THE SYRIAN ISSUE TODAY SPECIAL REPORT
Advocates of military action against Syria describe the use of force wholly unrealistically,
relying on such terms as “narrow,” “proportional” and “surgical.” President
Obama says he is considering a “limited, tailored” operation to send “a shot
across the bow.” His analogy fails. A shot across the bow is deliberately
designed to miss an adversary, intending to send a clear and threatening
warning. In contrast, Mr. Obama and his advisers plan to hit and destroy
specific military targets in Syria to punish President Bashar Assad for the use of chemical weapons against his own
people.
The analogy is not merely a bad one. It misleads the
public, and the world, about what the Obama
administration wants
to do. Presidents need to talk straight to build credibility and public
trust. The truth is that Mr. Obama cannot limit the consequences of a
military initiative. It will be open-ended and entirely beyond the predictive
capacity of his administration to anticipate what comes after the initial
attack.
Recall what happened two years ago when President
Obama used military action against Moammar Gadhafi. Mr. Obama confidently
announced that operations in Libya would be a matter of days, not weeks. They lasted
seven months. The military action, as authorized by the U.N. Security
Council, had the exclusive purpose of protecting innocent
civilians, particularly those in Benghazi. However, cruise missiles, armed
drones and aircraft bombings did extensive damage throughout Libya and ended up killing civilians. Initially, the Obama administration said it would not side with rebel forces fighting
against Gadhafi. It proceeded to do precisely that. As another step in
mission creep, the administration added the goal of regime change, leading to the
capture and killing of Gadhafi.
With Syria, the risks of
errors, miscalculations and unintended consequences are much, much greater
than in Libya. Gadhafi,
particularly after the bombings required to create a no-fly zone, had no
capacity to respond to U.S. and NATO attacks. That is
not true of Syria, which has the
means of self-defense. When it reacts to military actions by the United
States and its allies, those nations will respond in kind, most likely by
escalating the violence. Syria will answer. Mr. Assad is likely to gain public support because his nation is
under attack, especially after reports of civilian casualties.
If the Obama administration carries out strikes against Syria,
armed combat is likely to spill over into neighboring states, including
Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan and Israel. Russia,
Iran, Egypt and other countries will become involved. There can be no
risk-free shot across the bow. Mr. Obama can exercise control over the
initial military action. He will have scant influence over subsequent
developments. The lesson of wars is that they have their own logic and
endlessly surprise human actors.
The bill submitted to Congress by the administration is far too broad. It would authorize the president to
use armed force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in
connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass
destruction. Nothing in the bill limits the scope and duration of military
activity. The door would be wide open for broad and ongoing use of force in
the region. It would be great error for lawmakers to mechanically endorse
what a president asks for, as they did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in
August 1964 and the Iraq Resolution of October 2002. Both actions produced
terrible results. Legislation on Syria risks the same, or even greater, damage.
The Obama administration insists that Mr. Assad must “pay a price” and be held accountable. Why is
military force the only choice? The key issue is not Mr. Assad’s
personal responsibility for the gas attack or the need to hold him
accountable. Rather, it is this: Is a military solution the best course of
action? Other options could be more effective and less likely to unleash war
throughout the Middle East. Reasonable and sensible nonmilitary methods are
available to hold Mr. Assad accountable, including economic sanctions and blocking Syria’s
access to military supplies from other countries. There are opportunities to
work jointly with other nations, including Russia,
to monitor and control Syria’s chemical
weapons.
The danger is great that a military response to Syria will backfire, leading to tragedy in the Middle East
and another war that we will regret we started. The bill submitted by the administration,
advocating military force, needs to be put aside without efforts to amend it.
Lawmakers can then hold hearings to seek advice from experts who can
recommend how the confrontation with Syria can be handled short of war.
“The regimes in
America, Britain and France want you to fixate on a simple question – did the
Assad regime use chemical weapons? And they want to convince you that the
answer to this question is of purely moral importance to them.
As deeply moral and
caring people – and a nobel peace prize winner himself – Mr Obama wants to
establish that unlike other people, other ‘regimes’, he and his democratic
government, his “Shining City on the Hill” to quote President Reagan’s famous
speech, have no grubbier motives, no hidden agenda or real politic policy
objectives.
Our enemies, the
‘evil doers’ may have ulterior motives – in fact they always do. We don’t. We
are simple moral crusaders – sorry, not crusaders, err.. liberators! Yes,
that’s it.”
Those who pay
attention at all know the regional domination by NATO nations and oil play
enormous roles in this mess but let’s face the two real possible outcomes and
it is not simply the possibility that an attack will make the Syrian Civil
War worse.
The best we can hope
for is that all of bellicosity, preparations and announced widening plan of
attack is a replay of the Cuban missile crisis where Vladimir Putin is being
manipulated into being the “peace maker” in forcing Assad to the table and
into acceptance of a political solution to the Syrian Civil War.
The worst outcome
would be that of igniting a major conflagration in the middle east or provoking
World War III.
The configuration
and confluence of causations and motivations for such are all on the table,
social, political, economic
and ideological.
The consequences of
an action are historic. I am not hopeful.
The President will
address the public tomorrow night to attempt to sway a portion of the
electorate in support of his position. “Fear” will be the core of that
message. The
call to morality will be hypocritical as we have been guilty of using and
supporting the use of chemical weapons and though Americans don’t like the
statement: “We have been as guilty of War Crimes as heinous as any nation you
can mention.”
CRS: DOD Estimates ‘Over 75,000
Troops’ Needed to Secure Syria’s Chem Weapons - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/crs-dod-estimates-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem#sthash.txqvV7Ba.dpuf
Once again the current rulers of the USA have
decided some little dusky-brown skinned people need to be saved from some
other dusky-brown skinned people. Once again they’ll be saving them by
bombing. Carefully, of course, and with
every effort made to kill only the bad brown ones and not the good brown ones,
and in a strictly limited numbers. It’s going to be another one of those
Shock, Awe and Mutilate humanitarian gestures by a regime which specializes
in them. Never, I think, has any regime been so consistently ‘called upon by
history’ and its own ‘moral beliefs’ to save so many people so often in such
an explosive manner…..More…
The Eternal Truth That Sets America Apart(The type of thought and analysis that will lead to WWIII) There is only one winner in the ongoing shambles of the West’s policy on Syria, and it is not Bashar al-Assad. Mr Assad and his regime are now locked into the familiar slow suicide march of the modern dictatorship which ends eventually in execution or exile.
That will come later rather than
sooner because of the shameful political gamesmanship of the countries on
which his victims should have been able to rely, but – count on it – it’s
just a matter of time.
No, the grand-slam,
record-breaking, knock-out winner of the past week has been Vladimir Putin,
who graciously thanked the British Parliament on Friday for its support in
his quest for global domination.
Surely every British and American
politician who declares that military intervention would be acceptable only
with the permission of the United Nations must know that he is handing Mr
Putin – with his blocking vote on the Security Council – the power to run the
world? Or at least, to determine the fate of some of the most oppressed parts
of it.
Yes, the broken-backed nation that
is post-communist Russia – so degraded in its economic and military stature
that many commentators are ready to write it out of the world script
altogether – has checkmated the “winners” of the Cold War.
For a defunct power, it is proving
remarkably competent at protecting its client states and maintaining its
regional influence. Our side may be learning a critical lesson: a dying
superpower is more dangerous than it was at its zenith because it has less to
lose. Its leaders (particularly the present one) will take wild risks to
prove that they are still in the game.
Russia must now be regarded as a
potentially unstable, irresponsible rogue state which will fling itself
against the might of the West for the sheer bombastic joy of it.
Which brings us to the current
clear loser: the West, and all of those who believed in its capacity to
defend humane values and the rule of law. Even assuming Barack Obama gets
Congress to agree to his minimalist no-regime-change, no-nation-building,
in-and-out-in-a-couple-of-days intervention (maybe with a teeny-tiny bit of
help from France), what sort of impact will the leader of the free world have
made on the criminal Syrian regime?
It is difficult to know precisely
what effect he intends his carefully circumscribed and meticulously
pre-announced actions to have. Short of providing the precise date and time
of his rocket launches, and a map of the exit routes from proposed targets,
he could scarcely have been more helpful to the Syrian government in keeping
the damage to a minimum. If the White House sees this elaborate warning
arrangement as a way of avoiding civilian casualties, then it is very naive:
ruthless dictatorships are more likely to plant civilians in the proposed
target areas for propaganda purposes, than to remove them to safety.
So what would Mr Obama’s foray into
the military assault business – assuming it goes ahead – be designed to
accomplish? The President and his spokesmen take a rather different tone from
that of Secretary of State John Kerry, who has made very eloquent statements
indeed about the abomination of the Assad regime and the moral imperative to
prevent further atrocities.
Mr Obama himself speaks as if he
were engaged in a public-relations war rather than a shooting one: the US
intervention (when it happens) will be all about “sending a signal” to the
Syrian government that its use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, blah,
blah. Sending a signal?
As I write, the US is lining up its
warships: they will be sending missiles, not signals. If they are properly
informed and aimed, the missile systems will eliminate stores of chemical
weapons and the Syrian government’s capacity to use them: the White House is
now describing its plan as a “deter and degrade” mission. So this would be an
act of war, not a “signal” or a gambit in a moral debate.
What does the president think he is
doing when he talks misleading spin-doctor gobbledegook?
He has clearly been told by his own
intelligence advisers that it is absolutely necessary for America to step up
and do what it has done before, whether willingly or reluctantly: accept
responsibility for being the world power whose role is to defend the idea, as
the founding documents say, that all men are born with unalienable rights to
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. As every American schoolchild
is taught, those rights are to be regarded as universal and not simply the birthright
of one nation.
What would an America be like that
did not expect to be called upon to support and defend oppressed people? A
haven – within its own borders – for the persecuted and the dispossessed? A
land of opportunity for economic migrants? Maybe.
Obama, Assad Go Head-To-Head
In US Interview Duel
Presidents
Barack Obama and Bashar Al-Assad will go head-to-head in dueling US
television interviews Monday, as a crucial week dawns for the US leader's
push for air attacks on Syria.
Assad will reportedly deny that he used chemical
weapons on civilians, as Obama makes a long-odds push to reverse his nation's
mood and win support for punishing the Damascus regime for flouting taboos on
the use of such arms.
US Secretary of State John Kerry toiled abroad to
build diplomatic support, which appears solid in condemning Assad but is
falling short of the kind of broad coalition for military action that
Washington had hoped to build.
Assad, fighting a propaganda war as Washington
agonizes over whether to attack, gave an interview to veteran CBS and PBS
newsman Charlie Rose, which will begin airing at 1100 GMT.
He will insist he was not behind the August 21 gas
attack on a Damascus suburb and say he does not know if a US attack would
come.
Rose told CBS that Assad would say "there's no
evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people."
And
he threatened "some kind of retaliation" if Washington strikes,
Rose said.
Obama,
credibility on the line as signs point to an uphill battle to win support for
strikes in Congress, will give interviews to six US television broadcasters
Monday.
He is waging a
political offensive of uncharacteristic intensity, after shocking the world
by putting air strikes on hold a week ago and seeking support from skeptical
lawmakers.
“The German
newspaper Bild, however, cited German naval intelligence as saying Assad did
not personally approve the August attack.”
September 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "Reuters" –
WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD - Syrian President Bashar Assad warned that
if there was a military strike by the United States on his country, there
would be retaliation by those aligned with Syria.
CBS reported Assad's remarks that he made in an interview with Charlie Rose on Sunday on its news program "Face the Nation." Syria was as prepared as it could be for an attack, Assad said. Assad denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people and said evidence was not conclusive that there had been such an attack. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," CBS reported Assad said in an interview conducted in Damascus. Meanwhile, Iran's new foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the United States will ignite a fire across the Middle East if it attacks Syria. Zarif made the remarks on a visit to Iraq on Sunday, warning Western powers against warmongering. After more than two years of civil war, US President Barack Obama is trying to drum up support for limited strikes on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack that Washington blames on Assad's government. The Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad has sought to maintain a neutral stance towards the conflict and opposes any Western military intervention in Syria, fearing it will further destabilize Iraq. "We Are Concerned About Warmongering In This Region," Said Zarif At A News Conference During His First Official Trip Abroad Since Taking Office. "Those Who Are Short-Sighted And Are Beating The Drums Of War Are Starting A Fire That Will Burn Everyone." Zarif was received by his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari and was also expected to meet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki later in the day. The Syrian conflict has widened a fault line between Islam's two main denominations, pitting mainly Sunni rebels, their Gulf Arab sponsors and some Western powers against Assad, whose Alawite sect derives from Shi'ism. Iraq's own sectarian balance has come under acute strain from the civil war next door, which has given new momentum to Sunni Islamist insurgents who have been striking with a frequency and on a scale not seen in years. Sunni and Shi'ite militants from Iraq have also crossed into Syria to fight on opposite sides of the conflict, complicating the government's official position of neutrality. "Interference (in Syria) will affect the neighboring countries maybe directly, including Iraq, which will be affected in terms of security and humanitarian issues," Zebari said at the news conference. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States had intercepted a directive from a senior Iranian official instructing Shi'ite militants in Iraq to attack US interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike. Alireza Miryousefi, the spokesman for Iran's UN mission in New York, on Saturday denied the allegations and dismissed them as "baseless". "One should remember that reliance on such intelligence reports from anonymous US officials will lead to another disaster similar to the Iraq tragedy," Miryousefi was quoted as saying by Press TV.
Syria: March
to Disaster
By Eric Margolis
September 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Recalling
the massacres and destruction during the 1820’s Greek war of independence
from the Ottoman Empire, then Victor Hugo wrote, “the Turks have passed by
here – All is in ruins and mourning.”
Today, the nations in ruins and mourning are Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and, to a lesser degree, Libya, all dismembered or broken up by the power of the mighty American Raj. Syria is clearly the next target of the American imperial bulldozer. After two years of brutal rebellion armed and financed by the US and its regional allies, Syria now faces devastation. A campaign of air-strikes and missiles will crush Syria’s air force, tanks, artillery and communications. Israel stands ready to sweep up the ruins of Syria. Pure black comedy. Shamelessly stealing Bush administration propaganda, the Obama White House has been actually warning that Syria’s chemical weapons (most of their raw materials came from Europe) pose a dire threat to the United States. Syria acquired chemical weapons to counter Israel’s large arsenal of nuclear weapons, originally supplied by France. Failure to act will be another Munch appeasement, warns Obama. But the US Congress could not take action because it was still on summer vacation. President Obama even allowed there was no urgency for action. The important thing he declared was that America’s “credibility” was at stake. Politicians invoke credibility as a excuse after they have made a huge blunder –notably Obama’s foolish “red lines” in Syria that boxed the president into a corner of his own making. What we are seeing is the latest, 21st century version of the new era of colonialism and imperialism, with a touch of Crusader zeal thrown in. Today, the favored euphemism is humanitarian intervention, but the song remains the same. Syria is not about poison gas or human rights: it’s about a proxy war against Iran, the only nation now challenging total US and Israel military domination of the Mideast. For France, it’s about reasserting its former colonial rule in Syria and Lebanon….more… MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap? Precedence: IMMEDIATE We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.” We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised. The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today. Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you. We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans. Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy? That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.” This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.” Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20. The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria. The Intelligence There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war. According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured. We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons. In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria. At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers. Cui bono? That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear. Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues: “For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis. “‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’” We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is. That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran. Iran’s Role Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible. Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran. Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].” Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture. Inevitable Retaliation We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.” For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former) Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.) Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.) W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.) David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.) Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.) Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.) Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.) Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
“The European race’s last three hundred years of evolutionary
progress have all come down to nothing but four words: selfishness,
slaughter, shamelessness and corruption.”
… Yan Fu …
The “New American Century” proclaimed by the neoconservatives came to an abrupt end on September 6 at the G20 meeting in Russia. The leaders of most of the world’s peoples told Obama that they do not believe him and that it is a violation of international law if the US government attacks Syria without UN authorization. Putin told the assembled world leaders that the chemical weapons attack was “a provocation on behalf of the armed insurgents in hope of the help from the outside, from the countries which supported them from day one.” In other words, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Washington--the axis of evil. China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and Argentina joined Putin in affirming that a leader who commits military aggression without the approval of the UN Security Council puts himself “outside of law.” In other words, if you defy the world, Obama, you are a war criminal. The entire world is waiting to see if the Israel Lobby can push obama into the role of war criminal. Many are betting that Israel will prevail over the weak american president, a cipher devoid of all principle. A couple of decades ago before the advent of the american sheeple, one of the last tough Americans, Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly declared that “no US president can stand up to Israel.” America’s highest ranking military officer could not get an honest investigation of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. We are yet to see an american president who can stand up to Israel. Or, for that matter, a Congress that can. Or a media. The obama regime tried to counter its smashing defeat at the G20 Summit by forcing its puppet states to sign a joint statement condemning Syria. However the puppet states qualified their position by stating that they opposed military action and awaited the UN report. …more …
As we approach the time that Congress will either vote to
authorize this President to attack a foreign nation that is no threat to the
United States, without being sanctioned through the United Nations Security
Council (which is also against International Law), or Congress will take back
the authority given to them in the Constitution. Either way, heads will turn.
Understanding that there are those in Government and elsewhere
that want to attack Syria for different reasons (many of them monetary), the
President is being manipulated to accede to their demands. Calling on
Congress to justify a strike on a foreign nation that will most likely have
enormous repercussions, not only in the Middle East, but all around the world,
this President might just have kicked the can down the road.
If this is his purpose, he well go down as one of our greatest
Presidents if he bends to Congress if they vote no. This will be a giant step
in dismantling the "Imperial Executive" branch. Giving Congress the
power to authorize the use of force will be exactly what this nation (and the
World) needs to see. This will also allow President Obama to backtrack out
the pickle he has been put in by his "red line" remark.
If the Congress fails to authorize this strike (and that appears
likely), the President could emulate the British Prime Minister David Cameron
with an "I get it" remark. This would allow him to extricate the
United States out of the Middle East where nothing is completely white or
black or good or bad. It appears that maybe President Obama is starting to
understand that no matter what the United States does or doesn't do in the
Middle East, nothing will satisfy everyone.
The nation is tired of these endless military diversions that
seem to go on and on forever. The nation is also tired of the military
spending that takes up 54% of our discretionary budget. Hundreds of Tomahawk
missiles at 1.6 million dollars each is a lot of money. This is money that
the defense industry is salivating over. Israel too would love to see Syria
(with whom they are technically at war with) turn into a failed state like
Iraq and Libya, the two US "client states" that were introduced to
democracy over the barrel of a gun. Our actions didn't work then and they won't
work now.
The United States needs to learn a hard lesson. We just can't be
the arbitrator of every violent conflict in the world. We helped start this
mess by supplying the "Syrian" rebels that are, by and large,
mercenaries from all over the Arab World. We stand back and wonder how al
Nusra and al Qaida got involved and now realize that we are seeing a playback
on how the war in Afghanistan got started. The United States government, in
its eternal wisdom, recruited and supplied the "freedom fighters" in
Afghanistan led by none other than Osama Bin Laden. So how did that work out
for the U.S.?
I can only hope that this is what Obama is trying to do. If it
is, he is smarter than I give him credit for. If it isn't, and Congress
authorizes the strikes and he proceeds to use military force against Syria,
or Congress says no and he acts without authorization, he is the dumbest man
to ever sit in the oval office.
BY: Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
WASHINGTON — THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria
consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page
classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an
attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you
can draw your own conclusion.
On Thursday I asked the House
Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation
available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”
The Syria chemical weapons
summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence
information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls,
“social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted
or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified
summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own
conclusion.)
Over the last week the
administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members
from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack
Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the
proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying
evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the
American public.
In fact, even gaining access to
just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.
We have to descend into the bowels
of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the
instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking
is not allowed.
Once we leave, we are not
permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our
constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to
verify the validity of the information that has been provided.
And this is just the classified
summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a
formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I
haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.
Compare this lack of transparency
with the administration’s treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant
classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of
Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had
nothing to hide.
Her successor, John Kerry, has
said repeatedly that this administration isn’t trying to manipulate the
intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize
its invasion of Iraq.
But by refusing to disclose the
underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it
impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is
correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: “Trust, but
verify.”
The danger of the administration’s
approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which
claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to
justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads
a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”
The allegedly doctored report
attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily
Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds
with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade
in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”
I don’t know who is right, the
administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision
on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American
public.
We have reached the point where
the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress,
who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then
inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this
extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is
drowning in its own phlegm.
My position is simple: if the
administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other,
then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that
way.
Alan
Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Syria Attack:
High-Stakes Decisions On Capitol Hill Are Yes, No And Maybe
Their constituents are against it, their party leaders
in Congress are generally for it, and President Obama has declared it a moral
imperative — leaving rank-and-file members to sort it all out and take a
career-defining vote on whether to authorize military strikes on Syria.
For some, the decision to approve strikes is about
international human rights and chemical weapons.
For others, it’s part of a broader war on terrorism
that Republicans in particular say Mr. Obama has been losing, and they see a
chance for the president to get back on track in confronting radical Islam.
For what appears to be a growing number in Congress,
the decision is a referendum on Mr. Obama’s competency: Do they trust him to
manage the attack in the limited way he says and not get drawn into the
larger Syrian civil war?
The Washington Times spoke with three lawmakers about
their decision-making, and what came through in each case was how seriously
the members were studying the briefings provided by the administration and
working through the pitfalls and possibilities of a strike.
|
Monday, September 9, 2013
THE SYRIAN ISSUE TODAY SPECIAL REPORT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment