|

A few questions for President Obama regarding Syria

30syria3-span-articleLarge

In light of evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people (above), Andrew Bacevich frames the issue THUSLY:

First, why does this particular heinous act rise to the level of justifying a military response? More specifically, why did a similarly heinous act by the Egyptian army elicit from Washington only the mildest response? Just weeks ago, Egyptian security forces slaughtered hundreds of Egyptians whose “crime” was to protest a military coup that overthrew a legitimately elected president. Why the double standard?

Second, once U.S. military action against Syria begins, when will it end? What is the political objective? Wrapping the Assad regime on the knuckles is unlikely to persuade it to change its ways. That regime is engaged in a fight for survival. So what exactly does the United States intend to achieve and how much is President Obama willing to spend in lives and treasure to get there? War is a risky business. Is the president willing to commit U.S. forces to what could well become another protracted and costly struggle?

Third, what is the legal basis for military action? Neither Russia nor China is likely to agree to an attack on Syria, so authorization by the U.N. Security Council won’t be forthcoming. Will Obama ask Congress for the authority to act? Or will he, as so many of his recent predecessors have done, employ some dodge to circumvent the Constitution? With what justification?

Share:

62 Comments

  1. I listened to Kerry’s update on Syria today. He sounded like he was setting us up for a military action by confirming their beliefs about the gassing and that Assad did it, but at the end he said we know that the military is not the solution and that the solution must be political and maybe he mentioned diplomatic. Doesn’t sound like bombs are going to drop to me. Anybody else hear something different?

  2. “Putin told journalists that if Obama had evidence Assad’s forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the U.N. weapons inspectors and the Security Council.”

    “”I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,” Putin said.”

    Now what kind of names am I going to be called because I used some quotes from our nemesis, Putin, to support my position? He makes sense. You got proof, show us that proof and let us decide at the Security Council meeting next week.

    But you know what, I still don’t understand why killing people with machines guns, bombs tipped with nuclear waste as was used in Iraq, drones and machetes (as is so common in Africa) is ok but somehow chemicals is a breach of good standing? And why is it that we just can’t muster the same kind of outrage at all those African natives that have been killed mercilessly for the past 2 decades in their civil wars? I guess some people are more special and important than others.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/putin-on-syria_n_3847988.html

  3. Obama’s Dilemma.

    Yesterdays speech by Obama bought time and set the stage for a showdown between him and congress. He used the same, only different word choices, challenge as the Bush administration did. In essence he told congress, you’re either with me or you’re with the Assad regime (terrorist).

    If Assad’s regime did the gassing, then maybe a surgical strike will be enough to make him stop.

    If Assad’s regime didn’t do it and it’s a false flag event as even Pat Buchanan thinks it might have been, then nothing short of the USA eventually entering the fray will be acceptable to the people behind the false flag event. That would mean a deeper response will be called for in the future as its doubtful the perps of a false flag event would want just some surgical strike, they would want deeper involvement by the USA.

    That’s the chess move Obama’s got to make. If no action is the outcome of the congressional debate, then I suspect another gassing will occur to further challenge Obama’s line in the sand.

    If a limited, no feet on the ground , surgical type bombing is ok’d by congress and Assad’s regime was really behind the gassing, it might be enough to stop further gassing events.

    If Assad’s regime wasn’t behind the latest event, as he wasn’t assigned blame for in the two prior like events this past year, then its doubtful who was behind the latest gassing would be satisfied with any surgical type strike unless the targets they wanted taken out were accomplished. That would have to assume that behind the scenes its known who wants the USA brought into this mess and what they want us to do.

    If there is no behind the scenes directions coming into play about just what needs to be bombed to satisfy the 3rd party’s interest, and its a limited strike that doesn’t satisfy whoever might have been behind the latest gassing, then I suspect another gassing false flag will occur, thus ensuring the USA’s full involvement in the Syrian civil conflict and probably would require USA boots on the ground.

    That’s how false flag events work, if Assad wasn’t behind it.

    The outcome if we have to have an eventual deeper involvement in Syria could cost Hillary’s chances of becoming president in 2016. It may stop the current housing recovery as people become unsure about the future and Obama’s presidency will not be looked at in historical terms any better than GWB’s is, possibly worse.

    These are just a few of the outcomes that could happen if this upcoming congressional debate doesn’t have the right outcome. I haven’t even mentioned what deeper USA involvement would bring about in the world view as I don’t have any idea on how China and Russia would respond.

    I think Graham and McCain are right, a much deeper response is needed than some limited surgical type action. I’m anxious to hear what they would do. We need to be sure we are responding to the people who did the gassing, not the ones our intelligence was written to support who we think did it ( sound familiar?).

    The only winners here are the ones who want the USA brought into this conflict. I smell another potential Iraq situation in the making, maybe even worse, as China and Russia response to our nations actions is the unknown.

  4. John Kerry says we have satellite evidence showing the rockets that delivered the gas coming from Assad controlled territory.

    Let me look at this another way, we got two large, blocks long, apartment complexes. One on each side of the street. Both open to the public and within reason, freely gone into and out of ( I live in a security bldg that I see people who don’t live here go into all the time, no matter how much mgmt tries to control it). Someone from inside Apt complex A fires at Apt complex B and kills hundreds of people. Who in Apt A is guilty of that act? The whole building? The owners of that bldg? The people in the apt that the shots came from? The person(s) who fired that round of fire who might not live in Apt complex A? How can the reasoning for justifying this attack on Syria hold up to legal review?

    It already looks like the old you’re either with the USA and our “we’d never lie to you intelligence because we’re very much aware of the last time you heard this” or you’re with Assad, is going to work ultimately and congress will agree to an attack (hope I’m wrong).

    I’m with neither, I’m for the truth. I want the people who did the act to be identified just as they’d have to be in a court of law with more evidence other than we saw where the bombs came from. That’s why more countries aren’t joining in. And I know there’s supposed to be telephone calls too. Apparently nobody in this world has a private phone call anymore. Not even military leaders. Nobody knows who did the act but they do know there’s many players that would like to see the USA dragged into this mess, especially Israel who is quite upset with Obama for not acting by himself and taking his case to the congress.

    Assad and his team have asked for the UN to intervene as they deny having anything to do with gassing.

    Isn’t it even a little bit odd that the first 2 gas attacks this year were never responded to and Obama never seemed all that outraged? And that at least one of those attacks was thought to have been done by the rebels? Isn’t it odd that those same satellites didn’t tell us who and where those first two incidents originated?

    I heard a comment from Representative Hahn (CA-D) this am on NPR/BBC news. She wondered why weren’t the first 2 gas attacks earlier this year responded to in the same manner this latest gassing is being pursued? Will she get an answer?

    In my opinion, some country wants us involved in Syria and they’ve intimidated Obama and Kerry enough for them to pursue the route we are witnessing. What changed? What threat was made? Why is this 3rd gassing such a horrific act that is now causing Assad to be compared to Hitler and Saddam? Why didn’t the first two become elevated to that same outrage? I ask again, what changed? I’ve called my elected reps and voiced my opinion and concerns. I hope you all have to.

    That whole region, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey is a powder keg right now. Lots of violence going on in Lebanon and Syria with 2 million refugees seeking safe places in Jordan and Turkey. And Israel is feeling real threatened because of this violence and really upset with Obama for not going it alone.

    As someone else posted, we could be witnessing the beginning stages of the next WW. I never thought that at the time that poster made that statement, but the more I hear about the situation over there and who the players are, I’m leaning toward giving it some credibility.

  5. This hasn’t made the MSM yet to my knowledge. Israel getting trigger happy.

    http://rt.com/news/ballistic-launch-eastern-mediterranean-343/

  6. Lots happening today in WA DC… Chuck Hagel is now implicating Russia as providing Syria with some of the chemicals used for gas warfare. Really Chuck? Let’s go back in history to see who gave Saddam Hussein the chemicals he used to gas the Kurds? Where was the outrage then? Well, it came in handy when we needed to build favor amongst the USA masses when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Why not use the same playbook. It worked in 2003 and it appears its working a decade later.

    From the Washington Post. “he administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague .”

    My what a tangled web we weave. I don’t doubt that Russia supplied Syria chemicals anymore than I don’t doubt we supplied Saddam Hussein and probably to this day supply chemicals and other supplies used in warfare to many players. We sell arms to lots of players. It big business. But the sheople are supposed to not ever think we could have done and most likely still are doing the very same things we are now demonizing Russia for.

    What a mess this is becoming and all because Obama made what probably was thought of as a benign statement at the time, but sure opened the doors to those who saw it as the opportunity to make the USA get involved in the Syrian civil war.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

  7. And now we have a new player in who provided chemicals that could make sarin gas to the Syrians. I wonder if Chuck Hagel forgot something in his presentation today? I wonder who else they supplied chemicals to? The rebels? Just thinking out loud. The possibilities are endless.

    This information was revealed on Sept 1 in this article. If we have representatives of government trying to sell a plan to the people, shouldn’t that plan have all the up to date information in it?

    How can we trust the intelligence that Obama, Kerry, Hagel is using when they don’t even have all the information in place to make claims about who were the providers of the supposed chemicals to the Syrians. What else have they got wrong?

    And now we have the Senate committee voting to go to war on this same not so truthful or at least complete, data.

    What’s going on? Why should we all fall in place and be good little sheople when there’s so many details that I feel I’m being misled on? Am I alone? I don’t think so as I see the post on all the blogs. There’s lots of distrust out there. Aren’t we, the USA, supposed to be better than this?

    Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after ‘civil unrest’ began

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

  8. Hey President Obama, over here, the guy with his hand up. I got something to tell you…

    Thanks for picking me. I don’t claim to speak for all the people, just those that will agree with what I’m going to tell you. Are you ready?

    Here’s why so many people don’t support this action against the Assad government. Because we don’t believe he and his regime did it. We think some 3rd party wants to bring in the USA military and they staged that horrible act so you’d have to respond or look weak. We think some other country or organization, who will benefit from the USA getting involved is the culprit. Why would Assad do it when he knows full well he’d have the full strength of the American military knocking on his door and there’s no way he could come close to thwarting the USA military’s actions. He’s no fool but someone is pushing your buttons and you’re trying to push our buttons with pretty much the same schpeel that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell gave us the last time we got lied to.

    The really bad thing here is you can’t say if you think that’s what really happened too, because then you’d be called names like conspiritorial even though staged incidents happen all the time. You know that. That’s why they have a names like, black ops, false flag incidents. Something agencies like the CIA, M6, The Mossad, KGB, et al do to get people from opposing sides mad enough to react and change the games outcome so to say.

    You’re in a tough spot because if you don’t do something, they’ll do it again and make it look like Assad was the culprit and then your adversaries will begin the real name calling. What tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.

  9. President Obama, PS –

    Apparently 11 or countries that attended the G20 side with your position that Assad did it. If that’s what they believe, then tell those suck ups to put their money where their mouth is and put up some cash on the table to pay for this effort as well as provide some military back up services to support our actions.

    Why the hell do we the American taxpayers have to pay for the actions of the civil war participants happening in the Middle East? Let the Saudi’s and the other ME countries suport their own. Why do we always have to foot the bill?

    By the way, how can the UK have the gall to be included in those 11 countries when they sold Syria chemicals that could be made into Sarin gas. What happened to the concept of shame?

    If you want my help in scripting your speech to bring the American people along and to support this intervention in Syria, let me know. I got a few ideas. Because I got a feeling we the USA is going to be dragged into this one way or another. Peace, —well maybe someday.

  10. Correction – There is some question as to if the UK allowed for the sale of materials used to make sarin gas to Syria. Apparently, there was a path in place for such a transaction to occur, but as further sanctions were employed against Syria, those permits were denied. As I get more information on this subject I’ll post it.

    It also appears there was some fabrication of emails indicating 2 employees of a company involved in such transactions. A libel suit was initiated and a settlement reached.

    If anybody has any different information one way or another, please post it.

    These kinds of international affairs seem to attract devious intentions, as each side tries to support their position. The spurious nature of these incidents only serves to cheapen the severity of the larger issue at hand, who really was behind the 3 separate gassings in Syria. Was it as the USA is trying to imply or did the rebels or some other group do it force the USA intervention?

  11. I’m confused, if the potential remedy is that Assad allows his chemical weapons to be under international control, isn’t there still a lagging question of who will be held accountable for the deaths of those 1400+ people?

  12. “We’re the only country that muses out loud who we might bomb next.” Can you imagine the outcry from war hawks like McCain and Graham, if some other country did that as frequently as we do? How dare some other country use our tactics.

    We are the bullies of the world. It amazes me how many USA citizens deny that image. You want to stop terrorism, stop threatening Muslim countries you’re going to bomb them next.

    Are we so desperate for the next war and the financial profit it provides to the MIC, that we can’t see how we’re perceived outside of our borders?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/bill-maher-syria-george-zimmerman_n_3926679.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>