Operation Mad Hatter has commenced !
http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-obama-tv-interviews-fox-news-cnn-nbc-pbs-abc-2013-9
President Barack Obama will embark on a furious push to sell his plan for military intervention in Syria beginning on Monday, when he will give interviews to six news networks.
and......
and while we're at it , Obama should summon flag boy to do his thing while O is speaking ........
Awkward " moments of the day " memes.....
Our Coalition - wild eyed jihadis , Al Qaeda and their enablers
Let's talk about those moderates syrian rebels , Mr Secretary of State ....
Apparent " Newby " to this political planet - or just earth in general , Sam Power has her " take me to your leader " moment ?
What will the Senate do in its 9-11 vote regarding Syria ? Will the House schedule a vote ? If the House vote occurs , can the President's war resolution there pass at present ? If he doesn't get full authorization from both the House and Senate , what does Obama do ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/07/will-obama-ignore-the-house-on-syria-attack/
Middle East media panning Obama's performance as well ....
http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-obama-tv-interviews-fox-news-cnn-nbc-pbs-abc-2013-9
President Barack Obama will embark on a furious push to sell his plan for military intervention in Syria beginning on Monday, when he will give interviews to six news networks.
Obama will sit down in taped interviews with Fox News' Chris Wallace, PBS' Gwen Ifill, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, ABC's Diane Sawyer, NBC's Brian Williams, and CBS' Scott Pelley.
It's Wallace's first interview with Obama since February 2009. According to Fox, the White House hand-selected the anchors. The other anchors have interviewed Obama more frequently throughout his time in the White House and on the campaign trail last year.
It's part of an extensive, ongoing push from the White House to sell Obama's plan for limited, targeted airstrikes in Syria in response to President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people on Aug. 21. And it's looking increasingly unlikely that Congress will authorize military action.
On Sunday, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough will appear on all five Sunday morning shows to talk about the administration's plan. And Obama will deliver a televised address to the nation in primetime on Tuesday night.
and......
Obama sends Congress videos to prove Syria used chemical weapons
Al Arabiya
Al Arabiya received videos late Saturday that U.S. President Barack Obama sent to Congress to prove that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians.
The videos show victims of the purported chemical weapons attacks, laid on ground seemingly deceased or dying.
The Syrian opposition said that a chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, a district in Damascus, killed more than 1,300 people, including women and children.
However, Obama has sent a collection of videos depicting victims not only in Ghouta but also in other areas.
The videos are Obama’s latest move to convince the wider American public to punitively strike Syria.
A Reuters poll shows that 56 percent of Americans are against military action on Syria, while 19 percent support a strike.
Obama, meanwhile, will give interviews on Monday to three network news anchors, as well as to anchors from PBS, CNN, and Fox, to garner support for a “limited” strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
The interviews will be taped on Monday afternoon and will air during each network’s Monday evening news broadcast, Reuters reported the White House as saying.
The U.S. leader wants to gather support ahead of pivotal congressional votes on military strikes in Syria, due to take place next week.
(With Reuters)
and while we're at it , Obama should summon flag boy to do his thing while O is speaking ........
Awkward " moments of the day " memes.....
Our Coalition - wild eyed jihadis , Al Qaeda and their enablers
Let's talk about those moderates syrian rebels , Mr Secretary of State ....
Lovely pic here from “Al-Aqsa Islamic Brigades" Sunni faction allied w/ Free Syrian Army. http://natl.re/15JP5tK pic.twitter.com/IvvRKOcjyp
Apparent " Newby " to this political planet - or just earth in general , Sam Power has her " take me to your leader " moment ?
“Smart power” finally reaches rock bottom http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-team-thought-iran-would-not-tolerate-assads-use-of-wmds/article/2535328 …
What will the Senate do in its 9-11 vote regarding Syria ? Will the House schedule a vote ? If the House vote occurs , can the President's war resolution there pass at present ? If he doesn't get full authorization from both the House and Senate , what does Obama do ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/07/will-obama-ignore-the-house-on-syria-attack/
Will Obama ignore the House on Syria attack?
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
The vote on authorization to bomb Syria may have a chance to pass in the Senate, although no whip count at the moment has Barack Obama even in the neighborhood of the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final poll of the upper chamber. Over the last couple of days, though, the momentum has gone the other way in the House, and Obama risks a humiliating and perhaps historic defeat. What happens in that instance? According to a White House source talking with CNBC’s John Harwood, Obama may just ignore the House altogether:
Source close to administration: WH might accept Senate-only approval of Syria strikes. Top WH official says source is "just guessing."
Legally, Obama might be able to do this. The White House has argued all along that it doesn’t need authorization from Congress to attack Syria, but is only consulting Capitol Hill to make global perception of US resolve that much stronger. Obama offered a similar framing of his request for authorization in his weekly radio address today:
That’s why, last weekend, I announced that, as Commander in Chief, I decided that the United States should take military action against the Syrian regime. This is not a decision I made lightly. Deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make as a nation.As the leader of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act together, and our actions will be more effective. That’s why I asked Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force.
If that’s true, he’s failed miserably, and it might get worse. According to The Hill this morning, Harry Reid is having a very big problem holding his own party in line in the one chamber Obama finds indispensable:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is bracing for double-digit defections in the Democratic caucus on the resolution authorizing military strikes on Syria, which will get a vote this coming week. …With already four Democratic senators saying they will likely oppose the measure, the pressure is building on Reid to reach out across the aisle.“If this vote were to fail, it will have huge consequences not only for the president’s domestic policy but also his foreign policy and for the people of Syria. This is about as high stakes as you can get,” Manley added. “How’s Iran and North Korea going to react to a defeat? How are House Republicans going to deal with the debt limit?”Reid filed the use-of-force resolution on the Senate floor Friday, setting up a Wednesday vote to end debate and move to final passage. The critical cloture vote will happen on the 12-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attack.
Well. there’s some brilliant management right there. Reid scheduled a vote on whether we should attack someone fighting al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist networks on 9/11. Want to bet Capitol Hill operators will need extra staffing that day?
If Obama can’t get a Senate controlled by his own party to agree with his new war, that should be game over. If Reid somehow delivers the Senate — and that’s looking less than likely now — we’re still left with the option of ignoring the House and treating the Senate like an advisory council. That’s politically dangerous, as it leaves Obama very isolated in a country that strongly opposes military action, according to Gallup:
Americans’ support for the United States’ taking military action against the Syrian government for its suspected use of chemical weapons is on track to be among the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years. Thirty-six percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons. The majority — 51% — oppose such action, while 13% are unsure. …Among recent past conflicts on which Gallup gauged public opinion prior to U.S. action, support was highest for intervening in Afghanistan and lowest for the 1999 conflict in Kosovo. Americans were divided about U.S. participation in the NATO bombing in Serbia’s Kosovo region about a month before the NATO campaign began. The similarity is noteworthy because some analysts are comparing a potential strike in Syria with that military episode, in terms of scope, duration, and purpose.The other three military engagements Gallup asked Americans about before they began — in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and the Persian Gulf in 1991 — were all on a larger scale than what President Barack Obama proposes to do in Syria, and involved sending U.S. troops into foreign countries. All of these proposed military operations received majority support before they began. Notably, all of these conflicts, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, were authorized by Congress and/or the United Nations at the time of the polling. Congress is currently debating whether to authorize military force in Syria.
Here are the numbers in comparison:
The difference between these conflicts is the preparation the Commander in Chief put into making the case before it came to war. A year ago, this same administration attacked its opponent in the election for wanting war with Syria, for instance, in what turned out to be a bad case of projection — and did so just a couple of weeks after Obama set the “red line” for action. Obama has done nothing since to build a case for intervention, not at home and not abroad, either. The above chart is what a dilettante President gets.
Now Obama is isolated at home, and abroad. Only France has agreed to join the US on military action, but that might not last long, either:
More than two-thirds of French people are against the country taking part in international military action in Syria, according to a newspaper poll published Saturday.The survey for French daily Le Figaro showed the country’s opposition to military action against the Damascus regime has increased markedly since the end of August.Asked whether they would be in favour of French participation — which President Francois Hollande strongly supports — 68 percent of respondents said no.That was an increase of nine percentage points on a survey published on August 29.
Obama may find himself entirely isolated in launching his new war. Bypassing the House on military action now would produce the opposite of what Obama intended when asking for the authorization in the first place, and it would destroy whatever political capital he has left here and on the global stage. Perhaps he should start thinking about the fact of his isolation and realize he’s alone on that limb for some very good reasons.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/06/syria-vote-may-be-delayed-in-house-as-leaders-fear-major-defeat/
( Congressional House Caucus members need to grow a pair - who the heck said their tongues must be silenced when their fellow colleagues who are not black are free to speak their minds ? )
Syria Vote May Be Delayed in House as Leaders Fear Major Defeat
Congressional Black Caucus Warned Against Criticizing War
by Jason Ditz, September 06, 2013
ABC News was the first to call it yesterday, and the majority in the House of Representatives set to vote against the Syrian War continues to grow, with only a few dozen “yes” votes and a massive undecided contingent leaving open the door for not just a loss, but a huge loss for the war party.
With no date yet set for the House vote, there is increasing talk that it could get pushed back to give the administration more time to lobby. As broad as the opposition is, it is hard to envision the administration turning the tables and getting Congress back on the side of aggressive warfare.
The efforts to lobby have been heavy-handed and poorly received, with the Congressional Black Caucus scheduled for a secret Monday briefing and then being told, in no uncertain terms, not to publicly criticize the war over the weekend.
Though the administration continues to claim it has secret proof that it is showing to certain special, already pro-war lawmakers, the reality is that the public case has failed miserably, and polls showing huge public opposition to the war continue to drive the votes against the resolution.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/06/obama-might-defy-congressional-no-vote-attack-syria-anyhow/
Obama Might Defy Congressional ‘No’ Vote, Attack Syria Anyhow
Power: No Alternative to Attacking Syria
by Jason Ditz, September 06, 2013
Setting the stage for what may literally be the biggest constitutional crisis in American history, the White House is continuing to insist that President Obama has the “right” to attack Syria whenever he wants, regardless of the circumstances.
That position was a controversial one when the talk centered around starting a war with Congress in recess. Now, having sought Congressional authorization and facing a defeat in the House, the White House is refusing to rule out attacking Syria over the explicit objections of Congress. Obama continues to demand Congress authorize the war, saying it would set the stage for military intervention in Syria and beyond.
In practice Congress has been abrogating its foreign policy clout to the executive branch for generations now, and has recently been willing to look the other way on aggressive wars started by presidents. But being asked, rejecting the war, then seeing it happen anyhow would be many steps farther than any president has ever attempted to go, and would oblige Congress to respond forcefully.
Aide Tony Blinken seemed to downplay that prospect, saying there was “no intention” to do so, but with officials continually insisting they don’t expect to lose the House vote, that’s nowhere close to ruling it out.
Likewise, US Ambassador to the United National Samantha Power continued to talk of war as an inevitability, declaring today that the US has no alternative but to attackSyria at this point, seemingly in spite of broad public opposition and an impending Congressional rebuke.
Lies , spin , desperation , arm-twisting , bribery and threats - why is war being forced down the american throat ?
AIPAC, Defense Contractors to Go 'All-Out' Pushing Syria War While the US is wildly war mongering , doubts abound elsewhere in the world .... |
| |
World Leaders Uncertain About Who Launched Chemical Attack |
News of the day......
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
( So now " boots on the ground " are in play for the US attack plan ? )
Saturday, September 7
14:31 GMT: Lebanese authorities have intensified security measures across the country “in the wake of tensions in the Middle East and possible U.S. military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons,” the Lebanese Higher Defense Council told Al Arabiya.
11:44 GMT: The European Union's Catherin Ashton claims that available information is enough to constitute strong evidence of the Syrian regime's responsibility for Augusts' chemical attack.
11:20 GMT: President Obama said that a small military force may be needed in Syria after all, to deter future chemical weapons attacks – according to Reuters. Although he said on his weekly radio and internet address that a protracted conflict like “Iraq or Afghanistan” is not something he wants.
11:18 GMT: German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has said he will join the G20 declaration calling for military action against the Syrian regime. "After we saw this excellent and very wise position of the European Union, the (German) Chancellor (Angela Merkel) and myself decided that we support now the G20 statement."
11:15 GMT: According to a survey carried out by the French newspaper Figaro, two-thirds of the French (68 percent) are against international military action on Syria, regardless of what their government chooses to do.
02:52 GMT: As Congress debates Syria military strikes, the US has issued travel warnings to Americans for Lebanon and southeastern Turkey based on possible violence in those countries bordering Syria, the US State Department announced Friday. In addition, the U.S. has also ordered its diplomats to leave both countries as a precautionary measure.
“Security of our people and our facilities in the region is of utmost concern to everyone here,” State Dept. spokeswoman Marie Harf said, adding that she was not aware of any specific threats.
Middle East media panning Obama's performance as well ....
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/arab-press-barack-obama-syria-96405.html?hp=t1
If President Barack Obama isn’t happy with his press coverage in the United States, he ought to take a look at how he’s being portrayed in the Arab media.
As Obama steps up his push for congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, the president is coming under withering criticism by opinion leaders throughout the Middle East, according to a review by POLITICO and experts of Arabic- and English-language media in the region.
The Obama bashing can be categorized in several ways: Those who charge the president’s needlessly dragging his feet; conspiracy theorists who argue it’s all a plot to boost Israel; and others who claim that any military operation in Syria is motivated only by the U.S.’s interest in dominating the region.
The increasingly unfavorable coverage Obama’s receiving in the Arab world - even come from the press in countries that support U.S. intervention in Syria - is doing harm to his image and influence, as well as further diminishing how America is perceived in the region, experts say. It hits especially hard coming at a time when Obama is looking anywhere he can, at home and abroad, to find allies for his plan to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“There are (Arab) media who say the U.S. should do something and basically Obama is being a chicken shit about it,” said Lawrence Pintak, a former Middle East correspondent for CBS News and founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. “The main talking point is that al-Assad needs to be stopped, this is a humanitarian crisis the U.S. needs to move. The second set is that Obama is showing a level of cowardice in turning to Congress for political cover, that it undermines American effectiveness.”
In an open letter on Sept. 1 to Obama published on Al Arabiya, based in Dubai and considered one of the top Arab news outlets, popular columnist Nasser al-Sarami said a military strike is “the last chance” that Obama has to improve his image and credibility. “Strike at all the jihadi terrorist gatherings and the murderous regime…Mr. Obama, quite frankly, we do not have anyone other than you,” al-Sarami wrote, according to a translation by Voice of America.
Arab media experts said news outlets in Saudi Arabia have led the charge on calling on Obama to act, and Al Arabiya is considered to mostly align with the Saudi perspective.
In a sharply critical piece, Tariq Al-Homayed wrote recently in the London-based newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that “it is not surprising that Assad continues to commit his crimes against Syria and the Syrians, for Assad’s strength stems from Obama’s weakness,” according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Michael Young, the opinion editor of the moderate English-language Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star, offered his view that Obama’s legacy is at risk as Syrians are “killed in droves.”
“America has rarely seemed so indolent in the face of barbarism,” Young said in the Aug. 23 piece. “Is Assad right in expecting no better than empty posturing from Washington? Or will the most overrated of American presidents be shamed into action, if only to salvage his collapsing reputation?”
While the White House and the America media are focusing on Obama’s “red line” against the use of chemical weapons as a justification for military action, the Arab media has shown little interest in that rationale as a basis for the attack. For them, a line was crossed long ago with the killing of large numbers of civilians by conventional means, Arab media experts said.
“Obama sat in his oval office for two and a half years, counting the tens of thousands of Syrian victims,” wrote Elias Harfoush in the pan-Arab and generally pro-Western Al-Hayat, which is based in London, according to a translation by The Times of Israel on Sept. 1. “What has the US president done in this period? Nothing! Until last August with a slip of the tongue he made the ‘mistake’ of warning Bashar Assad against crossing the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons against his people.”
One of the main concerns of the Arab media is trying to define why Obama has delayed action, Joe Khalil, a professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, told POLITICO. “Defining (Obama’s) reluctance has been one of the main obsessions of the Arab media, asking why isn’t he more assertive in his decision, after all, he said he said he’s not going to allow cross the red line,” Khalil said.
While there are those in the Arab media boiling over because they want Obama to move against Syria and don’t understand what’s stalling him, there are others who see Israel - the old Middle East “boogeyman” as one expert put - as pulling the strings behind the scenes.
“I would say an overwhelmingly majority [of Arab columnists] are headed in that direction, that [the U.S. is] trying to serve its own interest and serve Israeli interest through this planned attack,” said Professor Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens University of Charlotte, N.C., the author of several books on the Arab media. “I don’t recall seeing any commentary that the U.S. is doing this for humanitarian reasons. So I think this expected strike would actually contribute to the further deterioration of the U.S. image in the Arab world.”
Al Hayat columnist Jihad el-Khazen wrote on Wednesday that he believes it is the Jewish state calling the shots on a potential strike.
“What I do know is that all the warmongers are neocons or American Likudniks whose sole allegiance is to Israel, where the prevailing view is that a delay in striking Syria would be interpreted as weakness in the U.S. position,” el-Khazen wrote. “Israeli is a harlot-like occupation state that is not unlike the harlots of the Torah, and its government, which includes war criminals in its ranks, wants the United States to destroy what is left of Syria. More importantly, Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear program, so that Israel can be the only nuclear power in the region, threatening nearby and faraway countries.”
The pivot toward the Arab media’s blaming Israel is not a surprise, said Rami Khouri, Director of the Issam Fares Institute of Public Policy and International Affairs at The American University of Beirut. “There’s a reflexive reaction for many people in the Arab world to an American attack on the Arab world,” Khouri told POLITICO. “They are often linked to these other issues they have suffered, that (America) is seen as wanting to keep Israel the strongest part of the region.”
Pintak called Israel the “ever present boogeyman” in the Arab media. He said that some media figures who are advocating for military intervention have begun to suggest that “it was the Israelis who strong-armed Obama into postponing the action” - an odd claim when Israel has publicly supported a limited strike.
Then there are those in the Arab media who say an attack on Syria goes beyond Israeli interests and is part of a larger American goal to restore Western dominance in the Middle East.
In an opinion piece for the Dubai-based English-language newspaper Khaleej Times, Eric S. Margolis wrote on Sunday, “The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region.”
Given all this, the U.S. will find the public relations battle more difficult than the military one as the conflict unfolds, el-Nawawy said.
“If the United States proceeds with the strike I think it will be faced with the situation where it will have to fight an uphill battle to try to restore its image that has been tarnished since the Iraq war,” el-Nawawy said. “The U.S. has been trying to fix, work on the damage that has affected its image because of the Iraq war, and I think (a strike) would be a big blow to these efforts.”
Debka keeps pushing War agenda.....
http://www.debka.com/article/23257/US-Air-Force-will-also-target-Syria%E2%80%99s-air-force-ballistic-missiles-and-sections-of-its-air-defenses
Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrian ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him. These air raids could moreover be conducted from afar without American aircraft coming within range of Syrian air defense batteries.
Russia and Iran are already getting set to replenish by air and sea the losses the US air and missile offensive is expected to inflict on the Syria military.
For now, Obama will be spending all his time on a blitz to win lawmakers round to the strike against Syria, while Kerry seeks European and Arab partners for the operation, in addition to France which has already come forward.
Debka keeps pushing War agenda.....
http://www.debka.com/article/23257/US-Air-Force-will-also-target-Syria%E2%80%99s-air-force-ballistic-missiles-and-sections-of-its-air-defenses
The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive.
Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrian ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him. These air raids could moreover be conducted from afar without American aircraft coming within range of Syrian air defense batteries.
The US operation will also target the Syrian army’s 4th and Republican Guard divisions, protectors of the Assad presidency and regime, which were responsible for using chemical weapons, but not the weapons themselves. DEBKAfile’s military sources say they can’t be destroyed by air assault - only by ground forces, which the US president has ruled out in advance.
It was that conclusion which led Washington to considering air strikes for taking down the ballistic missiles, which may be used as the vehicles for delivering the poison gases both within Syria and beyond its borders.
This expanded inventory of targets portends a broader operation in scope than Obama’s first plan, which was designed only to caution the Syrian ruler of his peril for engaging in chemical warfare. The extensions to this plan would go a lot further than a deterrent warning and seriously downgrade his military and strategic capabilities.
This expanded inventory of targets portends a broader operation in scope than Obama’s first plan, which was designed only to caution the Syrian ruler of his peril for engaging in chemical warfare. The extensions to this plan would go a lot further than a deterrent warning and seriously downgrade his military and strategic capabilities.
Russia and Iran are already getting set to replenish by air and sea the losses the US air and missile offensive is expected to inflict on the Syria military.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stressed in the last few hours that the US felt fully justified in going forward against Syria’s use of chemical weapons without a UN mandate and, indeed, they indicated, the president would consider such action “the right thing to do” even if US Congress withheld its support.
For now, Obama will be spending all his time on a blitz to win lawmakers round to the strike against Syria, while Kerry seeks European and Arab partners for the operation, in addition to France which has already come forward.
Chess game being played on the sea......
Naval Forces Face Each Other Off Syrian Shores
RT
September 7, 2013
September 7, 2013
Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.
The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.
President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.
Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.
The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.
While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.
Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.
USA
The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.
The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.
The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.
On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum of operations,” including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.
In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.
The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”
While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.
The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.
The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”
The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.
Russia
Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.
Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.
On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.
“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.
RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.
The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.
Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a “pretty strong group” there.
“The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.
“Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region.”
Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.
They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.
The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.
“The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.
Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.
The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.
France
On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.
Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.
Italy
Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.
The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.
UK
As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.
On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”
The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.
Meanwhile , will none of the Western nations acknowledge that there is a distinct probability that the syrian rebels are using chemical weapons..... especially when they say that they are ? The failures to even adress or acknowledge what the rebels are doing really undermines US , French and UK credibility ....
Fox News Covers Infowars Story About Rebel Admitting to Using Chemical Weapons
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 7, 2013
Infowars.com
September 7, 2013
After being linked by the Drudge Report, Fox News covered an Infowars exclusive story featuring a Syrian rebel admitting to using chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin Laden’s mantra of killing women and children.
The Fox News story concerned the overwhelming amount of evidence that the Obama administration would be backing terrorists who have been responsible for atrocities if it went ahead with an attack on Syria.
Lawmakers who were early champions of a U.S. strike on Assad regime targets in Syria have stayed mum as video clips emerge appearing to show opposition soldiers both killing unarmed men and indicating they have possession of chemical weapons.The latest, a video on InfoWars.com, purported to show a rebel militant in Syria claiming to have chemical weapons, and saying he’s willing to target women and children. The video, which FoxNews.com has not been able to independently authenticate, only adds to the confusion over which side has the moral high ground and the reasons for U.S. military action in Syria.
The Fox report also links to a separate video which shows rebel commanders discussing chemical weapons. “The message is if the West doesn’t act, we (the rebels) too will have no red lines, and will use chemical weapons,” according to an analysis by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Watch the original video of the rebel admitting to chemical weapons use below. The footage has already been viewed over 100,000 times on YouTube.
ORIGINAL STORY: Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons
This article was posted: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 6:00 am
No comments:
Post a Comment