Secretary of State John Kerry certainly spoke with appropriate moral authority about the chemical attacks in Syria, but he didn’t answer any of my questions. He didn’t explain any theory of why the Syrian government would invite the UN inspectors in only to unleash a chemical attack right under their noses. He didn’t tell me how the administration knows that the rebels didn’t obtain the weapons. He didn’t tell me why it is too late for the UN to investigate a crime that happened last week but not too late for them to investigate similar crimes that happened months ago. He promised that the administration would provide evidence in the coming days, but today he simply declared that it was obvious to the whole world that the Assad regime was responsible. That isn’t even close to being true.
The one thing I learned from Kerry is that the administration has already concluded that the Assad regime is responsible and no debate on that topic will be possible in the corporate media.
So, it’s to the guns and bombs we go. This is not going to be a wrist slap. This is war, my friends. To the end.
.
given the US and Israel the chance to advance their shared goals of security, stability and democracy.” July 16, 2012
My recent analysis – Rice and Kerry: War Inside the White House Aug. 8, 2013
.
So Obama is using German intelligence (BND) and from ally Israel. I lack words to express my deep disappointmant in the Obama presidency on foreign policy. A total failure, instead of dialogue it’s bomb, bomb, bombs away. Bombing won’t define the next government as a secular democracy in Syria, it will be a failed state. With no boots on the ground, the humanitarian crisis will worsen and all Orthodox Christians will have to flee. How to create a quagmire.
Declassified Documents and Key Participants Show the Importance of Phony Intelligence in the Origins of the Iraq War
A total failure, instead of dialogue it’s bomb, bomb, bombs away.
Obama spent the first two years of his administration trying to dialogue with Syria. The point person on that effort was Secretary John Kerry.
So, no.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-lawmaker-syria-s-assad-working-to-renew-peace-talks-wi
th-israel-1.345303
U.S. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee and a close associate of U.S. President Barack Obama, has been working together with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the last few months on a plan to restart negotiations between Syria and Israel.
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been briefed on Kerry’s talks with Assad, opposes the plan, since he does not believe Assad is serious about making peace with Israel.
What do we hope to accomplish? How will we get it done? What are the costs (direct and indirect)? What’s the worst-case scenario and are we ready for that? What’s the end game? How do we extract ourselves from this briar patch once we’re in it?
Lots of questions, no answers.
Yet.
I couldn’t possibly under any circumstances give less of a fuck about what the US hopes to accomplish, what the costs are to the US, what the worst-case scenario or the endgame is for the US, or how the US extracts itself from yet another mess it has created by putting its nose where it doesn’t belong. My only concern is for the consequence to Syria and the Syrian people of yet another giant US clusterfuck, this time in their country.
Syria is already a clusterfuck (as all civil wars tend to be) – the question at this juncture is why the US would have to entangle ourselves in that Syrian clusterfuck and if we deem that we have to involve ourselves then what do we gain from it and how do we get out of it.
$$$$$ for the MIC
Since it was the Obama administration itself that knocked down the chemical weapons attack rumors in June 2012 and December 2012, they must have a very high level of confidence to pull such an about face.
This is not going to be a wrist slap. This is war, my friends. To the end.
It’s going to be closer to a wrist slap. You spend longer than two days working up the public for a war when you want to go to full-scale war.
With their air defense systems, which are very sophisticated, there is no such thing as “airstrikes.” They have to obliterate quite a lot of stuff before they can even get started. And then we will have to keep at it until we get weapons inspectors on the ground, which won’t happen while a civil war is ongoing, which means we’re back to Iraq. Maybe we’ll be more clever about it this time, but it’s war until Assad goes, and then when the civil war and atrocities don’t stop, it’s more war.
Air defenses are taken out with airstrikes. That’s the first air-strike mission carried out in any air campaign.
And then we will have to keep at it until we get weapons inspectors on the ground
Why are you assuming we need weapons inspectors on the ground?
it’s war until Assad goes
From the AP story: “The U.S. and its allies appear to be considering a response that would punish Assad for deploying deadly gases, not sweeping actions aimed at ousting Assad or strengthening rebel forces.”
You seem to be writing your own story, just like the one that ended with an American occupation of Libya.
Would you describe the shock and awe campaign as mere airstrikes? Airstrikes are what we did in Sudan or to Baghdad in 1998. They take place where air defenses are weak. Bombing the ever-loving shit out of a country has to have a different word with more punch than mere airstrikes.
But, yeah, it involves striking shit from the air, so let’s stick to the literal.
I wouldn’t describe any air strikes as “mere.”
Not would I describe missions to destroy an air-defense system as “shock and awe.”
I’m sorry, Humpty Dumpty, but you don’t get to make up meanings for words.
If Joe is right that this is merely to send a message that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and not the beginning of a war for regime change then I expect Obama to make that clear. I think he owes the nation an explanation if we are going to war, yet again, without a use-of-force authorization.
There is no Great Convention that says we must militarily punish a nation that uses chemical weapons. To do so we’ll once again bypass the legal process because I doubt a resolution could pass the UN SC.
If the mission is limited to a campaign of deterrence strikes, then they would almost certainly last less than the 90s days the War Powers Act allows before a force authorization is required.
It will be more analogous in scope and duration to Clinton’s cruise missile attacks in 1998 in Sudan and Afghanistan, or Reagan’s punitive bombing of Libya in 1986.
Not to mention that something like 9% of that public wants the US to get involved in Syria. And the White House reads the same polls as the rest of us.
It’s going to be closer to a wrist slap. You spend longer than two days working up the public for a war when you want to go to full-scale war.
This thought leads me to think the plan (if there really is one) is for a cruise missile strike, perhaps with some stealth bomber support. Anything else would require the reduction of the Syrian air defense net and that would be essentially the full war scenario.
This is being done with reluctance and as much restraint as the administration can credibly maintain:
I also agree with your analysis in the previous thread of the historical factors relating to chemical weapon use and the moral ‘red line’ which still exists regarding use of these weapons. It seems to me that the alleged research of the Assad regime into nerve agents adulterated with riot control chemicals to obscure and confound the symptoms of victims of these incidents tends to substantiate the view that there is still a significant taboo in place. I would be sorry to see a precedent set which undermined that psychological barrier given the proliferation of these weapons.
Oh yes, the populace will greet us as liberators and shower us with flowers. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the White Obama on Iraq.
What the hell are you babbling about?
“Greet us with flowers?”
Did you shuffle through your Bush-Era talking points cards and pick one at random?
Seen this movie before. Didn’t end well that time (in fact it hasn’t really ended at all.)
Vietnam, Iraq, LIbya, Syria – they’re all the same, right?
That’s a false framing, Joe.
The wind up to this is reminiscent of Iraq, which is more than enough bad precedent.
It is a false framing.
It’s not mine, though. I’m complaining about it.
And no, this is not reminiscent of Iraq. Did George Bush spend two years pushing back against a drive to go to war with Iraq?
Did he knock down two previous claims of Iraqi WMD usage before having convincing evidence thrown in his face?
Did he spent two and a half years not making any assertions of links between Saddam and al Qaeda?
Has anyone associated with the Obama administration argued in any way for a war in Syria based on grand geopolitical strategy?
Has any shady exile been put forward in the Obama-freindly press as “the George Washington of Syria?”
Has the Obama administration been caught in a single lie about the threat Syria poses to the United States? Has anyone even said that it poses a threat to people in America?
Unless you want to argue that chemical weapons are by definition a pretext that can only be invoked as the type of dishonest cover story we saw the Bush administration employ to get its war, then there really is no meaningful comparison.
You make a good case that Obama’s motives are more honest than Bush’s but what difference does that make if he ends up reproducing Bush’s worst blunder? There is precious little difference between an ill advised war launched for dishonest reasons from one launched for speculative reasons.
The meaningful comparison I see, and the main thing I’m worrying about, is the rush to judgment on the source of the chemical attack. So far the dominant story from WH mouthpieces like Kerry is that they are sure Assad is behind the attack. If they are sure, they need to demonstrate why they are sure. If they are not sure, they need to save the sabre rattling for when they are or at least wait until international inspectors have done their work.
I’m not confident about starting a war over chemical weapons at this stage because of these uncertainties. If Obama green-lights military intervention with these questions still unanswered, then I am not confident about his ability to resist the inevitable pressure to escalate.
Hopefully that covers everything.
Why are you assuming that there is a rush a judgment on the source of the chemical attack? That they knocked down two earlier accusations (June 2012 and December 2012) suggests to me that they have much more solid information. John Kerry is not a “mouthpiece” like Colin Powell, and Barack Obama sure isn’t Dick Cheney.
I agree that they should make a convincing case to the public prior to an attack.
The public pronouncements without proof given is why I’m assuming; all of the sabre rattling essentially prior to the case for Assad’s guilt being made.
That’s all, Joe.
I note from your language (suggests to me, etc.) that you aren’t sure either. This is not a good place to be in while having a top member of the admin reinforcing a scenario that leads to military intervention.
I’ll just point out that there more evidence of a Syrian government attack than of an impending military action, but you’re quite happy to believe in that without any proof whatsoever.
reinforcing a scenario that leads to military intervention
What exactly does this mean? Saying what they are confident is true, or deploring a chemical weapons massacre of civilians? Which of those, exactly, do you think they should not be doing?
This isn’t that hard to understand.
President Obama has previously stated that the abuse of chemical weapons is a clear red line. Sec Kerry is now adamant that Assad is behind the recent use of chemical weapons. This suggests a course of action, don’t you think?
Maybe the administration will prove to be right — it certainly seems possible — but picking out a villain before all the data is in is just sabre rattling.
Actually, while we’re on the subject, I do have a question.
Has there been any definitive word from the President on the source of the chemical attacks yet? Or is it just anonymous “sources” in Washington and other people in the administration who are commenting? So far I’ve only seen quotes from Kerry and Dempsey.
This is somewhat relevant because I’ve noticed Obama likes to run the clock out on issues by letting his cabinet bring the outrage while he floats above it all. He may be slow playing this while waiting for the situation to change and the pressure for intervention to abate.
His ‘cabinet’ may extend to claims from other Western nations as well; there have been several.
Your point is?
That while I agree with your characterisation of Obama’s methodology that it may extend beyond the US cabinet in this instance.
John Kerry making a podium statement, talking for the administration on a foreign policy issue, speaks with Obama’s voice.
This also came out today.
Two days after the CIA file acknowledging our role in the 1953 coup was released.
Both of which happened a few days after Iran elected a president who wants a negotiated end to the standoff.
Confidence-building measures, demonstration of the administration’s good faith?
Think you are on to something there. Also, worth considering that sabotaging a Western rapprochement with Iran might figure strongly into Assad’s calculus of using chemical weapons, specifically neurotoxins. Understandings between the US and Iran might put Assad in an untenable position. The timing fits and it puts the US, at least, in a diplomatic dilemma.
Interesting thought about Iran’s motives. I have to imagine that the Iranian leadership is desperately trying to extricate their country from the Syria mess. Or at least that there’s substantial bloc wanting to do so.
But even if Iran were to stop funding Assad, he can still fight on indefinitely with just Russia’s support, no?
Iran’s motives are hard to isolate, there seems to be some competing and mutually exclusive objectives. On the one hand it seems clear that Rouhani’s elevation was intended to send a positive signal and perhaps spike Netanyahu’s guns over their nuclear program. On the other hand committing Hezbollah to the Syrian civil war was a bold and dramatic step which indicates a willingness to accept escalating sectarian Sunni/Shi’ite conflict in Lebanon and by extension Iraq, which we have seen.
And for all their bluster, and there is no doubt Putin is getting good mileage from some of this, I don’t see the Russians as comfortable, long term, with an Assad regime murdering their own civilians or a nuclear capable Iran. Russia wants Iran in their Caspian energy consortium but has been less than enthusiastic about their nuclear ambitions.
“Why, oh why, would Assad launch a chemical weapons attack now, when he’s winning the war, and there are UN inspectors in the country?”
To put the kibosh on an American-Iranian rapprochement.
He was losing some suburban areas in Damascus while making advances elsewhere. There have also been unconfirmed reports of an escalation of Western, or at least Jordanian, trained and supported insurgents entering Syria recently. It is really hard to keep track of the ground war ebb and flow in recent months.
Our old friend Pat Lang is equally skeptical. Well, probably even moreso.
How much effort did you make for the prediction mid-term election? Result!
To make this announcement and reserve the right to operate outside of the UN on this issue is staggering hubris. I didn’t like it when Bush did it. I don’t like it now.
Someone tweeted, “John Kerry, how does it feel to be Colin Powell?” I kinda share that sentiment.
Where are the facts? And why are the UN inspectors yet again being bypassed?
How much information are Obama and Kerry getting that is independent of the US intelligence and military information flow?
Will this also be an opportunity to shut down al-Nusra and other Sunni jihadi foreign forces? Or is it strictly aimed at the government of Syria?
actually isn’t all that interested in the result of the policy. You read their stuff and what is astonishing is they really don’t have any answers to:
The only thing that matters to them is that they can say at a cocktail party that “at least we opposed evil”.
It is all about their good intentions.
Which is really bad news for the people who have to live with the results, and who couldn’t give a damn about our intentions.
Who exactly is the “do nothing crowd”?
Stratfor, December 7, 2011: INSIGHT – military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces
No doubt there’s been more detailed thinking since 2011.
The DoD tends to be obsessive planners though. They probably have a good idea how they’d invade and occupy Canada.
Stratfor was a pretty self-promoting and unreliable source. What was informative was the assumption of air bases in Cyprus and Iraq and the absolute lack of notion of national interest. It was almost as if the attitude (at least of Stratfor) was let’s do it because it’s there.
Also the comment that covert assets already were on the ground in Syria.
Yep, to some the world is a Risk board.
Ha! So true. Just dust off those maps from 1812 and we’re off…
Sheesh, the Obama administration is not the Bush administration — at all.
This is the least palatable argument against getting deeply involved, but it may be the only one that can save us: getting involved in yet another hopeless Middle Eastern mess is instant cancer for the Democrats. If Obama wants to hand the Senate and a huge majority in the House to the Republicans, this is the way to do it. The Democratic coalition will disintegrate instantly if asked to go along with this.
Wouldn’t that depend on what “this” is?
Your point is obviously true if “this” is Operation Syrian Freedom.
If it’s a week or a month of a NATO air campaign, that’s a different matter.
A Short Guide to the Middle East
Submitted to FT by K-N Al-Sabah
A new lovely little war will take our minds off so many other issues/problems.
If we’re getting into this, the only logical thing is to attack both sides.
Or just cut to the chase and bomb/missile/drone attack ourselves.
I mean…really. Let’s cut out the middlemen and just fuck ourselves up quickly and efficiently? What wait for another drawn-out war to suck the life from the country? Let’s just get it the fuck over with so’s we can start rebuilding. Who knows? Maybe that will hold some water with the rest of the world.