Politics Middle Eastern power shifts

...under whose authority? Seems to me there is much chaos and seems to me that some may have a strategic interest in getting a US military response. I would hate to think the US is being use, that the President is being baited into escalating the conflict beyond Syria.
--- merged: Aug 29, 2013 10:08 AM ---

I could make the decision - actually I already know I would not take military action. In fact, I am surprised the President did not already know how he was going to respond. I am surprised he had not already made the calls to allies, Israel, nations supporting Asad, key members of congress, etc. Why hasn't the case to the UN already been made? If you draw a red line one needs to be prepared.

 

just having another look at this chart, did anyone notice that no arrows point back to the USA? slef righteous maybe?

ive got a feeling that many of those arrows pointing back to the USA would be red

 

insofar as us options are concerned, this is pretty good---and, believe it or not, it appeared on cnn's website:

Opinion: Why Syria is truly a problem from hell - CNN.com

the problem from hell indeed. and a repetition of the worst features of the "humanitarian intervention" idea. which is a tough sell anyway, given that the us--and the "international community"---hasn't seen 100,000+ deaths and millions of displaced people as a humanitarian problem.

it looks that russian intrasigence in the security council has created a problem for the obama administration insofar as justifying quick action is concerned, even as it appears that there's general congressional approval. what must make conservatives crazy, given their neo-fascist nationalism and its correlate in hostility to international organizations (and law) that would constrain the hegemon and interrupt conservative self-congratulation, is that obama clearly sees international treaty obligations and security council actions as legitimation for action. but without it---and it's clearly not gonna happen---the legal questions are much less clear.


insofar as the chain of command within syria is concerned, it's really not obvious how these decisions were made. look at this:

Syrian chemical attack spurs finger-pointing inside Assad regime - The National

however, it is obvious, even from the le monde article of yesterday (i think i posted it) that the army has been using chemical weapons and has done it repeatedly.

 

​

​

from this:​

Syrian Novelist Khaled al-Khalifa on a Possible US Strike « Arabic Literature (in English)​

 

Ace....you complain about revisionists while rewriting your own history of the Ira debacle?

After the first Gulf War and the follow up no-fly zone, Saddam's capability to “invade his neighbors, commit mass murder of his own people or present an overt threat to the US and our interests” were severely diminished.

Further, Bush lied to the American people, withheld critical intel from Congress, ignored the findings of the UN inspectors, and presented a dubious case to the UN which was later found to be mostly baseless. Then it became clear that there was no post-invasion plan, based on the assumption that such an invasion would only take “weeks or months” and ultimately sacrificed 4,000+ US lives and 100,000+ Iraqi lives based solely on an ideology and a lust to invade Iraq and take-out Saddam.

As to the current and completely different situation in Syria, geo-politics and humanitarian interests do not always coincide and unfortunately, the Syrian people have paid the price.

I supported the NAO action against Libya to protect its people from further slaughter by an oppressive regime ready to take any measures against a popular uprising because it had the support the UN and the Arab League, did not put American boots on the ground and did not risk further destabilization of the region.

Syria is a different nut to crack with Russia blocking any UN action, the Arab League not being supportive and Iran and Hezbollah in Syria's corner with the potential to retaliate against the US or our allies.

That being said, I am one of those “progressives” who would still support a targeted, limited action by the US with or without allies and UN support if it could be accomplished in such a manner as to severely deter the capabilities of any further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
--- merged: Aug 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM ---
Ace...one further thought on your neo-con revisionism of recent US actions in the Middle East.

Many of those same folks in the Bush administration who justified the invasion of Iraq based in part on Iraq's past use of chemical weapons were in the Reagan and GHW Bush defense departments and just gave wink and nod to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

Massive killing of civilians by a brutal regime responding to a popular uprising or, for that matter, in any war scenario is tragic.

Maybe it is just me, but I find the use of chemical weapons, particularly on women and children, to be even more horrific and barbaric and any action that would further prevent such use by a regime against its people should be considered.

 

Well, the UK parliament has shot down any hopes for a UK military intervention.

Now to see how the other US allies fare in their decision-making on this issue, and how the US will respond to these developments.

It's safe to say that the huge blunder that was Iraq has left a lasting impression on the Western peoples. UK defense secretary's remark that "Iraq poisoned the well" is spot on.

 

the bush people's iraq fiasco has contributed greatly to turning this into a league of nations moment. stakes are high. i expect the united states will end up doing something unilaterally. the situation is such that there seems to me no alternative. a consequence of the "red line"...

what amazes me is that the west has stood by while over 100,000 people have died and this is the best they can come up with?

personally, i find this a conflicted/conflicting moment---part of me thinks: stop the slaughter. but then there's the legacy of the bush peoples' iraq fiasco again. and the ambiguous legacy--to say the least--of other western "humanitarian" interventions. part of me thinks: the plan, so far as i understand it, seems likely to simply increase the slaughter, except this time with weapons delivered by the us (or others) rather than sold into the war zone via proxies. most of me marvels at the incoherence of the "international community." meanwhile, more people get killed.

 

I clearly state why I supported the Iraq war. I respect those who were against the war, but I do not have respect for those who voted (or supported) to authorize the use of the military and then to pretend that they were lied to. If your position is that Bush lied, I would suggest that you are a revisionist. There was uncertainty regarding WMD, some believed the intel some had concerns, however it was clear that Iraq was trying to be deceptive and was not cooperating. Iraq was in defiance of UN resolutions. And it was clear to me that if given an opportunity Saddam would have reinstated his pursuit of WMD and would have used them as a direct threat to US interests, US lives and the lives of millions of innocent people outside of his boarders - but this is just in part why I supported military action. I have no issue with those who disagree.

They have been paying a price for some time now. The Bush approach to Syria was to isolate them. Obama dismissed that approach and even mock it - say we should have a open dialogue with them. To what end? What was or is the objective. Obama lacks clarity in foreign affairs. Is he really this indecisive?

Then your answer is clear - take no military action!

Without Congressional and UN buy-in?

What are you saying they should have done?

I would suggest preemptive military action. We need to stop with the indecisiveness. When our President says a world leader must go, then we should act. If our President says the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, then we should take out those facilities - right now! Or, if we are going to stay out of a civil war, then we need to stay out. There is no "limited action", we either get in the middle of it or not. When the bombs drop, people in the ME are going to see it as US interference, they are not going to see the good in it. I am surprised that you are not writing about the potential recruiting opportunities as you have done many times in the past.
--- merged: Aug 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM ---

How do you explain the position of the Russian government? How do you explain the lack of action by neighboring ME nations? Do you believe it is the responsibility of the West to initiate a response?

 

It is not me who claimed that the Bush administration lied (unless you believe in Condi's mushroom cloud and Chaney's baseless assertion of Saddam connections to al Queda), withheld intel from Congress (senate intel commitee findings), ignored the finding of the UN inspectors and finally Colin Powell who said himself he was misled before he in-turn misled the UN.

And not only are you ignoring the impact of the first Gulf War and the no fly zones on Saddam's capabilities, you are also conveniently ignoring Clinton's 1998 three-day bombing of Iraq weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, etc. significantly destroyed Saddam's capabilities.

Your unwavering support of the Bush policies is based entirely on revisionism.
--- merged: Aug 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM ---

If need be and if limited and with a purpose of reducing Assad's chemical weapons capabilities.

For all those who are screeching "impeachment" if Obama acts w/o Congressional approval, how convenient to ignore Reagan's invasion of Grenada, GHW Bush's invasion of Panama, Clinton's attack in Bosnia and Bush's putting Marines into the Liberian civil war in 2003.

 

curious obama speech. syria is now a national-security matter for the u.s. of a....so obama will appeal to congress for legitimation, but makes it clear that approval is largely ornamental. no mention of the un, no mention of the results of the un inspection team's work in syria this week. so an entirely subjectivized imperialism.

 

I can see the Congressional debate going something like this:

 

What scares the crap out of me (using an analogy) is the ace (and Cowboy George/neo-con) poker approach to foreign affairs.....either all in or fold.

No thought-out strategy...just shock and awe and hope for the best.

 

Perhaps patience on Obama's part, seeking Congressional approval and now having the Arab League coming around, is a better approach than your all out ("fools rush in") preemptive strike.

 

I repeat my view, as it applies to Powell. If his claim is that he was lied to, I do not respect his point of view on the issue. If he was lied to I would expect, as Secretary of State, that he would make sure those responsible were held accountable. If he believes the President lied to Congress and the American people to enter an illegal war I would expect him to present his findings to Congress and for Congress to impeach the President or otherwise hold him accountable for lies. the Secretary of State does not get a free pass, by saying "they" lied! He would have my respect if he owns his role in what lead to war!

My view is consistent with all others in high office who claim they were lied to. They do not have to rely on lies - they can do their own due diligence. and if they were lied to, they have a responsibility to the American people to correct it and hold those responsible accountable. I have made my view on this clear many times. What more do you want? We will never agree on this issue - unless you change your views.

My views predate GW Bush - 43. I thought it was a mistake not to march on to Baghdad and remove Saddam during the first Gulf War under GH Bush -41.
I have never stated my support of military action in Iraq was due to WMD. To be clearer on this point the concept of WMD in the context of modern weaponry and man's ability to murder large numbers of people is trivial. There are far too many ways to murder large number of people to classify some means worse than others. Mass murder of innocent people is what it is - I don't want people who have this mentality in positions of power or otherwise have the ability to murder innocent people.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM ---

Yes.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM ---

War is war. You can not be half way at war. How can you explain your mentality in practical everyday terms?

How about making a statement about a "red line" and knowing how you plan on responding at the time you make the statement! The President did not even know if he was going to present his case for Congressional approval until a few days ago. He makes a comment about a "red line" and does not have any international support lined up. The President is saying to Assad we are not really going to do anything serious, we just want to send a message, we are going to strike some noncritical sites in about two or three weeks, please let us know when it is convenient for you! You may want to call in sick that day!

I realize the Obama does not have a warrior mentality, but this is truly ridiculous.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM ---

I am saying no to US military action in Syria. What are you saying? What is Canada saying? Yes, it must be nice to be Canada. You folks don't give a crap about over 100,000 people killed and the use of chemical weapons as illustrated by Canada's unwillingness to even take a strong stand on the issue. Do Canadians fear offending certain groups in the ME?
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM ---

You miss the point. The time to act would have been before over 100,000 have been killed, before the immoral use of chemical weapons! We knew he had them, we had a concern he would use them, we knew the situation was getting progressively worse and more desperate, so what are we doing, what are we waiting for. Either act in a timely manner or don't act. What is the point of calling the fire department after the house has burned to the ground - I would suggest the best course of action is avoiding the fire! You sit back and contemplate and over-think these things all day long - decision makers, make their decisions and accept the consequences. I can follow a guy like Kuchinich, very clear and consistent on his Iraq war views, or a guy like GW Bush, also clear and consistent any time or any where even if I have some disagreements. Psudo-intelectuals with their theoretical and overtly analytical approaches, like Obama, should stick to teaching.

 

Just a few examples of the lies:

President Bush statement in the January 28, 2003, State of the Union address that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” -- not supported by US or Brit intel or at the very least conflicting intel​

​

Vice President Cheney statement on September 8, 2002, that “we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs . . . to build a nuclear weapon”; ....his statement on March 16, 2003, that “we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”....his statement that Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.” -- none of the above supported by US intel​

​

Secretary Rumsfeld statement on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000. . . human beings” -- not supported by intel​

You dont want to call it lying to the American people, how about misleading the American people?
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM ---

A wise man, perhaps not a warrior, evaluates the changing circumstances between the time the redline was drawn and when the gassing of civilian by Assad occurred....rather than rush right in and respond w/o considering the consequences.

Perhaps that is the difference between us. You evidently see every foreign policy issue or threat in black and white while I see the shades of grey.