In the 1930s, Bertolt Brecht asked in a poem “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” The question today is of course silly. The United States will always be there for a war. In the first rejection of a request for military action since 1782, the Parliament voted 285 to 272 against approving a military strike against Syria. Undeterred, the White House today is saying that it is considering just bombing the country on its own and throwing aside any pretense of an international effort. By the way, that last time Parliament refused further military action was when the Crown was fighting a collection of colonies in the New World who, after independence, strongly opposed “foreign entanglements” and military ventures. The United States of America.
As we discussed yesterday, this appears a war designed to save face for Obama. While news reports indicate that Obama’s reference to a “red line” was not in his original speech, it committed the country to act if chemical weapons were used in Syria. I spoke to a reporter working at the Pentagon two days ago who told me that military leaders are heavily opposed to the ultimatum and to military action. However, it is now embarrassing for the President and the White House wants to show that he will not be ignored or mocked — even if it is a lesson that will cost over $1 billion and risk a wider war.
Of course Obama has his allies in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and the media like David Ignatius at the Washington Post who says military action is necessary simply because “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad overrode a clear American warning against such use of chemical weapons.” So we need to enter another war “to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’ Otherwise, the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve.” The point is simple. The world must obey our commands and we are not to be mocked. It is the ultimate expression of American exceptionalism.
In a bizarre gesture, the White House is now promising just a limited strike or a “shot across the bow.” It is as if we are saying to the world “just let us do this as a gesture and we will be satisfied.”
Notably, England still gets a vote on military action. Since that last vote in 1782, the United States has created an Imperial President while England has evolved into a more democratic system. The Framers must be looking down in utter confusion.
Robert Fisk, in May:
Robert Fisk on Syria’s Civil War, Chemical Weapons “Theater” & Obama’s Backing of Israeli Strikes
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/7/robert_fisk_on_syrias_civil_war
As the United States moves toward increased intervention in Syria, we’re joined by Robert Fisk, the longtime Middle East correspondent of the British newspaper The Independent. Just back from two weeks in Syria reporting around the capital Damascus, Fisk discusses what he calls the “theater of chemical weapons,” the latest in Syria’s civil war — a battle he says the Syrian government is winning — as well as his reaction to what he calls President Obama’s “pitiful” backing of the recent Israeli missile strikes. “Don’t ask me if they have used chemical weapons,” Fisk says. “It’s conceivable. There really isn’t any proof. What you have got to realize is that this is a propaganda war just as much as it is a savage war, killing many thousands of human beings.”
Jill wrote:
1. if they know they were used several times this year, then why wasn’t the red line crossed before? Did they find out about the several times just recently? I remember reports of Assad and the rebels both having used chemical weapons earlier. Is the USG going to punish the rebels for use of chemical weapons? If not, why not? Isn’t the credibility of the US at stake?
====
All excellent questions. I heard the following report this past April.
Originally published on Sat April 27, 2013 1:57 pm
http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/does-syrias-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-cross-line
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I’m Scott Simon. This week the calls for U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war got a bit louder. U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters that U.S. intelligence sources now believe with, quote, varying degrees of confidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons in Syria.
Now last summer, President Obama said the use of such weapons would cross a red line for U. S. policy. The administration says it is still investigating evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on civilians. Vali Nasr is dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
VALI NASR: I think there’s sufficient body of evidence for us to conclude that chemical weapons have been used at some degree in Syria, and the question is now to understand who has used it, in what context have they been used, and what sort of chemical agents have been used.
SIMON: To be blunt about it, there’s so many weapons that the Assad regime has and could use to crush a rebellion of its own citizens. Do you have any inkling as to why they may have resorted to chemical weapons now?
Juan Cole:
“The duplicity of Bush and Blair has deeply injured faith in government, even on the part of members of government. Their use of the high-flown rhetoric of protecting helpless populations from tyrants and deflecting dire threats of WMD cheapened those endeavors and trivialized them They bent the sword of state and rendered it useless in any similar situation.”
( http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/british-parliament-defects.html )
I found these statements from Kerry curious: “He said Assad’s forces had the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East and used them several times this year…
“We know that three days before the attack the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations,” Kerry said.”
1. if they know they were used several times this year, then why wasn’t the red line crossed before? Did they find out about the several times just recently? I remember reports of Assad and the rebels both having used chemical weapons earlier. Is the USG going to punish the rebels for use of chemical weapons? If not, why not? Isn’t the credibility of the US at stake?
2. if they knew there were personnel preparing for chemical warfare 3 days prior to that attack, didn’t the US have a duty to step in and stop it? Why didn’t they report this to the UN immediately? Does knowing before hand and saying nothing seem consistent with the requirement to speak up about the use of chemical weapons? To me, it seems in contradiction. Wouldn’t it be better to morally speak up and prevent the use of chemical weapons in the first place?
And Another Deserts As NATO Says Obama On His Own
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/30/2013 – 15:35
They are falling like flies… following the British vote not to join Obama in his latest crusade, it s now NATO’s turn as Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen tells Dutch TV2 that “NATO will have no role in any military action in Syria.” Of course, there’s still the French; and as Rasmussen notes, should any retaliatory action take place to endanger NATO member Turkey then the situation may well change. Quoted as urging a political resolution rather than military, and supportive of the UN inspectors, Rasmussen added “A sustainable solution is a political solution. But an international reaction is necessary.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/and-another-deserts-nato-says-obama-his-own
🙂
Way to go WB7
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-08-30/youve-heard-it-all-now-lets-twerk-it-all
From the WAPO’s article “U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria”
We learn: ““There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan. “.
It looks like it is not just lefties and pacifists that have doubts regarding the administrations rush to war.
A major point of the WAPO article is that the limited strike proposed by the administration may be limited only in the minds of those in the administration who propose it. The general tenor of the article seems to be that there is real possibility of miscalculation and serious unintended consequences.
Those interviewed and quoted in the article seem to have deep and serious concerns that an attack will lead to deeper involvement and a wider war.
I don’t see how anyone can argue against taking more time for more thoughtful analysis.
1. do we have a moral basis to justify an attack.
2. do we have a legal basis to justify an attack.
3. do we know who to attack – do we have a target.
4. what should be the intended outcome of our attack. Are we only making a statement or are we willing to engage and overthrow the Assad regime
5. are there other actions that could achieve our purpose at lower cost and with less risk.
6. what are the potential and likely outcomes of our attack.
7. are we ready militarily and emotionally if our actions lead to a wider war in the middle East.
I am sure there are other serious questions.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html
Actually, this civil war was caused by a drought. Obama doesn’t really want to help the “rebels”, he just wants to seem to help them, to curry favor with the Saudis.
I am wondering if anyone is considering that if it attacks the US may get its butt kicked? Sure, two subs and five destroyers sounds like and is a lot of firepower but Russia is moving in two ships and God only knows what they have given or sold to Syria up to this point. One or more shore to ship rockets will play all bloody hell. Rocket can and will be moved. Too much credence, I think, is put into the MICC TT propaganda about what their wonder toys will do and are capable of. Our ‘great’ M1A1 tanks that we force NATO and countries to buy gets an astounding minus seven MPG.
Frank, it’s time for your Prozac.
Jill: ‘4. Finally, over and over we hear of the moral duty to condemn chemical weapons.”
Jill, unfortunately we lost any moral high-ground we once had with the war in Iraq, GITMO, and Abu Gahrib. Countries that go to war under the cloak of lies, countries that torture and use rendition by virtue of their actions give up all claim to any kind of moral authority.
Dog,
Their willing participation in the MIC game has nothing to do with their age or gender and everything to do with money.
If we do not have a significant block of Congressmen and women come out against this war then we need to form a significant new party to run against all of these buzzards. Nancy and Feinstein both have something in common. They are too OLD. They are old ladies falling for BS.
I know we have a very intelligent audience on this blog, but to make it easy to write your Senator, here is the link…http://www.senate.gov/
Excellent blog, right on the mark as usual.
So here is what all those who are in agreement should do, not only write on this blog, send a short note to your Congressperson and Senator. Mine have already been informed of my opposition to the use of force without a Congressional act of War.
Just listened to Kerry’s speech.
The Big Lie. Kerry continues to equate non violent, legal solutions with “doing nothing”. You know, just like the way the civil rights movement used non-violence to “do nothing”. Kerry needs to be challenged on his continued lie that peaceful solutions are “doing nothing”.
Weirdly, Kerry admits this situation ultimately demands a diplomatic solution. So why not get cracking on that right away while we wait for independent verification of evidence? Why say that at all, since Obama refuses diplomatic resources to sanction the use of chemical weapons.
More weirdly, Kerry mentions how the Iranians were gassed by Iraq. Yes indeed they were, helped along with the world’s moral arbiter on chemical weapons, the US.
This message was full of lies by omission. The Arab League wants Assad before the ICC. Somehow, Kerry forgot about that in his speech. He only remembered that they had condemned Assad.
Further unreality occurred many times as Kerry talked as though the US hadn’t been engaging in any drone kills of civilians recently. Not living up to our policy isn’t an accurate statement when drone kills are your policy.
This president and the intelligence community are not neutral arbiters of truth, nor are they neutral about engaging in war crimes. They hold no moral authority. They hold no intellectual authority as truth tellers. The international community should not accept the lie that peaceful, legal methods to hold any person who engaged in the use of chemical weapons is the equivalent of doing nothing. That is propaganda.
We have time to evaluate evidence. We should take it. We should not go to war, we should use legal methods to hold the guilty to account.
For all you Nancy Pelosi fans, she is calling for war. This is like backwards day @ school!! This is what happens when you have a secure House seat.
mespo727272,
I hope everyone is grateful to George Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison & the other founders for leave us all a written record which also an easy to follow instruction Manuel.
The trouble is that the instructions are public & it has allowed our Natural Enemy, the Wallst/City of London Financiers, to reverse engineer our success & turn it to be used for our destruction.
Just play back the recent tape , 30-50-100 years, world-wide.
Look at the ongoing financial collapse of Europe caused by those financiers so the can gut those nations of their assets & financial enslave the gen pops. .
IE: Why would Argentina, a sovereign nations, be subservient to a US Federal Court?
**Argentina Loses Appeal in US Bond Debt Case – ABC News
abcnews.go.com › US
Argentina Loses Appeal in US Bond Debt Case. NEW YORK August 23, 2013 (AP). By TOM HAYS and MICHAEL WARREN Associated Press. Associated Press. **
We know from a recording of a recent townhall meeting in Muskogee Oklahoma in which Sen Tom Coburn spoke the Senator explains that if the govt can get financing the US’s Debt load will soon go from the current 16+ Trillion to upwards to around 30 Trillion.
That’s the reason these Syria type events are important as they are expensive & run up Huge Debts.
We are already in the Globalist Financiers grips & the US & us, the people, will suffer just as Europe, Argentina, etc, a life as Debt Donkeys!
The only way out is for us all to demand our Govt Default on all of this illegal/fraudulent Financier’s Debt!
The Sooner the Better.
The threat to wage war against Syria is a violation of international law as a crime against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as the “Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.”
Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/