Syria Superthread [merged]

[CougarKing]

Polls suggest winning public support will be an uphill climb. A new Reuters’ poll shows U.S. support for intervention has increased over the past week to 20 percent, up from just 9 percent, with more than half of Americans opposing intervention.

Surprise, surprise. Looks like this opposition is manifesting itself in Congress:

from Defense News

Opposition To Syria Attack Emerges In Congress

Sep. 1, 2013 - 12:30PM  | 
By PAUL SINGER   

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday he does not believe Congress will reject military action against Syria, but lawmakers are making it clear that the vote will not be easy and the outcome is not assured.

President Obama announced Saturday that he believes the United States should launch a military attack on Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But he said he would first seek approval from Congress for use of military force.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he thinks the Senate “will rubber-stamp what (Obama) wants, but I think the House will be a much closer vote.” Paul said he believes “it’s at least 50-50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war.”

Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it’s not clear whether American interests are at stake in Syria, or whether opponents of the Assad regime would be any more friendly to the United States.

Paul recalled that Kerry said during the Vietnam War, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

“I would ask, ‘How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?’” Paul said. “I’m not sending my son, your son or anybody else’s son to fight for a stalemate.”

Paul said he was “proud” of Obama for following the Constitution and asking for congressional support. But he said the president made a “grave mistake” in setting a “red line.” Obama’s push for military action, he said, is an effort to “save face and add bad policy to bad policy.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the president may have trouble winning the backing of Congress.

King, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said, “I think it is going to be difficult,” noting that there is an “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he believes “at the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion,” but he also said, “it’s going to take that healthy debate to get there.”

But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told “Fox News Sunday” that he didn’t think Congress would approve a war resolution. He said budget cuts have rendered U.S. forces “degraded and unready.”

Several lawmakers raised objections to military action in the hours after Obama announced he will ask Congress to approve the use of force.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.Y., an Army veteran with multiple foreign deployments, said Saturday, “I hope my colleagues will fully think through the weightiness of this decision and reject military action. The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian civil war will not resolve the matter.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, “The apparent chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime is an appalling, unconscionable act by a bloodthirsty tyrant. The ‘limited’ military response supported by President Obama, however, shows no clear goal, strategy, or any coherence whatsoever, and is supported neither by myself nor the American people.”

Opposition to the use of force is not limited to the Republican Party. Democrat Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said in a statement: “Unilateral U.S. military action against the Syrian regime at this time would do nothing to advance American interests, but would certainly fuel extremist groups on both sides of the conflict that are determined to expand the bloodshed beyond Syria’s borders.”

While Congress remains on recess, the White House has begun its campaign to sway opinions, holding a classified briefing for lawmakers Sunday to show them evidence against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“We’re not going to lose this vote,” Kerry said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

"Human shield" is such a harsh term, no?

In rejection of the US threats to launch a military strike on Syria, popular sides on Sunday launched the "Over Our Bodies" campaign in al-Umayyad Square in Damascus.

The campaign aims at stressing the Syrians' firmness and readiness to defend their country and conveying a message to the world that the Syrians will not stand still in front of a possible aggression by the US and its allies on Syria.

The participants also carried out a sit-in in Mount Qasioun aiming at protecting the civilian institutions, stressing that the Syrian people will not be terrorized and will win their war against terrorism.

The participants said that the campaign is a youth and popular event that was organized through the social media, adding that there are many groups from many countries that will head to Syria as to express solidarity with Damascus.

They stressed that they are ready to join efforts with the Syrian Arab Army as to confront any aggression, adding that they will form human shields to protect the threatened areas even in case these areas were under attack.

Syrian government info-machine, 1 Sept 13

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to the UK media, the Brits may have sold Assad the very nerve gas that someone used ...

Now, to be consistent, I don't oppose selling weapons, anything short of nukes, to people, including bad people ... it's not as though it's anything new:

 

Remember these guys: Diem of Viet Nam and Pinochet of Chile?

But countries should also be consistent, if the Brits are arming Assad maybe they shouldn't rush to judgement when he uses what they sold him.

 

[GAP]

Gee....this is turning into a contest of who has the most receipts....the US for WMD's to Iraq or Britian to Syria.....

 

[CougarKing]

The Arab League votes in favour of intervening in Syria and condemns Assad's of chemical weapons...

...so why don't they do it themselves without having to rely on any Western power? The Saudis' substantial military were part of the coalition in the first Gulf War against Saddam in 1991, if I can recall correctly.

Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime

President Barack Obama's surprise move to seek congressional authorization before ordering any military action against the Syrian regime was met with a mixed reception around the world Sunday, with a chorus of Arab states calling for intervention — while a key Syrian government official disparaged the White House for a lack of leadership.

At an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Sunday evening, foreign ministers passed a resolution pressing the United Nations and the global community to “take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for,” according to Reuters.

The ministers also concluded that those responsible for the lethal chemical weapons attack should face trial just like other “war criminals.”

And Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said merely condemning President Bashar Assad’s regime for alleging staging the poison gas attack, which the White House has said killed some 1,429 people, was only a half measure.

“The time has come to call on the world community to bear its responsibility and take the deterrent measure that puts a halt to the tragedy,” al-Faisal said, Reuters reported.

More at...

NBC link

 

[tomahawk6]

Iraq's WMD was driven out of Iraq into Syria prior to the collapse of the regime.

The US bound Nimitz strike group has been rerouted to the Red Sea.The Nimitz group had been supporting operations in Afghanistan and had been relieved by the Truman.

 

[vonGarvin]

And Russia sends a spy ship to the region.

 

[57Chevy]

The best I've heard about this so far is Ban ki-Moon saying  "Give peace a chance". I think it was a clear message
to everybody.
Staying out of the conflict, seeking congress and public opinion is the best overall strategy the allies have taken thus far.
A "Wait Out" is in good order and a concrete response for everyone to just suck back and weigh out everything
in the balance on the world stage. Time to rethink and re-examine possibilities of hidden agendas and unwanted influences.  A time to thoroughly examine all evidence and provide transparency of the results.

Perhaps the Russian Federation will realize that Tehran has exercised too much influence on Syrian internal affairs and before
long, IMO, Mr. Putin would get extremely hot under the collar seeing that Tehran is way out of line.
The effects would create such a huge rift between Damascus and Tehran that it would eventually collapse their alliance.
The Russian Federation would discover from the tons of feedback, and from their own findings and investigations,
that they have had a common enemy (once again) with the western world for some time now.
By the time the Admiral Kuznetsov reaches Syrian waters sometime in December,
their mission will have mutated to dealing with the root of the Middle Eastern problem (Iran).

Mother Russia would begin taking responsible stock of their puppet regime and correct the errors of armament procuration
made by their communist era leaders, and thereby paving the way to further reductions in WMDs.

The war in Syria would probably fizzle out and terrorism would suffer a huge setback. The whole world would see
the much needed positive initiation taken by world leaders that it sheds new light on responsible global governance.
Perhaps, even for a short time, we will actually see golf driving ranges between carrier groups.

One thing for sure, whatever the outcome of this, the given 'red line' will drastically change the future of NBC warfare.

MO 57C

 

[CougarKing]

Turkey already stated they are willing to join a US coalition against Syria...

The Turkish government has been one of the most vocal critics of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since early on in the uprising. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkey's Milliyet newspaper that the country was ready to join an international coalition for action against Syria even in the absence of agreement at the UN Security Council.

BBC link

 

[CougarKing]

The US bound Nimitz strike group has been rerouted to the Red Sea.The Nimitz group had been supporting operations in Afghanistan and had been relieved by the Truman.

More on the rerouting of the Nimitz CVBG:

link

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz along with four destroyers and a cruiser have been ordered to move west in the Arabian Sea toward the Red Sea, so that it can help support a US strike on Syria if requested, a US official told Reuters.

“It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed,” the official told Reuters, adding that it was not clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea.

The Nimitz carrier group was supporting the US war in Afghanistan and was due to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being released from duty by the USS Harry S. Truman strike group.

Considering the volatile situation and a looming decision on a Syria strike, US military officials have decided to send the Nimitz toward the Red Sea, and possibly the Mediterranean, the source said.

Over the weekend a US amphibious Group USS San Antonio were also deployed to the Mediterranean. Although it has “received no specific tasking” it was rerouted to a US naval base on the Greek island of Crete.


The US Navy already has five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean carrying an estimated load of 200 Tomahawk missiles. The naval presence was boosted over the past week in anticipation of an imminent US attack.

 

[Journeyman]

One thing for sure, whatever the outcome of this, the given 'red line' will drastically change the future of NBC warfare.

"Drastically"?  In what way?

 

[a_majoor]

The decision making process seems rather...opaque:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/09/02/somethings-missing-here/?print=1

What The Hell Is Going On?
Posted By Michael Ledeen On September 2, 2013 @ 8:36 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments

So far as we know, most everyone in the government was expecting the bombing would start on Saturday afternoon, Washington, D.C., time.  Government officials, above all those with expertise in military operations, were told to cancel their Labor Day vacations and show up for overtime work.  No golf for them!  Then President Obama–in the face of most all the advice from his “national security team” (I even heard a national radio network broadcaster call it “the war cabinet”)–changed his mind.  Suddenly.  Unexpectedly.  Surprisingly.

How?  Why?

The story about the sudden change of mind has been carefully fed to the scribblers.  It’s been written and rewritten many times.  But it doesn’t make sense, unless you believe in sudden epiphanies, or bolts from the blue, or ongoing revelation, and there’s no evidence that the president believes such things.

So I ask again:  How?  Why?  We don’t have an answer, which suggests to me that we’re missing some key element in the story.

Presidential decisions are sometimes driven by real events in the real world, and sometimes by private conversations among a very small group of intimates.  During the Carter years, for example, it was said that you never knew what he was going to do until the last conversation prior to handing down his verdict.  If you were an intimate, you wanted to be the last person on his dance card before the band started to play.  Other presidents have had different methods, but personal interplay is always important.

Note that this sort of “process” greatly favors people with offices in the White House.  They only have to walk down the hall, whereas the cabinet secretaries have to drive across town, or even across the river.  That takes time.  Access=influence, so the guys and gals down the hall, including the gal who shares the living quarters, have more of it than those across town or on the other side of the Potomac.

Ergo, it may well be that somebody got to the president late Friday and said something that got him to reverse course.  Those who believe that Valerie Jarrett is the eminence grise of the Obama years will wonder if she prevailed over the War Cabinet, as when she–once?  several times?  accounts vary…–lobbied against the Kill bin Laden operation.  Those who think Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is the key actor will point to the long walk he took with his boss on Saturday morning as the key event.  Those who think Michelle does foreign policy (and those who don’t think first ladies are key players on ALL policy matters should report for reeducation) will look there for the answer.

If an intimate conversation is the explanation, it likely had to do with personal convictions, and thus with the president’s worldview.  What is America’s proper role in the world?  What does Obama want his legacy to be?  That sort of thing.

Not that such a conversation could be conducted in isolation from the rest of the world, because the president’s counterparts will have been conducting similar conversations on secure phones, and those themes will surely have been raised.  Messrs Cameron, Hollande and Netanyahu must have weighed in, along with Erdogan, Saudi King Abdullah, and others.

What others?  What about the Iranians?  We know that Obama sees Iran as the key to “solving” the Syrian mess, and we know that Obama has authorized secret contacts, even before he was elected, and Swiss diplomats are forever brokering meetings and carrying messages back and forth.  What if the Iranians offered him a deal?  Or perhaps the Omanis, who have been key middlemen in the deals leading to the release of American hostages?

What sort of deal?  Many are possible.  What if the Iranians, the real rulers of Syria today, offered to betray Assad, replace him with a military junta under their control, and organize a peace conference if the Americans lifted unilateral sanctions? (Interpolation: This is not something that I have sen reported before, but given that Syria is Iran's proxy and provides access to Hezbollah and the sea via Lebanon, it is probably an option that Iran would see as being worth looking at)

Obama would certainly be tempted to delay bombing Syria if he were led to believe that a peaceful rabbit could be lifted from a diplomatic top hat by those new moderates in Tehran, or those proven wheelers and dealers in romantic Muscat, wouldn’t he?

I don’t have an answer to How? or Why?  It’s disconcerting that no one else is even asking.  It bespeaks a lack of curiosity about a major event, suggesting intellectual laziness by the pundits, “investigative journalists,” and the political class.

Nothing new there, you will say.  And you will be entirely correct.  As usual.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Instapundit for linking.  Glenn is the greatest.

UPDATE #2:  Kuwaiti newspaper says the president thought he needed a bit more time to make a deal with his buddy Vladimir Putin.  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171531#.UiUEAT_Nk5R

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/09/02/somethings-missing-here/

 

[CougarKing]

From REUTERS:

INSIGHT - As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause
Reuters

By Jeffrey Heller and Angus McDowall

JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.

Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.

Neither U.S. ally is picking a fight with Obama in public. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the nation was "serene and self-confident"; Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal simply renewed a call to the "international community" to halt Assad's violence in Syria.

But the Saudi monarchy, though lacking Israel's readiness to attack Iran, can share the Jewish state's concern that neither may now look with confidence to Washington to curb what Riyadh sees as a drive by its Persian rival to dominate the Arab world.

Last year, Obama assured Israelis that he would "always have Israel's back". Now Netanyahu is reassuring them they can manage without uncertain U.S. protection against Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction but denies developing nuclear weapons.

"Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario," the hawkish prime minister said. "And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might."

That may not reassure a U.S. administration which has tried to steer Netanyahu away from unilateral action against Iran that could stir yet more chaos in the already explosive Middle East.

Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."

Israelis contrast the "red line" Netanyahu has set for how close Iran may come to nuclear weapons capability before Israel strikes with Obama's "red line" on Assad's use of chemical weapons - seemingly passed without U.S. military action so far.

"HEAD OF THE SNAKE"

Saudi Arabia, like Israel heavily dependent on the United States for arms supplies, is engaged in a historic confrontation with Iran for regional influence - a contest shaped by their leading roles in the rival Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam.

Riyadh is a prime backer of Sunni rebels fighting Assad, whose Alawite minority is a Shi'ite offshoot. It sees toppling Assad as checking Iran's ambition not just in Syria but in other Arab states including the Gulf, where it mistrusts Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia itself and in neighbouring Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq.

Saudi King Abdullah's wish for U.S. action against Iran was memorably contained in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, including one in which a Saudi envoy said the monarch wanted Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" to end Tehran's nuclear threat.

Disappointment with Obama's hesitation against Assad came through on Sunday in the Saudi foreign minister's remarks to the Arab League in Cairo, where he said words were no longer enough.

Riyadh and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) risk ending up empty-handed in their latest push for U.S. backing in their campaign to rein in Iran, said Sami al-Faraj, a Kuwaiti analyst who advises the GCC on security matters:

"The idea of a punishment for a crime has lost its flavour. We are on the edge of the possibility that military action may not be conducted," he said. "Congress, for sure, ... will attach conditions to what is already going to be a limited strike. At the end, we as Gulf allies, may end up with nothing."

Israel does not share the Saudi enthusiasm for the Syrian rebel cause, despite its concern about Assad's role as a link between Iran and Lebanese and Palestinian enemies. The presence in rebel ranks of Sunni Islamist militants, some linked to al Qaeda, worries the Jewish state - though Riyadh, too, is keen to curb al Qaeda, which calls the royal family American stooges.

(...)

 

[The Bread Guy]

How's your French?  Attached, the French int summary from the President's office ....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Russia has announced that its missile early warning system detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the sea's eastern coastline, and later confirmed in an Israel statement by Reuters news agency.

Israel initially denied knowledge of the missile launch, but soon after said in a statement to Reuters that it had carried out a joint  missile test with the US, of an "anchor" target missile used in anti-missile systems, the news agency reported.

The launches took place at 06:16GMT (10:16am Moscow time) and were detected by the early warning system in Armavir in southern Russia, the defence ministry said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies ....

Al Jazeera English, 3 Sept 13

 

[The Bread Guy]

HAD to share the attached ....

 

[Jed]

Ooops, How dare someone make a cartoon character of Allah. Let's all riot in the streets.

 

[57Chevy]

"Drastically"?  In what way?

To clarify;

The consequential increase/decrease in the use of such systems.

 

[Journeyman]

Sorry, I'm still not getting it.

To clarify;
The consequential increase/decrease in the use of such systems.

If you're not even sure if this episode will cause an increase or a decrease in these weapons, how will it "drastically change the future of NBC warfare"?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to understand your point.

 

[57Chevy]

From the proposed congressional resolution;
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to:

1. prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons.
---

Ok, I think I know what you're getting at.
I understand that it won't be changing the warfare itself.