Month: September 2013

I’m surprised to see a Russian source even reporting on this, but it appears that the German intelligence service (BND) has concluded that Assad ordered the attack and that it was indeed sarin. They claim to have a damning intercept that bolsters their view.

The BND’s President Gerhard Schindler voiced his support for US allegations Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s government ordered the attack on the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21, Der Spiegel reported Monday.

The intelligence agency’s chief said that following a thorough analysis his ministry assumes that the regime is the perpetrator of the chemical attack which killed hundreds of people…

…The BND apparently cited new evidence to conclude the agent used was sarin, having intercepted communications between a high level Hezbollah official and Iran’s embassy.

In the tapped call, a doctor described details of patient symptoms specific to exposure to the internationally outlawed gas.

The German intelligence agency was surprised to hear the Hezbollah official saying that Assad had snapped, and had made a big mistake in going through ordering the use of poison gas. The Lebanese militant group has traditionally been viewed as Assad’s ally.

They also believe that the military made a mistake and unintentionally used too much sarin, which lines up with the earliest leaks about intercepts that claimed one commander was demanding an explanation from an underling about why the attack was so large.

Meanwhile, despite Secretary of State John Kerry making the rounds of the Sunday morning shows and claiming that tests had confirmed that sarin was the agent used, the Russians remain unimpressed and publicly unconvinced that the Assad regime is responsible.

“We were shown certain pieces of evidence that did not contain anything concrete, neither geographical locations, nor names, nor evidence that samples had been taken by professionals,” Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said in a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations…

…“What we were shown before and recently by our American partners, as well as by the British and French, does not convince us at all,” Mr. Lavrov said on Monday. “There are no facts, there is simply talk about ‘what we definitely know.’ But when you ask for more detailed evidence, they say that it is all classified, therefore it cannot be shown to us. This means there are not such facts to encourage international cooperation.”

Meanwhile, the Arab League managed to cobble together a somewhat stronger interventionist stance than they produced initially, although all they really called for were trials for those responsible for the attacks. How that might be accomplished went unsaid.

The administration probably should take their evidence to the United Nations and lay everything on the table and make Russia and China defend doing nothing. Unless, of course, Congress decides that it agrees with Russia and China. In any case, as things stand, Russia feels comfortable denying that we have proof of anything. We shouldn’t hide behind classified information. If we really believe what we’re saying, we should show why we believe it. This is the kind of thing that is worth sacrificing some methods, and perhaps even sources.

As for the latest info, if Assad has truly “snapped,” then his actions would make a lot more sense.

It seems like people will be pissed at us no matter what we do or don’t do. To me, that argues against caring about worldwide public opinion and just bearing down and making pragmatic decisions that have a prayer of working. Doing ineffectual things that anger people just to satisfy other people who won’t actually be satisfied seems like a bad way to go.

The reaction in Israel to President Obama’s decision to ask for congressional authorization to strike Syria is truly bizarre. As far as I know, Israel has never been able to decide what they want to happen in Syria. Certainly, they would like to see Iran’s influence diminished in both Syria and Lebanon, and that argues for a defeat of the Assad regime. If it’s true that the Assad regime is increasingly willing to use chemical weapons, that is also a major concern for the Israelis. But Israel has lived for decades in a technical state of war with Syria without it ever being much of an existential concern. They’d rather deal with the devil they know than with the uncertainty of a failed state or a Salafist regime allied with al-Qaeda. This is why you haven’t seen much pressure from Israel-aligned lobbyists for the United States to enter the civil war in Syria.

Yet, the Israelis have been pushing the argument that chemical weapons are being used by the regime and making the case that the “red line” has been crossed. And they seem to think that President Obama’s failure to act so far is an indication that America can no longer be depended upon to enforce “red lines,” including a potential decision by Iran to fully-enrich their uranium stockpiles for nuclear weapons.

What’s not clear is why Israel thinks it is in their interests for the Obama administration to carry out a very limited punitive attack on Syria that won’t affect the outcome of the war there. Since they are not even convinced that the demise of the Assad regime is in their interests, it is confusing that they think a failure to strike the regime is a troubling precedent.

The only thing I can conclude is that they fear that America has lost the resolve to act in their interests, even if it is not clear that acting in this particular case would be in their interests. They want us to do something not so much because they think doing something would be productive but to prove that we’re still capable of doing something.

This whole thing is just strange.

Obama’s Decision Stirs Doubts About America’s Resolve.

Phew!!!

Finally!!!

May it continue.

If Obama hadn’t already repeatedly proven himself to be an indecisive compromiser I would be tempted to suspect him of being a closet Libertarian.

I mean…a U.S. President actually obeying the Constitution’s War Powers clauses!!!???

Unheard of!!!

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has “Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”, while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, “when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[6][7] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

World Cop my ass!!!

May it continue.

AG

Lawmakers who were briefed on the Syria intelligence by the administration this afternoon did not come away clamoring for war. They did, on the whole, seem convinced that the Assad regime is guilty of launching the attack, and that’s important and significant. Many, quite wisely, insisted that the proposed language authorizing force be further limited to prevent the administration from using a supposedly narrow authority to carry out a broader campaign.

But the main thing is that they saw the evidence and now face the same conundrum faced by the administration. In addition, they have to decide if they want to undercut the president even if doing so could have a deleterious effect of the nation’s ability to deter rogue nations from committing serious human rights violations or proliferating weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, they are put in the position of policy makers and asked to use their best judgment about whether a limited punitive strike will create more problems than it solves. And the public has no appetite for a new front in the Middle East, which complicates their decision making.

Not an easy vote by any means. In some ways, the way the debate is being framed is downright bizarre. President Obama has already made the decision to arm at least some of the rebels in pursuit of a policy of regime change, yet he is insisting on carrying out a strike that will not be related to that policy but will instead be purely to maintain the taboo on using chemical weapons by any and all nations. This is the rub. I don’t think anyone really can separate the two issues in their minds.

For many, the whole idea seems to be to get us into the fight so we will feel compelled to see it through to the end. Why else would the Israelis be so furious about the delay? Why are the rebels so disappointed with the delay? They thought they had us on the hook, and the president wiggled away.

But, perhaps the disambiguation of the two issues (limited punitive strikes vs. proxy warfare in pursuit of regime change) can be furthered by having Congress severely limit what is authorized, allowing the president to plausibly claim victory for a strike that will do nothing to advance the overall Syria policy.

What a mess.

From the BBC:

US Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Syrian government forces of killing 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.

A number far higher than any other sources have claimed.

In his speech, SOS Kerry said:

We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood.
Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.

Perhaps Mr. Kerry will provide the rest of us with that photo of “rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds” victims of an Assad regime chemical attack that he saw.  Or perhaps he went with a photo that also made its way to being published by the BBC and tasked a staffer to count the bodies in it.  No link to that BBC photo because they’ve taken it down.  Just one of those “oops, sorry.”

But it can still be seen at The Telegraph.  It’s not a 2013 photo but from 2003.  Not Syria.  Iraq.

What’s next?  Kerry holding up a vial of deadly chemicals?  

The Tokyo Electric Power Company is less credible at this point than Donald Rumsfeld, and that takes some doing. Japan should ask for some actual experts to take over the job of trying to keep the Fukushima reactors under control. At least outsiders wouldn’t have an incentive to lie constantly about the level of radioactive leakage.

Naturally, the White House follows my advice:

Mr. Kerry said hair and blood samples from first responders who were helping victims in East Damascus “have tested positive for signatures of sarin.” While it was the first time anyone in the administration had pinpointed the poison, Mr. Kerry did not say how the administration had obtained the evidence. But he said the case against Mr. Assad was “going to build,” and insisted there was no cost to delaying.

“We do not lose anything; we actually gain,” Mr. Kerry said. “And what we gain is the legitimacy of the full-throated response of the Congress of the United States and the president acting together.”

While I still think it’s problematic to escalate our fight against the Assad regime, it was absolutely required that the administration build a stronger case and get some buy-in from Congress before they took military action. They still have work to do, but now they have time to do it.

And, if Congress won’t go along with the plan, then they have an escape hatch that allows them not to start down a dangerous road.

This is basically why we worked for him to win the nomination in 2008, although we’re not out of the woods, yet.

At 7 p.m. Friday, Mr. Obama called his top aides into his office, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to inform them of his plans. Aides say Mr. Obama came up with the idea himself to seek an authorization.

Many insiders were stunned because of the risk Congress will say “no.” “You have to win the vote. You have to win,” one senior administration official said after the decision was disclosed. “If Congress doesn’t let him act, the consequences for him and for the country’s standing in the world are enormous.”

Later Friday night, Mr. Obama told aides the decision reflected his growing frustration with lawmakers who appeared to want to have it both ways—criticizing the president for not seeking congressional authorization, and then criticizing the decisions he makes.

The chemical attack in Syria was unconscionable. But the president can’t do anything about it unless the people, through their representatives, give him the power to do something about it. This is as it should be. The president made it so.

I don’t think the administration has handled the Syrian situation well in recent days, but I’m glad Barack Obama is our president. He still seems to be the only adult in the room, and if he takes a hit for waffling or not being completely consistent, I’m willing to back him up for not compounding his mistakes. I think his critics should try to spend a week in his shoes and then they can talk.

I haven’t seen one person, including myself, give him any advice that wouldn’t expose him to legitimate second-guessing. There are no good options for Syria. There just aren’t.