A New York Times story is challenging the image advanced by the White House that the rebels forces are largely moderates who are worthy of yet another military intervention by the United States. The story recounts the latest massacre of captured Syrian soldiers as a commander reads a menacing prayer over their clearly beaten bodies before executing them in violation of international law.
The commander, known as “the Uncle,” reads the prayer that “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.” The soldiers are then executed. Previous news accounts have shown a heavy influence of Al Qaeda in the rebel forces and savage acts of abuse by rebels leaders, including one who cut out and ate the heart of a prisoner. There appears no “red line” on human rights abuses by rebels for President Obama.
When not promising a free war to members, John Kerry has been assuring them that no more than 20 percent are murderous extremists — just one in five. However, the article details how rebel forces are increasingly populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers. For his part, Representative Michael McCaul (R., TX) virtually called Kerry a liar and said that in non-public briefings he was told that half of the opposition fighters were extremists.
With disputes like this, it is no wonder that Nancy Pelosi has adopted a bedtime story approach for selling the war, using language for a population of five-year-olds.
From Chris Floyd’s Empire Burlesque:
What he said.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-john-mccain-pose-with-two-known-kidnappers-in-syria/
Michael Murry, regarding the AUMF, well, it’s not against the law if the President does it. Isn’t that part of the Nixon legacy?
It’s a contradiction that doesn’t seem to have made an impact on anyone in the MSM because no one in the administration or their supporters, Democratic or Republican, is being asked about that. I don’t think the questions or its underlying irony would make a difference but I’d like to see the discussion. I suspect that anyone asked would dismiss the question out of hand because INATLITPDI. That in itself would be revealing.
I also guess that some folks will consider torturing some prisoners the SAME as gassing thousands of people with illegal weapons. I think that the rest of us do not have such a skewed sense of justice and crime. Think we need to execute jaywalkers too?
i can remember when torturing prisoners would have been crossing a thin red line.
What incredible effrontery for Secretary of State Kerry to even suggest that the Executive Branch may secure its own funding for military adventures abroad. Does he not remember what happened to President Reagan when he tried selling weapons to the Iranians for funds to conduct his own private war supporting right-wing death squads in Nicaragua? As I recall, the ensuing Iran-Contra Scandal shook his administration and resulted in many government officials going to jail. So now Secretary Kerry openly invites Congress to render itself utterly irrelevant by giving up the Constitutional power of the purse, arguably its greatest check upon the other two branches of government. Yet here we have Secretary Kerry claiming with a straight face that President Obama can just get some of his rich foreign friends to — secretly, of course — pay for the proposed military adventure in Syria. Secretary Kerry must not know any more about the U.S. Constitution than President Obama does. Either that or he does know but just doesn’t give a shit.
Oh, yes. And we remember how those Iraqis paid for the U.S. to conquer and plunder them, just as Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz glibly promised before “mission accomplished” turned into “let the next president figure it out” along with a decade of extorted taxpayer funds for “supporting the troops” taken hostage by their own commander-in-brief.
Free-Lunch War
After we bomb them
For the death and destruction
Someone else will pay
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller”
Sure someone else will. Sure …
I response to pete, I also remember Obama declaring that torture would NOT be done on his watch. Then I have to laugh at some others who forget what the Boland amendment stated which denied any military aid to the Contras from the US. The Iran Contra scandal used US assets and money in direct violation of that law. THAT is what got them in trouble and Reagan escaped impeachment since Poindexter fell on his sword for Ronnie. As I recall though, ALL the Tea Parties LOVE St.Ronnie so it is rather unseemly to cite that as something bad for the TPers.
Blowback
Al Qaeda’s our friend
Al Qaeda’s our enemy
Al Qaeda’s our friend
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller”
I’ll say it again. If the United States does not first repeal the A.U.M.F. declaring Al Qaeda (and its affiliates) America’s enemy, then any aid and comfort given to Al Qaeda in Libya (already done) and Syria (in the works) will constitute an act of treason. Literally. By definition.
But, of course, since American laws only exist for American presidents to violate them, who in the American government would care a fig which enemies of America the American government aids, abets, comforts, and otherwise encourages, even while whipping the American public into an frenzy of fear and loathing against these same objects of our intended largess?
I really hate these enemies that I love when I’m not hating the love that I bear for those who hate my freedoms because my own government has taken them from me to keep me safe from the enemies that I love.
This U.S. government has become so stupid and vicious that its pious perfidy defies the powers of language to describe.
If your mother and your god wear combat boots, you will love this jobs bill:
(Washington Post). So, does that make you a war whore, a gummit hit man, or just a hired killer?
On vacation this week at Sea Island but had to weigh in on this one. Before committing American troops and treasure, Obama had better be damn sure he’s aiding our friends and not enemies in waiting.
Mespo I think a clue to that might be to look at the folks who are against it. Let’s see, there are those great friends of peace of the tomb, the Tea Party folks,who want to bomb anything that Obama does NOT want to bomb. Then there are the Russians who have offered to come over to DC to help out the Tea Party and left wing pacifists, and Syria in lobbying the Congress to stop Obama. I think that it is a fine gesture for Putin to make and to show his peaceful, honorable, democratic intentions. The only thing missing is for Assad or his relatives to come over and lobby Congress too. That will show the world who is right!
I think you have spoken a lot of truth regarding the politics on this side of the ocean.
But I think any serious consideration of this problem has to carefully examine the leadership and political disposition of the militias engaged in Syria. That would seem to raise serious questions.
I don’t see how anyone can feel confident either with the quality of the information we have available or with the implications of the information we do have.
Perhaps you have information or experience beyond that widely available in the popular press.
BFM The only thing I know for sure is that not taking military action to punish and weaken Assad for using chemical weapons that are banned, is that more such attacks will be guaranteed. If he gets away with this latest use, then he has every incentive to expand their use since they are far more effective than standard weapons in putting down urban fighting. Then the question is just how many more attacks will the US allow and how many more dead innocents will be enough? Is there no limit to that for those who are against military action? Then we have the problem down the road of when the dead get to be too many, the opposition will be dead as well, and there will be NO point to military action at that point. It will be too little and too late.
Since I have lived there for a year and a half courtesy of the USAF in 1966-67, I have personal knowledge of that area since I was on the border with Syria back then. I even spent some time at a very nice beach resort right on the border on the Med. It was not a well fortified border at all back then even though Syria and Turkey were not on the best of terms. I imagine that has changed rather radically now. I would expect that if Assad goes for more poison gas, that will inevitably drift or be fired into Turkey as some conventional weapons have been already. So what will the US tell Turkey when that happens? Tough? All that I can see Obama doing is to use air strikes as he did in Libya that did not result in US troops being involved.
It is not within our capacity to create a peaceful Syria. The best we can do is to reduce the capacity to use WMDs on one side or the other.
” So what will the US tell Turkey when that happens? Tough?”
The prospect of a CW attack on Turkey does not seem realistic to me. (Drifting gas or miss-aimed artillery are a different matter that I will not try to address here.) It would seem that any party with enough organization to have CW would also have to be aware that Turkey is an ally of the US and a member of NATO.
Any significant attack on Turkey from any quarter would have to bring a response from NATO and the US.
An attack serious enough to threaten Turkish sovereignty would likely call forth a devastating response from Turkey’s allies, including the US, with or with out CW.
If an adversary of Turkey is not deterred by the prospect of hostilities with NATO and the US then what logic would suggest that the adversary would be deterred from using CW by hostilities with NATO or the US?
On the other hand, if the adversary is deterred form attacking Turkey by the prospect of hostilities with NATO and the US then why is any action necessary in regard to CW.
I think the threat of CW from Syria lies in a different direction.
I may not have explicitly said this before, but I think the prospect of our troops being involved in Syria is the least of our worries.
The important issues, as I see it, is whether our involvement at what ever level makes the situation better or worse.
If only the world were simple enough that we could properly punish or take down any one who uses CW or breaks other important norms.
But the world is more complex than that. I would argue that we have little power to control events in the countries in the middle east.
I am not a fan of the course of events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt or Libya. I can’t say that any one of them turned out quite the way we might have hoped or predicted. I would argue that they all represent continuing processes with many risks still ahead and not one of them represents a clear advance for US interests or democratic standards.
I think we can agree that the use of gas against civilian populations, or anyone, in Syria is a terrible tragedy as well as a crime. And, it seems possible that there could be additional attacks with or without our intervention.
But I would argue that additional gas attacks in Syria is not the worst possible outcome from the civil war. The worst outcome would seem to be that radical elements obtain control of significant quantities of nerve agents and the methods for their delivery.
Perhaps we can both agree the situation in Syria is bad. I for one hope that we are thoughtful before we take action that would seem to stand a significant chance of making things even worse and less predictable in Syria.
bfm I do agree that we cannot do anything to resolve the situation in Syria’s civil war. The only thing we can and must do is to limit the means that both sides are using in it. The use of chemical weapons is illegal under international law, and such prohibitions are a dead letter if we do not act. As signatories to those conventions, we DO have a duty to act when they are violated. That Reagan did not do so, and even encouraged such use, is a stain on our nation. It will be a further stain to let this one go by.
The only power we have at this point is to make it so expensive for Assad to continue using those weapon, that he will lose more than he gains by their use. I have suggested that a good start would be to destroy half of Assad’s air power, and keeping the other half as hostage against his further use of chemicals. We cannot dictate Assad’s response, but we can force on him painful choices that we hope will do what we want him to do. As you well know in war, you try and dictate the terms of battle as much as you can to your advantage. That is all that we can do. The only thing for sure in my view is that worse things will happen if we do nothing.
There is a good probability that the refugee camps in Turkey and neighboring countries will be hit with poison gas since it is a very effective weapon for killing large numbers of people in hard to get at locations. I doubt that Assad would not use it since he would know for sure that as long as he hit just refugees, Turks will not view it as an attack on them. In fact, they might welcome getting rid of such pesky folks on their territory with no blame to them. Turkey has not called on NATO to help them go to war for the attacks Syria did on them recently. So if firing into Turkey did not spark a war, I wonder how using air power will mandate US troops on the ground in Syria.
All in all, I can see no other viable option that will limit the use of poison gas. I wish that there were others, but that is not in the cards. Waiting longer will simply make the eventual use of force even more painful and less effective.
For a while now I have argued that regardless of our justification for attacking Syria, our efforts ought to have a reasonable chance of not making things worse. No matter how good the reason to intervene there is no rational basis to act if we only make things worse.
Ezra Klein writing in the WAPO 090513 “10 things that could go very wrong if we attack Syria” discusses 10 things that could go wrong including:
1) Our strikes could result in heavy civilian casualties.
2) Our strikes could result in Assad killing more civilians.
3) Our strikes could result in Assad killing more civilians with chemical weapons.
4) The attacks are so slight that Assad survives them easily and appears strengthened before the world.
5) “You bombed it, you own it.”
6) Reprisal.
7) Assad falls and the chemical weapons end up in the wrong hands
8) Assad falls and is replaced by chaos.
9) Assad falls and is replaced by something worse.
10) Escalation.
You may disagree with Klein’s evaluation of these possibilities. But before you cast your support to intervention, you ought to at least consider these possible unintended consequences of intervention.
I would argue the most serious among these possibilities is that our actions weaken Assad to the point that control of chemical weapons falls to any one of several radical militias operating in Syria.
Can anyone imagine a greater tragedy than our actions to punish use of chemical weapons results in distribution of chemical weapons to those likely to use them.
Pres Obama is providing chemical weapons to the rebels in a ruse to proclaim the Assad govt. is using them against their citizens. This is another BIG FAT LIE conjured by the sickos in the executive branch to sell another war for the benefit of our precious war profiteers. WE SENT THE SARIN GAS TO THE REBELS (al quaida), our new bedfellows.
RandyJet wants to punish those that use chemical weapons. How about countries that give information to another country on the most effective place to use those weapons? That would be the United States giving intel to Saddam Hussain so he could gas Iranians.
If the U.N. wants to punish Syria, go for it. I do not see a national security interest in the United states punishing Syria alone, or with a few token allies.
So Randyjet, are you going to rant about Reagan giving info to Iraq so they could use chemical weapons? And how are you going to punish Reagan and the country he represented?
Paul, that is silly to hold Obama responsible for the sins of Reagan. I would have agreed with Reagan going against Iraq at the time.
I do have a prediction that the Senate will vote to authorize an attack, the House will vote against it. Then Obama will have a choice to make. Use his legal power to order an attack, or not to order it and give Assad the right to use more of poison gas attacks. If he goes ahead and attacks, the House will vote article of impeachment against both Obama and Biden. The Senate will vote to convict and remove both since the Republican Senators who voted with Obama on the authorization will vote with their party. The Dems who voted against the resolution will be caught on their previous vote or be kicked out of office next election. Thus there will be enough Senators to convict.
If Obama does not attack, Assad will use more of gas and defeat or destroy the opposition. Then in the process, gas attacks will spread across the Turkish and Jordanian borders either by design or accident to the refugee camps which are being used as bases. Then when the opposition is weakened to such a degree, then the outrage may spark US air attacks, but it will be too little and too late, such attacks at that point would be useless. This will be used as an excuse to kick out the Senators who voted against the attacks. That will not favor the so called peace Democrats and the Tea Party folks will pick up more Senate seats to go along with their majority in the House. The GOP will be able to tout that their folks would have had enough guts to have done what should have been done in the first place. My Congresscritter Rep Brady is against Obama using air strikes in Syria, but is in favor of bombing Iran and North Korea now. He is also in favor of Israel’s bombing Syria a couple of weeks ago, but opposed to the US doing it in response to the gas attacks. So I hope that all of those who now hate Obama will enjoy having President Boehner since they will have to deal with him in the near future. Think that will be good for us?
This is the same John Kerry who threw away his Vietnam medals? Now an eager beaver for an open-ended committment to another bloody quagmire just waiting for us to step in? Did I recently switch to an Alternate Universe?
rafflaw 1, September 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm
…
I will repeat that any military action should be an international action and not just by the US. Something does need to be done to make sure chemical weapons are not being used. However, our moral high ground flooded in 1988.
============================
Well said.
We really need to rebuild the moral high ground.
Most of it is in the middle class.
Any American pressing for “intervention” should be arrested by the US military for providing aid and support to Al Qaeda.
Pound, don’t worry since if your Tea Party buddies you vote for and support, we on the left will be in jail soon enough when you get complete power here.
And its one, two, three, what are we fightin for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn.
Next stop is Viet Nam!
And its five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates…
Ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopeee, we’re all gonna die.
-Country Joe and the Fish.
First of all, I am not sure I would give credence to any republican in the House. Secondly, which is worse, the devil you know versus the devil you don’t know. The US has picked the wrong side on many occasions when it comes to backing “uprisings” or initiating coups. This may be another example of our historical record.
I will repeat that any military action should be an international action and not just by the US. Something does need to be done to make sure chemical weapons are not being used. However, our moral high ground flooded in 1988.
The difference between McCain and Obama on this Syria thing is like night and day. Night and day at the North Pole when the sun never sets.
Most of you have thought that my rants on the areas of land from Gibralter to China were off the wall. Yet, as time goes on, many of you are adopting more skepticism of anything civilized going forward in those respective Pirate Territories, former colonies of European monarchies and dictatorships. Kipling once said that East of Corfu The Ten Commandments Do Not Apply. He was correct and in more ways than ten. My BarkinDog Doctrine preaches that we in the West can do nothing to civilize these people. There might be some schmuck in a nice three piece suit sitting in the United Nations at a seat for Libya or Pakistan and the guy might have gone to Oxford and he might speak the Kings English. But the territory from whence he came is a Pirate Territory. Do not trade with them. Do not allow our citizens to enter and be tourists or go home to see mom and dad. If you must fly over the please flush.