Making it up as they go along.....
The “goals,” to the extent they’ve been presented to the public at all, seem to begin and end with lobbing a bunch of missiles at Syria and declaring it “punishment.” That’s where things get complicated.
For Britain the question is a pretty huge one. With ongoing investigations over Tony Blair’s involvement in the illegal attack on Iraq, Prime Minister David Cameron is drawing uncomfortablecomparisons.
That seems extremely doubtful, however, as White House officials scoffed at the idea of bringing the matter to a vote, insisting the war is “in the clear interest of the United States” and that some members of Congress have been informed about it.
Still, with the decision made, the administration is set to start a broad domestic and international PR campaign, aimed at trying to placate opponents with the same shaky argument they’ve already presented.
No Apparent Endgame Strategy for US War on Syria
US to Start Lobbing Missiles, But Then What?
by Jason Ditz, August 27, 2013
Since the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials have been insistent that future US wars would have limited goals and well defined endgame strategies. That has been conspicuously absent with respect to Syria.
The “goals,” to the extent they’ve been presented to the public at all, seem to begin and end with lobbing a bunch of missiles at Syria and declaring it “punishment.” That’s where things get complicated.
Officials are insisting that the goal isn’t regime change in Syria, and seems to be going out of their way to downplay the idea of any endgame at all, suggesting that they’re going to just start blowing things up and then see where they stand.
Incredibly, the administration still insists it is supporting a political settlement on Syria, though they’ve postponed talks with Russia on getting those talks started since that might get in the way of attacking Syria.
Yet the rebels have refused to take part in the talks because they want to be unconditionally installed in power. Selling them on the idea of negotiation is going to be even harder if the US is engaged in a war-within-a-war with Syria, and there’s little reason for Russia to agree to work with the US on the talks after being spurned in favor of war.
In the giddy rush to publicly discuss war plans , the actual UN probe as to what occurred in Damascus - just a side issue ?
In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe
by Gareth Porter, August 28, 2013
After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its investigation.
The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the UN, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.
In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the UN investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.
The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the UN investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the UN as hindering its plans for an attack.
Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.
After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.
The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”
But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.
The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”
The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.
That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.
“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”
Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.
Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay”, the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York Tuesday.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.
Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident.
“Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.
Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.
Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.
“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed.
Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.
Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.”
Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.
Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.
But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.
The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.
The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.
In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.
Above the law - or just outlaws ?
No UN, No NATO: US and Britain Mull Legal Justification for War
Growing Unease in Britain Over Shaky Arguments
by Jason Ditz, August 27, 2013
With no UN authorization and not even the relative rubber-stamp of a NATO authorization the legal justification for the upcoming Syrian War under international law is on extremely shaky ground. Both British and US officials are tackling that question, but in very different ways.
For Britain the question is a pretty huge one. With ongoing investigations over Tony Blair’s involvement in the illegal attack on Iraq, Prime Minister David Cameron is drawing uncomfortablecomparisons.
That’s led Britain to seek parliamentary approval for the war, something which is liable to delay the war an extra day or two, but which will provide Cameron at least a little cover to argue that there was some legal process.
That may sound like a ticket to another protracted investigation in another 10 years, but it’s a lot more seriously than the Obama Administration is taking the matter, as US officials have no intention of asking Congress and seem to be placing the sum total of their legal argument on the idea that the attacks are going to be relatively small, at least to start with, and therefore its no big deal that there isn’t an endorsement.
and.....
White House Downplays Seeking UN or Congressional Approval for War
War Will Likely Start Before Congress Returns to Session
by Jason Ditz, August 27, 2013
With Congress still two weeks out from returning to session and war apparently more like two days away, 33 members of the House of Representatives are urging President Obama to call them back and seek an actual authorization before attacking Syria.
That seems extremely doubtful, however, as White House officials scoffed at the idea of bringing the matter to a vote, insisting the war is “in the clear interest of the United States” and that some members of Congress have been informed about it.
Nothing the administration has said about the imminent war suggests that they’re really giving Congress as a whole serious consideration, and rather they seem to be focusing on the hawkish members of the Congressional leadership, so they can at least make public statements saying they’re convinced.
Which is more than the UN seems to be getting. Though some officials initially gave lip-service to the idea of “international support,” since it’s clear Russia won’t sign off on a war request the UN Security Council isn’t expected to even be asked.
Obama’s even got the ultrahawks egging him on to start a war before Congress can conceivably get in the way, with Rep. Eliot Engel (D – NY) pushing to start the war before Congress gets back in session, and Rep. Peter King (R – NY) mocking the idea that Congress has any say at all.
King insisted that since President Obama is a “commander in chief” he doesn’t need anyone’s permission to start a war, and that he has an inherent “right” to attack Syria.
Though past presidents have historically sought at least some sort of vagueCongressional approval before attacking another nation, President Obama already went to war with Libya without consulting Congress and then openly refused to seek a legally required post-attack authorization by arguing that it wasn’t a “real” war.
and....
PR Push: Obama Plans Syria ‘Report’ to Be Released Ahead of War
Administration Campaigning Internationally for Support
by Jason Ditz, August 27, 2013
The decision to go to war is pretty much an in-house thing for the Obama Administration. Congress wasn’t asked, the UN wasn’t asked, and while the American public has been asked in polls, they’ve opposed the war over and over again.
Still, with the decision made, the administration is set to start a broad domestic and international PR campaign, aimed at trying to placate opponents with the same shaky argument they’ve already presented.
On the domestic front, President Obama has ordered officials to make up a “declassified report” detailing the circumstantial case that they are using to justify the war.
Secretary of State John Kerry has essentially already presented this case, noting that something happened in Damascus and a lot of people died, and that since Syria is known to have chemical weapons it’s “undeniable” to him that it must be that.
Meanwhile, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are calling world leaders trying to sell them on the war. Several nations, led by Russia, have already come out against the war, and they’re not likely to be the targets of the campaign.
Instead, the goal seems to be getting the rest of the world, those nations on the fence about the war, to keep their mouths shut while the US attacks Syria, so the administration can present the opposition as consisting of little more than Russia, China and Iran.
and.....
As far the UK , did Cameron and Hague get their talking points mixed up ?
http://rt.com/news/syria-un-west-arms-076/
“A decision about the use of military force has not been made. The president is reviewing his options, plural,” the White House spokesman said.
The US will release a public version of an intelligence report on chemical weapons use in Syria “in the coming days,” Carney added.
The White House statements came hours after US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the American military has moved up assets and was ready to take any action on Syria ordered by President Obama.
“We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Hagel told BBC in an interview. He said US forces were ready to execute a range of options from a limited cruise missile strike to putting boots on the ground in Syria.
Despite the senior politicians’ assurances that no decisions have yet been taken, reports begun to surface on Tuesday that a military strike could by launched against Syria “within days.”
Unnamed White House officials told the Washington Post that Obama was considering ordering a limited cruise missile strike on Syria as early as Thursday. Other media sources claimed that any US attack was unlikely while the UN team remains in Syria, alluding that the strike would be on Sunday at the earliest.
The notion of an imminent strike also fueled reports that the Geneva-2 peace conference on Syria was being indefinitely postponed, if not canceled. However, sources told Reuters on Tuesday that the Syrian opposition has been instructed to prepare for Geneva-2 despite the possible offensive.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has outlined the US stance on Syria in a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday, citing the information from reliable sources which he claimed proves the Assad government was to blame for the alleged chemical attack.
Such an approach was rejected by Sergey Lavrov, who brought forward Russian arguments stressing the need for constructive and in-depth exchange of expertise regarding possible chemical weapons use.
The guidelines for conducting the probe had been agreed between Damascus and the UN, and it was absolutely necessary to ensure successful work of the expert group in Syria, Lavrov emphasized according to the ministry’s statement.
The West has engineered a media campaign to facilitate a military incursion, Lavrov said earlier adding that “those involved with the incident wanted to sabotage the upcoming Geneva peace talks.”
Following the alleged chemical attack, the Syrian National Coalition, the official opposition to President Bashar Assad, called off the long-delayed peace summit in Geneva.
“We refuse to speak about Geneva after what's happened. We must punish this dictator, Bashar the Chemist we call him, and then we can discuss Geneva," coalition Secretary General Badr Jamous said.
The US has also decided to put off bilateral talks with Russia over Syria late Monday, citing “ongoing consultations” on the alleged chemical weapons use.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov expressed his concern over Washington’s decision adding that discussing terms for a political solution were needed now more than ever in the face of possible military intervention in Syria.
On Tuesday Russia once again warned military intervention in Syria bypassing the UN charter could have "catastrophic consequences" for the whole region.
"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.
http://rt.com/news/syria-un-west-arms-076/
US, UK, France push for response to Syrian ‘gas attack’ as UN chemical probe gets delayed
Even as the UN team investigating the alleged chemical attack in Syria had to postpone their investigation and yielded no results, Western states continued pushing for a “firm response” amid growing speculation a strike could take place within days.
A UN spokesperson on Tuesday announced that the planned visit to the site of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack outside Damascus has been postponed “in order to improve preparedness and safety for the team.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has urged all sides in Syrian conflict to “give safe passage and access”to the UN chemical weapons investigation team.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem also dismissed the claims that the Syrian government was delaying the probe’s start, saying that “UN team did not ask to go to the site until Saturday.”
Meanwhile, London, Paris and Washington continued to step up tough rhetoric on Syria, saying there should be a strong international response to the alleged chemical attack.
French President Francoise Hollande said France is “ready to punish” those behind the “chemical massacre” in Syria, and said that his government believes Damascus carried out the attack.
France is going to increase military support for the Syrian opposition, the president said, as he addressed foreign ambassadors in Paris. He announced a defense council meeting on Wednesday, and pledged to brief the French parliament about it.
Hollande appeared to argue that what he called a “responsibility to protect civilians” could override international law, which he said “must evolve with the times.”
Contradicting the earlier remarks made by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday said that any decision on Syria will be taken under a “strict international framework.”
However, he also announced that Britain’s parliament will be recalled Thursday to vote on the UK’s government’s own response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem also dismissed the claims that the Syrian government was delaying the probe’s start, saying that “UN team did not ask to go to the site until Saturday.”
Meanwhile, London, Paris and Washington continued to step up tough rhetoric on Syria, saying there should be a strong international response to the alleged chemical attack.
French President Francoise Hollande said France is “ready to punish” those behind the “chemical massacre” in Syria, and said that his government believes Damascus carried out the attack.
France is going to increase military support for the Syrian opposition, the president said, as he addressed foreign ambassadors in Paris. He announced a defense council meeting on Wednesday, and pledged to brief the French parliament about it.
Hollande appeared to argue that what he called a “responsibility to protect civilians” could override international law, which he said “must evolve with the times.”
Contradicting the earlier remarks made by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday said that any decision on Syria will be taken under a “strict international framework.”
However, he also announced that Britain’s parliament will be recalled Thursday to vote on the UK’s government’s own response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.
British armed forces are preparing an emergency plan in case of armed response to the attack, Downing Street added.
That could represent a “specific” military action against Syria, Cameron added later on Tuesday, saying the UK is not considering “getting involved in a Middle Eastern war.” But the world “should not stand idly by” following the Ghouta attack, he stressed.
UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s repeated the message that the government was not considering“trying to topple the Assad regime,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said the US’ options were “not about regime change” in Syria. However, he warned of an imminent response to the “violation of an international norm.”
That could represent a “specific” military action against Syria, Cameron added later on Tuesday, saying the UK is not considering “getting involved in a Middle Eastern war.” But the world “should not stand idly by” following the Ghouta attack, he stressed.
UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s repeated the message that the government was not considering“trying to topple the Assad regime,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said the US’ options were “not about regime change” in Syria. However, he warned of an imminent response to the “violation of an international norm.”
US promises evidence to justify limited strike on Syria
“A decision about the use of military force has not been made. The president is reviewing his options, plural,” the White House spokesman said.
The US will release a public version of an intelligence report on chemical weapons use in Syria “in the coming days,” Carney added.
The White House statements came hours after US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the American military has moved up assets and was ready to take any action on Syria ordered by President Obama.
“We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Hagel told BBC in an interview. He said US forces were ready to execute a range of options from a limited cruise missile strike to putting boots on the ground in Syria.
Despite the senior politicians’ assurances that no decisions have yet been taken, reports begun to surface on Tuesday that a military strike could by launched against Syria “within days.”
Unnamed White House officials told the Washington Post that Obama was considering ordering a limited cruise missile strike on Syria as early as Thursday. Other media sources claimed that any US attack was unlikely while the UN team remains in Syria, alluding that the strike would be on Sunday at the earliest.
The notion of an imminent strike also fueled reports that the Geneva-2 peace conference on Syria was being indefinitely postponed, if not canceled. However, sources told Reuters on Tuesday that the Syrian opposition has been instructed to prepare for Geneva-2 despite the possible offensive.
Russia warns of ‘catastrophic consequences’
US Secretary of State John Kerry has outlined the US stance on Syria in a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday, citing the information from reliable sources which he claimed proves the Assad government was to blame for the alleged chemical attack.
Such an approach was rejected by Sergey Lavrov, who brought forward Russian arguments stressing the need for constructive and in-depth exchange of expertise regarding possible chemical weapons use.
The guidelines for conducting the probe had been agreed between Damascus and the UN, and it was absolutely necessary to ensure successful work of the expert group in Syria, Lavrov emphasized according to the ministry’s statement.
The West has engineered a media campaign to facilitate a military incursion, Lavrov said earlier adding that “those involved with the incident wanted to sabotage the upcoming Geneva peace talks.”
Following the alleged chemical attack, the Syrian National Coalition, the official opposition to President Bashar Assad, called off the long-delayed peace summit in Geneva.
“We refuse to speak about Geneva after what's happened. We must punish this dictator, Bashar the Chemist we call him, and then we can discuss Geneva," coalition Secretary General Badr Jamous said.
The US has also decided to put off bilateral talks with Russia over Syria late Monday, citing “ongoing consultations” on the alleged chemical weapons use.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov expressed his concern over Washington’s decision adding that discussing terms for a political solution were needed now more than ever in the face of possible military intervention in Syria.
On Tuesday Russia once again warned military intervention in Syria bypassing the UN charter could have "catastrophic consequences" for the whole region.
"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment