In retaliation for a gassing of civilians, the US launched 70 Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian Air base.
From CNN:
There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons … and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council,” he said during short remarks to reporters at Mar-a-Lago. “The refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize.
Trump’s statement is enraging in many respects, not the least of which has been his attitude towards the refugees.
Earlier Hillary Clinton said
“Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days,” Clinton said in a speech at the “Women in the World” summit in New York City. “And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”
The former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee against Trump in 2016 reiterated her support for a no-fly zone over Syria and more direct support for protesters.
Clinton went on to repeat her criticism that Obama Syrian policy was too passive. She initially made that criticism in 2014.
Obama argued against Syrian involvement, telling Bloomberg:
asked the president if, in retrospect, he should have provided more help to Syria’s rebels earlier in their struggle. “I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there,” Obama said. “When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict — the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
I doubt this is much more than for appearances. It does little to change the equation on the ground. There is even a case for some sort of strike given the use of gas in Syria.
In the larger context, I always believe that Obama was right and Clinton was wrong about Syria.
Which path Trump takes is unknowable.
Missiles attacking a Syrian airfield sounds like a lot more than for the sake of appearances.
Why would Syria mount a CW attack (with a non-existent stockpile of CW weapons) when the war was going well for them? And only a few days after TrumpCo stated that regime change in Syria was not on the agenda?
Echoes of 2002-2003. “Why doesn’t Saddam come clean about his WMD?” Except he did. And US yahoos got their rocks off on bombing over fake WMD.
Mickt:
4/6/17 – NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims
Out with the old fake case for war and in with the new. More Iraq Wars echoes.
Good thing that Trump acted before the lies could be exposed. This really reeks.
They told the Syrians and the Russians they were coming.
As is typical, only the innocent were killed.
But this was not a serious military operation.
Underneath it all, control of population numbers in a resource depleted region?
I remember thisd passage from the novel “Alas, Babylon”:
IIRC “that crazy rocket”.
Yeah, it was. It was an important step up in degree.
Prior to this we did not directly attack sovereign forces, even as a member of the international group. The closest we came was the “accidental-on-purpose” airstrike at Deir Ezzor that enabled ISIS to besiege it.
Now, as a solitary actor, we have deliberately killed soldiers of a sovereign force without even a yellow-cake fable to justify it.
But we have a Sarin fable.
Not a serious military operation? Only at a superficial level in strict terms of physical damage done (very limited).
But it’s greatly angered a major world power, and has sent US-Russia relations even further into the depths of hostility and distrust. A rather important point.
It also serves as a very unfortunate precedent for this admin in terms of reacting militarily in the future if another curious incident should happen or be cooked up by our IC/Pentagon Deep State.
Also to consider is how/when Russia will respond, another important and consequential factor that emerges from this alleged non-serious military operation.
Donald’s overreaction, apparently from urging by his hawkish NS advisor and SecDef, will likely have serious consequences down the line, and not in a good way.
I seem to recall reagan, awakened to the news that a Navy fighter had shot down a Libyan Mig, “Next time only wake me if one of ours is shot down”.
Maybe the New York Times is being faked out or is bullshitting us, but if so, so is a lot of non-US media as well. I just took a look at some French language coverage, and it all refers to chemical weapons attacks.
What a joke are you! The old colonial powers of the Levant: Great Britain and France. Europe’s war hawks in support of any US president for military enforcement in the region. I’m quite surprised Lebanon has managed to avoid domestic upheaval with 20-25% of its present population as Syrian refugees … Hezbollah political and militant power and Israel next door. This may change under president Trump in unison with Bibi Netanyahu.
The fact that other major western media repeat the same unsubstantiated charges on the alleged Assad CW attack, fall in line with US coverage, should come as no surprise. They have been toeing the line on Russiagate all along. The Guardian, BBC, France24, Der Spiegel (so I’m told), all sound the same uncritical notes as CNN, NPR and Msnbc here.
The Pentagon/US IC sends out the script to our MSM and allied major Euro media organs, offers perhaps some talking points and counter points to handle any disloyal notes of dissent or skepticism, and the media run with it.
Channel surfing last night, I generally heard no skeptical voices about whether there might just be another possibility of who carried out what looks like a CW attack which just happened to be rather slickly and dramatically videoed by a curious “rescue” group called the White Helmets, a group also treated unskeptically as legit by the western media.
Only on France24 did they permit one skeptical panelist among the 4 offering opinions on the CW story to get in a few comments questioning the Assad-CW premise. That skeptical voice, interestingly, usually is a regular Russia watcher panelist on RT.
On Msnbc last night, Chris Hayes Show (formerly a reliably good progressive program), he had on 4 guests, including a neocon hawk from the WP (Jennifer Rubin) for most of the 35 minutes I watched. Only Sam Seder kinda expressed some semi-skepticism, if I heard correctly. And the very well-paid Hayes seemed very careful not to dive into obvious Qs about whether what was being widely reported as an Assad CW attack was actually true, from the portions I saw. Lots of dodging around that. I had to shut it off — it was sickening watching the obvious propaganda go unchallenged on a supposedly progressive network.
Not much has changed fundamentally in our MSM over the past 50 yrs — they still operate as one, in the Gene McCarthy sense of the media as a flock of blackbirds landing on the line as one. It’s just that the IC/Pentagon that feeds the flock has more obviously expanded its reach, in the new communications world, to include major foreign outlets.
If Assad didn’t do it — and it had to be done from the air — then who did?
Help me out — it’s a quickly developing story, mostly so far covered in a curiously one-sided way, and I don’t claim to know the real story.
Has it been definitely established the CW attack came from the air? Sources for that?
My best guess is this was a false flag by Islamist anti-govt forces, to get the US to respond militarily against Assad forces, which were beating the ISIS/AQ forces badly in previous months. Recall that the CW charges loudly alleged as fact against Assad in the 2013 situation turned out to be false.
But why assume Assad was the culprit? Media says so? He’s just a bad guy? Bad guy perhaps, but no idiot. It makes no logical sense for him to have attacked that way given he was at the time winning the battle.
They just make shit up — don’t even bother to change the narrative by much and could care less that the old narrative proved to be false. What’s a few more innocent killed, maimed people to US if it makes US look tough and resolute and showing off some of our high price, high-tech weaponry? (Estimated missile cost of striking Syria last night is only a hundred million.)
Always charming when the IC/Pentagon/MSM express their highly selective concern for the plight of children, in the obvious effort to work the US public into a lather in order to justify US military action. Lots of coverage for Aleppo children (that was the Syria-Russia operation), not nearly as much for the ones in Mosul (the US operation), no coverage at all for the ones in Yemen (the US-backed Saudi slaughter from the skies).
Yes, we all know how much the IC/Pentagon are concerned about the children! Nick Kristof too!
But if from the air, assuming that is true, it could have been Syrian air strikes against known Islamist weapons depot not knowing it also contained CWs. This is the not unreasonable Russian supposition. Entirely possible and certainly more plausible than to suppose that the recently dominant Syrian govt forces all of a sudden decided to go stupid and use CW.
The actual kind of CW used or blown up is also not yet determined. Early reports (via MoonAla) say it was a “dirty” type, not the clean odorless colorless type sarin normally is.
In any case, Russia defense (per RT) reports a few Russian MIG fighter jets were destroyed, but damage to runway was minor. Half a dozen Syrian military killed. I think they said only 23 of the cruise missile hit the airfield. Unclear what happened to the remaining 36.
Guess that everyone is overlooking the available evidence out there to put the argument to bed permanently. Chemicals have fingerprints and we know the fingerprints of Assad’s sarin.
“Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal.”
The testing is pretty rigorous…https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syrian-chemical-weapons-tests-sarin
So was not even stolen sarin from over-runs of Assad’s troops.
Oops.
checked some of the articles – nothing on what it did match – was that ever publicized?
The UN inspection group that has been keeping check and investigating all charges since Assad gave his stockpile up to international bodies(and failing to substantiate any claims, btw) is collecting samples for testing.
Now, now, would not want to embarrass our friends…
Seymour Hersh thought it was Turkish.
I’m sure the IC know whose it was.
Saw some stuff at Moon of Alabama to the effect that the victims’ symptoms were not Sarin symptoms but Carbon Monoxide or Chlorine or commercial weed killer.
One whiff of Round-up convinced me that it’s deadly.
How long did it take to verify the harm caused by the CWs that the US used in Vietnam? Birth defects from exposure to Agent Orange continue.
Do we know the cause of Gulf War Syndrome yet?
Independent health care workers are rare in war theaters; so, almost anything can be claimed and not verified.
They were talking about things like red flesh which CO causes but Sarin doesn’t and odors reported while Sarin is odorless.
I am disinclined to believe conspiracy theories in general.
The most likely one to me would be the use by junior officers in the Syrian Military to create pressure on Assad to leave.
But I doubt it. The UN concluded it was Assad the last time. I believe he did it this time.
I could be wrong of course.
I am disinclined to believe conspiracy theories in general.
Why? It’s not as if conspiracies/collusions aren’t an ordinary and everyday occurrence. Granted mostly small stuff, but Iraq WMD, Iran-Contra, Watergate, and a few others were really bit stuff that were subsequently verified. Some suspected ones may one day become known and many others that are reasonable to suspect may remain hidden forever.
The UN concluded it was Assad the last time.
Source? Be sure to forward it Ray McGovern because that’s not what he’s been able to put together and he has far more and far better sources than either you or I will ever have. This isn’t an academic or historical question because it’s relevant to today.
Assad knows what happened and the price he paid the last time he was suspected of using CWs. Do you think he’s so stupid that he would risk using CW today? OTOH, the jihadis made out okay over the last one and this one has already benefited them.
Why?
Because I believe in human stupidity and incompetence more than I believe in human cunning and the ability to keep secrets.
I guess it goes back to my experience as a lawyer, but it’s also I guess a lesson I draw from history.
I regard history as a farcical tragedy more than anything else.
Iran-Contra was a cluster fuck. So was Watergate. I actually can’t list very many successful conspiracies.
People blab. They turn on each other.
So I am always suspicious. I don’t have time to learn all the details of all of this stuff. And I know from having been involved in investigations that the details really matter.
So it’s just a predisposition.
Don’t project USian stupidity and blabbering on the rest of the world.
Many scams don’t unravel for decades (ie Madoff). How long were US coups in Iran, Chile, and several other countries kept under wraps? Has anyone ever talked about what it was that the ’72 DNC burglars were after? If not for LBJ’s tape, would we know about Nixon’s ’68 October surprise? Has anyone talked about the ’80 October surprise?
Plus, what I’ve suggested hardly falls into the CT category. When something works, people repeat it. (It’s the essence of how casinos or the House always wins.) Lorries have become the latest WMD. Why is it so difficult to fathom that jihadis getting close to losing wouldn’t repeat a CW attack? Today, as Kerry complimented Trumps missile strike, it just became clearer that it was only Obama (ably assisted by Putin who Obama can’t stand) that stopped the last one from working.
I’m going to go back to an earlier point, because I have seen made often in these threads.
Why would Assad this?
Because he WANTED those pictures. Because that is how you win Civil Wars: with terror. What do think the effect of those pictures are on Civilian Populations?
Because he DID get away with it the last time, and he will get away with it again. And that sends a message as well. It says he was able to defy the International Community and get away with it.
Assad’s motivations for doing it seem pretty obvious to me.
In any event the first case I was ever involved in was a pretty big conspiracy – the junk bond case at Drexel. And that one came crashing down because people blabbed.
Thus far I don’t find the arguments the rebels used the gas convincing at all.
As I said – I could be wrong.
Lawrence O’Donnell The Last Word, from yesterday, msnbc on youtube, says Tillerson’s response to question about Assad (should he go? let the Syrian people decide) set this in motion b/c Assad understood it to mean the USA wouldn’t oppose him. very strong language about Tillerson’s incompetence.
And then a few days ago, following the Tillerson comments about Assad, the Putin govt issued a statement saying the Russians weren’t necessarily wedded to the idea of Assad staying in power. If I have the chronology correct, this sounds like a conciliatory posture from the Russians in return for the US seeming to shift away from regime change, a shift the Russians rightly want to encourage.
Logically also it doesn’t make sense for Assad to then undertake conduct which would further alienate him from his partner in Moscow. Note here that the western press usually blames Putin for the things Assad is alleged to have done. The two are intertwined in western/US eyes. When Assad gets accused so does Putin. Now why would Assad, who is well aware of this media game and the MSM unsubstantiated charges against him, want to add more fuel to that fire? And further anger his partner in the Kremlin, thus undermining his grip on power in Damascus ?
Especially when his military forces were routing the Islamist rebels?
To use a famous sports analogy, when one team on the gridiron is behind late, they take desperate measures — the old Hail Mary pass. The team that is ahead does not. ISIS/AQ needed a Hail Mary (or Hail Allah), not Assad.
I found L O’Donnell convincing on this
Here’s the link (begins about halfway through the video).
Don’t know what you found convincing about it. For decades O’Donnell has expressed contempt for federal government no experience/no-nothings that move into the WH — included in that are governors from AR and TX. (I actually don’t disagree with his bias.) Trump and his gang is a wonderful opportunity for O’Donnell to go ballistic. However, in going after Tillerson’s comment, one has to accept that Obama’s position that Assad must go is rational and appropriate (I don’t think it’s either) and that Assad is a mad killer. What’s his body count compared with that of GWB’s and Obama’s? The US incarceration rate is 693 and Syria’s is 60. How many more deaths would there have been in Iraq if Assad/Syria had turned away Iraqi refugees during the US occupation? That number today is a million — how many Iraqi refugees have been admitted to the US?
Nobody likes brutal governments, but singling out one that the USG doesn’t like that isn’t as horrendous as ones that the US does like is hypocritical. Saddam was horrible, but women in that country weren’t living in the dark ages as they are in KSA.
He might be right. It’s all speculation.
Well what a surprise. Another know it all in the media decides Putin is to blame. Yes, all evils in the world must be laid at the doorstep of Vlad.
And I used to like LOD, at least prior to 2015 when he went badly off the rails misreading — and insisting he was right — Donald’s candidacy and motives for running. Lawrence is basically a good guy, but often wrong. And on this one, it’s stretching the outer limits of logic to fit his theory into something which can be repeated without cringing.
William of Occam (or whatever his name was) must be rolling over in his grave.
O’Donnell didn’t mention Russia in that program – where did you get that idea? my summary said nothing about it, nor did the program itself. to recap: he said SOS stating that future of Syria is up to Syrian ppl, telegraphed the message that we were hands off Assad.
The first Drexel guy that talked was like McCord in the Watergate break-in. DOJ had him. The others that talked were like Dean, etal, cutting a deal for themselves. (Once worked in an office furnished with Drexel’s office furniture that was picked up at auction. I know it’s weird, but that furniture had bad vibes. Or maybe it was the building — the office across the hall had Maurice Stans as a retired principal on its nameplate.)
Robert Parry, April 6, 2017, NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims. If you want to be like a WMD/Judith Miller dead-ender, that’s fine, but recognize that it interferes with objectivity and even being logical. Your position on this latest event isn’t logical.
Again, you are making an argument with respect to intent that is not based on evidence, but on speculation.
Speculation is not evidence. Which is why I tend to avoid discussions about things like this: because people don’t understand the difference.
Over and over again people seem to start from the premise that it was stupid for Assad to do this.
I have argued it was not. I have provided reasons why it was in his interests to do this.
Why would all of the Western powers agree with the US about the US conclusion. Does the UN report matter?
The guys at Drexel were initially flagged by the SEC watch program. I was PART of that case, though at a very junior level (there were about 130 lawyers working for the Millikin brothers)
You seem to be starting with the presumption that Assad did do it. Then concoct a rationale for it.
I’m not at all impressed or persuaded by your corp crime analogy. Here we’re talking gross war crimes allegedly by a state actor in a war setting, a considerable difference.
And how is it relevant that our allies go along — these are likely driven far more by political/geopolitical concerns, not the actual evidence , which is still yet to be gathered by an impartial expert body.
As it currently stands we do not know who carried out the attack. We simply do not know.
Assad may or may not have done it. The rebels may or may not have done it. Russia may or may not have done it.
We can all come up with good justifications for any of those three to carry out the attack.
But as you noted, in the end it is just speculation.
What we need are facts, and facts are as scarce as three dollar bills right now.
You ask a good question: why are the other western powers agreeing with the US suppositions/conclusions? I do not have an answer to that, other than to point out (again) that there seem to be a lot of conclusions being made before any facts are in hand.
On the allies, agreeing with the US is their default reaction. But Theresa May, while she unwisely endorsed Donald’s missile strike, is also calling for a UN investigation.
A UN/OPCW thorough investigation, which I believe the Russians also want, would seem to be the best way to resolve issues of responsibility. Might have been a good thing to have that investigation done before launching missiles. But it’s Donald, and he was likely looking for a way to get out from under all the bogus Russiagate stories and the plunging poll numbers.
Again, why would Assad undertake such a reckless scheme, knowing full well it would badly damage his relations with important ally Russia and would also get him into trouble with the US, providing the latter with a nice pretext to undertake regime change activities.
And why as a preliminary matter run the risk with CWs when he knew his govt forces, helped by Russia, were already clearly WINNING the war?
Using chemical is something only desperate dictators might use as a very last resort. There was no last resort need for the dominant Assad forces, busy routing ISIS/AQ out of much of their geographical holdings. Only desperation from the anti-Assad rebel forces.
But conspirators usually don’t blab when it’s a conspiracy involving killing people. They’ve usually already been paid off, handsomely, for their efforts, and know better than to talk — would cost them their lives. Not so much in the corporate crime area.
(ditto Marie’s above comment)
Fladem: We have before us some of the worst (barely) human scum in ISIS/AQ to ever walk the earth. Often they make Hitler’s SS look like Boy Scouts in their violent behavior. A well-funded, sophisticated large group, with plenty of recruits (all the more as we engage militarily over there), money to burn, and all sorts of military equipment, including whatever they can manufacture or have supplied from, say, nearby Turkey.
Did I say sophisticated? For instance, it was noted recently (from an established respected published western author) that their online publication magazine was not only expertly written but showed signs of professional editing. Iow, this group is perfectly capable of pulling off sophisticated psyops and false flag operations which would rival those our IC conducts on a regular basis.
It sounds like you’ve bought the western media’s propaganda about Assad — basically, any unproven charge against him that’s aired in the MSM isn’t worthy of scrutiny. Ditto for Putin.
How about some facts, some proof? A neutral and professional UN weapons inspector team perhaps?
All for inspectors and a neutral report.
But I am sorry but are ISIS and AQ REALLY all that unique?
Because in the history I have read:
*There was the holocaust
*There was the Stalin purges
*There were the Khmer Rouge
*There was human slavery
*There was Mao – who wanted to substitute names with numbers and who killed innocents by the millions
And on and on and on.
In my read of history ISIS and AQ are every bit as common as FDR.
Yes, I’m well aware of history, thank you. But notice I did bother to include some qualifiers in my post, which was simply intended to highlight the extreme nature of this group.
Your comments about ISIS are fascinating considering that another commenter in this thread–and also a skeptic about the sarin gas “attacks”–has previously written that the very professionalism of ISIS’ beheading videos points to those videos being fake.
In other words, between you and that commenter, you’re trying to have it both ways: ISIS is so competent and professional that they can conduct psyops and pull off a sarin attack, but a slick looking video with ISIS’ signature must be fake because it’s just too professional looking.
It’a a bit out of bounds to try to tag-team us up just because in the overall we share similar views on this latest Syrian matter and on the bogus Russiagate. We are still free — I hope — as individual posters, to disagree on some of the particulars.
Speaking only for myself (if you don’t mind), I’ve been rather consistent here in the last few years as trying to warn people ISIS/AQ, or generally the Islamist extremist faction, is a serious threat to contend with — well-funded and armed, well trained, and with an effective PR wing. No junior varsity they, not even 3-4 yrs ago when Obama made his unfortunate and ill-informed comments.
Bogus Russia gate. See, this is why I stopped responding in these threads. Nothing will convince you guys.
My point is not to “tag team” the two of you, not at all. (I have read and appreciated your remarks about Islamists.) It’s for me more an issue of what I refer to as “answer analysis”: the conclusion comes first, the explanation is then designed to fit. Thus the beheading videos are assumed to be disinformation–crude efforts to inflame US public opinion–and are then “exposed” as phony by odd remarks about the suspicious color of the Islamists’ clothing and the “too professional” production values. The fact that outfits like ISIS have recruited educated and tech-savvy people is somehow either beneath notice or irrelevant to the greater project of exposing US disinformation. Ends justifying the means.
My fundamental problem with your line of argument about, say, what you call Russiagate is that I feel you demand impossible standards of proof. Thus my smart-ass remark below about Auschwitz. I mean, at the Nuremberg trials, did anyone testify to witnessing the gassing of Jews herded off trains? And if someone did see that, how do we know it wasn’t just the action of some rogue German soldier?
Again, your concerns about analysis of the ISIS videos should be addressed to the other poster as I have always considered them legit, if disgusting and disturbing.
But it is a very complicated situation over there, with many players on the battlefield, and funding and supplying from multiple nearby states. Multiple proxy wars, just incredible. The info wars is a murky cesspool, so it’s understandable that people will be inclined to consider deception when presented with certain information. The complex and convoluted situation goes well beyond the usual Truth is the First Casualty easy analysis.
There have been very plausible allegations I’ve heard recently that the US IC has been quietly conducting a major info/disinfo war in Syria — budgeted at $1B/yr — on behalf of the extremist anti-Assad forces affiliated w/AQ/ISIS, in order to misrepresent/underplay Islamist activities while at the same time charging Assad with all sorts of war crimes to further tarnish his already low image in the west.
The goal by the US IC, it’s alleged, since 2013 has been to achieve the regime change in Damascus that the neocons in our national security chain have long sought, eventually forcing the hand of the US president. This appears to be very close to being achieved, one more curious incident away probably.
Re Russiagate, my concern has always been to demand the IC provide proof to the public and not just feed unsubstantiated allegations to a gullible MSM. The stakes are just too high to accept the bare word of intel officials — trained in deception after all — about “assessments” and levels of confidence. Didn’t we learn that lesson with Iraq in 2003? Or with the 2013 dubious CW charges against Assad that turned out not to be such a “slam dunk”.
So, I err on the side of a relatively high standard of proof. But I don’t recall saying ultimately it must meet a beyond reasonable doubt extremely high bar. Clear and convincing, slightly lower standard, would probably suffice. But higher than the civil Preponderance level. And definitely more than just passively accepting the Just Trust Us word from the intel community. They have not earned my trust.
The biggest problem with all of your analysis of any foreign policy situation is to ascribe all of the agency entirely to the US and any would be clients, and none of it to the opposition and/or Russian clients.
For example: do you even believe there was a Syrian revolution in 2011-2012?
When does an uprising equal a revolution?
Was Occupy a revolution? Was there a revolution in Egypt in 2011. Regardless of whatever you believe, uprisings that don’t result in tossing out and supplanting TPTB don’t end up being considered revolutions.
There was a revolution in Tunisia in 2011. Yet, in the country that had the largest (as a percentage of the population) and greatest amount of cohesion among the protestors (or revolutionaries) that year, there was no revolution because it was crushed. (And no that would not be Syria.)
What the hell happened in Egypt?
Do you believe there was a revolution in Libya? Yeah, sure if we ignore the US/western covert operations that assisted in facilitating the initial armed conflicts and the later US/NATO bombings that were needed to get the job done. Why aren’t Americans now flocking to this new garden spot in the world for vacation? (Wasn’t that also one of the BushCo sales points for the Iraq War?)
What about Vietnam? In the 20th century it began as a French colony. Then the Japanese came and kicked out the French. When that empire was decimated, the French moved back in and asserted its ownership rights, the people (less than a 100% but on the order of 80+%) said, no. And over several years the Vietnamese won that war and the French threw in the towel (despite all the US support for France to prevail). Then the US moved in more overtly with “not so fast.” So, did the Vietnamese engage in a second revolution? Objectively, yes (complete with their very own George Washington), but we in this country don’t recognize that war as having been a revolution, do we?
Is revolution the proper term for seeming internal disputes within a country that’s been put on a list for overthrow by an outside power?
Was five years overly ambitious or arrogant? Only two of the seven have yet to be overtly tackled.
By 2001, the Sudanese civil war was already into its tenth year. Another ten years and it ceased with partition. The South Sudanese Civil War has been raging since 2013:
“Taking out” out this one has been about as complex and beyond US capacity as Lebanon was in the early 1980s. (And you do know who/what managed to restore good enough peaceful co-existence in Lebanon back then don’t you?)
Somalia remains a basket case regardless of any USG efforts which appear to have been minimal.
Why are we still in Iraq fourteen years on? And once ISIS/AQ/etc is defeated there, there is a real risk of a renewed Shia-Sunni civil war. USG training of all those Iraqi Shia militias will help out that side of those new battles. heh — that was the outcome of the US invasion/occupation of Iraq that almost all Americans have overlooked for these fourteen years. Not clear and neat and tidy as you seem to think these matters are.
No. The UN concluded that both parties, national army and rebels, in the theater had sarin, but did not make a ruling as to who was responsible for the Ghouta attack. I linked the actual report in Booman’s FP post.
Obama changed his mind about the strike because the chemical fingerprints of the sarin samples collected at Ghouta did NOT match any batches of Assad’s. Maybe you missed the article as it was hardly covered? And the info was released to the public well after everything was over.
“Obama’s Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, was able to dissuade Obama from ordering a cruise missile strike, according to a newly-published book by Mideast expert Michael Lüders. Presumably, a deciding factor was an analysis of the chemical weapons used in Ghouta, conducted by a British military lab, which found the gas to be of a different composition than the Syrian army possessed.”
http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217
That’s interesting, but how in the world did a British lab have a detailed chemical signature of whatever was in Assad’s arsenal to make this determination?
I thought Deir-Ezzor would factor in there somewhere–the first place the US attacked Syrian govt forces directly. It was about to be recaptured from ISIS. How nice for our allies.
“Al Syairat lies in Homs governate, 150 km south of Khan Sheikoun in Idleb governate. It is the main support and supply airport for the besieged Syrian government enclave in Deir Ezzor which will now again be in even more serious trouble. It was also used to launch attacks on the Islamic State which fights the Syrian government troops in east Homs.” (http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/syria-us-creates-new-air-support-request-scheme-for-al-qaeda.ht
ml#more)
New Day tweet
Glenn
A shame and embarrassment that someone as convention wisdom-driven and ethically tarnished as FZ gets to play the US media “intellectual” on a big worldwide media stage with little pushback.
CNN also has lightweights Wolf Blitzer (another willing accomplice for the IC/Pentagon), Don “Meadowlark” Lemon, and Cooper Anderson, filling up their airwaves, at least in the US.
I think Christiane Amanpour operates in CNN-Int’l. Last I checked on her, just another self-righteous liberal interventionist in the Samantha Powers mode.
If it is a false flag operation, ask cui bono? – two obvious answers come to mind, ISIS, provoking a US response [like taking candy from a baby with T as president] or T who needs a Reichstag fire asap. But also too, Turkey? or Russia, to give T a chance to show he’s independent and distract from Europe. finally Assad – puts off the day of reckoning for his gov, prolongs the war, makes him look strong surviving a US attack, etc. What we do know for sure is the world (well, maybe not the evildoers) would be much better off if Obama were still prez.
Not Assad, unless Putin gave him the go ahead. He’s on Putin’s leash. If Putin ever abandons him, Assad will be as dead as Saddam.
Don’t discount the CIA. They have had Assad in their gunsights for decades.
Remember 2003? Bolivian UN Ambassador Blasts US for Another Illegal Attack
Highly recommend watching Sacha Llorenti’s presentation.
Personally, I’ll believe that the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz were actually that, and not just shower rooms, after a UN team has done a detailed analysis of chemical traces. I mean, there is this report by an independent investigator, but I want the UN seal of approval.