Syria

[RA1]

Here we go again. Another failed foreign policy fiasco in the making. We aren't completely out of Iraq, certainly not out of Afghanistan, Egypt is a disaster, never mind Libya and a few others. I wonder what domestic foul up BO is now trying to cover up by diverting the national attention to Syria.

There is no doubt that Syria is a disaster on its' own but I think the US has already had too many turns at bat.

Best regards,

RA1

[TotallyOz]

I hope to goodness we don't get involved in this again! By again, I mean anywhere. I am so tired of spending money on helping other countries when our own is a disaster. That does mean I can't sympathize with those being oppressed in foreign lands. It means that at some point, enough has to be enough.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well peace in that region is very important for all of us. Whatever money any foreign country spend there is important for the world economy. Obama has to balance things out for that reason and he can't just focus on the domestic issues thinking that these foreign issues will not affect us.

[ihpguy]

I'm kind of out of it. From the little that I have read, isn't this a bit more for the players in the area like Turkey, Russia and Iran? What is BO even contemplating? Why don't the Qatari's spend some of their billions in sovereign wealth like they have on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

Yours,

IHOP aka FavelaDweller

[TampaYankee]

This is a Hobson's Choice. To let the use of chemical weapons go unchallenged with impunity is a road that the civilized world cannot take. There must be a community of nations (with or without Russia and China) coordinated response that makes clear that such weapons will not be tolerated. Once it starts it will spread and it will come back on us eventually.

[RA1]

Who do you want to root for, a murdering dictator or a group of terrorists? Neither side seems to have the best national interests of Syria in mind, only self-aggrandizement. The US should stay out of it.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Who do you want to root for, a murdering dictator or a group of terrorists? Neither side seems to have the best national interests of Syria in mind, only self-aggrandizement. The US should stay out of it.

Best regards,

RA1

This goes way beyond 'who wins'. This goes to what are acceptable methods of making war, going forward to other places, other times. Gas warfare cannot be tolerated in Syria or anwhere, as well as biological and radiation warfares. It must be stopped there and now.

As for the tactics, they should be narrow, definitive and substantial, that leave no doubt that gas warfare ever will be tolerated. I would like to see a half dozen high-value targets destroyed including air bases and high command HQs. If the commanders get the message that they will pay with their lives then that will be a deterrent that speaks to the decision makers.

[AdamSmith]

This goes way beyond 'who wins'. This goes to what are acceptable methods of making war, going forward to other places, other times. Gas warfare cannot be tolerated in Syria or anwhere, as well as biological and radiation warfares. It must be stopped there and now.

I dislike American imperialism as much as any other loony lefty. But if the world is going to have a superpower imposing its will, I still want it to be us and ours.

[RA1]

I understand everyone's concerns. However, we need to get over thinking we are the policeman for the world; either that, or stop letting the politicians do the planning and micromanaging.

We have Iran, Russia and the dictator of Syria on the one hand and Egypt, Israel (sort of), the terrorists and maybe the US on the other. Nothing other than two or more cabals with their own agendas.

North Korea mistreats its' citizens far worse than Syria ever thought of, gas or no gas. Yemen is an ugly example of mistreatment. There are others.

There is no stopping this whatever the US does. Let those others worry about it.

Sorry to keep mentioning this refrain. BO does not have a clue period.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

For U.S., Syria is truly a problem from hell

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

updated 8:53 AM EDT, Tue August 27, 2013

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- What is widely recognized as the most authoritative study of the United States' responses to mass killings around the world -- from the massacres of Armenians by the Turks a century ago, to the Holocaust, to the more recent Serbian atrocities against Bosnian Muslims and the ethnic cleansing of the Tutsis in Rwanda -- concluded that they all shared unfortunate commonalities:

"Despite graphic media coverage, American policymakers, journalists and citizens are extremely slow to muster the imagination needed to reckon with evil. Ahead of the killings, they assume rational actors will not inflict seemingly gratuitous violence. They trust in good-faith negotiations and traditional diplomacy. Once the killings start, they assume that civilians who keep their head down will be left alone. They urge cease-fires and donate humanitarian aid."

This is an almost perfect description of how the United States has acted over the past two years as it has tried to come up with some kind of policy to end the Assad regime's brutal war on its own people in Syria.

The author who wrote the scathingly critical history of how the United States has generally dithered in the face of genocide and mass killings went on to win a 2003 Pulitzer Prize for her book "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide."

A decade after winning the Pulitzer, that author is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Her name, of course, is Samantha Power, and she is a longtime, close aide to President Barack Obama. She started working for Obama when he was a largely unknown junior senator from Illinois.

Power called her 610-page study of genocide "A Problem from Hell" because that's how then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher referred to the Bosnian civil war and the unpalatable options available to the U.S. in the early 1990s to halt the atrocities by the Serbs.

One of the U.S. officials that Power took to task in her book is Susan Rice who, as the senior State Department official responsible for Africa, did nothing in the face of the genocide unfolding in Rwanda in 1994.

Rice is quoted in the book as suggesting during an interagency conference call that the public use of the word "genocide" to describe what was then going on in Rwanda while doing nothing to prevent it would be unwise and might negatively affect the Democratic Party in upcoming congressional elections.

Rice later told Power she could not recall making this statement but also conceded that if she had made it, the statement was "completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant."

Rice is now Obama's national security adviser.

In 2012, at Power's urging, Obama announced the creation of an interagency task force to help stamp out atrocities around the world. Called the Atrocities Prevention Board, it was led by Power during its first year. Meanwhile, the body count in Syria kept spiraling upward.

For the past two years, Obama hasn't wanted to intervene militarily in Syria.

Who would? The country is de facto breaking up into jihadist-run "emirates" and Alawite rump states. It is also the scene of a proxy war that pits al Qaeda affiliates backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia against Hezbollah, backed by Iran.

Whoever ultimately prevails in this fight is hardly going to be an ally of the U.S. It's an ungodly mess that makes even Iraq in 2006 look good.

It is, in short, a problem from hell.

Power, Rice and Obama today face some of the very same unpalatable choices that have confronted other U.S. national security officials as they tried to prevent mass killings in other distant, war-torn countries.

They can continue to do little as the Syrian civil war drags on into its third year with 100,000 dead and rising. It's a state of affairs now compounded by the fact that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad appears not only to have crossed the "red line" with its use of chemical weapons but seems to have now sprinted past that line, killing hundreds with neurotoxins in a Damascus suburb, according to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. He's blasted those attacks as something that "should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality."

Doing nothing will not be treated kindly by future historians writing in the same vein as Power.

The issue now in Syria is not simply that al-Assad is massacring his own civilians at an industrial rate, but he is also flagrantly flouting a well-established international norm by this regime's reported large-scale use of neurotoxins as weapons against civilians. It seems inconceivable that the United States as the guarantor of international order would not respond to this in some manner.

But on what authority? There is scant chance of a U.N. resolution authorizing military action. When she was U.N. ambassador, Rice skillfully ushered a resolution through the Security Council that authorized military action in Libya in 2011. But Russia and China will almost certainly veto any similar kind of resolution on Syria.

Russia is one of Syria's few allies, and Russia and China are generally staunchly against any kind of international intervention in the affairs of other countries, no matter how egregious the behavior of those states might be.

That leaves the possibility of some kind of unilateral action by the United States.

The U.S. regularly infringes the sovereignty of countries such as Pakistan and Yemen with CIA drone strikes on the novel legal theory that terrorists planning strikes on the U.S. are living in those nations and those countries are either unable or unwilling to take out the terrorists on their territory -- and therefore their sovereignty can be infringed by drone attacks.

But making a claim that the Syrian regime threatens the U.S. is implausible, and therefore some kind of unilateral American action seems quite unlikely.

In 1986, the Reagan administration launched air strikes at the homes of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but only after an incident in which Libyan agents had bombed a disco in Berlin, killing two American servicemen. No such casus belli exists with Syria today.

Since neither a U.N. authorized military mission nor a unilateral American strike seem likely, what options are left?

One appealing option could be something along the lines of the Kosovo model. The Kosovo War in 1999 was entirely an air war in which no American soldiers were killed. The goal of the air campaign was to push Serbian forces out of Kosovo. Russia was allied with the Serbs so, as in the Syrian case today, there was no chance a U.N. resolution authorizing force would pass.

Instead, the war was conducted under the NATO collective security umbrella. Kosovo is, of course, in Europe, and NATO is a Europe-focused security alliance while Syria is the Middle East, so NATO action there would be much more problematic.

(A NATO force does fight in Afghanistan today, but that is only because one of its member states, the United States, was attacked on 9/11 from Afghanistan by al Qaeda, which triggered NATO's Article 5, the right to collective self-defense of the members of the alliance.)

If an air war were to be launched against Syria, one scenario could be that Turkey, a member of NATO, could invoke Article 5 because Syria has fired into its territory on a regular basis.

So far, Turkey has proved reluctant to invoke Article 5 but the reported large-scale use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime might change the calculus of the Turks.

A further source of legitimacy for military action could be some kind of authorization by the Arab League. The Arab League is generally a toothless talking shop, which seemed to have surprised even itself two years back when it endorsed military action against Gadhafi.

That endorsement gave substantial international legitimacy to the subsequent air campaign against Gadhafi, led by the United States and other NATO countries such as France.

It is hard to believe that some kind of military action against Syria won't now take place, likely in the form of U.S. cruise missile attacks from ships in the Mediterranean.

Such attacks have the merit that they won't put U.S. aircraft at risk, which could well encounter problems with Syria's well-regarded air defense systems. And the operation will likely have the blessing of some mix of NATO and Arab League authorizations, giving it at least some semblance of international legitimacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/bergen-syria-problem/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

[TampaYankee]

I understand everyone's concerns. However, we need to get over thinking we are the policeman for the world; either that, or stop letting the politicians do the planning and micromanaging.

We have Iran, Russia and the dictator of Syria on the one hand and Egypt, Israel (sort of), the terrorists and maybe the US on the other. Nothing other than two or more cabals with their own agendas.

It seems that the Canadians, Brits, French and Turks are ready to join us in this action.

It is also clear that while we cannot count on Russia and China to join in or even give moral support, they have publicly recognized that Syria did use gas thus denying any illegitimacy to our concerns or actions. Being unable to bring themselves to authorize an attack on an ally they choose to argue for a tongue lashing while wringing our hands.

As for China, they want no outside interference in their own affairs and choose to bolster that view by not interfering with others, unless, of course, it is Taiwan, Tibet, India, the South China Sea states.

Also, it was reported today that Assad's brother may have ordered the use of the gas. If so then he should be placed on the target list if his whereabouts can be determined.

[RA1]

So, political assassination is now OK with you? Just curious.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

Now that Syrian hackers have taken down the NY Times website, for the second time, maybe boytoy.com had best say only nice things about the country! The Times is still down.

[TampaYankee]

So, political assassination is now OK with you? Just curious.

Best regards,

RA1

Maybe, maybe not, but this is not political assasination. That would be an attack on Bashir himself. I did not advocate that.

[lookin]

I'm willing to believe there were chemical weapons used in Syria but, for the life of me, I can't figure out why Assad would be dumb enough to use them. Clearly he would have known that the likely harvest of such a boneheaded act would be major outside military intervention. What good would that do him?

I read somewhere that chemicals were identified in one of the tunnels used by rebels. Not that I was there to see it with my own eyes, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the rebel groups figured that the best way to finally drag the West into the fight would be to use chemicals against civilians and hope that Assad would take the rap. And they certainly have to be pretty pleased that things are unfolding the way they are.

It was the French, if I recall, who were the ones who first said they had intelligence pinning it on Assad. Then the NSA's very own James "least untruthful" Clapper got on the bandwagon. I would sure like to know something about their sources before I'd want to start a new war in Syria. I recall too well the guy known as "Curveball" who told us all about Saddam Hussein's bioweapons trucks and then watched us invade Iraq looking for WMD.

This sure feels like a reprise of the way we got dragged into Iraq. If we do let ourselves get sucked into another Mideast war, I hope at least this time we'll have the good sense to tax ourselves to pay for it.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well anything is possible when a country is in crisis. The Syrian government might have used it but not sure we have a clear evidence.

[TampaYankee]

I'm willing to believe there were chemical weapons used in Syria but, for the life of me, I can't figure out why Assad would be dumb enough to use them. Clearly he would have known that the likely harvest of such a boneheaded act would be major outside military intervention. What good would that do him?

I read somewhere that chemicals were identified in one of the tunnels used by rebels. Not that I was there to see it with my own eyes, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the rebel groups figured that the best way to finally drag the West into the fight would be to use chemicals against civilians and hope that Assad would take the rap. And they certainly have to be pretty pleased that things are unfolding the way they are.

It was the French, if I recall, who were the ones who first said they had intelligence pinning it on Assad. Then the NSA's very own James "least untruthful" Clapper got on the bandwagon. I would sure like to know something about their sources before I'd want to start a new war in Syria. I recall too well the guy known as "Curveball" who told us all about Saddam Hussein's bioweapons trucks and then watched us invade Iraq looking for WMD.

This sure feels like a reprise of the way we got dragged into Iraq. If we do let ourselves get sucked into another Mideast war, I hope at least this time we'll have the good sense to tax ourselves to pay for it.

It seems pretty well established that the chemicals were delivered by missiles that the rebels just do not have.

That is why Clapper should have been fired. He has no credibility whether he speaks the truth or not.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well no smoking gun implicating Assad so far I guess.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-officials-no-smoking-gun-implicating-assad-chemical-171446304.html

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my why is my Obama so aggressive on this one... Why does he want to act alone when there is not enough evidence and even the British has backed out.. I don't understand. Can someone explain to me what his position is on this? I can't believe my Obama who support gay marriage can possibly try to act alone..

http://news.yahoo.com/us-readies-possible-solo-action-against-syria-000335509--politics.html

[RA1]

Ever heard of feet of clay? BO's feet are more like Cream of Wheat. He makes good speeches. After that, he is done.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well like a good obedient wife ( Sorry Michelle this is just an analogy.. I don't mean to steal your hubby) I think I decided to stop nagging him and believe that he has some reason behind this. Maybe he sees something as president that I don't and I have to wait for his biography to find out his rationale for this. Love you Obama..~~~

[AdamSmith]

and believe that he has some reason behind this.

The reason is what Madison wrote to Jefferson:

"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it."

Thus the Constitutional Convention "has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."

We'll see whether either branch remembers that.

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

[lookin]

Wouldn't surprise me to see the walk back begin in the next day or two. Losing Britain as a partner has got to change the calculus, and today there's a piece out from the Arms Control Association on the consequences of bombing a chemical weapons storage site or, for that matter, any site to which chemical weapons may have been moved without our knowledge (just-about-anywhere, for example). The article refers to a chemical weapons site we bombed in Iraq in 1991 that's still too dangerous to go near.

If we do start backing away, I'd expect to see France become a bit less bellicose. I'm not up to speed on all the reasons why they want to bomb Syria, although they certainly have the ability to step in and do it themselves if they can't prod the U. S. into doing it.

Speaking of prodding, Sheldon Adelson's Israel Hayom is chock full of advice on how important it is for the U. S. to bomb Syria and how quick we should be, along with all the reasons why Israel itself can't do it.

Why do I get the feeling I've heard this story before?

[RA1]

I believe BO has the unilateral ability to "wage war" for up to 90 days without the advice and consent of the Congress. No comment about who does or does not approve to include Great Britain, members of Congress and the American people.

Yes, the sky IS falling and I know it to be so.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Yes, the sky IS falling and I know it to be so.

I believe you may be thinking of another fowl fable.