The Gathering Storm in Syria
Hopefully this will not happen...but the pieces are being set for a greater Middle Eastern War.
...
Two days earlier, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah defiantly confirmed his men were in Syria fighting for Assad. “We will be the ones to bring victory,” he declared. Syrian opposition leaders believe about 7,000 Hezbollah fighters are in the country.
In the meantime, the situation in Syria threatens to escalate, not just drawing in its neighbours, but also unpicking the basic structure of the Middle East from the Levant to the Gulf — a structure largely unchanged since 1916.
Michael Clarke, director- general of the Royal United Services Institute, fears the region is splitting into two camps: on one side, Hezbollah, the Alawites, the Shi’ite minority in Syria, the Shi’ite majority in Iraq backed by Iran — and on the other, Jordan, the Christian and Sunni peoples of Lebanon, the Sunni majority in Syria and the Sunni minority in Iraq backed by Saudi Arabia.
“Syria is the eye of a much wider storm about to break out across the region,” he warns. “If Syrian sectarianism creates this sort of ethnic/religious fault line across the whole region then a lot of existing national boundaries will come to mean very little.”
...
The UN said yesterday that more than 1,000 people were killed in Iraq in May, the deadliest month since the sectarian slaughter of 2006-7, stoking fears of a return to civil war.
...
Israel, watching the arc of previously stable dictatorships around most of its borders crumble, has already shown itself willing to take military action in Syria and Lebanon.
The Jewish state has made clear it will act in its own interests, even if those might not coincide with those of America or Britain.
There are many different players in this conflict, each with their own set of interests. As I said, hopefully it does not escalate from here but things do not look optimistic.
As for U.S. involvement, it seems to be damned if we do...damned if we don't.
“We can identify who these people are,” said McCain. “We can help the right people.”
That could be easier said than done. Reports from Lebanon indicated that two of the men posing beside him might have been leaders of a brigade responsible for kidnapping 11 Shi’ite pilgrims.
...
No military plan, however, looks attractive. “The problem with arming the rebels is we only like 25% of them and even if you give them stuff there’s no guarantee it won’t be passed on to Islamists,” said one western diplomat in Washington.
....
As the conflict escalates and spreads, Vali Nasr, a former State Department official under Obama, points out the costs of inaction could be colossal.
“If al-Qaeda takes control of parts of Syria, how are we going to deal with that? If you don’t invest in training a militia that you have control of, that you can ultimately unleash against al-Qaeda, then you have to deal with it on your own.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/08/the_gathering_storm_118699-3.htmlI've been thinking about this for some time. There is an idea that there is (often but not always) a "natural political map" of any given area, with national boundaries following cultural groups. Each group, having it's own language, bases its ideas on its own literature, and develops its own cultural values; and consequently various groups with differing values are best administered separately.
The situation in Central and Eastern Europe post WWII is a good example of national boundaries being imposed in tension with the natural map. In the 1990s, the natural map reasserted itself. The Czechs and Slovaks managed an amicable divorce, but Yugoslavia was too entangled and erupted in war.
The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.
From here, I can see three ways to go. Firstly, the current governments effectively repress the mobs, and force the lid back on the simmering pot for a few more years, til it all erupts again.
Secondly, the whole Middle East could peacefully reorganise itself along a lines of European style centralised regulation, with a high degree of regional cultural independence. I consider this massively unlikely.
Thirdly, and most likely, the area slides into further ethnic and civil war, going through a particularly long and bloody Balkanisation. I would imagine this taking quite a few years to play out, lead to millions of deaths and huge refugee flows, and really screw up the worlds oil supply networks. Because of the oil, the world's great powers will want to push for option one, and keep deferring the problem.
At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. Many of the Arab states, especially the Gulf Emirates, have (One Side) majority populations, with (Other Side) rulers. That has to change.
TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.
Now the Russians are going to supply Syria with an anti-aircraft rocket system, to kill any west imposed no-fly zone, it may get very hot, very soon.
... At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. ...
Sounds like too much work. Maybe the nuclear powers in the region can divvy up the rest of the geography and wipe out those populations. All they do is bicker anyway.
I forgot to mention how many of the great cities are multi-ethnic.
Czechia and Slovakia had a reasonably straight border that produced roughly convex country shapes with the majority of the ethnic sorting already done. The former Yugoslavia didn't. Consider also the partitioning of India/Pakistan.
This could get quite messy.
And how much will the great powers get involved?
See, here's where a long term autocracy would have benefits for the US. Over the next five years the US government could spend, rough guess, a trillion dollars in a process of banning oil imports, and subsidising the creation of an alternative fuel network on eg hydrogen, biofuel, electric etc etc.
But that would be an outrageous interference in the natural market system, and a huge waste of taxpayers' money.
So instead, over the next five years, they'll spend two trillion dollars on building military capability and using it to "stabilise" the middle east, because the nation needs the oil.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to simply walk away from the greater middle east, let them sort their shit out in whatever way seems fit to them, and maybe just take a humanitarian interest in the people there?
The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.
I agree with pretty much all of this. I read an article a few years back (can’t find it) predicting that in 2100, there will be twice as many countries than what exists today due to the nation-state boundaries not taking ethnic differences into account. Africa is the main one.
From here, I can see three ways to go.
This scares me as well. My outcome predictions are a little different but boil down to basically the same thing. Also, it seems clear that the situation has gotten so bad so quickly that a peace deal will never be accepted by all parties.
If Al Assad and his allies win, a major crackdown will ensue and regime change will be unlikely in other countries (Iran, etc.). This will probably result in the most stable condition for a non-peace outcome but the problem is that this peace will likely be temporary. Things may boil over later or may not.
If the Syrian rebels win and the fighting remains isolated within Syria, there may be vast amounts of Shia ethnic cleansing and the government that follows (if one even does) will likely be unfriendly to not only U.S. and Israel, but also its Iraqi (mainly Shia) neighbors. This is not a stable condition.
If the fighting erupts into a Greater Middle Eastern War, then the outcome is anyone’s guess. While a re-divided Middle East is a potential option, it may also end up not being as “clean” as the Balkans, resulting in further problems. Or, one side may end up winning and the region becomes more centralized as well. I don’t think we can automatically assume that decentralization of nations is the only possible option.
The reactions from Israel, Turkey, Iran, Europe, Russia, and China are up for grabs as well. Russia and China care more about stability and economic gains than ideology so their “loyalty” could be lost or transferred instantly. If Assad falls and the fighting expands or continues, it isn’t about regime change anymore for Europe and the US. Both sides will likely be unfriendly to Israel.
In hindsight, this entire Arab Spring may also cause reflections of foreign policy strategies. I think Obama is going to find out the hard way that having good intentions and pushing for the best outcome (peace deal) may unintentionally result in a much more destructive outcome. As
realpolitik as it sounds, if the US and Europe supported Assad from the beginning, many lives would be saved. On the other hand, pursuing
realpolitik policies that doesn't take civilian opinion into account, like China and Russia is now and the US has in the past, may also result in a more unstable environment that becomes extremely hostile. The shortcomings of all the major foreign policy ideologies may be exposed in the next few years.
Yes, the possibility of a long war that leaves one group dominating other groups across a large area, still in violation of the "natural political map", is an outcome I hadn't listed. That would just defer the situation for another generation.
Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria. The argument is that Syria closely resembles Lebanon and Iraq where all three countries had (colonial installed) minority ruling regimes. In both Lebanon and Iraq, decade long civil wars broke out and he doesn’t expect Syria to be any different, whether the US intervenes or not. In this case, the US cannot stop the violence; we can just influence who is on the receiving end…
http://vimeo.com/67864718Add this to your speculation ZG:
-- US oil production is rising quite sharply; it rose more than 10% in 2012
-- As of last month, US oil production is higher than consumption for the first time since 1995
-- Most US oil imports are from Canada
-- As of last month, US oil production is higher than consumption for the first time since 1995
No way. That can't be true. Did you mean to type that? We're a net oil producer now, not a consumer?
Yes, and which state is the second-highest producer of oil, behind Texas?
North Dakota!
Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria. The argument is that Syria closely resembles Lebanon and Iraq where all three countries had (colonial installed) minority ruling regimes. In both Lebanon and Iraq, decade long civil wars broke out and he doesn’t expect Syria to be any different, whether the US intervenes or not. In this case, the US cannot stop the violence; we can just influence who is on the receiving end…
http://vimeo.com/67864718
I really enjoyed that video. I think Fareed Zakaria is pretty sharp.
I also really enjoyed this series of counter-points, via Ta Nehisi Coates:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/syria-intervention-and-the-weight-of-history/276797/
Apparently there's a lot of historical context that he glosses hard, in giving the historical context.
Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria.
Or just go back to posts in 2003 when scumbags in America gleefully planned to massacre 5000 Americans for no useful purpose. The same arguments apply. 1) Where is the smoking gun? 2) What is the strategic objective? 3) What is the exit strategy defined by that objective?
Zarkaria's discussion dovetails quite nicely with what everyone here - at this point there should be no one - what everyone here should have learned from recent history. Or what was then called Deja vue Nam.
He even asks a simple question. Who is the enemy? Because our leaders in 2002 were so dumb, they even failed to answer that question. As a result, almost everyone in Iraq was the enemy. Because none of those three key points existed to justify military action.
Having seen "convincing evidence" of (small scale) use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces, Obama has approved "military support" for the opposition.
There is no part of this I am comfortable with.
Me neither.
As a parent, you have to set limits and when the limits are tested, you have follow through with the consequences or your kids will know you are a total pushover.
Obama said if they crossed the line, he would do this. I wish he hadn't said that. He painted himself into the corner. But it's not like it's this crazy thing he said. It's reasonable to say that using chemical weapons on your civilians is crossing the line. It's a messed up situation. I just hope we don't give them any really good weapons they can use against us later.
I don't see us getting anything by going into Syria. Arm the rebels - seems like a reasonable response if the Sarin gas incidents are probably true.
Anything after that, should be humanitarian aid for the refugees, and later on, funds to help them survive as they rebuild their devastated country.
No other involvement.
There are NO "friends" to the US, in Syria, and Israel *should* act independently, for it's own defense and interests.
A line has been laid down not just for Syria, but for every other country in the world as well:
If you use chemical weapons, you will face some vague amount of reprisal, such as your runways may be cratered.
I do not feel competent enough to decide whether this is a good idea. I will leave it up to you guys.
I do not feel competent enough to decide whether this is a good idea. I will leave it up to you guys.
I would imagine that every possible action in this situation will be viewed as a bad idea in hindsight.
The big factor in this "intervention" will be how much assistance we actually give the Syrian rebels. Right now we are just giving small arms and Obama has made it clear that this assistance is not a blank check. This amount of assistance will be cheap with a low potential for blowback. I would get worried if we really start escalating our involvement.
Another possible explanation for the minimal assistance is that this intervention is more about Iran than Assad. Right now Iran is helping fund Assad and has a large stake in Assad winning. The longer this civil war prolongs, the higher the price-tag for Iran.
To your humble blogger, this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that's been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.
This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.
So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Times story, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.
The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits. So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels.
Now let's be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It's a policy that makes me very uncomfortable... until one considers the alternatives. What it's not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.
So, to conclude: the United States is using a liberal internationalist rubric to cloak a pretty realist policy towards Syria.
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/14/why_obama_is_arming_syrias_rebels_its_the_realism_stupid[QUOTE]...liberal hawkery.
[/QUOTE]
oxymoron? ...or just plain :D
Its a term for liberal interventionists. Essentially promoting military intervention for humanitarian purposes. Think Balkans and what Susan Rice believes should have been done in Rwanda.
Examples of liberal internationalists include British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[1] In the US, it is often associated with the American Democratic Party[citation needed]; however, many neo-conservative thinkers in the United States have begun using similar arguments as liberal internationalists and, to the extent that the two ideologies have become more similar, it may show liberal internationalist thinking is spreading within the Republican Party.[2] Others argue that neoconservatism and liberal internationalism are distinctly different foreign policy philosophies and neoconservatives may only employ rhetoric similar to a liberal internationalist but with far different goals and methods of foreign policy intervention.[3]
Commonly-cited examples of liberal interventionism in action include NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina; their 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War; and the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalismI usually avoid the politics threads. Can I just drop in and make the smart-ass comment that firearms are technically chemical weapons being both composed of matter and requiring a chemical reaction to launch the projectile?
(I know it's ridiculous. Don't take it seriously.)
You forgot to mention that the bullets can cause lead poisoning.
Not so much the dose as the delivery...
I vote no to arming Al Q but I foolishly thought Iraq and Afghanistan would go badly so who knows?
Yes to UT'S point about the international precedent (remember how Libya started playing nice after Saddam got the boot).
And Yes to PH45's article about the greater strategy - although it is a dangerous game to play. Still, what
is a good idea in this situation isn't clear to me.
However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power. With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?
Maybe if we could make SAMs that have GPS chips that track where they are are and disable themselves if they are used outside an approved war zone...
However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):
In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.
Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?
The Syria ship has sailed. We missed that boat when we didn't begin humanitarian aid early in the rebellion. Medical support in particular would have enabled us to establish rapport with indigenous people who could point out foreign interventionists and identify which rebel groups, if any, were seeking a free Syria as opposed to those which would simply replace one oppressive regime with another. We'd be playing Russian Roulette (pun intended) if we began arming factions now.
Soon after the rebellion began, I checked with a contact [old Army buddy and physician] at a government contractor whose services include providing former military special operations medical personnel for such purposes. Civilian veterans with specialized skill sets enable the government to accomplish what its military can do; but, without having to put boots on the ground. I was told that the government wasn't letting such contracts. There was no political will to get involved anywhere else in the region, not even on a humanitarian level, after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan strained our relations with our allies in the region.
If we intervene now, at any level, it will be so that Barack Obama can save face after his red line was crossed just as George Bush Jr. got us into Iraq to save face after Hussein tried to knock his daddy off. At this late stage, it's better to let the players in the region handle it and clean up after them as necessary. We can always use our political influence in the region to have Syria's chemical weapons destroyed for us if WMD compromise becomes imminent.
However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power.
This is one of the main inconsistencies I've noticed when looking through different articles. Some say that Assad's air force is a major factor and other suggest that the air force is a really only a small part and it is the soldiers on the ground that is causing the largest amount of damage.
With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?
What could go wrong? :D
However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):
Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?
I think Europe, Turkey, and the other Arab states, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are really pushing for the US to get involved.
I think Europe, Turkey, and the other Arab states, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are really pushing for the US to get involved.
Long before the world has any responsibility, first local powers must try and fail. It is their job; not our's. We are not the world's policeman. When we go in, the entire world also goes in. Currently, responsibility only lies with regional powers. Who are crying rather than doing.
Nothing is stopping Saudis, Turks, Gulf States, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Jordanians from providing massively more aid. Many are also rich. But instead they want us to do their work?
Nothing is stopping Saudis, Turks, Gulf States, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Jordanians from providing massively more aid. Many are also rich. But instead they want us to do their work?
The Saudis and Qataris have been arming the rebels for the past few years. I do agree with you that we can not "own" the situation in Syria. If we are going to give weapons, it has to be backseat to the support from other countries. If the rebels manage to overthrow Assad, then let them deal with it.
This thing seems designed for chaos. Its a nice distraction from what could become an American Spring.
I'm still caught on the chemical weapons trip-wire.
The war has killed maybe 93,000 people, to date. That's acceptable, apparently.
150 of them were killed be sarin, not shrapnel? OMG OMG OMG!
I wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.
That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.
II wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.
Obama seems to either be a bumbling idiot or a strategic realist (see earlier article) with respect to Syria. If he is a bumbling idiot, his hand got played for him from surrounding peer pressure and when Syria called out his red line by using chemical weapons. If he is strategic realist, he is responding to the recent victories by Assad et al. and using their use of chemical weapons as an excuse to get minimally involved to keep the status quo.
That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.
I disagree. Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't. If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to. Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.
What pisses me off is the rush by some in Congress to go to war. These are the same people who allowed sequestration and who demand offsets for every dollar spent on domestic programs.
How can they argue against most spending and suddenly find the money to involve us in a foreign conflict that may have strategic implications but that does not directly threaten us?
It is possible that Syria can be a 'hands off' war like Clinton ran in Bosnia or it can be like Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire. Noone gave Clinton enough credit for not getting us sucked into boots on the ground in Bosnia. Or it can be a proxy war against Russia with both sides giving heavy weapons and aid. What will happen when the first US aircraft is shot down by a fixed emplacement or man portable Russian missile? What will happen if in 5 years a US aircraft in Afghanistan is shot down by a USD-made man portable missile that was given to the Syrian rebels?
Mixed in with the 'freedom loving' rebels are anti-Western radicals who want a religious state and hate secular governments, US, and Russia. The whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' bullshit does not apply here.
That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.
Probably not so...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us/politics/pressure-led-to-obamas-decision-on-syrian-arms.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130615&_r=0
NY Times
PETER BAKER
16/15/13
Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms
WASHINGTON — For two years, President Obama has resisted
being drawn deeper into the civil war in Syria.
It was a miserable problem, he told aides, and not one he thought he could solve.
At most, it could be managed. And besides, he wanted to be remembered
for getting out of Middle East wars, not embarking on new ones.
So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.
Coming so late into the conflict, Mr. Obama expressed no confidence
it would change the outcome, but privately expressed hope it might
buy time to bring about a negotiated settlement.
Few international problems have bedeviled Mr. Obama as much as Syria
and few have so challenged his desire to reduce the American footprint
in the world in order to focus energies instead on what he calls “nation building here at home.”
As much as he wants to avoid getting entangled in what he regards as another quagmire,
he finds himself confronted by a conflict that is spilling over into the region and testing American resolve.
<snip>
Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't.
He wanted to get reelected.
If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to.
Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.
Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.
Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?
Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.
Well said. He knew the voters would never sanction this war. To my permanent shame, I voted for him as well.
So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.
Except that he's the President. It is on him, no one dragged him, no matter what unattributed narrative the Times is selling.
Oops. According to the UN via the Washington Times, the sarin gas that was allegedly used ... was allegedly used by the rebels, not Assad.
Umm, does this mean we ought to arm Assad?
Oh and in other news, Iran reportedly is sending/has sent 4000 men from the revolutionary guard.
ETA in
other other news, 8,000 troops - mostly US, Jordanian and British, but from 19 nations - are conducting a training exercise named operation Eager Lion about 120 kms from the Syrian border.
http://rt.com/news/jordan-multinational-military-exercises-459/The Saudis and Qataris have been arming the rebels for the past few years.
Insufficient weapons. Criticism should start with those who are cost controlling while waiting for the world's policeman to take charge.
We have one obligation. To provide defensive forces for our friends. Especially our friends who are the border states of Jordan and Turkey.
The world (and therefore the US) only has an obligation when the local 'powers that be' screw it up. That obligation does not yet exist.
A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.
It is their problem. It becomes our future problem if WE are not overtly critical now of their inactions. Nobody is discussing a major problem - near zero weapons and aid from neighboring countries.
Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.
...
Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.
Are you arguing that he hasn't gotten involved because of logistics or re-election purposes? Both are valid points and are not mutually exclusive but I have been under the impression that it is more logistics. If Obama and media started banging the war drums with Syria (and Iran) and focus on the extremely fucked up shit happening (chemical weapons, government forces raping women and torturing children, etc.), voter support for intervening could have increased.
Most of Obama's foreign policy decisions have put him in the realist camp and not the non-interventionist or interventionist's camps. From what I've seen, most "realists", or close to that label, have been reluctant to get involved or have proposed minimal involvement. This is due to logistics and a lack of large direct interests in the region (some national interests do exist). This is no guarantee how Obama will react, but based on his past decisions, I would expect minimal involvement unless some big game changer happens and the strategy shifts. Maybe post-election Obama will be different but we will have to see.
On a side point, does anyone remember how popular intervening in Libya was pre-intervention?
Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?
I agree. That was a big mistake for Obama. He was probably under pressure to say something and thought Assad wouldn't use them.
A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.
I don't think the public call for intervention is dependent on how many deaths have occurred, but more on a cost-analysis of what we would have to do to stop the killing. There are multiple competing rebel groups who will start killing each other if they dispose of Al-Assad. Arming the rebels won't prevent more deaths from occurring and will likely cause more. Plus, Al-Assad isn't a direct threat to US and is an only an indirect threat to Israel. Rebel groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra are more direct threats.
For Western governments pondering whether to arm the rebels rather than merely advise them and provide non-lethal support, Jabhat al-Nusra is the biggest worry. By some estimates, it now has 6,000 carefully vetted men, mainly Syrians but under foreign leadership. Its global jihadist ideology justifies violence to bring about a nation where all Muslims unite. “Most groups are a reaction to the regime, whereas we are fighting for a vision,” explains one of its fighters.
Though Jabhat al-Nusra says it gets most of its weapons from the spoils of battle, it also enjoys murky sources of private funding, including regular payments from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since it captured oil wells and grain silos, it has been able—more effectively than other outfits—to set up basic services and a rudimentary administration in the areas it controls, as well as sell off goods and oil for cash. It is probably the most disciplined of all its rivals.
......
Yet it is not only Jabhat al-Nusra which expresses extreme Islamist views. Though Ahrar al-Sham has more local aims, its comrades are also vehemently Islamist. So are many of the other forces that have gained ground among the rebels, thanks in part to Gulf backing.
Rebel groups that echo more moderate and secular attitudes, for which Syria used to be praised, are smaller and less powerful.
......
A big problem for Western governments is how to decide which groups to back and how to funnel help to them. The rebels have built informal networks but still have no effective command structure. Since it was set up in December, their Supreme Military Command, led by General Salim Idriss, a Sunni defector from Mr Assad’s army, includes some able commanders but still lacks the cash and arms to match either the regime’s forces or Jabhat al-Nusra, which ignores the military command. Moreover, arms sent to one group could easily fall into the hands of another. Rebels often switch allegiance from one lot to another, often depending on its success.
......
And jealousy between rebel groups over the supply of cash and arms is fomenting strife between them. Earlier this month, two rebel commanders were assassinated in Raqqa alone. Rebels from more secular-minded or more moderately Islamist groups speak openly of a second war to come—against Jabhat al-Nusra.
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21578057-more-decent-rebel-groups-are-being-squeezed-between-regimes-forces-and
The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...
The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...
Those "things" must spill out so badly that local (adjacent) 'powers that be' *beg* for help. Literally *beg* by acknowledging how toothless and irresponsible they have been. (As European had to admit in Bosnia.)
How much public begging is currently happening? None. Therefore we have no business militarily involved in Syria. (But should be massively involved in collecting facts/intelligence and in discussing solutions diplomatically.)
Why no civil war in Libya? Because we did not intervene. Because enough deaths occurred in every family that 'big dic' thinking earned the contempt it deserves. Therefore ideologies on all side were replaced the intelligent (moderate) thinking. Moderates were empowered because that war was so long and devastating - a good thing.
How many years of civil war in Lebanon were required to finally replace 'big dic' advocates with moderates? So that religious stupidity was replaced with tolerance only found among moderates? Unfortunately, some really stupid Americans (ie Col Oliver North, et al) were so anti-American dumb as to intervene. Therefore America uselessly sent to their death some 200 Marines. Because we let extremists make policy. How many more times must that stupidity happen before enough Americans finally learn lessons from history?
The spillover must be so massive that local 'powers that be' all but openly *beg* in the UN. They are not yet because no where near enough people have died due to their inactions.
If and when we do respond, then moderates who make policy also announce that "We will be the meanest and nastiest dog in the region." Anything less would only be contempt for the American soldier. Which again means three necessary conditions. A smoking gun. A strategic objective. And an exit strategy. Also only possible when the local 'powers that be' finally concede and beg.
BTW, both Jordan and Turkey are slowly moving towards begging.
http://au.businessinsider.com/cia-secret-training-syrian-rebels-2013-6
The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. Shocked, shocked, gambling, establishment, etc etc.
Democrats are leading the push for more intervention:
The latest and perhaps most outspoken Democrat to prod the administration is Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, who tells The Cable he's tired of waiting for the White House to articulate its goals in Syria -- and how it hopes to achieve them.
"For too long there really hasn't been a clearly articulated strategy," he says. "The administration has yet to make it clear to the American people what's at stake here... With Tehran and Hezbollah taking the offensive, a bad result in Syria could greatly strengthen the Iranian regime and make it more difficult for us to constrain their nuclear ability."
"Those basic strategic interests need to be stated over and over again by the president, by the secretary of state and by the national security team in general," he continues. "But that just hasn't been happening."
....
While Casey declined to discuss specifics of the briefing due to its classified nature, he said there was not "nearly enough clarity" about how the U.S. planned to arm the rebels. And as far as heavy weaponry, "I have no information that either anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons are going to be provided ... I would hope that in the future those would be offered," he said.
Casey joins a growing cohort of Democrats clamoring for a more assertive policy. Last week, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, joined Arizona Republican John McCain in signing a letter urging the president to "take more decisive military actions in Syria to change the balance of power on the ground against [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad." In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking Democrat Eliot Engel has been pushing for lethal military assistance since March, when he introduced his Free Syria Act legislation authorizing the shipment of weapons. In May, the Democratically-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill authorizing lethal aid by a bipartisan vote of 15-3.
....
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/24/democratic_senator_obama_has_no_articulated_strategy_on_syria
The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.
Well, it now seems that Obama's decision to arm the rebels wasn't due to recent pressure or from the chemical weapons...
(CNN) -- Syrian rebels have received heavy weapons -- including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles -- from "brotherly nations that support the Syrian revolution," a rebel spokesman said Friday.
Free Syrian Army political and media coordinator Louay Almokdad told CNN during a phone call from Istanbul that Free Syrian Army leaders believe the weapons "will be a turning point" in the war against government forces "and will definitely change the rules of the war on the ground."
The issue of providing military assistance to Syrian rebels is expected to be further addressed Saturday at a "Friends of Syria" meeting in Doha, Qatar, which will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
The White House has not publicly specified what steps it would take to support members of Syria's opposition, though sources have told CNN that small arms, ammunition and possibly anti-tank weapons would be part of the assistance package.
Syrian rebels have long sought anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, saying they are outgunned by President Bashar al-Assad's military.
The White House announcement this month that it was increasing the "size and scope" of its material support to Syrian rebels came after months of political debate over the U.S. role in the conflict. Great Britain and France were strong backers of the May decision to end the European Union arms embargo on Syria, and all three countries have asserted that al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons.
Al-Assad has denied the assertion.
In recent weeks, the rebels have suffered a series of devastating setbacks, including the loss of the stronghold of Qusayr near the Lebanon border.
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/syrian-rebels-say-they-have-received-anti-tank-andSide up hell, we're America and they better pay attention, dad-gum-it.
We condescend everybody, always have, always will. ;)
Hooray! We've got ourselves a proxy war with Russia! Interestingly, we're the ones arming Al Q. We must have lost the coin toss.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-russia-simultaneously-announce-intent-145729405.htmlWhat arms? Is this different than what Obama said he would do a month or so back?
[ATTACH]44949[/ATTACH]
"But you said next Tuesday.
.... That's today, not a week from today"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-russia-simultaneously-announce-intent-145729405.html
... gives a story under the same picture that Lamp posted about current developments.
Z, Sorry to step on your post.
I was tired and I reverted to one of my favorite Russian calendar farces
... about the
Battle of Ulm, Wednesday, Oct 16, 1805.
TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.
Well it looks like your prediction is starting to come true.
Beirut: More than two years into Syria’s civil war, the once highly-centralised authoritarian state has effectively split into three distinct parts, each boasting its own flags, security agencies and judicial system.
In each area, religious, ideological and turf power struggles are under way and battle lines tend to ebb and flow, making it impossible to predict exactly what Syria could look like once the combatants lay down their arms.
But the longer the bloody conflict drags on, analysts says, the more difficult it will be to piece together a coherent Syrian state from the wreckage. “There is no doubt that as a distinct single entity, Syria has ceased to exist,” said
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/syria/war-splits-syria-into-3-distinct-regions-1.1219353
To show how this looks on a map (red is Assad, Green is rebel, Yellow is Kurd):
If this continues to unfold, I wonder how important coastal cities will become? Where are the resources? What happens to Kurds in Turkey and Iraq?
So the new plan is to use cruise missiles but not to hit anything/anybody important, because we have to show we're serious... in our support of Al Q er... moderate elements. This is where our policy of perpetual involvement gets silly. We know it won't do a thing but we have to do something. No we don't. There is no place to lead the world on this.
Saving face is a flaw human beings, organizations, and governments have.
We're going to drop a hand grenade on the place to save face. Stupid.
With Russia and China already opposed to military action on Syria,
and now with the British Parliament voting against it,
and a large percentage of the US population opposed it too,
Obama is obviously in a hard spot.
IMO, his "red line" statement was appropriate and needs to be enforced,
not just as a "face saving" devise, but as the "right thing to do" when
it comes to gas- and germ-warfare.
If Obama were to take my advice, he would identify, locate, and target
with cruise missiles several of those specific military commanders and units
who were directly involved with the military's use of illegal WMD.
I think this would be an appropriate and limited action which would be
accepted by the world and specifically the US population,
and might prevent the Republican House from initiating impeachment.
Anything else will be politically "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't"
I'm a bit cross with the British press.
Nothing new there then, although I usually toe the BBC line.
They keep talking about Parliament's "failure" to pass a mandate to start airstrikes on Syria. Now I'm torn on the issue personally, but Parliament haven't failed. They have made a decision based partly on public opinion and partly on reaction to previous conflicts.
Right or wrong it is a decision, not a failure.
And no, I do not like the words "punish" and "send a message" either.
That's reactionary talk, vigilante talk.
Don't bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson. Because guess what? Doesn't work.
Oops. Maybe I do have an opinion on this after all.
They keep talking about Parliament's "failure" to pass a mandate to start airstrikes on Syria. Now I'm torn on the issue personally, but Parliament haven't failed.
Perspective. Failure was from the Prime Minister's perspective.
You really cannot blame Parliament. Since 2000, America lied and decieved the UK repeatedly. Even surrendered to the Taliban and then dragged NATO into the second Afganistan war. Lied completely about Saddam's WMDs - it should have been called treason. And then created an insurgency by violating the most basic military concepts. Even dragged the UK into that useless and unnecessary war. With Tony Blair all but wanting to be lied to.
Comments from Gen Dannatt so long ago accurately defined a morass that America had put the UK into. And what the UK had to do to get out. Of course, back then, it was too early for most layman to appreciate who the real enemy was. Or how right Dannatt was. Back then, when facts were so obvious, still many layman refused to admit they were brainwashed by Mission Accomplished and other intentional lies.
DejaVue Nam. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Reason for military action must be rock solid and unquestionable. Since we are all still living the destructive legacy of George Jr / Cheney, then many who make decisions only on feelings will be gun shy. You cannot blame so many UK citizens and Parliament.
Well, all of Nato could not "bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson." Bombing is only pin pricks. However pin pricks accurately placed can have significant attitude consequences IF directed by an intelligent leader and management. We know Clinton in 1998 defanged Saddam. We just did not know it then. His accurate use of all of our cruise missiles left Saddam to invent mythical WMDs. Myths were his last remaining defense. Bombing can be that powerful by limiting or focusing it to specific objectives.
In Syria, objectives are obvious and simple. All his chemical weapons depots and facilities necessary to make them useable. It will make everyone nervous. It will create much yelling. The wackos will spread more lies and insults. But at the end of the month, Assad will not do it again. Since he (nobody else matters) he suddenly appreciates the consequences. As Saddam did after Clinton took care of him.
DejaVue Nam. We have met the enemy and he is us.
At some point, you're going to have to get with the times and start saying "DejaVue Iraq."
The UK is the new France.
*snicker*
We know Clinton in 1998 defanged Saddam. We just did not know it then.
But we will surely know it's been successful this time, because
(actual reason has been left as an exercise for the reader).
At some point, you're going to have to get with the times and start saying "DejaVue Iraq."
DejaVue Mission Accomplished.
The UK is the new France.
*snicker*
Heard on radio
Henceforth, English muffins shall be known as "Freedom Muffins".
Obama might attack Syria just to piss off Putin for not giving Snowden back.
The UK is the new France.
*snicker*
Yeahyeahyeah. I'll snicker your arse lady.
No, no idea what I mean either. Visions of Marianne Faithful, ewwww.
Heard on radio
Henceforth, English muffins shall be known as "Freedom Muffins".
You're on report. And your radio. And your little dog too.
Tell you what made me seriously bray with laughter the other day.
War-hungry talking head on Sky News. The worry is that the UK has removed itself from the world stage. France is now America's closest ally.
And
this (somehow) paves the way for America to ally itself to more powerful nations. Example given, the burgeoning power of China. Yeah, good luck with that one. Communist state who alongside Russia currently has its foot on the UN's neck regarding any action against Syria.
That is not my opinion on world politics.
It's just me being annoyed with British media. They do talk up some crap.
Obama might attack Syria just to piss off Putin for not giving Snowden back.
That is clearly the reason.
The sad thing is that resorting to violence is unnecessary. Bashar al-Assad is a doctor and Barack Obama is a lawyer. Obama should just bring a class action malpractice suit against al-Assad, for inappropriately dispensing harmful chemicals, on behalf of the Syrian people. Shades of Michael Jackson.
I would also like to see Obama attack Assad through non-military means - a class action malpractice suit would be hilarious - but the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama:
1) Attacking Assad for purely humanitarian reasons is one thing (something I disagree with) but once WMDs get involved then it is viewed differently. I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. Obama set the red line at chemical weapons (WMD) because of that - plus other reasons IMO - and now he must act on it. I'm not comfortable with our retaliation but allowing WMDs to be used is a potential slippery slope that many policy makers do not want to go down.
2) I think this attack will have as much realpolitik intentions as humanitarian. Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. Also, on a side note, peace or balkanization is only possible if both sides feel they will not win alright so it also in our humanitarian interests to keep a level playing field.
While I do not believe Syria or Iran is dumb enough to retaliate against a US/French attack, this article shows the military buildup around Syria right now.
While the United States is ready to strike a handful of targets on the ground in Syria, any international conflict there will take place on a much larger stage. The entire region is full of a witches' brew of military hardware from more than half a dozen nations with interests in the Syrian conflict.
The United States and France are prepared to strike the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from the Mediterranean Sea and a ring of air bases surrounding Syria. Meanwhile, three of America's most powerful military allies -- Britain, Turkey, and Israel -- are publicly staying on the sidelines, albeit with their militaries primed to defend against any Syrian counterattack. Then there are Assad's friends, Russia and Iran, both of which have military personnel on the ground in Syria.
Here's a look at the mix of military forces facing Assad -- and each other -- in and around the Levant.
...
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/meet_the_military_forces_gathered_on_syrias_doorstep... the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama ...
But, but it dashes my plans to set up shops on the borders and sell gas masks to tourists!
... I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. ...
As long as it's understood that it's just punishment and not deterrence. We took out Saddam; but, that didn't deter Bashar. It would be interesting to see what those policy makers would do if Russia or Israel used WMD on someone other than us.
... Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. ...
Ah, so we're just using the Syrian people as patsies by maintaining an even keel and WMD is a red herring. Well, why doesn't the Prez should just say so and let us all sleep better at night? [rhetorical]
If you want to interpret it that way...
Obama's bright red line for Syria...
Well first extremists were screaming that Obama was letting hundreds of thousands be massacred in Syria. Then he decides to attack what Assad should not have and illegally used. Then those extremists complained that Obama was getting us into another Mission Accomplished.
So Obama said to extremists, "OK, you vote on it." What does a dumb dog do once he has caught the car? How many dogs thought it out?
It all boils down to Sunni vs Shia or you could say AQ vs Iran. I say we stay out of this and let them use all of the WMDs they want. It just means fewer extremists for us to deal with later.
The White House should give McCain the 2013 "Frog and the Mouse" award.
NBC News
9/4/13
McCain opposes Senate resolution authorizing Syria strikes
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Wednesday told NBC News
that he doesn't support Senate language authorizing President Obama's
desired military intervention in Syria because it is too limited.
This from one day ago...
Roll Call
9/2/13
Voting Against Obama on Syria Would Be ‘Catastrophic,’ McCain Warns
Two senior Republican senators emerged from a meeting
with President Barack Obama on Monday warning that a vote against
striking Syria would be disastrous.
When is Obama going to understand that you can't change the smell of a skunk.
McCain never saw a war he didn't like.
Washington Post had a poll this morning saying about 60% of Americans don't support going to war against Assad. Interestingly, 43% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats support a war. If Obama was a Republican, I bet it would be 65% or Republicans and 20% of Democrats support.
Meh, if the world truly believes that using chemicals for mass murder is bad, then the world should handle it. We can't do everything. Oh, and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for it.
It is time for the Arab League to step up. They have offered to finance our "attack", but why endanger our forces when this is clearly a sectarian situation. The Arab League has the forces to do the mission themselves.
It isn't as colorful as fiddling while Rome burns but...
The Honorable Senator from Arizona shows us how important he finds military interventions. These are not serious people we've elected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0aMcCain did his thing in changing the wording of the Resolution in the Senate Committee...
Although it passed in Committee by a 10-7 vote, only McCain and 2 other Republicans voted in favor.
The Guardian
Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman
9/4/13
Syria strikes: Senate committee approves resolution in boost for Obama
Senate foreign relations committee votes 10-7 in favour,
paving way for full vote on Senate floor early next week.<snip>
The influential committee voted by 10 votes to seven in favour
of granting the formal military authorisation requested by Barack Obama,
paving the way for a full vote on the floor of the Senate early next week
in response to alleged chemical weapons use in Syria.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But the committee also voted to accept controversial amendments
proposed by hawkish Republican senator John McCain that would explicitly make it
a policy of the US to seek to "change the momentum of the battlefield"
in ways that would force Assad to negotiate his resignation.[/COLOR]
"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield
in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement
that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria,"
said the second of two amendments proposed by McCain and Democrat Chris Coons.
"A comprehensive US strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a
co-ordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime
to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal
military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces,
including the Free Syrian Army," it added.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The extended US mission objective may make it harder to secure
sufficient Democrat support in the House though, where a majority of Republicans
are also thought to be opposed.[/COLOR]
Essentially, McCain's changes to the resolution will become a poison pill
Interesting
poll results. Seems legit.
As I read McCain's Section 5 of the Senate Resolution passed in Committee, the thought
occurred to me that if it is passed that way by the full Congress, Obama should veto it.
By doing so, he could either send it back to Congress to narrow the focus,
or go ahead and act as he intended (narrowly) as Commander in Chief.
It might send a message to McCain, but I doubt McCain could understand it.
Reach however hard as you like to believe that Obama is on your side.
Shades of Saddam Hussein...
Will Bashar al-Assad give an accounting that will satisfy the U.S.,
or will he too eventually be found hiding in a hole somewhere.
Washington Post
9/14/13
US, Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal
GENEVA - The United States and Russia agreed Saturday on an outline
for the identification and seizure of Syrian chemical weapons and said Syria
[COLOR="DarkRed"]must turn over an accounting of its arsenal within a week[/COLOR].
<snip>
For example, the two delegations never came to terms on exactly how many sites
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uses to produce, mix, and store chemical weapons,
nor on whether all of those sites are in areas that remain under regime control,
as the U.S. maintains, and Russia denies
News today is that the Al-Qaeda and Al-Misra hardline Islamic brigades, have run the less radical Rebel brigades, out of a couple towns, between Damascus and the border with Turkey.
They now have complete control of this part of the Rebel controlled area. They have made it plain after murdering a few non hardline brigade leaders, that they are the strongest faction in the Rebel fight, and won't tolerate those who don't follow their lead.
Since they have withdrawn to these towns, it's believed the other Rebels will be especially hard pressed by Assad's regime, in the coming weeks and months.
I read an interesting article from an unreliable source about the Saudis spending $70 Million on congresscritters to get American intervention. I keep forgetting who pulled the 9/11 job.
I read an interesting article from an unreliable source about the Saudis spending $70 Million on congresscritters to get American intervention. I keep forgetting who pulled the 9/11 job.
Your source is correct. Saudi's work tirelessly to cut the influence of Iran, for two reasons:
1) Iran is shia - and so is Syria (largely). Saudi's are shiite, and to say that they don't get along, is the biggest understatement, you could ever make.
Most of the attacks in Iraq today, are shia vs. shiite.
2) Iran's military build up over the last several decades, has been alarming to every nation in the middle east. Now more than ever, since the potential that Iran will build nuclear weapons.
The last thing anyone except Iran wants in the volatile middle east, is a nuclear arms race. What Iran wants is never perfectly clear, but a greater military strength is clearly one major goal.
Correction to the above post ^^^ : Substitute Sunni, in the above post, in place of Shiite.
Shiite is another term for the Shia branch of Islam, and they are very common in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and a majority in Iraq, as well.
Sunni's are the most common branch of Islam, in the Saudi Kingdom, Pakistan, and etc.
I keep forgetting who pulled the 9/11 job.
Humans did it. Which proves all Americans were complicit. Should that be too general, then also too general is to associate any extremist Sunni or Shiite with the actions of any other non-atheist.
The conflicts are directly traceable to extremists. The enemy of all good and decent people - moderates. All extremsits - atheists or non-atheists - are the source of or give comfort to this problem. They use extremist propaganda and hearsay, rather than adult intelligence, to justify their actions and beliefs. They (and not any one religion) are the problem.
I did not know they were working under a deadline...
Washington Post
10/5/13
UN official says chemical weapons inspectors begin destroying Syrian stockpile, machinery
<snip>Their first goal in the undertaking is to scrap the
Assad regime’s capacity to manufacture chemical weapons by Nov. 1.
“Today is the first day of the phase of destruction and disabling.
Verification will also continue,” the official, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
“The plan was that two types categories of materials would be destroyed:
one is equipment for making (weapons) — filling and mixing equipment,
some of it mobile, and some it static. The other is actual munitions.”
Developed during the 1980s and 1990s, Syria’s chemical arsenal is believed
to contain mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, VX and tabun.
Inspectors can use any means to destroy equipment, including crude techniques
like taking sledgehammers to control panels or driving tanks over empty vats.
But the second phase — destroying battle-ready weapons, is more difficult,
time-consuming and expensive. It can be done by incinerating materials
in sealed furnaces at ultra-high temperatures, or by transforming precursor chemicals
or diluting them with water.<snip>
We're reporting that all is going well, atm. Props to Assad on this matter, at least.
He sure had a shitload of chemical weapons! Holy Moly!
Apparently our buddies in Syria lost their warehoused materials to a more Islamic outfit. We're thinking of solving this problem by backing them (the nutters) instead.