Syria

[peterms]

Or, there is always this view to fall back on:

 

 

 

Or more interestingly, we could look at the fairly recent alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel to escalate conflict in the region, with a view to weakening Iran.  Israel is without question one of the forces stirring this up, though the Saudis appear more active in supporting the al-Qaeda parts of the opposition, as you'd expect.  There is a good but long piece here about it.

 

There's also a very good piece here taking a broader view of the whole situation, again too long to quote, by someone who's been involved in Middle Eastern affairs for longer, and more intimately, than most.  Among the mountains of stuff that's been written, that one stands out as worth reading.

[peterms]

 

On the doing nothing option there is a danger (if not already reached) that Syria becomes a huge version of Lebanon in the 80's with Shia, Sunni, Christian and Druze all fighting each other and the place becoming a living hell.  It could be argued that with 4 million internally displaced and 2 million refugees in the near abroad (and at a rate that is increasing rapidly) Syria already is hell with the worst refugee crisis since WW2.  Does that in itself provide a moral imperative to act and if not, what level would have to be reached before it did? Is there even a point at which human becomes unacceptable and prompts action to try and address the root of the problem?

 

(Assume last sentence should read "human suffering").

 

The answer to both questions is yes.  We passed that point some time ago.

 

The problem we have is that the intervention planned by the US, urged on by the militarists and the Israeli lobby at home, and countries like Saudi and Qatar in the region, is utterly destructive.

 

The economic and political interests of those lobbying for US military intervention will be served by more death and destruction.  There is no interest whatever among those groups in finding a solution which addresses the appalling human cost of all this, if it interferes with their hoped-for gains.

[blandy]

 

Do you think it is proven, AWOL, as opposed to the more likely of a number of possibilities (which is how it seems to me)?

 

 

....Where I differ from you and Peter is the belief that this is more likely to be a false flag job. I think it happened and given the volume of casualties over a large area I think there is a very high probability that Assad's forces did it, and although not necessarily ordered by him personally that is moot point once kids start croaking from nerve agent poisoning......

Your long response was an excellent one. Pedantry compels me to point out that I don't think it more likely to be a "false flag" job - I'm with you, I think it highly likely to have been Gov't forces using the Chemicals.

 

Other than the proof issue, my concern with "our" role in all this (and that of the US and so on) is about the way we seem to jump to bombing as the immediate course of action. It doesn't make any sense, for so many reasons. The only thinking where it might compute, a bit, is along the lines of " it's only a couple of weeks since Assad's men used CWs, so if we drop a bomb on them, or some part of their infrastructure, that'll stop them doing it again". But even that is very debatable. Never mind the absence of evidence, the unintended consequences in the locality of any bomb attacks, the effects of shot down cruise missiles, the accidental release of Chemical weapons hit by any attack... the effect on the other nations in the area, the recruitment factor, the risk of escalation and so much more.

 

So instead of rushing to bombing and cruise missiles, they need to get away from the whole shoot first ask questions and worry about the consequences later, reflex and work at how to actually work to solve the problem of so many people killing each other in the place.

[Awol]

Pedantry compels me to point out that I don't think it more likely to be a "false flag" job - I'm with you, I think it highly likely to have been Gov't forces using the Chemicals.

Fair one, sorry!

 

So instead of rushing to bombing and cruise missiles, they need to get away from the whole shoot first ask questions and worry about the consequences later, reflex and work at how to actually work to solve the problem of so many people killing each other in the place.

The key is peeling away Russia from Assad and bringing them on side will take patience, creating the perception that their opinion matters by being patient, and by making some large concessions to Russia elsewhere on other issues. Realpolitik.

 

We have time because the Syria problem is going nowhere fast.

Edited September 4, 2013 by blandy

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Putin like.

 

What a toad.

[tonyh29]

Yeah Putin's insistence on a UN mandate is interesting  .. perhaps the Syrian one is filled next his one on Chechnya  ?

[Meath_Villan]

At least hes said if the inspectors have proof russia will back a (probably toothless) resolution 

[peterms]

On the Guardian live feed, Kerry sounds utterly clueless.  Passing off reports from Reuters as fact without checking, then backtracking immediately.

 

At least Hagel makes a valid point.  But how will this political solution be found, on the basis of action by the US in the absence of a UN resolution (ie illegal), and excluding Iran from discussions.

 

Interesting to note that the threats that Prince Bandar made to Russia about arming terrorists are also being made to the US.

 

 

 

5m ago

"There's no military solution in Syria," Hagel says. "It's going to require a political resolution."

 

5m ago

Kerry says that if the US does not strike Syria, partners who fund the opposition – Saudi Arabia, Qatar – will start giving more money to extremist fighters.

But if the US does not act, Kerry says, the "discipline" of channeling funding to the "moderate opposition" would "dissipate immediately and people will resort to any [solution] they can find to help them accomplish their goal."

"If we fail to pass this, those who are working with us today with the Syrian opposition... we've been working very hard to keep them from funding bad elements... because they fund them out of frustration because they think they're the best fighters," Kerry says.

Updated

3m ago

 

19m ago

Kerry announces that the high-level Syrian defection he announced moments ago might not actually have happened.

It turns out Kerry was basing his testimony before the House committee on the Reuters report, which as we've reported has been challenged by Syrian state TV.

It sounds like Kerry doesn't know any more about it than other faithful Reuters readers.

Has the defection of former defense minister Ali Habib actually occurred? "Who knows whether it has or hasn't," Kerry says.

 

[peterms]

Yeah Putin's insistence on a UN mandate is interesting  .. perhaps the Syrian one is filled next his one on Chechnya  ?

 

It's a requirement of international law.  The US seems to believe it is above international law.

[peterms]

Torygraph mocks Obama's pathetic attempt to claim the "red line" wasn't him at all.  A big boy done it, and ran away.

 

Obama’s ‘red line’ remarks on Syria were a train wreck. The president’s credibility is on the line, not America’s

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 4th, 2013

6 Comments Comment on this article

 

Barack Obama: 'I didn't set a red line' on Syria

President Obama has done himself no favours today with his disingenuous statements on Syria in Stockholm alongside Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. As The Weekly Standard first reported, Barack Obama claimed “he didn’t set a red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, arguing that “the world set a red line” when it passed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. He also declared that his credibility isn’t on the line, but Congress’s credibility, America’s credibility and the international community’s credibility is at stake if military action isn’t taken on Syria.

Here is what Obama had to say, responding to a question from Steve Holland of Reuters:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

… my credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

This is classic ‘pass the buck’ rhetoric from the president, who is clearly nervous that he won’t get Congressional support for military action, not least when public opinion is heavily against a US intervention. For clarification, here are the president's original ‘red line’ remarks to the White House Press Corps in August last year

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation…

We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

As Obama’s words made clear, he is himself 100 percent responsible for the ‘red line’ that has been laid down on Syria, a red line that he drew without much thought behind what it would entail. He made these remarks at the height of his presidential election campaign, after a year and a half of doing absolutely nothing about the crisis in Syria, no doubt in an effort to look tough and to demonstrate that he wasn’t ‘leading from behind.’

It is not America’s credibility that is on the line at the moment, or that of the United States Congress. It is the credibility of Barack Obama himself, who unwisely drew a line in the sand, and is now pushing for a military intervention in the Middle East without a clear strategy, while aggressively cutting defence spending and failing to demonstrate that a Syrian war is in the US national interest. And as I noted in an earlier piece, Mr. Obama is trying to drag America into war without the military support of key US allies, including Great Britain. The president has a grand coalition of two at present: himself and deeply unpopular French Socialist Francois Hollande. That is hardly an alliance that instills confidence at home, or fear into the hearts of America’s enemies abroad.

 

[snowychap]

 

...

Your long response was an excellent one.

 

I'd just like to echo that.

I'm not sure I agree with all that was in it (I'm unsure about the diplomacy/liberal democracy comparison, for example) but we could do with much more of that type of thoughtful comment on here.

p.s. Certainly agree with this:

All I know is that I don't have the answers and I'm glad it's not my decision to make.

Edited September 4, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

Yeah Putin's insistence on a UN mandate is interesting .. perhaps the Syrian one is filled next his one on Chechnya ?

It's a requirement of international law. The US seems to believe it is above international law.

And Russia don't ?

The hypocrisy in Russia's stance is staggering when you take into account their recent history

[privateer]

 

On the Guardian live feed, Kerry sounds utterly clueless.

 

John Kerry is utterly clueless and an absolute cocksucker. Unfortunately for the world he is a very dangerous one and is in a position of power and influence. He reminds me of the President Martin Sheen played in "The Dead Zone". It's pretty chilling that somebody as stupid and bellicose as him is any kind of Government "Secretary" that doesn't involve merely typing up shorthand minutes.

Edited September 4, 2013 by privateer

[bickster]

On the Guardian live feed, Kerry sounds utterly clueless.

 

John Kerry is utterly clueless and an absolute cocksucker. Unfortunately for the world he is a very dangerous one and is in a position of power and influence. He reminds me of the President Martin Sheen played in "The Dead Zone". It's pretty chilling that somebody as stupid and bellicose as him is any kind of Government "Secretary" that doesn't involve merely typing up shorthand minutes.

It shouldn't shock you... Dubya ... Reagan... They have a history of electing dumbasses into positions of power

[dappadan]

Mega

[AVFCforever1991]

[peterms]

 

 

Yeah Putin's insistence on a UN mandate is interesting .. perhaps the Syrian one is filled next his one on Chechnya ?

It's a requirement of international law. The US seems to believe it is above international law.

And Russia don't ?

The hypocrisy in Russia's stance is staggering when you take into account their recent history

 

 

Russia breaches international law as well.  I think they are less dishonest about it.  The way the US acts, yet projects this image of being reasonable, democratic, peace-loving, makes me heave. 

 

Both Russia and the US are pretty awful countries, by any yardstick of civil rights, fairness, openness, democracy, and being prepared to live peacefully with other countries.  Yet the US has this completely false self-image which is about 180 degrees from reality, which it seeks to project across the entire world.  It's like Darth Vader pretending to be Nelson Mandela.

 

If we are going to hear charges of hypocrisy, I think we can spend quite some time looking at the US before Russia even registers on the radar.

[peterms]

 

Which of the two would you say has spent the most on cosmetic surgery?

 

My money's on the one on the left.  (When I say left, I mean in the photo, not politically, obviously).

[snowychap]

'Rebalancing'? Ye wot? If you're not on a tightrope between the Petronas towers then you're probably talking rot.

[tonyh29]

'Rebalancing'? Ye wot? If you're not on a tightrope between the Petronas towers then you're probably talking rot.

I was up those just 2 weeks ago

Anyway ... Carry on