U.S. Politics

[blandy]

 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

It could. If only Russia hadn’t vetoed the continuation of the joint investigation team...

Or the US hadn't rejected Russian proposals for an independent review of the source of CW attacks in Syria...

3 hours ago, blandy said:

So they announced it in the context of it "being the pretext for a US strike"? When you say that, again it reads like “the US was in on this subterfuge that the Russians discovered”

The point I made was that it was very clearly known that a CW attack would very likely be followed by a US strike (or more than a single strike).  The idea that Assad thought the US had packed up and gone away and therefore he could do anything with impunity is ludicrous, and yet that seems to be the "logic" behind some explanations of the sequence of events.

3 hours ago, blandy said:

And now are you implying your rebel folks have created all this to help Trump with his domestic troubles? Perhaps not, but linking all these things together seems a bit wierd. The sort of thing from a comedian's routine, perhaps, that would get a laught, but not a serious point about US politics or Syria.

That's quite a leap of the imagination, quite the conspiracy theory.  What I am referencing - and it's not a new, unusual, controversial or especially radical notion - is that when faced with domestic problems, politicians typically seize on external events, especially those that can be presented as a threat of some kind and addressed in a dramatic way, to take the focus away from the problem in question.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Or the US hadn't rejected Russian proposals for an independent review of the source of CW attacks in Syria...

The point I made was that it was very clearly known that a CW attack would very likely be followed by a US strike (or more than a single strike).  The idea that Assad thought the US had packed up and gone away and therefore he could do anything with impunity is ludicrous, and yet that seems to be the "logic" behind some explanations of the sequence of events.

That's quite a leap of the imagination, quite the conspiracy theory.  What I am referencing - and it's not a new, unusual, controversial or especially radical notion - is that when faced with domestic problems, politicians typically seize on external events, especially those that can be presented as a threat of some kind and addressed in a dramatic way, to take the focus away from the problem in question.

The US didn't reject " proposals for an independent review of the source of CW attacks in Syria"  - there was a joint Independent body established by the UN and OPCW working to do exactly that, as the OPCW explained (again) yesterday. 

In response to persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks in Syria, the OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) was set up in 2014 “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic”.  The FFM is required to study available information relating to allegations of use of chemical weapons in Syria, including information provided by the Syrian Arab Republic and others. Since May 2014, the OPCW has deployed the FFM in numerous occasions to the Syrian Arab Republic and outside of Syria and has kept States Parties informed of its work. The FFM interviews witnesses and obtains samples and physical evidence for analysis. In 2015, the OPCW Executive Council and the UN Security Council endorsed the continual operation of the FFM.  The FFM’s findings established the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals as weapons in Syria and confirmed that chemical weapons had been used. The FFM’s findings were the basis for the work of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), an independent body established by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2235, 7 August 2015). The JIM’s purpose was to identify the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attacks confirmed by the Fact Finding Mission. The JIM’s mandate expired in December 2017.More Information

The JIM found that the Syrian Gov't forces in most cases and other groups in far fewer cases had used CWs. In 2017 Russia vetoed it's continued work past the end of the year, transparently because it's findings incriminated Assad.

It seems an odd thing to kill off the independent joint OPCW/UN investigating body and then call for an Independent investigation, don't you think?

Russia claimed the reason they killed it off was because on one investigation the JIM didn't visit the site of the attack  (the JIM says this was because of the massive risk to life due to the war fighting going on there) . Even if the Russian criticism was genuine and valid, is that a reason to stop with the JIM? Of course not.

"The constabulary didn't visit the crime scene before charging the suspect with murder let's get rid of the Police force."

"That's madness -  they had eye witness reports, they had medical evidence, they had film and photographic evidence, they had ample evidence to reach a conclusion - abolish the police? are you sure?"

"quite sure, they charged our friend, so they must go" 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Independent analyst view

I gather negotiations proceeded in fits and starts, as they do, over several weeks, with some agreements and some disagreements.  Meanwhile the fighting continued.  At the point at which the CW incident occurred, three of the four groups had reached agreement, fighters and their families had been getting bussed out for weeks, defeat was certain, and reportedly JaI had some internal disagreements about what to do.

So one explanation could be the one given, that hardened fighters who for seven years had been facing all sorts of mortal danger were so shocked and frightened by a number of civilians being killed by a CW attack that they gave up and surrendered.  Or possibly that faced with inevitable defeat, they initiated an action that might give them some strategic benefit, even if that particular battle was lost.

Another would be that every time there is a strategically significant event, for example Trump's announcement, or OPCW inspectors arriving, there is a CW attack which couldn't be worse timed from Assad's point of view but which he carries out anyway because he is either stupid, or fails to understand the consequences, or is so crazed by blood lust that he doesn't care.  Or possibly that these strategically damaging events are not actually self-inflicted damage by Assad, but something conducted in order to cause him strategic damage.

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, peterms said:

The point I made was that it was very clearly known that a CW attack would very likely be followed by a US strike (or more than a single strike).  The idea that Assad thought the US had packed up and gone away and therefore he could do anything with impunity is ludicrous, and yet that seems to be the "logic" behind some explanations of the sequence of events.

That point, it's not really true is it. It was not "very clearly known that a CW attack would very likely be followed by a US strike" it still isn't known. Of al lthe CW attacks they have done, only one was followed by a US strike. ANd since that strike Trump indicated he was getting out of Syria, so, no, it wasn't known.

The thought that Assad could think he could act with impunity is far from ludicrous, it's pretty much been exactly the case for the past however many years.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The JIM found that the Syrian Gov't forces in most cases and other groups in far fewer cases had used CWs. In 2017 Russia vetoed it's continued work past the end of the year, transparently because it's findings incriminated Assad.

It seems an odd thing to kill off the independent joint OPCW/UN investigating body and then call for an Independent investigation, don't you think?

Russia claimed the reason they killed it off was because on one investigation the JIM didn't visit the site of the attack  (the JIM says this was because of the massive risk to life due to the war fighting going on there) . Even if the Russian criticism was genuine and valid, is that a reason to stop with the JIM? Of course not.

The concerns of the Russians and others were not only about failing to visit the site, but also about the other problems with the investigation (listed here), and with the conclusions being given a sense of certainty despite those significant problems.

Quote

29. In addition, the following factors affected the investigation: (a) the investigation was being carried out, in some cases, more than two years after the incident; (b) the lack of a chain of custody for some of the material received; (c) the source of information and material was of secondary or tertiary nature; (d) some of the information material, including that depicting the size and nature of the incident, was misleading; and (e) finding independent sources of information that could provide access to individuals and information material proved difficult.

Russia proposed amending the terms of reference to make investigations more robust, as they saw it.  The US opposed this, and I gather Haley walked out.

There's a history to US influence on OPCW, of course.  You may have read about the previous OPCW head being removed because the US didn't like him, with John Bolton giving him 24 hours to resign and threatening him like a street thug:

Quote

'We know where your kids live': Trump's new national security adviser reportedly made an implicit threat against the family of a retired Brazilian diplomat in 2002

Ironically, the threat was about the OPCW seeking to bring Iraq and Libya into the CW agreement so that its stocks of CWs could be verified as destroyed.  That wouldn't have been at all convenient, and the US didn't want it to happen - it would have interfered with the developing narrative in support of war.

An investigation needs to happen, and the terms of reference need to be agreeable to more than the US and its backers.

[blandy]

44 minutes ago, peterms said:

The concerns of the Russians and others were not only about failing to visit the site, but also about the other problems with the investigation (listed here), and with the conclusions being given a sense of certainty despite those significant problems.

Russia proposed amending the terms of reference to make investigations more robust, as they saw it.  The US opposed this, and I gather Haley walked out.

There's a history to US influence on OPCW, of course.  You may have read about the previous OPCW head being removed because the US didn't like him, with John Bolton giving him 24 hours to resign and threatening him like a street thug:

Ironically, the threat was about the OPCW seeking to bring Iraq and Libya into the CW agreement so that its stocks of CWs could be verified as destroyed.  That wouldn't have been at all convenient, and the US didn't want it to happen - it would have interfered with the developing narrative in support of war.

An investigation needs to happen, and the terms of reference need to be agreeable to more than the US and its backers.

That's something (a lot) of a distortion.

It's true there were difficulties, as listed by the JIM in performing their work in the war zone. There were also others such as The Syrian Gov't refusing to provide flight logs for their aircraft, where there was evidence of aircraft dropping CW bombs. The difficulties faced at times, as the JIM reported, led to them being unable to make definitive verdicts on "who did it" and they clearly and cautiously outlined those circumstances and why they had decided against clearly stating "who did it".

There is no sense from any of the JIM work that it was partisan or biased. It is a clear evidence based, scientific body of work.

What is also clear is that Russia was unhappy that Syrian Forces were clearly identified as guilty, and so they eventually used their veto to bring an end to the JIM's work. There was nothing wrong with the terms of reference for the JIM, only (in the eyes of the Russians) with their fingering Syria for attacks. The rest is just pretext. The Russians were threatening the head of the JIM as a matter of routine

Quote

The leader of the United Nations investigative panel that has found that Syria used chemical weapons expressed pessimism on Wednesday about his panel’s future, and he said Russian diplomats had warned him regularly that the Kremlin was prepared to reject its findings.

In an interview, the panel’s leader, Edmond Mulet, a veteran United Nations diplomat, also said he was mystified as to why the Russians had tenaciously defended the Syrian government when, in his view, the proof of its chemical weapons attacks was overwhelming.

“I didn’t know what the conclusions would be of our investigations,” Mr. Mulet said. “Maybe they knew, and so they were preparing the ground for this already.”

The panel’s mandate from the United Nations Security Council expires in just over a week, with no clear sign it will be renewed.

On Tuesday, the panel’s latest findings — that Syrian forces were responsible for a lethal assault using sarin nerve agent on the village of Khan Sheikhoun this past April 4 — were rejected by Russian and Syrian diplomats at a Security Council meeting.

Russia’s deputy permanent representative, Vladimir Safronkov, ridiculed Mr. Mulet in his objections to the findings, which were based on witness interviews, photographs, videos and chemical analysis of soil samples that the Syrian government had provided.

Mr. Mulet said he had not been surprised by the criticism, given what he described as Russia’s protests of the panel’s research methods in the months leading up to the report.

He said Russian diplomats would tell him how the panel should operate, warning him that “if you don’t do it this way, we will not accept your conclusions.”

Messages left with the press office of Russia’s United Nations Mission for comment on Mr. Mulet’s assertions were not immediately returned.

The 26-member panel, known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism, which was created to independently determine who is responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, also has found that Syrian forces used chlorine bombs in the conflict, and that Islamic State militants have used mustard poison.

 John Bolton is a Bush era bully and a fool, I agree with you there. It's a worry he's now in with Trump.

Again, as with the Salisbury thing, the situation in Syria isn't that there are allegations of CWs but no evidence/ with made up claims (as was the case with Iraq), but that there are definitely CWs used, and the aim is to determine who used them. The scientific and investigative methods with JIM and Syria were as thorough and rigourous as would be expected and hoped, with  stated  limitations, lack of co-operation from various actors and so on clearly documented and reported in a neutral and clear fashion. The objections from Russia came, as the UN panel leadder said, as no surprise because they were threatening right through to reject any verdict that said "it was Assad". It's clear and partisan from Russia. I'm staggered that you'd think differently.

[LondonLax]

This discussion on the chemical weapons attack seems to have gone around in circles for about 3 or 4 pages here without anyone remotely shifting their opinion  

 

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

This discussion on the chemical weapons attack seems to have gone around in circles for about 3 or 4 pages here without anyone remotely shifting their opinion  

 

[Brumerican]

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

This discussion on the chemical weapons attack seems to have gone around in circles for about 3 or 4 pages here without anyone remotely shifting their opinion  

 

It's what Putin wants.

Us clowns using more leccy.

[HanoiVillan]

Daniel Larison on point:

The Perils of an Illegal Attack on Syria

'Trump made a revealing comment on Syria yesterday:

“We have a lot of options, militarily,” the president said after the Cabinet meeting. “And we’ll be letting you know pretty soon — probably after the fact [bold mine-DL].”

Not only will there be no debate or vote in Congress before the president orders an illegal attack on another government, but he probably won’t bother to inform the public until after it has already happened. You couldn’t ask for a more straightforward expression of contempt for constitutional government and the consent of the governed than this. The U.S. is once again about to commit acts of war against another state on the whim of one man, and he probably isn’t even going to explain the reason for that illegal action before he takes it.

There is a real chance that U.S. strikes on the Syrian government could provoke retaliation from Russia, Iran, and Syria. Depending on how extensive the attack is, there is a decent chance that it will kill Iranian and Russian military personnel. That could potentially put the U.S. in a state of war with as many as three other states, one of which is a nuclear-armed major power. If one or more of those states chose to escalate against U.S. forces in Syria or elsewhere, there is no telling how costly this new conflict could become. Regardless, it is not up to the president to decide whether the U.S. goes to war against any of these states. I don’t think one has to be a strict constructionist or a stickler for Congress’ role in matters of war to grasp that the president has no authority to initiate hostilities against one or more foreign governments in response to an attack that took place inside another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or its allies.'

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-perils-of-an-illegal-attack-on-syria/

[peterms]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

This discussion on the chemical weapons attack seems to have gone around in circles for about 3 or 4 pages here without anyone remotely shifting their opinion  

 

I don't think that's right.  You'll never convince me of that.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's true there were difficulties, as listed by the JIM in performing their work in the war zone.

and al Nusra Front controlling the area, and filling the crater with concrete.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

There were also others such as The Syrian Gov't refusing to provide flight logs for their aircraft, where there was evidence of aircraft dropping CW bombs

The report refers to flight records and other records provided by the Syrian government.  It says Syrian aircraft "may have been in a position to launch aerial bombs in the vicinity".  They also had access to the Pentagon's flight track map, which I suppose they considered a reliable source.  The evidence they quote is discussed here by Paul McKeague (MCM refers to the authors, and H1, H2 to different hypotheses of what happened):

Quote

The flight track, reassessed

MCM had access to the Pentagon’s map and to “another aerial map” which “indicated that the closest to Khan Shaykhun that the aircraft had flown had been approximately 5 km away”. This is even less compatible with H₁ than my lower bound of 2 km on the distance from the alleged impact site, based on a low-resolution image of the Pentagon’s map obtained from a news story. MCM did not question the accuracy of this flight track, or introduce any alternative explanation such as another jet undetected by radar. An interview with the pilot, and the flight log at the airbase were consistent with the flight track. However MCM found an expert who was prepared to state that

depending on a number of variables such as altitude, speed and the flight path taken, it would be possible for such an aerial bomb to be dropped on the town from the aforementioned distances.

The heavily qualified wording of this sentence suggests that the expert did not state that the alleged impact sites were compatible with the recorded flight track. As the Russian Ministry of Defence briefing pointed out, while it might just be possible for an Su-22 travelling at maximum speed and altitude for bomb release to toss a bomb 5 km ahead of the release point, the jet would still have to turn after releasing the bomb, and this would take it within 2 km of the impact point. However the flight track is even more unequivocally incompatible with the alleged airstrikes than this argument implies. The flight track shows only a single east-west pass to the south of the town. Under H₁ this flight track has to account not only for the crater that was the alleged impact site of a chemical munition, but also for the high explosive bombs that allegedly caused the three explosions documented by plumes on videos and images of damaged buildings, and for whatever device caused the cloud of white fog also mentioned by MCM (discussed below under “other relevant observations”).

 

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, peterms said:

and al Nusra Front controlling the area, and filling the crater with concrete.

Exactly. Lack of co-operation wasn't limited to one side or the other. The JIM reported fairly and openly, and were hindered by a number of circumstances and actors. It wasn't a case of "bias" against any one side.

Quote

The report refers to flight records and other records provided by the Syrian government.  It says Syrian aircraft "may have been in a position to launch aerial bombs in the vicinity".  They also had access to the Pentagon's flight track map, which I suppose they considered a reliable source.  The evidence they quote is discussed here by Paul McKeague (MCM refers to the authors, and H1, H2 to different hypotheses of what happened):

This (from the JIM report), for example, backs up my point about failure of the Syrians to provide [incriminating] aircraft log details. There's more in there, but as a starter for 10.

Quote

The Mechanism repeatedly requested flight logs, situation reports and other documents of the Syrian Arab Armed Forces from the Government. The Government has not yet provided them.

You link to (yet another) a blog by a Edinburgh based academic and e mail list adminstrator who is interested in Global finance ("My academic field is social and political philosophy....An interest that links my academic research to both my politics and personal life is learning from Cuba) , who in turn gave a page of his blog to another Edinburgh  based academic and blogger...who have... how can I put this? a certain outlook and pre-disposition (one perhaps shared by yourself) regarding Russia, the US and so on. (examines everything we got wrong about the economy, finance, business, tech and leadership which led us to this moment in history)

I think I'll stick with the actual Chemical Weapons experts (with their associated access to other expert advice) who worked for the OPCW and the UN and condcted the investigations for conclusions as to what their own investigations showed.

[TheAuthority]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

This discussion on the chemical weapons attack seems to have gone around in circles for about 3 or 4 pages here without anyone remotely shifting their opinion  

 

[sne]

Trump's top Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert resigns.

Wonder what lovely character they will dig up to replace him.

Dick Cheney perhaps?

 

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

Trump's top Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert resigns.

Wonder what lovely character they will dig up to replace him.

Dick Cheney perhaps?

 

Given that he seems to have gone because of the appointment of Bolton, I imagine the recruitment procedure will just involve showing candidates pictures of dead children and flattened tower blocks and seeing how, ahem, excited they get.

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, sne said:

Trump's top Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert resigns.

It's incredible exactly how often and how many people keep resigning or getting fired by Trump. It's almsot impossible to believe that the system in the US is just letting this utter s**tshow carry on. There can't be any of them in the US Government who remotely thing Trump is up to the job, capable, competent, even safe.

But it just rumbles on...

For all that Trump is throroughly unfit for ther job, the system is even more messed up.

 

[sne]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

It's incredible exactly how often and how many people keep resigning or getting fired by Trump. It's almsot impossible to believe that the system in the US is just letting this utter s**tshow carry on. There can't be any of them in the US Government who remotely thing Trump is up to the job, capable, competent, even safe.

But it just rumbles on...

For all that Trump is throroughly unfit for ther job, the system is even more messed up.

 

I guess it works differently in the US.

But if this was happening in Sweden the tax payers would be forced to pay salaries and compensation for all the people being sacked and replaced.

It would a huge issue here if there was this kind of revolving door with government people.

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

This (from the JIM report), for example, backs up my point about failure of the Syrians to provide [incriminating] aircraft log details. There's more in there, but as a starter for 10.

Where do you get that?  I don't find it in the report I linked on Khan Shaykhoun.  Instead, I find

Quote

The Mechanism engaged with the Syrian Arab Republic for planning purposes, including by requesting that a liaison officer be based in Damascus. The Mechanism received a positive response to that request on 11 July 2017 and thereafter commenced planning to visit the country.
49. In letters dated 5 and 19 July 2017, the Head of the Mechanism requested that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic provide official records regarding arrangements and movements at Sha‘irat airbase with respect to 4 April 2017.
50. During the first visit to Damascus by members of the Leadership Panel, from 19 to 21 August 2017, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic provided all materials requested by the Mechanism. During that mission, the Head of the Mechanism met with representatives of the Government, including the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates and members of the armed forces.
51. During the Mechanism’s second visit to Damascus, from 7 to 11 September 2017, a technical team of the Mechanism conducted witness interviews, collected information and met with representatives of the Government, including officials from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre.
52. During its third visit, from 8 to 10 October 2017, the Mechanism went to Sha‘irat airbase. After having received information provided by the Syrian Arab Republic during its first and second visits to Damascus, the Mechanism considered that such a visit would be of value to its investigation into the incident at Khan Shaykhun. The technical visit had the following objectives: (a) to verify the authenticity of the logbooks and flight operations records from 4 April 2017; (b) to review entry and exit logs and interview responsible personnel; (c) to photograph the types of munitions flown on 4 April 2017 in accordance with the logs received; and (d) to photograph the mechanisms for attaching such munitions onto Sukhoi Su-22 aircraft. Collecting samples at the airbase was not an objective of the visit; the Mechanism had determined that doing so would not advance the investigation. The Mechanism considered that if a single chemical munition had been flown from the airbase, there was little chance of finding any trace of sarin or its degradation products at an airbase of that size without specific information as to where to collect samples.
53. In addition to carrying out those visits to the Syrian Arab Republic, the Leadership Panel held regular meetings with representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic in New York.
54. As stated in the fourth, fifth and sixth reports of the Mechanism (see S/2016/888, S/2017/131 and S/2017/552), on 10 October 2016 the Syrian Arab Republic notified the Mechanism that the Syrian national committee had opened an
internal investigation, which included flight plans and air operations. To date, the Syrian Arab Republic has not provided the Mechanism with the outcomes of the investigation.

 

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

An interest that links my academic research to both my politics and personal life is learning from Cuba

Cuba, you say? 

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think I'll stick with the actual Chemical Weapons experts

Perhaps best not to quote online gamer and former lingerie worker Eliot Higgins, then.