Coalition of the Missing in Action.....
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
( Now you say why the President mentioned time is not of the essence , the attack could occur in a day , week or MONTH ! )
Saturday, August 31
22:25 GMT: Ahead of the congressional debate on a possible Syrian strike, US Secretary of State John Kerry will try to win the hearts of Americans by arguing the administration’s case on five major US talk shows, politico reported citing a White House source. Kerry is planning to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union" and "Fox News Sunday."
21:28 GMT: President Obama will discuss the case for action on Syria with world leaders at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia next week, US officials said.
20:40 GMT: Analyzing the data from the site of the alleged Syrian chemical attack last week will take up to 3 weeks, the UN investigative team announced Saturday.
"The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognized procedures and standards," the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said in a statement. "These procedures may take up to three weeks."
The team which returned to The Hague from Syria included nine experts from the Organization for the OPC and three from the World Health Organization.
20:25 GMT: President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande have agreed “the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime - and others who would consider using chemical weapons - that these crimes are unacceptable and those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world," the White House said in a statement.
In a phone call on Saturday, Obama informed Hollande that he would seek congressional approval for US military action.
Hollande in his turn informed the US president of “his determination to act to sanction the regime," a source close to the French President told Reuters. "Each country's pace of action must above all be respected. It's important for the Americans to have the green light from Congress," the source said.
19:17 GMT: US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Syrian Opposition Coalition President Ahmed Assi al-Jarba to underscore President Barack Obama's "commitment to holding the Assad regime accountable for its chemical weapons attack,” a senior State Department official told Reuters.
18:39 GMT: The US House of Representatives will consider the issue of a possible military strike against Syria when it returns from recess, starting September 9, the Republican delegates announced Saturday.
"We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.
"In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th," said the release. "This provides the President time to make his case to Congress and the American people."
and....
Mapping America's Dwindling Invasion Coalition
Via Stratfor,
U.S. President Barack Obama is evidently not getting the multinational coalition his administration was expecting to share the burden of a limited strike operation against Syria. The British parliament has voted against a military intervention, and NATO has said it would not participate in a U.S.-led mission. The United States can either unilaterally fire a symbolic but ineffective shot to demonstrate action for the sake of action, wage a highly unpopular multi-month air-land attack alone or abandon the military campaign altogether.
Without a meaningful coalition, the United States has little choice but to focus its efforts on a highly ambitious and difficult negotiated settlement involving Russia and Iran. The mounting limitations on the U.S. military option will redirect U.S. attention to an uphill diplomatic effort with difficult negotiating partners. Russia has an opportunity to demand U.S. attention on a number of issues related to defining a Russian sphere of influence in former Soviet territory and having the United States respect the boundaries that Moscow sets. Notably, any such deal would be designed to allow Russia and Iran to preserve political influence in Damascus. The low prospects of that negotiation on top of the limited utility of a unilateral punitive strike could lead the United States to back off its position toward Syria unless it sees a significant shift from still-wavering allies France and Turkey.
Speaking of Turkey , are they onboard if the attack is just going to be a nothinb burger - I think not !
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pm-erdogan-says-limited-intervention-not-enough-president-gul-insists-on-political-strategy.aspx?pageID=238&nID=53606&NewsCatID=338
Turkish officials gave divergent messages regarding possible U.S.-led military intervention in Syria on Aug. 30, following the release of an intelligence report on a chemical attack perpetrated by regime forces on Aug. 21.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said a "limited" operation would not be enough to satisfyAnkara and pleaded for an intervention similar to the one in Kosovo in 1999.
President Abdullah Gül, meanwhile, insisted on diplomacy and the elaboration of a "political strategy."
"I don't believe any military intervention will bring results without the adoption of a political strategy," Gül told reporters at the Victory Day reception he hosted at the presidential palace on Aug. 30.
"The solution will be through politics and diplomacy. It should be aimed at forcing politics and diplomacy and opening its door. Russia and Iran should be engaged one way or another," he added.
The president also insisted that Turkey could not stay outside of developments in Syria. "There is the possibility of long-term chaos and uncertainty in Syria. Turkey cannot stay indifferent to developments in Syria. We cannot stay outside of it, because it is us who most want an end to the chaos in the region," Gül was quoted as saying.
Intervention should push the regime to the brink: PM
At the same reception, Erdoğan commented on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the United States wanted to act, but that any military response would be "tailored." Kerry's statements were later backed by U.S. President Barack Obama, who said Washington was studying the possibility of "limited and narrow" action.
Erdoğan told reporters that any intervention should be more than a "hit-and-run."
"Looking at what Kerry has said, there could be an intervention prior to the G-20 summit. This intervention should not be a one or two days hit-and-run, but push the regime to the point of collapsing," Erdoğan said.
"A limited military action will not satisfy us. It [the intervention] should be like in Kosovo," he added.
The G-20 summit is due to start on Sept. 5 in Russia's imperial capital St. Petersburg.
Chief of General Staff Necdet Özel also commented on possible military action against Syria, saying that necessary preparations had been made.
Speaking of Turkey , are they onboard if the attack is just going to be a nothinb burger - I think not !
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pm-erdogan-says-limited-intervention-not-enough-president-gul-insists-on-political-strategy.aspx?pageID=238&nID=53606&NewsCatID=338
PM Erdoğan says 'limited' intervention not enough, President Gül insists on political strategy
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President Abdullah Gül gave divergent messages regarding possible U.S. led military intervention in Syria on Aug. 30. AA photo
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said a "limited" operation would not be enough to satisfyAnkara and pleaded for an intervention similar to the one in Kosovo in 1999.
President Abdullah Gül, meanwhile, insisted on diplomacy and the elaboration of a "political strategy."
"I don't believe any military intervention will bring results without the adoption of a political strategy," Gül told reporters at the Victory Day reception he hosted at the presidential palace on Aug. 30.
"The solution will be through politics and diplomacy. It should be aimed at forcing politics and diplomacy and opening its door. Russia and Iran should be engaged one way or another," he added.
The president also insisted that Turkey could not stay outside of developments in Syria. "There is the possibility of long-term chaos and uncertainty in Syria. Turkey cannot stay indifferent to developments in Syria. We cannot stay outside of it, because it is us who most want an end to the chaos in the region," Gül was quoted as saying.
Intervention should push the regime to the brink: PM
At the same reception, Erdoğan commented on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the United States wanted to act, but that any military response would be "tailored." Kerry's statements were later backed by U.S. President Barack Obama, who said Washington was studying the possibility of "limited and narrow" action.
Erdoğan told reporters that any intervention should be more than a "hit-and-run."
"Looking at what Kerry has said, there could be an intervention prior to the G-20 summit. This intervention should not be a one or two days hit-and-run, but push the regime to the point of collapsing," Erdoğan said.
"A limited military action will not satisfy us. It [the intervention] should be like in Kosovo," he added.
The G-20 summit is due to start on Sept. 5 in Russia's imperial capital St. Petersburg.
Chief of General Staff Necdet Özel also commented on possible military action against Syria, saying that necessary preparations had been made.
And Hollande probably will have to seek formal approval for a war attack deeply unpopular in France !
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/frances-hollande-facing-pressure-deputies-vote-syria-201034854.html
PARIS (Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande reaffirmed to U.S. President Barack Obama on Saturday his will to punish Syria for a suspected chemicals weapons attack but was under increasing pressure to put the intervention to parliament.
Obama and Hollande spoke by telephone before Obama's statement that he would seek authorization from Congress before any strike.
"The president reaffirmed to him his determination to act to sanction the regime," a source close to Hollande said. "Each country's pace of action must above all be respected. It's important for the Americans to have the green light from Congress."
However, pressure was now mounting on Hollande to also seek formal approval from parliament, which is due to hold a non-voting debate on Syria on September 4.
"Like the U.S. president, who decided to consult the U.S. Congress in the name of democratic principles, the French president must organize, after the debate, a formal vote in parliament," Jean-Louis Borloo, the head of French opposition party UDI, said in a statement.
A BVA poll on Saturday showed most French people did not want France to take part in military action on Syria and most did not trust Hollande to do so.
Hollande, whose popularity has been hurt by economic gloom, showed unexpected military mettle when he dispatched troops to help Mali's government fend off Islamist rebels earlier this year, an intervention backed by two-thirds of the public.
Meanwhile , Russia makes long range moves cutting off US influence and military capabilities......
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/russia-restructures-cyprus-debt-cyprus-prohibits-us-strikes-syria
Russia Restructures Cyprus Debt; Cyprus Prohibits US Strikes On Syria
Yesterday afternoon, Russia agreed to restructure Cyprus' EUR 2.5 billion loan terms to a much more affordable 2.5% semi-annual coupon through 2016 and a principal re-payment over the following four years. While probably still out of reach for the desperate economy, it was a positive step. Of course, this 'offer' by Russia has its quid pro quo. This morning, Foreign Minister Kasoulides has stated that Cyprus territory will not be used to launch military strikes against Syria, as "Cyprus wants to live up to its responsibility as a shelter if needed for nationals of friendly countries who evacuate from Middle East". It would appear Obama's influence is fading everywhere...
Cyprus is located ~183 nautical miles west of Syria and is the EU member nearest to Syria.
Russia restructures Cyprus loan (via ITAR-TASS - ):
The Russian government has endorsed restructuring of the terms of the Russian loan to Cyprus, Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak told reporters Friday.“The restructuring was endorsed at the last meeting of the Cabinet,” he saidCyprus is to repay a EUR 2.5bn loan to Russia in eight semiannual installments starting in 2016, Deputy Finance Minister Sergey Storchak told reporters today, citing a revision of repayment terms approved at the latest cabinet meeting. The interest rate was lowered to 2.5% from 4.5%.Russia extended the loan in 2011 for 4.5 years.
Cyprus UK Bases (via Bloomberg)
The U.K. has 2 sovereign bases on Cyprus; and despite its vote against a strike, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said today 6 RAF Typhoon interceptor fast jets deploying to British base at Akrotiri in Cyprus as precautionary measure "to protect British bases on island"
Cyprus Refugee Camp (via Bloomberg)
Cyprus Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides says his country is prepared for any influx of foreign nationals in the event of military action against Syria, in comments to reporters in Nicosia today. Cyprus can accept up to 10,000 people daily on basis they remain for 48 hours before repatriation(Cyprus received more than 40,000 evacuees from Lebanon after 2 weeks fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in 2006).
Cyprus Refuses To Allow Strikes From Its Territory against Syria (via Bloomberg)
Cyprus assured its territory won’t be used to launch military strikes against Syria, Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides said, according to a transcript of his comments posted on govt’s press-office websiteKasoulides commented that "Cyprus wants to live up to its responsibility as a shelter if needed for nationals of friendly countries who evacuate from Middle East"
So, it would appear there is the 'quid' and the 'quo'... what next? US offers to build Cyprus casinos, Google 'Glass' for everyone, and the rights to "American Idol" for free?
Backing down.......
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-changed-his-mind-on-syria-at-the-last-minute-2013-8
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior administration officials say President Barack Obama planned to take military action against Syria without congressional authorization, but told aides Friday night that he changed his mind.
Obama announced to the public Saturday that he wanted to launch a military strike, but that he first would seek approval from lawmakers.
The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.
But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.
The administration officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's decision-making by name.
http://twitchy.com/2013/08/31/like-whenever-ok-obama-says-military-action-in-syria-not-time-sensitive/
( No reason not to wait for complete UN inspections , review and analysis and detailed final report . After all , the military mission is not time sensitive after all. )
Like, whenever, OK? Obama says military action in Syria ‘not time sensitive’
http://www.debka.com/article/23243/Obama-delays-Syria-strike-indefinitely-by-turning-decision-over-to-Congress-
Confounding tense expectations worldwide, US President Barack Obama again dodged a decision for a US strike on Syria by referring it to Congress. In a speech to the American people, Saturday, Aug. 31, he said the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad must be “confronted not just investigated.” But then went on to say, “We are ready to strike whenever we choose. This operation is not time-sensitive. It could take place tomorrow, next week, or next month.
The US House Speaker meanwhile set Sept. 9 as the date for the debate to start.
By these words, the US president chipped away once again at US military plans for Syria - only this time, they looked like vanishing into the blue yonder, leaving Assad and his partners all the time in the world to line up their counter moves, and putting Israel in a tight spot on three counts:
1. The hostile Iran-Syrian-Hizballah bloc comes out strengthened;
2. Tehran can feel free to develop a nuclear bomb without fear of resolute US interference;
3. Hizballah can celebrate its backing for the winning horse in Damascus.
4. Binyamin Netanyahu’s six-year old policy, which was oriented on engendering understanding with Barack Obama, is in ruins, although it was endorsed by Israel’s defense ministers on the assumption that it was in the interests of national security.
As we reported earlier, President Obama confirmed Friday night that the forthcoming US military attack on Syria would be “limited” and “narrow” and not open-ended, in a bid to avoid the risk of America being mired in the Syrian civil war.
Obama's "Next Steps" (On The Ground) Briefing - To Seek Congressional Approval
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 - 13:09
*OBAMA SAYS USERS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT
*OBAMA SAYS `MENACE' OF SYRIA MUST BE CONFRONTED
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. MUST TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS `MENACE' OF SYRIA MUST BE CONFRONTED
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. MUST TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS HE WILL SEEK AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS ON SYRIA
While Andrea Mitchell reports that the President will not be announcing airstrikes from the Rose Garden at 115ET, his press briefing this afternoon will update the American people on his decisions about how to proceed... so with no report due from the UN on Syrian chemical arms until lab tests are done, we wait with bated breath for Obama's next steps (but not on the ground...)
"I look forward to the debate"...
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/31/breaking-obama-says-he-will-seek-congressional-authorization-for-strikes/
and....
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/31/breaking-obama-says-he-will-seek-congressional-authorization-for-strikes/
Breaking: Obama says he will seek Congressional authorization for strikes
POSTED AT 2:22 PM ON AUGUST 31, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
The White House suddenly shifted direction on the necessity of Congressional authorization for a strike against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. For the last two or three days, various officials have insisted that Barack Obama has the authority to order military action in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, but today Obama himself committed to seeking approval from Capitol Hill first:
President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.Obama’s remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders on Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike on Syria, officials said.
The change is certainly abrupt, but hardly surprising. When the UK’s David Cameron was forced to withdraw from the coalition, that left Obama politically exposed both at home and abroad. With only France enthusiastic about taking part in military action, it became a lot more important for Obama to get a vote of confidence at home. Plus, Obama’s rhetoric against George W. Bush during the 2007-8 presidential campaign made his hypocrisy on executive power painfully obvious, with even his own party insisting that he needed to get a Congressional blessing first.
That creates more headaches for Obama, however. First, Congress isn’t back until September 9th, which means this will take a couple of weeks to accomplish — if it can be accomplished at all. Capitol Hill might be inclined to defer to the executive, but only a handful of House and Senate members are enthusiastic about striking Syria, even after more than a week of beating the war drums. The opposition to another engagement will be fierce, and so far the White House has given a very ambiguous and diffident picture about the goals of a military action and the ability to contain the consequences afterward. On the other hand, this point from NPR’s Frank James will be on the minds of Capitol Hill denizens, too:
and....
Syria says it's ready - so just bring it !
Syrian Army Warns "Finger On The Trigger" For Strike Response
And here's how Syria could respond... (via Stratfor)
As the United States weighs a military responseto the Syrian regime's reported use of chemical weapons, one of the largest concerns will involve countering Syria's robust air defense network. With an estimated 54,000 personnel, Syria's air defense network is twice the size of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air force and air defense command combined at the start of the NATO campaign in 2011. Syria's Air Defense Command consists of the 24th and 26th anti-aircraft divisions, which comprise thousands of anti-aircraft guns and more than 130 surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries.
The bulk of Syria's SAM weaponry is composed of the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6 and SA-8 SAM systems, which were also operated by Gadhafi's forces. However, the Syrians operate these systems in far greater numbers, have devoted significant resources to maintaining and upgrading these missile batteries and have also successfully deployed their SAM systems in a dense and overlapping layout that would complicate operations to suppress enemy air defenses. Though also a Russian ally, Gadhafi did not have the more advanced Russian air defense systems that the al Assad regime possesses. For example, Iran reportedly financed Syria's acquisition of 50 SA-22 systems first delivered in 2007 -- 10 of which allegedly ended up in Iranian hands. The Syrians are also thought to operate several SA-11 systems, which the Libyans did not have. Syria's defenses against an air campaign are not restricted to the ground. Its air force can contribute dozens of fighter aircraft and interceptors, which any intervention force would also have to contend with.
And US looking at 15 cruise missile strike ? why bother if that's all we plan to do ?
http://www.debka.com/article/23243/%E2%80%9CLimited-narrow%E2%80%9D-US-strike-on-Syria-risks-leaving-Assad-s-air-force-and-chemical-arsenal-intact
President Barack Obama confirmed Friday night that the forthcoming US military attack on Syria would be “limited” and “narrow” and not open-ended, in a bid to avoid the risk of America being mired in the Syrian civil war.
DEBKA Weekly’s analysts calculated Thursday that by forgoing an air assault and relegating his projected military operation against Syria solely to seaborne Tomahawk cruise missiles - limited to 15 launches - the US president relinquished America’s “penetration and destruction” capabilities – depending of course on his sticking to this plan and not expanding its scope at the last minute.
The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 2,500 kms, weighs 450 kilos and can be fired from the five US destroyers and the four US nuclear submarines waiting in the eastern Mediterranean for orders to go.
However powerful, the exclusive use of this type of missile means that Washington has a priori sacrificed the following military objectives:
However powerful, the exclusive use of this type of missile means that Washington has a priori sacrificed the following military objectives:
1. Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles will remain intact. The Tomahawks can damage surface structures at the bases hosting them, but not penetrate their underground storage sites.
Assad will be left in full possession of his CW arsenal.
2. Neither can Tomahawks alone cripple the Syrian Air Force or shut down its bases. They could damage runways, but only for the hours or days it would take to repair them.
DEBKA Weekly's military sources say that the Syria air force is left with six air bases still operational, out of a total of thirty. A heavier and larger missile onslaught than the limited assault planned could have destroyed them all, given the Syrian rebels a huge advantage and opened the way for a plan to impose no-fly zones over Syrian air space.
But Obama clearly chose to discard those options.
By delaying his go-ahead on military action against Syria, he gave the Assad regime time to tuck most of its air force bombers and attack helicopters away in fortified hangars early this week, safe from attack. As the hours slipped by with US action, the Syrian ruler’s self-confidence mounted.
3. Syrian missiles have likewise been hidden in underground bunkers. They include the Scud C and D missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads.
4. The big Syrian field command centers will also escape unscathed, althoughDEBKA Weekly’s military sources report that many of them figure as large as strategic assets on the list of targets which the Pentagon and US military chiefs originally put before the president.
Among them were the command and control centers of the Syrian army’s 4th Division and Republican Guard Division, which protect Bashar Assad and bolster his regime's hold on power.
It is not clear if the military command centers of Homs, Hama, Tartus, Latakia, the Aleppo area and Idlib remain on the final list.
Striking those targets would have shut down the Syrian military command system and seriously disrupted its operational capabilities.
A second list of 35 strategic targets was handed to President Obama by Syrian rebel commander Brig. Gen. Salim Idris, according to our sources. Their destruction was described as vital. However, not a single item on the list was approved by the president, the Pentagon on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, reflecting the distrust and disconnect prevailing between the US administration and military, and the Syrian rebel leadership.
5. Our sources say that the US military to-do list for Syria covers army artillery units, some of which participated in the chemical weapons launch of August 21 against eastern Damascus; local command and communications centers; and research institutes involved in the development and upgrade of Syrian chemical weapons.
This heavily pruned US operation, if it goes through, will leave Syrian President Bashar Assad sitting pretty with most of his military resources intact, and his hands free to continue his barbaric war on the Syrian opposition, including the use of chemical weapons, unhindered and undeterred.
It is still possible for President Obama to have second thoughts about his low-key operational plan and decide after all to land a strategic blow on Syria.
http://www.trust.org/item/20130831024217-8g107/?source=hpbreaking
Sixth U.S. ship now in eastern Mediterranean 'as precaution'
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - A sixth U.S. warship is now operating in the eastern Mediterranean, near five U.S. destroyers armed with cruise missiles that could soon be directed against Syria as part of a "limited, precise" strike, defense officials said late on Friday.
They stressed that the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with several hundred U.S. Marines on board, was in the region for a different reason and there were no plans to put Marines on the ground as part of any military action against Syria.
One of the officials said the San Antonio's passage into the Mediterranean was long-planned, but officials thought it prudent to keep the ship in the eastern Mediterranean near the destroyers given the current situation.
"It's been kept there as a precaution," said one of the officials, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The San Antonio transited through the Suez Canal on Thursday from the Red Sea, and received new orders on Friday to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, near the destroyers, according to defense officials. It is one of three ships that are carrying 2,200 Marines who have been on a six-month deployment in the region around the Arabian peninsula.
The Obama administration released evidence on Friday that it said demonstrated the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians. It made clear on Friday that it would punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" attack that it says killed more than 1,400 people in Damascus last week.
Officials cautioned the operation under discussion involved a limited, precise set of targets that would be of a short duration, unlike the broader campaign against Libya in March 2011.
The U.S. Navy generally keeps three destroyers in the Mediterranean, but kept two additional destroyers there at the end of their deployments as the situation evolved in Syria over the past week.
The five destroyers are each carrying an estimated three dozen or more Tomahawk missiles for a combined total of about 200 missiles, according to defense officials.
Byron Callan, analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, projected that a limited Syrian strike would use about 200 to 300 Tomahawk missiles, compared to about 221 used in the Libya operation.
Defense officials said a more narrowly targeted operation against Syria could involve even less missiles.
They cited a debate within the Obama administration about striking the right balance between a limited cruise missile attack aimed at delivering a message about chemical weapons, and a broader attack that could be seen as a strong insertion of the United States into the Syrian civil war.
Military and civilian officials have expressed the need for caution to avert a cascading military conflict that could have repercussions throughout the region. Some officials have cautioned that even an attack on military helicopters could be seen as part of a U.S. campaign to disable the Syrian military.
Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations during the 2011 strikes on Libya, said any strike on Syria would have to be targeted precisely to do the maximum amount of damage to Syrian military headquarters and other key sites - and to avert the possibility of retaliatory action.
"If you're going to try to shape events, you really need to hurt them," said Roughead, now a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "You would have to do something that would diminish the effectiveness of the Syrian military and that would be their command and control, perhaps their leadership, and then their ability to control air space."
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Peter Cooney)
While the US ponders what to do now , Putin speaks - displays his catch of the day .....
Syria: Putin rubbishes chemical attack claims
• Russian president goes on offensive against Obama
• US weighs up next move as UN team go to Lebanon
• Two-thirds of French people oppose intervention, says poll
• US weighs up next move as UN team go to Lebanon
• Two-thirds of French people oppose intervention, says poll
Email
Vladimir Putin at a meeting with regional heads in Khabarovsk, Russia. The Russian president went on the offensive against the US over Syria. Photograph: Itar-tass/Barcroft Media
Vladimir Putin has rejected US intelligence claims that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons in Syria, saying it would be "utter nonsense" for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning.
"That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin told journalists in Vladivostok.
The Russian president also challenged the US to present its case for military intervention to the UN security council, after suggesting that if Barack Obama was worthy of his Nobel peace prize, he should think about the possible victims of any intervention by foreign forces.
UN experts left Syria on Saturday after investigating the gas attack, which killed hundreds of civilians, while the US said it was planning a limited response to punish Syria's President Bashar al-Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" assault.
Barack Obama said the US, which has destroyers equipped with cruise missiles in the region, was planning a "limited, narrow" response that would not involve boots on the ground or be open-ended.
Russia responded by saying US threats to use military force against Syria were unacceptable and that Washington would be violating international law if it acted without the approval of the UN security council.
Putin said world powers should discuss the Syrian crisis at a meeting of the leaders of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations in St Petersburg next week. "This (G20 summit) is a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not use it?"
A poll in France revealed that most French people do not want their country to take part in military action on Syria, and most do not trust the president, François Hollande to do so.
A Lebanese soldier watches as the UN experts arrive at Beirut international airport. Photograph: Hussein Malla/AP
The poll was published by Le Parisien-Aujourd'hui en France on Saturday, showed 64% of respondents opposed military action, 58% did not trust Hollande to conduct it and 35% feared it could "set the entire region ablaze".
Russia opposes any military intervention in Syria, warning an attack would increase tensions and undermine the chances of ending the civil war. "Washington statements with threats to use force against Syria are unacceptable," the Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement late in Friday.
"Any unilateral use of force without the authorisation of the UN security council, no matter how 'limited' it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties."
Lukashevich also said that Washington's threats were made "in the absence of any proof" of the Syrian government having used chemical weapons.
In a sign the US may be preparing to act, the secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke on Friday to the foreign ministers of key European and Gulf allies, as well as the head of the Arab League, a senior state department official said.
The team of UN weapons inspectors arrived at Beirut international airport on Saturday, after crossing the land border from Syria into Lebanon by foot earlier in the day.
The 20-member team, including experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, have been into the rebel-held areas in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus three times, taking blood and tissue samples from victims. They also took samples of soil, clothing and rocket fragments. They will be sent to laboratories in Europe, most likely Sweden or Finland, for analysis. The experts have already been testing for sarin, mustard gas and other toxic agents.
The analysis should establish if chemical weapons were used, but not who was responsible for the 21 August attack. Final results might not be ready for two weeks, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, told security council members, according to diplomats.
In France, Hollande said Britain's parliamentary vote against military strikes would not affect France's own actions.
Two other opinion polls published this week, and carried out after the Ghouta attack, indicated lukewarm support among French voters for military intervention in Syria.
Hollande, whose popularity has been hurt by economic gloom, showed unexpected military mettle when he dispatched troops to help Mali's government fend off Islamist rebels earlier this year, an intervention backed by two-thirds of the public.
and ......
http://rt.com/news/putin-us-syria-evidence-249/
Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council
Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared ‘utter nonsense’ the idea that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people and called on the US to present its supposed evidence to the UN Security Council.
Putin has further called the Western tactic a ‘provocation.’
Washington has been basing its proposed strategy of an attack on Syria on the premise that President Bashar Assad’s government forces have used chemical agents, while Russia finds the accusations unacceptable and the idea of performing a military strike on the country even more so. Especially as it would constitute a violation of international law, if carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council.
Further to this, Putin told Obama that he should consider what the potential fallout from a military strike would be and to take into consideration the suffering of innocent civilians.
The Russian president has expressed certainty that the strategy for a military intervention in Syria is a contingency measure from outside and a direct response to the Syrian government’s recent combat successes, coupled with the rebels’ retreat from long-held positions.
“Syrian government forces are advancing, while the so-called rebels are in a tight situation, as they are not nearly as equipped as the government,” Putin told ITAR-TASS. He then laid it out in plain language:
“What those who sponsor the so-called rebels need to achieve is simple – they need to help them in their fight… and if this happens, it would be a tragic development,” Putin said.
Russia believes that any attack would, firstly, increase the already existing tensions in the country, and derail any effort at ending the war.
"Any unilateral use of force without the authorisation of the U.N. Security Council, no matter how 'limited' it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties," said the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, adding that the threats issued by Washington “in the absence of any proof” of chemical weapons use.
On Friday, Washington said a plan for a limited military response was in the works to punish Assad for a“brutal and flagrant” chemical attack that allegedly killed more than 1400 people in the capital Damascus 10 days ago.
The Syrian government has been denying all allegations, calling the accusation preposterous and pointing its own accusations against rebel forces, especially Al-Qaeda-linked extremists who have wreaked havoc on the country in the two years since the start of the civil war.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/08/awaiting-obamas-climb-down.html
August 30, 2013
Awaiting Obama's Climb-down
The parliament of the United Kingdom voted against a war on Syria. For now. I am certain there will be an attempt to reverse this decision. The propaganda onslaught for such an attempt already started with new BBC claims (vid) of another "atrocity". Several scenes in this video seem to me to be quite obvious fakes.
The U.S. Obama so far seems to continue to want to go it alone. But the "senior officials" quoted are probably all from the National Security Council and Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice is the one who drove this bus against the wall. Her utter mis-management of this incident - a rush to war then retreat, an attempt to block the UN observers then let them work, presenting dubious intelligence, bad management of potential allies - will end her career within the next few weeks.
Any claim of the U.S. would attack Syria in service of some "international community" is now proven to be utterly false. Let's count who is against bombing Syria: The United Kingdom parliament, the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Secretary General, NATO, the U.S. military, the U.S.intelligence community, the public in the United States, Israel, Turkey and about everywhere else. Even France's gung-ho Hollande is wobbly.
The "intelligence" the U.S. claims to have that supposedly shows that the Syrian government used chemical weapons is so thin that its publishing had to be moved from yesterday to the Friday afternoon newsdump today. Even that thin intelligence is based on Israeli sources which lets one doubt its integrity.
Obama is now in a catch 22. The House Republicans demand answers to detailed questions about the war Obama wants to wage that he will not be able to give. 80% of U.S. citizens want Obama to go to Congress before waging war. But if he calls Congress back from vacations to vote on a war resolution he will risk, like Cameron, utter defeat. If he does not call back Congress and proceeds with a strike he may face impeachment. He can of course stand down on the issue but will then be damaged goods in international affairs and a lame duck at home.
It will be well deserved.
Events of Saturday ....
( Just who is bird dogging this War anyway ? If no ground troops are to be involved , why are Marines being brought into play ? )
US Marine Ship Approaches Syria; Russia Blasts Any "Acts Of Aggression" - Full Syrian Update
- Afghanistan
- Crude
- fixed
- France
- Germany
- headlines
- Israel
- Italy
- national security
- NBC
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Obama Administration
- Reuters
- Saudi Arabia
- Turkey
- White House
While there may have been a verbal attempt by the Obama administration to diffuse Syrian tensions in the aftermath of Thursday's shocker out of the House of Commons, the action on the ground so far is hardly conciliatory. Or rather water, because a sixth US warship has now anchored in proximity to Syria, joining the recengtly arrived fifth destroyer USS Stout,which joined the warships already "breathing down Assad's neck." From AP: Five U.S. Navy destroyers - the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, the USS Stout and USS Ramage - are in the eastern Mediterranean Sea waiting for the order to launch. And the USS San Antonio, an amphibious assault ship has now joined them. The USS San Antonio, which is carrying helicopters and can carry up to 800 Marines, has no cruise missiles, so it is not expected to participate in the attack. Instead, the ship's long-planned transit across the Mediterranean was interrupted so that it could remain in the area to help if needed. So in addition to a cruise missile based force, the US is now bringing in the marines? The justification that they are there "just in case" seems a little shallow in context.
Not surprisingly this contradicts what Obama said yesterday, promising there would be no land-based invasion.
Elsewhere, Russia predictable once again warned against a US escalation. Russia Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov met with U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul today, Foreign Ministry says in e-mailed statement. Ryabkov summarized: any use of force by U.S. against Syria without UN sanctions would be an "act of aggression, crude violation of the norms of international law." Whether this means an immediate retaliation by Russia is unknown.
What is known is that the UN inspectors who were supposedly the only gating issue for a full-blown US "surgical strike" have now left the country. Per Reuters, the team of United Nations inspectors that was investigating the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria arrived at Beirut International Airport on Saturday, a Reuters witness said. The team had crossed the land border from Syria into Lebanon earlier in the day after completing its four-day investigation.
However, anyone expecting a quick turnover from the UN force will be disappointed.Accoridng to NBC, the U.N. said Friday that the team had finished collecting samples from the site of the alleged attack but that a complete analysis would take time. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the five permanent Security Council members that it may be two weeks before final results are ready, diplomats said.
In other words, the "surgial strike" options are now fully open and Obama may strike at any minute, and of course reap the consequences.
Those still unclear how a typical strike would look like, here is another completet rundown from the AP:
WHO DECIDES
The order for the strike would come from Obama, delivered to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The operation probably would fall under the purview of U.S. Central Command, headed by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin. The more immediate commander probably would be Adm. Bruce Clingan, who heads U.S. naval forces in Europe.
U.S. commanders would communicate and coordinate with military officers from other nations involved in the fight, such as France.
___
WHO LAUNCHES WHAT
Five U.S. Navy destroyers - the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, the USS Stout and USS Ramage - are in the eastern Mediterranean Sea waiting for the order to launch. And the USS San Antonio, an amphibious assault ship has now joined them. The USS San Antonio, which is carrying helicopters and Marines, has no cruise missiles, so it is not expected to participate in the attack. Instead, the ship's long-planned transit across the Mediterranean was interrupted so that it could remain in the area to help if needed.
The destroyers are armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles and are used for deep, precise targeting. Each one is about 20 feet long and less than two feet in diameter and carries a 1,000 pound warhead.
The missiles fly at low altitudes, and their range allows the ships to sit far off the coast, out of range of any potential response by the Syrian government. Some ships have cameras that can provide battle damage assessments.
The Navy also now has two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea that are loaded with fighter jets. The USS Truman arrived in the region to take the place of the USS Nimitz, which was supposed to head home. But the Navy ordered the Nimitz to stay for now.
U.S. officials described the decision as prudent planning and said it doesn't suggest the Nimitz would play a role in any possible strikes in Syria.
With Britain on the sidelines, France has said it is preparing for military action against Syria. French President Francois Hollande does not need parliamentary approval to launch a military operation that lasts less than four months.
French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, as well as the hulking transport ship Dixmude, had set off Thursday from the Mediterranean port of Toulon as part of normal training and operational preparations - but denied any link to possible Syria operations.
France also has a dozen cruise missile-capable fighter aircraft at military bases in the United Arab Emirates and the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti, as well as fighters that could launch from air bases in the French island of Corsica or western France.
HOW DO THE NATIONS COORDINATE?
Details are unknown about how the mission strikes are being allocated or if the U.S. and France have mapped out separate, agreed upon target lists. But the U.S. routinely conducts exercises with allies, particularly NATO countries such as Britain and France, in which they all practice exactly this type of joint attack mission.
Commanders have a wide variety of ways they can talk to each other, including through integrated communications systems honed over many years of NATO operations ranging from the Afghanistan war to the 2011 attack on Libya and the fighting in Algeria and Mali early this year.
The military officers can speak or email across classified, secure lines and even have systems that allow them to talk in real time in Internet chat rooms. The nations also often have military liaisons embedded with each other to help assist communications.
Because any operation is expected to be limited, there likely won't be more organized, formal war rooms.
___
WHAT ABOUT TROOPS, FIGHTER JETS AND BOMBERS?
Obama has ruled out putting troops on the ground in Syria, and because of Assad's extensive air defense systems, officials believe it is too risky, at least initially, to deploy fighter aircraft or even low-flying drones that could be shot down.
While less likely, the U.S. could deploy fighter jets or bombers as the operation continues, particularly if the Assad regime begins to take retaliatory actions and manned aircraft are needed in order to strike specific, critical targets.
Obama has rejected trying to impose a "no-fly" zone over the country. Military leaders have said that creating one would be risky and expensive.
___
WHAT MIGHT THEY TARGET?
U.S. officials say any operation must have clear goals that can guide decisions on what the military must strike.
Dempsey has told Congress that lethal force would be used "to strike targets that enable the regime to conduct military operations, proliferate advanced weapons and defend itself."
At a minimum, Western forces are expected to strike targets that symbolize Assad's military and political might: military and national police headquarters, including the Defense Ministry; the Syrian military's general staff; and the four-brigade Republican Guard that is in charge of protecting Damascus, Assad's seat of power. Assad's ruling Baath Party headquarters could be targeted, too.
U.S. officials also are considering attacking military command centers and vital forces, communications hubs and weapons caches, including ballistic missile batteries.
Air defense systems, including Syrian aircraft, interception missiles, radar and other equipment, also could be targets. The majority of those systems - as many as 500 defense positions and 400 operational aircraft - have been positioned along Lebanon's border, in the Syrian-controlled part of the Golan Heights, along the Syrian Mediterranean coast and in and around Damascus.
Helicopter and fixed wing aircraft air bases across the country, including the Mezzeh air base in Damascus, and Nairab, a major military air base in Aleppo, could be targets.
Because any strike would be considered payback for Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons, Western forces could zero in on the headquarters of the Syrian Army's 4th Division, 155th Brigade. That unit is believed to have been responsible for the Aug. 21 attack that U.S. officials say involved chemical weapons. The brigade is headed by Maher Assad, Bashar Assad's younger brother.
The brigade has a missile base across a large terrain in a mountain range west of Damascus, including underground bunkers and tunnels. It is believed to be surrounded by army bases as well as weapons and ammunition storage sites.
Systems for moving Assad's chemical weapons stockpile could be top targets as well. But the stockpile itself probably would not be hit because of risk of accidental release of deadly nerve agents that include mustard gas, tabun, sarin and VX.
___
WHAT PROBABLY WOULD BE AVOIDED?
It's doubtful the U.S. would directly target Assad. U.S. policy prohibits assassinating foreign leaders unless they have attacked America first.
It's also unclear if Assad's military intelligence headquarters, a symbolic target, might be attacked; it's believed to hold hundreds of prisoners.
___
WHEN MIGHT A STRIKE COME AND HOW LONG MIGHT AN ATTACK LAST?
The most common answer to this question in recent days has been "soon." But a number of factors could affect the timing.
U.N. inspectors wrapped up their investigation into the suspected chemical attack and left Syria on Saturday. And officials say they are still talking to allies.
There has been a so-far unsuccessful effort to seek U.N. Security Council approval for a strike, but there is also significant pressure on the administration to act quickly and decisively.
Any military operation would probably unfold at night or in the predawn hours in Syria, with an initial assault possibly lasting several hours and involving dozens of missile strikes from several warships.
What could follow is a period in which the U.S. would use satellites and other intelligence capabilities to assess the damage.
Such an assessment could be followed by an additional round or two of missile strikes, if ordered by the president. Officials believe the strikes could be limited to a single operation, but if extended would likely last no more than a few days.
Other U.S. military assets in the region, including an Air Force air wing of F-16 fighter jets located in Aviano, Italy, are available but might not be used, at least right away.
___
WHAT ABOUT THE SYRIAN MILITARY?
The Assad regime is believed to have about 400 operational aircraft and one of the most robust air defense networks in the region. There are multiple surface-to-air missiles providing overlapping coverage of key areas in combination with thousands of anti-aircraft guns capable of engaging attacking aircraft at lower levels.
Syria also has a mobile, land-based coastal defense system, including Yakhont anti-ship missiles capable of sinking large warships, including aircraft carriers.
Two years ago, the standing army was estimated to be about 250,000, but if reserves are included it could number closer to 700,000. The last two years of civil war, however, have taken a toll on the military, due to defections and the ongoing warfare.
The biggest concern, however, is that any U.S. attack could prompt retaliation by Assad, including the possible use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens or even attacks on nearby nations.
Finally, from Reuters, here is the full headline summary of all the latest news on Syria:
HEADLINES:
- International weapons experts leave Syria, U.S. prepares attack.
- Putin says it would be "utter nonsense" for Assad to use chemical weapons.
- Syrian rebels plan raids to exploit western strikes, commander says.
- U.S. makes clear it will punish Assad for "brutal and flagrant" chemical weapons attack.
- Obama says U.S. still planning for "limited, narrow" military response that will not involve "boots on the ground" or be open-ended. He sets no timetable for action.
- U.S. intelligence report says Aug. 21 attack killed 1,429 Syrian civilians, including 426 children.
- Obama says such attacks threaten U.S. national security interests as well as U.S. allies such as Israel, Turkey and Jordan.
- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks to the foreign ministers of Britain, Egypt, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as to the secretary-general of the Arab League.
- The White House will brief Republican senators on Syria in a conference call on Saturday at the request of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
- Kerry says Syria must not get away with the attack, partly as a sign to those who might consider using chemical weapons.
- Syrian Foreign Ministry says Kerry's charges a "desperate attempt" to justify a military strike.
- U.N. experts finish gathering evidence of suspected attack and leave Syria, crossing the land border into Lebanon. Envoys say analyzing the samples may take weeks.
- France says it still backs military action to punish Assad's government despite British parliamentary vote against a military strike.
- Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan says any intervention in Syria should be aimed at ending Assad's rule - a goal Obama has ruled out.
- Latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows 53 percent of Americans surveyed say the United States should stay out of Syria's civil war, down from 60 percent the previous week.
QUOTE:
- "We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale." - Obama speaking at the White House.
But we can accept a world in which conventional weapons are used against women and children, as has been the US allegation against Assad for over two years?
http://www.infowars.com/america-totally-discredited/
( Definitely not our proudest hour.... )
( Definitely not our proudest hour.... )
America Totally Discredited
Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013
A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.
Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US “superpower,” the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.
But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.
What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?
Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone–not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored–a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes.
But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the “decider,” the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the “sole superpower” must now assert his authority over all law or Washington’s hegemony over the world is lost.
As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US. Indeed, a looming economic collapse could so alter the power and attitude of the United States that Obama could find himself brought to justice for his war crimes.
Regardless, the United States government has lost its credibility throughout the world and will never regain it, unless the Bush and Obama regimes are arrested and put on trial for their war crimes.
Obama’s destruction of US credibility goes far beyond diplomacy. It is likely that this autumn or winter, and almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis.
The long-term abuse of the US dollar’s reserve currency role by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, the never-ending issuance of new debt and printing of dollars to finance it, the focus of US economic policy on bailing out the “banks too big to fail” regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of US Treasury debt, the awaiting political crisis of the unresolved deficit and debt ceiling limit that will greet Congress’ return to Washington in September, collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy all together present the government in Washington with a crisis that is too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.
When the proverbial hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.
The rest of the world–especially Washington’s bullied NATO puppet states–will take great delight in the discomfort of “the world’s sole superpower” that has been running on hubris ever since the Soviet collapse.
The world is not going to bail out Washington, now universally hated, with currency swaps, more loans, and foreign aid. Americans are going to pay heavily for their negligence, their inattention, their unconcern, and their ignorant belief that nothing can go wrong for them and that anything that does is temporary.
Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India’s of 40 years ago. Already the “world’s sole superpower” is afflicted with a large percentage of its population dependent on government welfare for survival. As the economy closes down, the government’s ability to meet the rising demands of survival diminishes. The rich will demand that the poor be sacrificed in the interest of the rich. And the political parties will comply.
Is this the reason that Homeland Security, a Nazi Gestapo institution, now has a large and growing para-military force equipped with tanks, drones, and billions of rounds of ammunition?
How long will it be before American citizens are shot down in their streets by “their” government as occurs frequently in Washington’s close allies in Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain?
Americans have neglected the requirements of liberty. Americans are so patriotic and so gullible that all the government has to do is to wrap itself in the flag, and the people, or too many of them, believe whatever lie the government tells. And the gullible people will defend the government’s lie to their death, indeed, to the death of the entire world.
If Americans keep believing the government’s lies, they have no future. If truth be known, Americans have already lost a livable future. The neocons’ “American Century” is over before it begun.
Update: I have heard from educated and aware friends that the presstitute media on the evening news are beating the drums for war. This shows what paid whores the US media is and their total disconnect from reality. Anyone who wastes their time on the US media is a brainwashed idiot, a danger to humanity.
Update 8:52 PM August 30: Is the White House idiot going to be a victim of his own careless presidential appointments?
Does he have no one to tell him how to escape the dilemma his moronic Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have put him in? Someone needs to tell the WH Fool that he must say that he accepts the conclusion of the world community that there is not sufficient evidence for launching a military attack on Syria and killing even more people than were killed in the alleged, but unproven, chemical attack, and that he awaits further and better evidence.
God help the moron and the unfortunate country that the fool represents.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
Saturday, August 31
12:13 GMT: Foreign ministers from Arab countries are expected to discuss Syria at a meeting in Cairo on Sunday, Arab League deputy chief Ahmed Ben Helli told reporters. The negotiations were initially planned for Tuesday, but he said the meeting had been brought forward "in light of rapid developments in the Syria situation and based on the request of several Arab states."
09:28 GMT: The Syrian government said that it expected a military attack imminently, and it was ready to respond in kind.
"We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment," AFP cited a Syrian security official, who wished to remain anonymous, as saying.
04:55 GMT: UN chemical weapons experts have reportedly crossed into neighboring Lebanon after finishing the investigation in Damascus.
03:01 GMT: UN chemical inspectors have departed from their hotel in central Damascus early Saturday morning and are currently on their way to Lebanon.
01:39 GMT: All Senate Republicans will be briefed on the potential US involvement in Syria during a conference call with the White House Saturday after a request from Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, according to a new report.
McConnell has met with White House officials to discuss the Syrian government’s suspected use of chemical weapons, but said Friday it is important for every Republican lawmaker to learn the details of the situation.
US President Obama met with top Congressional leaders in a conference call Thursday to discuss the possibility of US forces launching a missile strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad. After the call Obama said the attack was a “challenge to the world” that threatens US allies in the region.
War games start when - this weekend ? If US evidence is so clear , why not wait for Congres to return , present the evidence and justify the War ? Is the only strategy preempting Congress , the UN and American public opinion ?
US Attack on Syria Expected This Weekend
Strike Could Happen Within a Matter of Hours
by Jason Ditz, August 30, 2013
Another round of heavy-handed speeches pushing the White House’s narrative came and went today, and analysts now widely believe the US attack will happen over the Labor Day weekend, and potentially could begin in a matter of hours.
There’s little left to suggest the administration might wait, as they aren’t planning to allow a Congressional vote on the war for fear they’ll say no, and say they don’t have any intention of waiting for the United Nations to finish the actual investigation into the Jobar incident for fear it might disprove their allegations.
Efforts to drum up international support have failed, and there doesn’t seem to have been much thought given to actual strategy, meaning there’s little reason to expect the administration to carefully time the strikes, except to make them soon enough to preempt Congress and the UN.
US warships in the Mediterranean are expected to be at the center of the military operation, at least initially, firing cruise missiles at targets inside Syria. There are significant dangers surrounding the planned strike, not the least of which being that intelligence officials concede they don’t know where a lot of Syria’s chemical weapons are stored, and the attack might hit a stockpile and cause a humanitarian disaster.
The big question once the attack begins is how long the Pentagon will continue to be able to lob missiles at Syria during the ongoing budget shortfalls without seek some special funding from Congress, which will likely be reluctant to rubber stamp funding for the war after being kept out of the authorization stage.
and......
Obama Unlikely to Allow House Vote on Syria War
Vote Would Risk Britain-Style Defeat for Conflict
by Jason Ditz, August 30, 2013
As the US attack on Syria gets closer and closer, the administration is hard at work lobbying Congressional hawks for their public endorsements of the war, mostly focusing on Sens. John McCain (R – AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R – SC), who never saw a war they didn’t want to escalate.
But getting them in on selling the war on the Sunday news circuit isn’t the same thing as letting them actually vote on it, and that’s something the administration seems determined to avoid, particularly after Britain’s Thursday vote ended up vetoing their military involvement.
Polls show an overwhelming majority of the American public want Congress involved in the decision-making process, and 162 members of the House of Representatives are on record wanting debate and a vote before the war.
But the House is in recess until September 9, and the administration seems unwilling to bring them back into session early for a vote that isn’t guaranteed to go their way. Congress may eventually get to debate the war, but if it happens at all, it will be after it is started.
and......
Obama Hypes Case for War, But Won’t Talk Strategy
Officials Irked as Pentagon Faults Lack of Planning
by Jason Ditz, August 30, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry, and then Obama not long after he finished, publicly hyped their “common sense” case for attacking Syria, insisting they have an unassailable case for attack that no one (except virtually the whole rest of the world) could disagree with.
But what’s the strategy? That’s where it gets tricky, as the administration lays out a plan of attack that seems incredibly vague at best and in many ways absurdly naive.
Officials are content to start lobbing missiles into Syria seemingly just for the heck of it, underscoring that they aren’t planning to accomplish anything on the ground with their strikes except for some sort of explosive-based rebuke of President Assad.
Pentagon officers have been unusually public in faulting the scheme as well, suggesting that even those “in the know” don’t like what they’re seeing of this war planning, and prompting officials to condemn the comments as “deeply unhelpful” as they’re trying to sell the war to the American public.
Analysts see this as a bad situation that could quickly get much, much worse, as just because President Obama doesn’t have any plans to do any more after the first salvo doesn’t mean the US can quickly enter and exit the protracted civil war without a major risk of retaliation, and of getting sucked into the conflict outright.
More reasons why the US " plan " is loopy .....
Little Global Support for US Attack on Syria
France May Be Only US Partner in Conflict
by Jason Ditz, August 30, 2013
When the Obama Administration first started talking up attacking Syria last weekend, the conflict was being sold as a broad-based international action with a large number of supporters, and potentially even a NATO endorsement.
That’s not happening, however. The UN and the Arab League have both come out against the war, Britain’s parliament has forced their government out of the war, and NATO says they’re not even considering involvement.
Instead of an international coalition of the willing, it is increasingly shaping up to be a Franco-American attack on Syria, with overwhelming international opposition.
There are a handful of regional countries that are nominally supportive of the idea of the war, but none of them intend to get involved. Other than France the only country that has even suggested involvement is Denmark, and their tiny military hasn’t been asked in the first place.
and........
The imminent US attack on Syria was initially being presented as a major win for the rebel factions that have long sought outside military intervention on their behalf. As the attack looms, however, many fear it will do more harm than good even for them.
President Obama has desperately sought to avoid charges that the strikes would aid the al-Qaeda-dominated rebels, and the jihadist factions are scrambling, fearing the US will attack them too just to argue that they’re not supporting them.
Indeed, with the administration insisting that they don’t want the strike to change the situation on the ground in Syria, they might decide to try to damage the rebels as much as the Assad government in hopes of leaving the situation stalemated.
And while they wouldn’t be hit by the US, secular rebels aren’t on the bandwagon either, even though the Obama Administration has endorsed and subsidized them. With the White House promising to keep the strikes “limited,” those factions worry they’ll be the first target of any retaliation, and that having the US attack will give Assad considerable international sympathy.
and......
http://www.stripes.com/news/limiting-action-to-missile-strikes-in-syria-could-prove-difficult-analysts-say-1.238355
Limiting action to missile strikes in Syria could prove difficult, analysts say
Stars and Stripes
|
Published: August 30, 2013
NAPLES, Italy — As it considers a military strike on Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad’s regime, the Obama administration says it is not intent on regime change, but sending a message that deployment of such banned weapons will not be tolerated.
But while the administration says it has no intent of getting embroiled in a wider war, “nobody’s talking about boots on the ground in Syria, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters Thursday—analysts say any U.S. strike will inevitably lead to greater involvement and require a commitment to help bring the moderate opposition to power.
“To President [Barack] Obama, a regime-change policy appears as the quickest path to a quagmire,” Michael Doran, an analyst in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, wrote online for the Brookings Institution. “It is actually avoidance of regime change that will more likely lead to a quagmire.”
The administration has not said what kind of strike it plans in Syria. Warships may target Syrian government infrastructure from afar in an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter it from future use — but without securing weapons sites or toppling the government.
Some observers say plans for limited operations underline a gap in the way military and civilian leaders think about military force and its purpose.
Technology has lowered the bar for military action at the same time popular culture has embraced the idea of the military’s surgical precision, through the use of cruise missiles, drones and special operators. The result, these analysts say, is that military force becomes easier for civilian leaders to both imagine and justify.
In Syria, A lack of other good options may also play a role in the administration’s eventual decision.
In a July letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, outlining options in Syria, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, warned any action would likely cost billions, risk American lives and potentially drag the United States deeper into war than it might intend.
“We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action,” Dempsey wrote. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
Analysts say limited operations rarely lead to the success envisioned, and military precision is often over-estimated. For military forces trained to fight and win in overwhelming style, such operations can even suggest weakness or indecision, they say.
“There is a very wide, and I would say growing, gap between military and civilian officials on the perception of what limited force can achieve,” Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent interview.
Zenko has coined the term “discrete military operations” to describe limited uses of force such as the one reported to be in consideration against Syria, where the goal is to achieve a narrow objective, under strict rules of engagement and without destroying an enemy, controlling its territory or changing regimes. He has counted 36 such operations since 1991, with varying levels of success.
The operations typically use long-range ‘stand-off’ weapons like cruise missiles or drones that put few, if any, servicemembers at direct risk. They require little of the logistical groundwork needed for a conventional war, and they need no congressional approval.
Limited operations attract civilian leaders who want to send a stronger message than otherwise possible while avoiding the costs of full-scale war, Zenko and others say. Backers often say they reinforce the nation’s image abroad and make its future threats more credible.
Limited operations have grown in frequency with advances in weapons systems and the absence of a counter-balancing superpower such as the Soviet Union, said Richard K. Betts, a Columbia professor who researches the connection between civilian and military leadership.
“We’ve gotten more accustomed to doing it on a more frequent basis since the end of the Cold War,” he said.
Examples include the 1998 cruise missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan after the al-Qaida bombings at American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones between 1991 and 2003; and the 1993 cruise missile attack against Iraqi targets as punishment for a supposed assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.
Yet the operations are not as effective as imagined, Zenko argues. In the 36 incidents he counts, military objectives were achieved little more than half the time, he said, while the political goals were realized in a mere 6 percent of the attacks.
Because limited operations often aim to change a regime or group’s behavior by deterring it from an action or coercing it into one, measuring success is more difficult than in a conventional war, where victory depends on military objectives such as the number of targets destroyed or territory captured. Even if the enemy changes its behavior, linking the change to the military action isn’t easy.
In cases where the operations are meant to punish a regime for past actions, success depends solely on whether military objectives are achieved, Zenko says.
The civilian world overestimates precision military weapons, he said, which can be affected by human error, technical malfunctions and poor intelligence. Many operations include some military setbacks; some operations are outright failures, such as the February 2001 strike against Iraqi air defenses in which all but two of the 28 missiles fired missed their targets.
“People just have this conception that is tremendously at odds with how these weapons are used,” Zenko said.
The risks of even the most limited operations, meanwhile, are high, Zenko and others point out. They raise expectations and potentially set the stage for more attacks, increasing the risk of wider war or greater intervention than initially intended.
Such limited attacks also frustrate military planners. While civilian leaders may consider the use of force itself as a sign of strength or credibility, the military expects to win when it fights, said Betts, the Columbia professor.
“The civilians can breathe a sigh of relief that they did something, if the pressure was on them to do something instead of just stand by,” Betts said. “
"Whereas the military can be frustrated that they didn’t achieve much or opened themselves up to more risks.”
Zenko said that from the military’s perspective, if the operation is a failure, it can open the military to public criticism.
The expected operations in Syria, based on reports citing administration sources, are meant to punish the regime for crossing the “red-line” set by President Barack Obama last year and deter it from future use of chemical weapons. But both Betts and Zenko fear it will only encourage a commitment that the U.S. doesn’t intend to give but that could be hard to avoid in the future.
“Once you’ve intervened once, it’s really hard not to intervene again,” Zenko said.
The idea that the nation’s credibility is at stake unless it uses military force creates a depressing calculus, Betts said.
“This may be a no-win situation,” he said. “If you do nothing militarily, then the Iranians and North Koreans may say, ‘They’re a paper tiger, and there’s nothing to fear.’ But if you do something small and symbolic, they may say,
"Yeah, we may have to sacrifice a little something, but in regards to standing up to a world superpower, it’s a price we can pay.”
A no mockable attack for sure with 100 percent certainty , we think - but let's keep this under budget guys ....I guess the strategy after ignoring the House of Representatives and not allowing a War authorization vote , the White House plan is ....then to approach The house of Representatives for additional funds for the unauthorized War ?
Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation; Must Seek Additional Funds
Congressional leaders decry lack of clear military objective
Syrians inspect the rubble of damaged buildings due to heavy shelling by Syrian government forces / AP
BY:
The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and must seek additional money from Congress, according to congressional aides.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, said on Friday he has not made a final decision on a military strike against Syria. He sought to play down both the scope and duration of the anticipated punitive missile and bombing campaign.
“As you’ve seen, today we’ve released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over a thousand people, including hundreds of children,” Obama said.
The president said the use of the deadly weapons had violated international “norms” and that action was needed to prevent the further use of the arms.
A future military operation would not involve troops on the ground as part of a long-term campaign, Obama said. “But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understands that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm,” he said.
The White House on Friday released an intelligence assessment that concluded with “high confidence” the Bashar al-Assad regime conducted a deadly poison gas attack using a nerve agent. It stated, “Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. intelligence community can take short of confirmation.”
The costs of planned Syria strikes using cruise missile ships currently deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean were not disclosed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several other high-ranking administration officials during a telephone briefing Thursday night for congressional leaders.
However, estimates of the limited-duration strike are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The secretary indicated that the administration would consult with Congress on the cost of exercising a potential military option, but specific dollar amounts weren’t discussed,” a senior defense official when asked about the funding shortfalls.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a July 19 letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, that larger-scale military operations would cost hundreds of millions or billions, depending on the number of forces and the duration of the operations.
For example, training and assisting Syrian opposition forces would cost $500 million annually and “limited” standoff missile and air strikes would cost in the “billions.” Operating a no-fly zone would cost about $1 billion per month, and the cost of using special operations forces to control chemical weapons would be “over” $1 billion monthly.
A congressional aide familiar with the congressional leaders’ briefing said Hagel and Winnefeld made clear the Pentagon would need to “work” with Congress to obtain supplemental funding for Syria attacks.
“Good luck with that,” the aide said, reflecting widespread concern among congressional Republicans with the Obama administration’s defense cuts.
The Pentagon leaders said unlike the 2011 military operations against Libya, there are not enough operating funds to conduct the attack on Syria.
The administration during the first term cut $487 billion from defense spending and another $55 billion under congressional sequestration legislation. An additional $55 billion is slated to be cut next year.
Last April, under questioning from Rep. Mike Conaway (R., Texas) at a House Armed Services Committee hearing April 11, Hagel said that if U.S. military action is taking in Syria “it’s pretty clear that a supplemental would be required.” Dempsey said during the same hearing that “It would take a supplemental” funding for a Syria operation.
Several Republican leaders expressed skepticism that the briefing failed to outline key military options and objectives.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), asked the administration officials to specify target sets and objectives and the officials did not do so.
At one point in the 90-minute briefing, Secretary of State John Kerry said the main objective of a military strike was to “deter” the further use of chemical weapons.
A senior Republican aide said Obama is a “fire and forget” commander-in-chief who did not provide information to the American people on the surge in Afghanistan and ordered operations in Libya that “turned North Africa into a safe haven for terrorists.”
Kerry, meanwhile, made an impassioned appeal for taking retaliatory action against Syria for the use of chemical arms.
“Our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of Syria is about choices that will directly affect our role in the world and our interests in the world,” he said during a speech at the State Department.
Kerry said “thousands” of sources provided evidence linking the Assad regime to the Aug. 21 attack.
Kerry said the intelligence shows the regime sought to attack opposition rebels in the Damascus suburbs and that three days before the attack “chemical weapons personnel were on the ground, in the area, making preparations.”
“And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons,” he said. “We know that these were specific instructions.”
Also, the location and time of launch of chemical rockets and where they landed is known and that they were fired from regime controlled areas and were fired only in “opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.”
The chemical arms attacks also were widely discussed on social media within 90 minutes of the early morning strikes on 11 sites in the Damascus suburbs.
The reports included images of people choking or dying, he said.
A total of 1,429 people were killed including 426 children, Kerry said.
“This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people,” he said.
Additional evidence obtained by U.S. intelligence includes details after the attack that a senior Syrian government knew about the attack and “confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime” and discussed the impact and expressed fears the use of the arms would be discovered.
Kerry said Syrian military forces fired artillery shells into the affected area to “destroy evidence” by heavy bombardment at four times normal rates of fire than in the previous 10 days.
United Nations inspectors’ access also was impeded and controlled, he said.
“Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack,” Kerry said. “And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment.”
The intelligence report stated that it was based on human, electronic, and imagery sources that reveal chemical rocket attacks were carried out Aug. 21 against regime opponents in the Damascus suburbs.
“The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition,” the report said. It concluded that Syrian rebels did not carry out the attack.
The nerve agent used was not identified, but the report said Syria stockpiles the blistering agent mustard and nerve agents sarin and VX.
Regime “frustration” with the military’s failure to suppress several Damascus suburbs of opposition forces was the reason the chemical attack was carried out, the report said.
Three days before the attack, there were indications of the likely use of the chemical arms, it stated. Preparations included Syrian military personnel mixing chemical weapons from Aug. 18, including sarin.
“
We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21,” the report said. “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”
We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21,” the report said. “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”
By the afternoon of Aug. 21, Syrian chemical weapons troops were ordered to cease operations, and the regime stepped up artillery attacks on the neighborhoods where the weapons were used. The stepped up shelling continued until Aug. 26.
Here is why it's not a slam dunk to assume any chemical weapons used on 8/21 could not have came from the Rebels , as per Russia , the Rebels may have used chemical weapons already ( note the Kerry report doesn't address this )
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-rebels-848/
Samples taken at the Syrian town where chemical weapons were allegedly used indicate that it was rebels - not the Syrian army - behind the attack, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin has said.
Russia has handed over the analyzed samples to the UN, he added.
“I have just passed the analysis of samples taken at the site of the chemical attack to the UN Secretary General (Ban Ki-moon),” Churkin said on Tuesday.
Evidence studied by Russian scientists indicates that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, Churkin pointed out.
“It was determined that on March 19 the rebels fired an unguided missile Bashair-3 at the town of Khan al-Assal, which has been under government control. The results of the analysis clearly show that the shell used in Khan al-Assal was not factory made and that it contained sarin,” he said.
Churkin added that the contents of the shell “didn’t contain chemical stabilizers in the toxic substance,”and therefore “is not a standard chemical charge.” The RDX - an explosive nitroamine commonly used for industrial and military applications - found in the warhead was not consistent with what the armed forces use.
According to Moscow, the manufacture of the ‘Bashair-3’ warheads started in February, and is the work of Bashair al-Nasr, a brigade with close ties to the Free Syrian Army.
Churkin stressed that unlike other reports which have been handed to the UN, the samples were taken by Russian experts at the scene, without any third party involvement.
More than 30 people died in the Khan al-Assal incident in the northern province of Aleppo in March. Damascus was the first to ask for the UN investigation, accusing opposition fighters of launching a chemical weapon attack. Syrian rebel groups denied the accusations, in turn blaming government forces.
However, the UN investigation has largely become stalled after a group of Western nations insisted on launching an inquiry into a separate case of alleged chemical weapons use in Homs in December 2012. The inquiry requires access to military objects, which Damascus has been unwilling to give.
The UN has also decided to exclude Russian and Chinese experts from the investigation team, withSyria protesting this decision.
So far, the UN commission of inquiry for Syria has not found any conclusive evidence proving that either side of the conflict used chemical weapons. This is despite several reports submitted by the US, UK and France, which claim to show that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces used such weapons.
Syria finds enough chemicals to ‘destroy the whole country’
The Syrian government invited chief UN chemical weapons investigator Ake Sellstrom and UN disarmament chief Angela Kane for talks in Damascus on Monday, announcing that a rebels-linked storage site containing piles of dangerous chemicals had been discovered.
“The Syrian authorities have discovered yesterday in the city of Banias 281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials,” Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari said, adding that the chemicals were “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country.”
The chemicals, which included monoethylene glycol and polyethylene glycol, were found in a storage site used by “armed terrorist groups,” Ja’afari explained. He said that Syria has started an investigation into the discovery.
The Syrian envoy expressed Damascus’ confidence that there will be “constructive negotiations with the Syrian officials in order to reach an agreement,” particularly in terms of “reference, mechanism, and time frame” of the UN mission.
Ja’afari added, however, that one should not “jump to the conclusion” that the Monday invitation means that Syria would consider allowing the UN team access to sites beyond Aleppo.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, reacted by calling the invitation “a move in the right direction,” but did not say whether UN investigators would accept it. The UN has been demanding that Sellstrom’s team be granted access across Syria “without further delay and without conditions,” ordering the Aleppo investigation not to begin until those demands were reached.
‘No credible reporting that rebels used chemical weapons’?
Following Churkin’s announcement, both US and UK officials voiced their disbelief over any evidence suggesting that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons, stating they have yet been unable to see the whole report of Russia’s UN envoy.
The US has “yet to see any evidence that backs up the assertion that anybody besides the Syrian government has the ability to use chemical weapons, has used chemical weapons,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
When asked whether Washington had seen the Russian report, Carney replied that it had not.
The UK also voiced its skepticism regarding the report, stating that it didn’t believe the opposition could have obtained chemical weapons.
“We will examine whatever is presented to us, but to date we have seen no credible reporting of chemical weapons use by the Syrian opposition, or that the opposition have obtained chemical weapons,” BBC quoted a UK government spokesman as saying.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/08/wheels-falling-off-the-imperial-reality-creating-machine.html
( In other news , John Kerry proclaims passionately Sharknado is indisputable evidence of global warming... )
SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 2013
Wheels Falling Off the Imperial Reality-Creating Machine
By Lambert Strether of Corrente.
One of the most famous quotes from the era of Bush the Younger came from Ron Suskind in his (October) 2004 article, “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush”:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued.
”We’re an empire now, [now?]
and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Joseph Goebbels would be proud. No, Joseph Goebbels would be awed. And, back in 2004, what was, pre-Obama, regarded as the left blogosphere, bloggers rose en masse to claim the mantle “proud member of the reality-based community.” We know how that worked out. But a little over a decade on, we can ask the question: Was Bush’s “senior advisor” right? Do we, as imperialists, create our own reality? I’d argue that the current Syrian fiasco shows that the answer is No.
Let’s assume that the reality we, as imperialists, were attempting to create was whatever the outcome of The Rummy’s Nutty Plan to invade seven Middle East countries in five years was supposed to be; rainbows and ponies, lots of lovely moolah for cronies, heaps of dead far away brown people, a death grip on that oil, also too Israel. Or some combination thereof! General Wesley Clark on “how things will sort out” (full interview):
Transcript:
Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld ["Rummy"] and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Now, it’s clear if “Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” was The Plan, the plan was implemented… Well, about as well as ObamaCare. Requirements got dropped, and deadlines were slipped. Afghanistan wasn’t on the list at all, and Syria didn’t come after Iraq, maybe because Iraq turned out not to be a cake walk, and we blew past Somalia (or not) and the Sudan (or not). But it’s certainly suggestive that Bush crossed Iraq off the list, and Obama took out Libya, and is going after Syria. And everybody knows Iran’s in the crosshairs. So I think we can accept that there’s a huge honkin’ binder with a version of Rummy’s Nutty Plan in it, lovingly kept up to date by the national security nomenklatura , and the national security and political classes are following it. No, we don’t know that, but then, we wouldn’t, would we? So how’s that working out for the imperialists, I mean, us?
Badly. Consider the following declension: Iraq, Libya, Syria. Let’s lay out some comparisons in the form of a table:
| Iraq | Libya | Syria | |
| Allies | US, UK, Australia (26 countries) | France, UK, US (19) | France (1) |
| Forces | 200,000 ground troops | Aircraft, naval blockade | Cruise missiles? |
| Casualties | 6 figures | 4 figures | 3 figures? |
Objective “Stand up” a “young democracy” Regime change “Red line”
In each case, as we move forward in time, power declines. Fewer allies. A smaller force. Fewer deaths and maimings. Less ambitious objectives. Hubris, meet nemesis; we are, one might almost think, looking at a bad case of imperial overstretch and subsequent decline. It seems that, rather defining reality, reality is defining us.*
However, there’s a second reason why we don’t seem to be nearly as effective in defining our reality as we thought we were: We’ve got competition. Consider this curious statement at the end of a New Yorker article on Syria:
Above: In a photo authenticated based on its contents and other A.P. reporting, Syrians inspect buildings damaged by heavy shelling from Syrian government forces in Aleppo, on Monday, August 26th. Aleppo Media Center AMC/AP
Why would the famously fact-checked New Yorker even have to explain the provenance of one of its photos? Well, because there’s a boatload of mis- and disinformation floating about in the form of pictures and YouTubes, that’s why. The administration unwittingly confirms (with emptywheel providing context):
[C]onsider how the number and location of sites plays in the [administration's] case [for war] itself.Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.[snip]We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack…We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.That is, the USG points to the sheer number of social media reports as proof that the attacks really happened, because the Syrian opposition couldn’t have faked them all.And yet the USG’s own case suggests that those locations may be inaccurate, even though the locations are portrayed in the videos.
In fact, the administration”s assessment is quite wrong. The Syrian “opposition” has this exact capability, in spades. Maybe because there aren’t any English majors on Our President’s national security team, nobody read this fascinating and instructive article in the London Review of Books. The author was embedded with several units of the Syrian opposition, and this is what he saw:
How to Start a Battalion (in Five Easy Lessons)‘Where will you go?’‘A very good man, a seeker of good deeds – he is from our town but he lives in the Gulf – told me he would fund my new battalion. He says he will pay for our ammunition and we get to keep all the spoils of the fighting. We just have to supply him with videos.’‘But why would he do that? What’s he getting in return?’‘He wants to appease God, and he wants us to give him videos of all our operations. That’s all – just YouTube videos.’‘So he can get more money.’‘Well, that’s up to him.’So how do you form a battalion in Syria? First, you need men, most likely young men from the countryside, where the surplus of the underemployed over the centuries has provided for any number of different armies and insurgencies. Weapons will come from smugglers, preferably via Iraq or Turkey. You will also need someone who knows how to operate a laptop and/or a camcorder and can post videos on the internet – essential in applying for funds from the diaspora or Gulf financiers.
So, in fact, YouTubes are essential to the Syrian “opposition” and used for fund-raising. And if you can make a video, you can fake a video. One can only speculate as to the quantity of funds that will be raised on a video that makes it to whitehouse.gov, even when aggregated with a hundred others. Eh?**
Summing up: Two reasons why the wheels of our imperial reality-creating machine have gone missing:
1. Reality creates us just as much as we create it, as Aeschylus and Euripides would have understood at once, and
2. Nimbler competitors are stealing our wheels for their own machines.
Too bad, so sad, but although the transition might be painful, we as a country will certainly be better off when we aren’t blowing faraway brown people to pink mist and waiting for blowback, and when the organs of state security aren’t a swollen sac of pus that’s waiting to burst. If we don’t end our imperial experiment, it will be ended for us. Best to get on with it.
NOTE * One might speculate that the reason Obama will put no “boots on the ground” in Syria also explains his fondness for drones: The Bush and Obama administrations between them broke the Army with poorly conceived missions, PowerPoint generalship, corrupt contractors, and constant re-ups, such that it is not necessarily a reliable fighting force. Certainly Army suicides are troubling, and inexplicable (or maybe not). And then there’s the public relations risk of more collateral murders.
NOTE ** As far as the twitter, I’m sure that all sides in the Syrian conflict are just as capable of Hasbara as the Israelis are.
NOTE I assume the Assad regime is issuing its own fakes. I just don’t have any evidence for that. Readers?
ADDENDUM
Cocktailhag at FDL points to a third reason the wheels are falling off:
And on this side of the pond, Obama Derangement Syndrome, once again, is paying off in a satisfying way. As much as Republicans love wars, they despise Democrats generally, and Obama in particular, enough that many are likely to join Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, and 50-odd other mostly liberal Democrats calling for at least a constitutionally-required consultation with Congress.[N]ot for the first time, the teabaggers are lining up to save the rest of us from another ruinous bout of Presidential bipartisanship. Just as they scuttled a Grand Bargain on Social Security and Medicare, they’re hauling out the peace bong now, and for that we should all be grateful to Aqua Buddha and the gang.
“[T]hey’re hauling out the peace bong now…” BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! But it’s true, it’s true. Meanwhile, the post-Red Wedding Catelyn Stark-like Nancy Pelosi calls for war, just as she called for the bailouts. It’s a funny old world.
And today's mockery of the often publicly discussed , looming but not decided upon yet , limited kinetic action based on evidence that can't be shown , but which demands action like yesterday ........
Obama Throws Up Right There During Syria Meeting
WASHINGTON—During a meeting with Cabinet-level officials at the White House Friday morning, sources confirmed that President Barack Obama threw up right in the middle of discussions regarding a U.S. military intervention in war-torn Syria. “He got really quiet and pale when we began to discuss plans for a unilateral strike on al-Assad’s forces, but then [White House Chief of Staff] Denis McDonough mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, and the president just puked right on the table,” said one source who was present, adding that Obama began dry heaving when talks turned to yesterday’s British parliamentary vote against any involvement in an imminent attack. “We thought he had gotten it all out of his system, but when [Secretary of State] John [Kerry] argued that the use of airborne military force must be swift and decisive in order to diminish the likelihood of a subsequent ground invasion, that just made Obama double over and hurl all over the floor. At that point, we simply had to stop the meeting.” At press time, Obama was reportedly sitting in the fetal position in a corner of the Oval Office as advisers frantically assured him that France is prepared to take military action alongside the United States.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Obama: Dithering Narcissist, Talented Phony or Both?
Some have suggested that we have a non-serious man in charge, in a world as serious as a heart attack. Others claim that BO is a reckless narcissist, seeking to “vindicate the vanity of the President.”
Who are you calling non-serious? Do you see this gun?
Actually both allegations were made by Dr. Charles Krauthammer (political commentator and psychiatrist, so qualified to make such assertions):
Here’s what he had to say about BO:
Well, according to Dr. Sowell, everyone who knew anything about what was required, thanks primarily to government regulation, to actually get that shovel in the ground.
Not to mention the shovel ready potential of phony foreign relations policies of a phony Nobel Peace Prize winner:
The cheese eating surrender monkeys have got your back Barrack. I hope that’s not racist.
He prefers a bow to a shot, butt with a “shot across the bow” you get both.
As Obama advised his fan club from the Situation Room (PBS’s and CNN’s, not Val-Jar’s) last night, we’re definitely, going to do something; maybe.
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.
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:
Who are you calling non-serious? Do you see this gun?Butt those charges are kid stuff, compared to the ego destroying allegations leveled by Dr. Thomas Sowell:Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.
No wait, he was talking about a phony economist there, not Big Guy.The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything — provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx’s “Capital,” and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read “Capital,” as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.
Here’s what he had to say about BO:
The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama’s reference to a military corps as a military “corpse.” He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. (snip)
Thus, Dr. Sowell points out, whenever Big Guy decrees something with his cocksured conviction to be absolutely true, he is “convincing” to the uninformed. As he was with the promise of millions of “shovel ready” jobs in return for a trillion dollar stimulus plan. Turns out (ha!) they weren’t so shovel ready after all. Who knew?Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.(snip)A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.Preaching love to the choir
Well, according to Dr. Sowell, everyone who knew anything about what was required, thanks primarily to government regulation, to actually get that shovel in the ground.
One can only imagine the number of shovel ready jobs associated with the phony promises of Obamacare,Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly “shovel-ready” projects.One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.
Not to mention the shovel ready potential of phony foreign relations policies of a phony Nobel Peace Prize winner:
So it looks like we’re off to lob some missiles into Syria all by our lonesome, as the British are not coming after all. Thank goodness we can still count on the moral support of the frogs.
The cheese eating surrender monkeys have got your back Barrack. I hope that’s not racist.
This message was brought to you by Organizing For Action Against America
Guns Along the Potamac: A Shot and a Bow
He prefers a bow to a shot, butt with a “shot across the bow” you get both.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.“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…”
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.
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,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.
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:
****
I feel compelled to remind everyone however that the enemy will most likely be outfitted with more conventional weapons.
I’m not sure this is going to be a fair match
I’m not sure this is going to be a fair match
and.......
Actual quote in LA Times story: Obama seeking Syria response ‘just muscular enough not to get mocked’
 |
**Written by Doug Powers
Being a Nobel Peace Prize winner trying to show you mean business is a tricky thing, because dancing that fine line between Rambo and Gandhi can be politically dicey. This quote in an L.A. Times story, while coming from the oft-quoted and occasionally unreliable “anonymous official,” does make sense because it best sums up the pickle Obama has put himself in over Syria:
Some experts said U.S. warships and submarines in the eastern Mediterranean could fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets as early as Thursday night, beginning a campaign that could last two or three nights. Obama leaves next Tuesday for a four day trip to Sweden and Russia, which strongly supports Assad’s government, for the G-20 economic summit.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.“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.
A mockable response, for example, would be to launch cruise missiles at Syrian industrial targets, trash their economy and code name the operation “Recovery Summer,” but avoiding such mockery is why that concern is reportedly being addressed at the White House. Basically the administration is asking themselves the question “does this war make me look fat?”
Obama said last night he hasn’t made up his mind yet, but I think he’s leaning in the direction of attack, because he’s gone really gray for this one:
**Written by Doug Powers
Our Pointless 'Sham Across The Bow' Of Syria's Assad
3 Comments
Posted 08/29/2013 06:52 PM ET
Syria: President Obama may talk big, but he carries a Styrofoam stick. Our commander in chief has told Syria not to worry: His "shot across the bow" will be a prelude to nothing.
This administration already has had a habit of spilling the classified beans for political gain, on drone "kill lists" and cyberwarfare against Iran for instance.
But in previewing his all-for-show mini-attack on Syria, Obama might as well be telegramming Hitler that there are these five beaches in Normandy where something interesting might happen at 6:30 a.m. on June 6.
Just think of the contempt and amusement on Bashar Assad's face when he hears the leader of the Free World advertise his priority of "not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about."
Assad hears Obama promise "I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria," and he knows that means what's coming is just a slap on the wrist, to be followed by nothing of any consequence.
Who can figure out the logic of a statement from President Obama like the following: "We are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow, saying 'Stop doing this,' that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term." That will send Assad's regime "a pretty strong signal that, in fact, it better not do it again."
Or what? Another shot across the bow?
If the U.S. has "no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria," that means there's nothing much further coming. So why had Assad better not do it again? Or not do all the other things he does again, like facilitating the activities of Lebanese and Palestinian terrorist groups?
A shot across the bow is impotent if the adversary knows that the shooter is not determined to follow it with shots that could sink his ship.
This is a president who just loves the sound of his own voice. Too often, however, he forgets that America's adversaries are listening. And our friends, who increasingly find little reason to trust our words, or our deeds.
In this case, Obama was clearly speaking to an American public that has just witnessed, thanks to him, unsatisfactory conclusions to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't want Syria to be next.
But two years ago, when the president, wanting to look tough, shot his mouth off about a "red line" on chemical weapons, he didn't bother looking at the hand he held.
He never thought Assad would call his bluff, but he has. And the poker face Obama is putting on now isn't fooling anybody into believing that the U.S. isn't folding.
No comments:
Post a Comment