We previously discussed the curious step of President Obama seeking approval for a new war while insisting that he does not need such authorization to attack Syria. Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has referred to a one week period for Syria to comply with U.S. demands or presumably face an attack. It so happens that the Senate is set to vote this week, but opposition in this country is extremely high to yet another military intervention by the Administration. Moreover, unsuccessful in his earlier pitch for a free war, Kerry is now trying to sell the world on an “unbelievably small” military campaign. The U.S. seems to be saying that President Obama just needs the world to let him attack briefly to show that he cannot be dismissed or mocked in his earlier red line announcement. However, Kerry suggested a new red line in turning over control of the weapons and Russia has now announced that it will ask Syria to put chemical weapons under international control. That would undermine further the U.S. rationale for war if Russia says that it is moving to comply with Kerry’s demand. However, State Department handlers are trying to again walk back from the Secretary’s public statements.
Kerry was speaking on Monday alongside his British counterpart, William Hague, when he set a new red line for war. He said “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week – turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.”
As has become a common scene with Kerry, a team of State Department officials quickly rushed in to clean up after his latest slip. The Department insisted that the reference to a week was merely “rhetorical,” though the Administration continues to insist that Obama could simply ignore a negative vote in Congress.
I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing.
While Kerry conveyed a week deadline and did not indicate any restriction on unilateral U.S. action, the State Department asked people to ignore his precise words and just take the statement as an attempt to show that Assad has “a history of playing fast and loose with the facts.” Of course, as opposed to those how play fast and loose with words.
I particularly liked the comment for Hague when asked about the decision of Parliament not to allow Britain to enter another American-led war. Hague responded that “[t]hese are the two greatest homes of democracy and we work in slightly different ways and we each have to respect how each other’s democracies work.” Yes, the difference appears that the British government respects the need for a legislative consent for war while the United States now has an unabashed Imperial Presidency.
Source: Guardian
OS,
Of course it is. I see the situation as this:
The ME is going to go theater-wide unless Iran’s new moderate President is a game changer (which remains to be seen) because 1) the Saudis need it for their dream of a new Caliphate and 2) a nuclear Iran is not an option so long as they are a theocracy – they’d nuke Israel of some other neighbor eventually. Their clerical leadership is 100% crazy.
Russia, long divested in the region since they bailed on Afghanistan needed to establish some kind of presence in the region. In addition, they needed some way to “make nice” after granting Snowden asylum. Despite their formidable military, they don’t want open conflict with us and/or NATO. The cost is too high, the gains too uncertain, it doesn’t make sense if they can expand their sphere of influence in other ways. Being that they have veto power at the UNSC, we needed them on-board in the region even if China exercises their veto should making Iran a hot war become either necessary to prevent them from doing something stupid or if the Saudis play D.C. Puppeteers to advance their timeline for theater domination. This way, a Russian/US/European alliance can be easier made to circumvent the UN.
Except for the UN, China is likely to sit it out. They have their own domestic growing pains to deal with. Any military adventurism for them in that theater doesn’t make sense right now or in the short to medium time frame.
Bringing the Russians to the table made sense. Them playing good cop for Syria only more so. Syria is an internal matter as a civil war always is and active involvement would lead to disaster for anyone. I do, however, fully expect that passive involvement will continue with the ultimate goal being regime change. Whether that change ends up with the US holding the strings of the new regime, the Russians or (worst case) Iran remains to be seen. I think that could go any one of those ways.
None of which addresses the long term problem though of the Saudis being theocrats, shit disturbers and as trustworthy as a wolverine on PCP, but it does play into what seems to be the overall strategy of Western influenced/Saudi control of the region.
That being said, that anyone in Washington thinks the Saudis can be or should be trusted is hallucinating. They are just as bad as Iran but without the nuclear ambitions (at least openly, covertly may be another matter).
I would hope there are investigative reporters working on why the US wants this war so badly. Here’s the latest from the Guardian: ”
US Secretary of State John Kerry is still banging the drum for support for military intervention against the Assad regime in Congress. Appearing before the the Senate’s armed services committee Kerry said “What Assad has done directly affects American security.”
Not acting against Syria would signal US “ambivalence” to Iran, he said.
27m ago
McCain seeks amendments
Leading Senate hawk John McCain said is working to amend a congressional resolution authorising military force in Syria to include a “strict” timeline for Syria to turn over chemical weapons.
Speaking on CBS’ “This Morning” , McCain said he was “extremely sceptical” about the idea that Syria could hand over its weapons, but said “to not pursue this option would be a mistake.”
Reuters quoted him saying:
“Some of us are already working on a modification to a Congressional resolution that would require strict timelines and strict guidelines that would have to be met as part of the authoridation for the president [to use military force].”
I really want to know. Obama needs to go before Congress under oath. I don’t expect him to tell the truth but I would still like to see him lay out a plan, not on the TV but under oath.
Randy,
We will never know just how much of this is high stakes bluff and how much real. In order for it to work, it needs the appearance of credibility and resolve on the part of all the players. Good cop/bad cop only works if you can make the suspect believe the roles.
OT, but did you see the piece on Sabrina Jackintell and soaring I posted Sunday?
Assad cut a deal with the Russians. Kerry gets some credit. The nerve gas is coming out in a week. The Russians will use it in Uzebekistan.
OS I hope that this agreement is real and not a ruse. It would make sense from the Russian point of view, since Syria using these weapons in this kind of war could cause problems for them since those could get loose and be shipped back to Chechnya. Syria is a lot closer to Russia and their Islamic rebels who could get their hands on the chemical weapons from their buddies in Syria. By bringing those weapons out of secure bunkers and bases, Syria opens them up to capture once they are deployed in the field. I think the Russians awoke to that fact rather than any conspiracy. Blowback works on everybody, not just the USA.
I would also hope that Obama will press ahead for authority to use force in Syria since they only made this offer after looking at the alternative of losing a lot of military assets they would rather keep. Unless of course, one thinks that Assad listened to Kucinich and read his Ghandi book and had a change of heart.
BBC just reported that France is demanding Assad say he was guilty of the Aug. attack as part of the CW resolution. That is unacceptable. Guilt of the Aug. attack should be determined at the ICC. There is serious doubt about the evidence. In one report it sounds much like the Downing Street Memo where the intelligence was fixed around the policy.
It seems to me that France, the US and other powers still want war. They refuse legal methods of determining guilt. They are still refusing to release their evidence for public/independent evaluation. Now they are putting in clauses to the UN resolution that will make it nearly impossible for Syria’s CW to be taken under international control
Most people would be overjoyed to have those weapons taken and destroyed. They would do anything to make that happen. Yet, Western powers are throwing up roadblocks. Why?
Putting the weapons under the UN should be immediately facilitated. A parallel ICC and public release of the evidence for the Aug. attack also should occur, immediately.
Great news that Obama, Putin, Assad, Kerry, and their co-servants of the people, have heard the people.
This is a good development –the kind that we need more of.
I have my fingers crossed.
Randyjet displays the attitude that contributes to war: “They aren’t real humans anyway.”
Teeth bared, Randyjey is now excused from the civil portion of the debate
Gene,
I just occurred to me, that this may be one of the biggest political and psychological power plays of all time. Putin and Obama both know quite well the old game of “good guy/bad guy.” Putin, being former KGB, has had more hands on practice at it than Obama. Both of them are skilled politicians, so I wonder if this may be “eleventh dimensional chess” being played on a global level.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/obama-blinks-on-syria-who-won-and-lost.html
OS,
I hate to jinx it until the chemical weapons are no longer in play, but I do recall saying that Russia wasn’t going to be part of the problem with Syria, but rather the solution, when this whole deal first broke.
I want something done in my nation. Obama wants war. Most people would be overjoyed that Syria’s CW were being put under international control, then eliminated. Obama is not most people. He is a war monger. He needs to be stopped.
Thus I would like a UN resolution on Obama’s and other war mongers’ plans. They need to agree to peace talks, to humanitarian aid, to stop financing rebels directly or through proxyies. They need to say they will not take military action unless both the US Congress and The UN security council approves of that action.
In the meantime I want Congress to act like a functioning branch of govt. They need to demand full details of the intelligence the administration has on the use of CW. This all needs to be in the public domain. They need Obama to come in, under oath, and say what he is going to do and why he will do it. Congress has cancel their vote on war, yet Obama will find a reason to go in if given any chance.
This is not over. Obama’s handlers and other powers want war. Neither Congress nor the public should misunderstand that war is not off the table unless we demand that it be taken off, and take measures to assure it.
Text just grabbed off the web:
James I see that you are too stupid to be part of this debate since I said that is the attitude of YOUR side in this debate, especially among the GOP and Tea Party types and among the great mass of the Americans who are opposed to US force being used.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/obama-blinks-on-syria-who-won-and-lost.html Kerry is certainly making Hillary Clinton appear highly competent.
UPDATE (AP Twitter Feed):
BREAKING: Syrian foreign minister says Syria has accepted Russian proposal to surrender control over its chemical weapons.
— The Associated Press (@AP) September 10, 2013
Bob Kauten: “To state the obvious:
Biggest disappointment of 2013. John Kerry.”
****
Hold up there pal, 2013 ain’t near over yet. Just sayn’.
“Anyone with half a brain — most of them located outside the continental United States, unfortunately — saw through George Armstrong Custer Bush like a Sioux Indian at the Little Big Horn”
~+~
Now that was funny 🙂
I’ve discovered a face saving way for the administration to extracate itself from the Syria situation, save people from loss of life and limb, and save money. I am here to help, and I will do it at my own expense.
I will drive up to Tulalip’s Boom City and buy the most poweful reservation issue fireworks available. (The ones that you can get by flashing a $100 bill and meeting the guy in the pickup truck behind the stand) And I will personally deliver them to my neighborhood naval air station for transport to the Mediterranian sea for our president to attack Syria with.
Now the president can have his free war, as John Kerry said, and can drop M-1000s out of helicopters and launch large bottle rockets and roman candles from the deck of his favorite cruiser. Yep, he did something, he struck back !
And now that that is out of the president’s system, the world can step back, all sides can take a breather, and we can conduct a real investigation by the international community to try to find out what actually happened and take action against those who are really responsible for these atrocities, if possible that is.
Back in early 2003, I had a chat with a young Taiwanese school teacher, a relative through marriage. The topic of America’s headlong rush into Iraq came up and he said to me: “It’s easy to rush into a trap. It’s not so easy to get out.”
Anyone with half a brain — most of them located outside the continental United States, unfortunately — saw through George Armstrong Custer Bush like a Sioux Indian at the Little Big Horn. “Take the low ground,” has never seemed like much of a military strategy, except to U.S. generals — both actual and armchair.
But perhaps another flyby shooting will work. Not that I have any idea what “work” means to those actually running the U.S. government.
“Kerry is a sellout. He’s now a war pig. Never saw that coming.” — anon
Roger that, but I saw it coming in 2004, when he promised to do Tora Bora better than Deputy Dubya Bush, galactic moron. ‘”Say what?” I realized then that John Kerry had never really opposed America’s War on Southeast Asia but had only jumped on the anti-war bandwagon when politically safe to do so. Consequently, I voted for Ralph Nader as a write-in candidate on the California ballot. Everything I have come to know about John Kerry since then has led me to see him as a pompous gasbag with no political or intellectual principles whatsoever. Useless, too.