence laying out evidence against Assad. The report was promised earlier this week by administration officials.
The CIA and the Pentagon have been working to gather more human intelligence tying Assad to the attack, relying on the intelligence services of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the officials said. The administration was planning a teleconference briefing Thursday on Syria for leaders of the House and Senate and national security committees in both parties, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.
Both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have their own human sources — the rebel commanders and others who cross the border to brief CIA and defense intelligence officers at training camps in Jordan and Turkey. But their operation is much smaller than some of the other intelligence services, and it takes longer for their contacts to make their way overland.
Wouldn’t that be a good reason to remain patient and not conduct a rash military intervention? If we have no intel linking Assad or his senior commanders to an order using chemical weapons, why would we bomb Syrians in retaliation? Why not demand the extradition of the commander for trial in the Hague instead?
Similarly, the New York Times waits a while to get to the point, but their lead-in focuses on the erroneous intel of the Iraq War, which then-Senator Obama used to cite during his first presidential campaign as the major failing of his predecessor:
But with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval.
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.
But even without hard evidence tying Mr. Assad to the attack, administration officials asserted, the Syrian leader bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of his troops and should be held accountable.
“The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership,” said the State Department’s deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf — even if, she added, “He’s not the one who pushes the button or says ‘go’ on this.”
Administration officials said that communications between military commanders intercepted after Wednesday’s attack provided proof that the assault was not the result of a rogue unit acting against orders. It is unclear how much detail about these communications, if any, will be made public.
One correction to the New York Times’ argument: Obama is the only President who goes to war without Congressional approval. Congress approved military action against Iraq in late 2002, which passed by wide bipartisan majorities.
With this context, it becomes a lot easier to see why the UN inspection team, Russia, and China are objecting to the rush to retaliate, even if they can’t do a lot about it. David Cameron will go to Parliament with this data and try to convince his skeptical House of Commons that this intel provides justification for the West opening up another war in the Middle East — just two years after the disastrous NATO intervention against Moammar Qaddafi drove the Brits and all other Western nations out of Benghazi, the city NATO purported to save. Don’t expect Cameron to have much success in convincing Parliament to take another ride on this merry-go-round, and if he fails, that’s going to make it much more difficult politically for Obama to move forward, at home and abroad, at least not without Congressional authorization.
Insists Commander in Chief Responsible for Anything That Happens
“The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their leadership, even if he’s not the one that pushes the button or says Go on this,” insisted State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.
That could be a dangerous precedent for President Obama, if he was actually held accountable for everything done during his command. The problem is even bigger, however, as there’s evidence the rebels may have carried out the attacks.
That’s a big part of why the administration is rushing into this war, to avoid getting it preempted by any inconvenient “evidence.” Beyond that, the argument that the evidence doesn’t matter at all is getting more and more overt, with disturbing consequences.
With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad's government is responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. They just don't know who in the Syrian government is to blame.
On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. "The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if ... he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," Harf said. "I don't know what the facts are here. I'm just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I'm not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I'm just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made."
On Tuesday, The Cablereported that U.S. officials are basing their assessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike or what kind of command and control structures are in place for the use of such weapons. "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable Tuesday. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"
Because of that lack of clarity, Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.
In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. "The world doesn't need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime," she said.
Given that U.N. inspectors with a mandate to investigate chemical weapons use were on the ground when the attack happened, the decision to deploy what appears to have been a nerve agent in a suburb east of Damascus has puzzled many observers. Why would Syria do such a thing when it is fully aware that the mass use of chemical weapons is the one thing that might require the United States to take military action against it? That's a question U.S. intelligence analysts are puzzling over as well. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official said. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."
Pressed on whether the United States would still consider itself justified in launching a punitive strike if the chemical weapons were deployed by a "rogue officer," Harf said, "yes," before quickly adding a caveat: "But that's also a wildly conjecturous question."
US officials say that they have passed the “point of no return” on their plans to attack Syria, and that nothing can stop them from starting the war anymore. This comes in spite of growing international opposition, a dwindling set of allies, and officials conceding they don’t actually know who ordered the putative chemical weapons strike.
On the one hand the US would clearly like to have Britain along as proof of “international support,” but waiting risks the UN evidence disproving their allegations, and that’s something the administration clearly wants to avoid.
Thus while it may not happen on Thursday, as initially expected, the US strike is likely to begin before this weekend is out to preempt the UN, and is almost certain to happen before September 9, when Congress returns to session.
With indications that the first US strikes on Syria could happen in a matter of hours, the Obama Administration is having a hard time staying on-message, and some officials are still claiming Obama “has not made a decision” on attacking the nation.
Throughout the entire process of pushing for war, claims that a final decision hadn’t been made cropped up from time to time, but doesn’t make a lot of sense at this point, days after the warships have already been deployed, and as other officials are openly telling the press that the US has “passed the point of no return.”
This can be a common problem when the official PR campaign has nothing to do with the actual policy, and is cropping up in several places along the Syria war narrative.
Even as the administration can’t officially decide whether or not the decision has been made, they’re also sending mixed signals on the prospect of attacking without international support, with one top official saying that the US had “ruled out” unilateral action and would only go to war with international partners, and others saying they had indicated they were “willing to go it alone.”
While all of this paints a confusing picture, the administration’s actions point to the attack still being imminent, and to any war, even with only nominal acquiescence from a handful of nations being presented as involving “partners.”
The Syrian government is continuing to reject allegations that it launched the August 21 chemical weapons attack at the center of the so-called Jobar Incident, being used as an excuse for an impending US war on Syria. They say the rebels did it, and they’re putting forward evidence.
The Syrian government has also presented some evidence to the United Nations of three other, smaller rebel chemical attacks in the general vicinity of the first strike, carried out on the 22nd, 24th and 25th, and targeting Syrian soldiers.
Unfortunately the evidence, as with the US “evidence” of Syria’s guilt, isn’t being released to the public but just to the UN. There had been some reporting over the weekend that gives credence to this reports, however.
On Saturday the 24th, reports emerged of a Syrian government raid on tunnels in Jobar uncovering a rebel-run chemical lab, and soldiers involved in the raid were said to have been overwhelmed by fumes in those same tunnels. On Monday, there were reports of Hezbollah fighters returning to Lebanon to receive treatment after coming into contact with rebel chemical agents in Jobar over the weekend.
Indeed, Syrian Islamist rebel factions have long bragged about their makeshift chemical weapons program, a fact often ignored by Western officials. The UN investigation could likely ascertain whether the attacks were really advanced Syrian military arms or the more primitive rebel variety, but US officials have rejected calls to wait the few days it’ll take the UN to finish up with that.
France having second thought , UK Parliament wants proof before going " Iraq " again , international opinion negative.....
Some took a prior report the that the "developed" nations would use Cyprus as a warplane strike base just as a leaked memo predicted in 2011, skeptically. Today we finally got official confirmation from that Britain that it is sending six RAF Typhoon jets to Cyprus "as a defensive measure amid growing tensions over Syria and talks of Western military intervention." It's defensive in case Syria launches an airborne assault of the UK we take it?
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the air-to-air interceptor jets would be deployed to the British Akrotiri base in Cyprus on Thursday.
"This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defence of our Sovereign Base Areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region," the spokesman said.
"This is a movement of defensive assets operating in an air-to-air role only. They are not deploying to take part in any military action against Syria."
And just as expected, with the US already piling up naval assets in both the Mediterranean and the Arabian Sea, Russia is responding in kind, and has dispatched a submarine and a cruiser to the Mediterranean. CBS reports:
Russian news service Interfax is citing military sources as saying Moscow is dispatching an anti-submarine ship and a cruiser to the Mediterranean. Interfax says the moves are being made due to the "well-known situation" there -- referring to the Syria crisis. But a Russian government news service, Rianovosti, says the reassignments are part of a planned rotation and aren't linked with the situation in Syria.
This comes as the US decided to postpone the pullout of its Nimitz aircraft carrier which is near the Straits of Hormuz currently, and which was supposed to return home. The Navy has ordered the Nimitz, which is in the Indian Ocean, to stay for now.
Chinese state media warned the West against strikes on Syria on Thursday as momentum mounted for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to be punished over an alleged chemical weapons attack.
In an editorial headed “No excuse for strikes”, the state-run China Daily said the US and its Western allies were “acting as judge, jury and executioner”.
“Any military intervention into Syria would have dire consequences for regional security and violate the norms governing international relations,” it said, adding such a move “will only exacerbate the crisis and could have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences”.
Making a comparison with the war in Iraq, it said the international community should not allow “itself to be led by the nose by US intelligence, which after all was responsible for claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction”.
The foreign ministry has advised any Chinese citizens in Syria to leave as soon as possible, and recent media reports from China's First Financial Daily have revealed that Chinese entrepreneurs and businessmen working in Syria have begun pulling out of the country.
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Syria surnamed Feng told First Financial Daily reporters that major Chinese-funded enterprises remaining in Syria were few, and most would "soon withdaw or reduce staff".
So with the unscheduled early pullout of UN inspectors from Syria on Saturday morning as was reported earlier, we know the who, we know the how, and just may have learned the when.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
Thursday, August 29
20:48 GMT: The Russian called meeting of the UN Security Council on the developing situation in Syria has failed to achieve results on Thursday. The discussions which lasted for less than an hour ended as sides failed to reach an agreement with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States gradually leaving the talks. This is the second time, the permanent five met to discuss the UK submitted resolution on Syria. On Wednesday, the Security Council met to debate the draft resolution that could pave the way for military intervention in Syria. Russia remains strongly opposed to foreign interference, citing that there is no proof that the Syrian regime was responsible for the alleged chemical attack last Wednesday. The US and its European allies have made clear they think a military response is needed against the government that they thinks is responsible for the attack.
20:36 GMT: In preparation for a possible strike on Syria, President Barack Obama had a phone discussion with the Speaker of the House John Boehner, a spokesman for Boehner said Thursday. The discussion focused on issues Boehner raised in his letter to the President, ranging from possible objectives to legal premises for such activity. "Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement adding that consultation with Congress and the public was needed.
19:59 GMT: Several US officials, including one senior member of the intelligence community, told AP on condition of anonymity that there were noticeable holes in US intelligence assessments, which the White House said would prove the Syrian government’s responsibility for the use of chemical weapons on August 21.
According to an Office of the Director for National Intelligence report cited by the AP, the US evidence against the Syrian regime “is thick with caveats” and contains gaps that are getting in the way of putting the chemical weapon use directly in the hands of Assad.
19:38 GMT: People across Europe have protested against the Western powers’ possible military action against Syria.
Demonstrators with anti-war and pro-Syrian placards marched in the UK, France, Germany, Greece and Ukraine.
19:01 GMT: US officials have rejected comparisons of the possible strike against Syria to the war in Iraq. “We’re not considering analogous responses in any way… We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war,” US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters during a daily briefing. “Nobody is talking about a large-scale military intervention,” Harf added, ruling out American “boots on the ground” in Syria, as well as “any military options aimed at regime change.” The White House also asked not to draw analogies with previous US involvement in the Middle East conflicts, or the pre-Iraq war debate about intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction. The possible military response to Syria would be “very discrete and limited,” and not an open-ended conflict aimed at toppling Syrian President Bashar Assad, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said.
18:30 GMT: The US would provide its own legal justification for a response to chemical weapons use in Syria, if necessary, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a briefing. “When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response... and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we’ll produce one on our own,” the spokesman said.
He added that the US government is “disappointed” with the Russian position in the UN Security Council, but that it will not influence President Obama’s decision.
17:43 GMT: China has spoken against military intervention in Syria and urged other nations not to put pressure on the UN investigation team.
“China supports the conduct of a fair, objective and professionally done [UN] investigation without exertion of any pressure from the outside,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, calling all the sides to“refrain from forecasting the results, let alone undertaking any kind of actions.”
Wang Yi also stressed that the international community should stick to diplomatic means when dealing with the conflict in Syria, and pointed out that military intervention will only worsen the Middle East crisis.
17:14 GMT: The UN investigators will return to Syria and continue investigation of the use of chemical weapons after reporting to UN headquarters, UN spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters.
Meanwhile, the UN and Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said the investigators have not yet determined what substance was used in the alleged attack and are awaiting the results of the analysis.
Brahimi refused to comment on reports of an imminent Western strike on Syria, saying he has “no knowledge” of the issue.
17:00 GMT: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council will meet again Thursday to discuss the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, Reuters cited a UN diplomatic source as saying.
The meeting of Russian, Chinese, French, US and UK representatives will take place at 18:30 GMT, the source said on condition of anonymity.
The meeting was reportedly requested by Russia.
16:38 GMT: Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government supports military in Syria over chemical weapons, but that Canada had no plans to send troops.
Harper said there was a risk the alleged chemical weapons attack could set an “extremely dangerous precedent” if the international community did not act.
16:09 GMT: The US Navy has deployed a fifth destroyer to the eastern Mediterranean ahead of a possible strike on Syria, AFP cited a US Defense Department official as saying.
The USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, has entered the Mediterranean to relieve another ship, the USS Mahan, the official said on condition of anonymity.
He added that both ships might remain in place for an unspecified period of time.
Other US destroyers in the region – the USS Ramage, the USS Barry and the USS Gravely – are ready to launch Tomahawk missiles toward Syria should US President Barack Obama give the order.
15:48 GMT: Italy will not join any military operation against Damascus without authorization from the UN Security Council, Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta said. While putting the blame for the alleged chemical weapons use on the Assad regime in an interview with RAI state radio, Letta stressed that Italy would not participate in a strike against Syria “if the United Nations doesn’t back it.”
15:27 GMT: Syrian Prime Minister Wael Nader al-Halqi has announced the government has been mobilizing its resources to preserve essential services in case of a military attack by Western states. “The government is striving to secure supplies of food, medicine and services,” al-Halqi was quoted as saying by the official SANA news agency, adding that Syria has “a strategic supply of all materials.” Al-Halqi said he had called for necessary measures “to overcome any emergency situation and prevent enemies from disrupting state services, especially electricity, drinking water, communications, food and oil.”
15:09 GMT: UK Prime Minister David Cameron said there was “no 100% certainty about who is responsible” for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, adding he was personally convinced the regime is to blame, and that a judgment still has to be made based on “understanding” of the situation in Syria.
15:00 GMT: US members of Congress are set to be briefed on the situation in Syria.
President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel are expected to participate in the briefing.
14:45 GMT: Britain’s opposition leader, Ed Miliband, urged the UK parliament not to “rush to judgment”when deciding on possible military action against Syria.
“Evidence should precede decision, not vice versa,” Miliband said.
Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, also said that the UN Security Council should not be a “sideshow,”and that international support was crucial for any military action.
14:24 GMT: British Prime Minister David Cameron said it was “unthinkable” for the UK to launch military action against Syria if there was strong opposition in the UN Security Council.
However, Cameron then went on to justify a military operation against Assad, saying that a strong response to the use of chemical weapons would “only strengthen the political process” leading to the solution of the conflict in Syria.
14:18 GMT: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has warned that further escalation of the conflict in Syria will only worsen the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn country.
The ICRC said it was “appalled” by reports of chemical weapons being used near Damascus.
According to Magne Barth, head of the ICRC delegation in Syria “further escalation will likely trigger more displacement and add to humanitarian needs, which are already immense.”
The lack of medical supplies and personnel is already resulting in deaths in the area around Damascus, Barth said.
13:44 GMT: Britain’s Defense Ministry has confirmed that six RAF Typhoon jets have been deployed to Cyprus as a “prudent and precautionary measure.”
The interceptor aircrafts were sent to the UK airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus, “to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defence of our sovereign base areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region,” the ministry said in a statement.
“This is a movement of defensive assets operating in an air-to-air role only. They are not deploying to take part in any military action against Syria,” the statement said.
13:35 GMT: People protesting against possible UK military involvement in Syria and media reporters have gathered around the British parliament building as MPs in the House of Commons start their debate of military action against Syrian President Assad.
13:24 GMT: Damascus is concerned that Syrian President Bashar Assad may be targeted by a drone strike, Itar-Tass quotes sources cited in the regional media as saying. The Syrian government does not believe Western governments’ statements that they aren’t seeking to topple Assad’s regime, one source said. Others have been reporting relocations of troops and military hardware at military bases near Damascus to minimize the possible losses in case of Western airstrikes. Damascus has also reportedly beefed up security at government buildings and the ruling party’s offices.
13:09 GMT: Pope Francis and Jordan’s King Abdullah have agreed that a peaceful dialogue among Syrians with the backing of the international community is the “only option” to resolve the conflict in Syria, the Vatican said in a statement.
King Abdullah and Queen Rania reportedly flew to Rome specifically to discuss the Syrian crisis with the Pope, and had a 20-minute private conversation with His Holiness in the Vatican on Thursday.
tican on Thursday.
12:31 GMT: The UK government on Thursday published internal legal advice saying that it was legally entitled to launch a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces – even if the UN Security Council blocked such action.
The UK also revealed its intelligence material on the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week, saying it had no doubt the attack took place and that it was “highly likely” that the Syrian government was behind it. The government said it had “some intelligence” proving Assad’s responsibility.
12:17 GMT: The UN inspectors will continue investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria in accordance with the international agreement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said.
Speaking in Vienna, Ban said he had asked that the UN inspectors be “given a chance to continue their work in accordance with the mandate approved by [UN] member states.”
Ban also said he earlier discussed with US President Barack Obama how the UN and US could work together “to speed up the investigation process.”
He pledged that the full results of the investigation would be distributed among UN member countries, and repeated his call for a peaceful dialogue on Syria.
12:05 GMT: Russia’s Foreign Ministry has urged the UN team investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria to also investigate the sites of other alleged attacks.
Noting that the UN experts would deliver samples taken at the site of the chemical weapons incident near Damascus to a specialized laboratory in The Hague, ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said:“This should not interfere with the completion of the investigation process in the districts previously chosen in the framework of the agreement between the Syrian authorities and the UN Secretariat on August 13, 2013.”
11:29 GMT: Syrian President Bashar Assad said that his country would defend itself against any attack."The threats of direct aggression against Syria will only increase our commitment to our deep-rooted principles and the independent will of our people. Syria will defend itself in the face of any aggression,"Syrian state TV quoted Assad as telling a delegation of Yemeni politicians.
09:27 GMT: French President François Hollande said that everything should be done to seek a political solution to the Syrian crisis, Reuters reported.
09:03 GMT: The UN team investigating chemical weapons attacks in Syria is set to leave the country early Saturday and report immediately to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, he said.
08:15 GMT: Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean in the next few days, Interfax news agency cited military sources as saying. The move is a planned rotation of vessels and there are no plans to boost the Russian Navy’s presence in the area, the source said. Russia’s Defense Ministry has not confirmed the move, however.
06:20 GMT: Calls for military intervention in Syria are an "undisguised challenge" to Charter of the United Nations, the Russian Foreign Ministry indicated.
05:50 GMT: Syrian government forces have retreated from the airport zone in Damascus amid reports that the families of Syrian military elite are evacuating to Lebanon.
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/29/2013 19:01 -0400
He prefers a bow to a shot, butt with a “shot across the bow” you get both.
No one expected the UN to endorse the war, but there’s also no NATO endorsement, and even the Arab League is backing away from military action. Even Britain, the first nation on board, is now likely to be absent at the start of the war, since parliament wants proof of the allegations.
“The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their leadership, even if he’s not the one that pushes the button or says Go on this,” insisted State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.
The United Nations wanted just a few extra days to finish their inspection and have real evidence, something the US vehemently opposes. It’s sheer reasonableness convinced the British parliament, however, and now they’re also wanting to wait.
Throughout the entire process of pushing for war, claims that a final decision hadn’t been made cropped up from time to time, but doesn’t make a lot of sense at this point, days after the warships have already been deployed, and as other officials are openly telling the press that the US has “passed the point of no return.”
Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say
He prefers a bow to a shot, butt with a “shot across the bow” you get both.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 10:24 PM 
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment