Wednesday, September 4, 2013

(OT) Syria War Justification by Obama Administration: "Our Credibility Is At Stake"

(UPDATE 9/5/2013) To preserve credibility of POTUS and by extension of the world, the US military is preparing not only Tomahawk cruise missile attacks but also intense aerial bombing by B2 (stealth bomber) and B52. See my new post.


To preserve credibility, President Obama wants to bomb Syria, while backtracking on his infamous "red line" threat.

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the modified resolution full of holes by 10 to 7, with one Democrat voting "present".

The majority of Americans remain opposed to any military attack on Syria, and even President Obama's support base is overwhelmingly against it.

So will they do it anyway? President Obama and his Secretary of State have said so a number of times already. The US-trained and armed "Syrian rebels" are marching into Syria, according to the president himself, says UK's Telegraph (9/3/2013), "newspaper paper of record".

Why is this mad rush to attack a small country which has been already decimated in 2-year civil war, with 20% of its population as refugees? To preserve Mr. Obama's credibility?

From (9/4/2013):

Latest Syria War Justification is the Worst One Yet

Michael Luciano

Did you hear? Apparently, the United States needs to take military action against Syria – not because it poses an actual threat to the United States (it doesn’t), not because it’s undermining the vital interests of the United States (it isn’t), and not because a strike will topple President Bashar al-Assad (it won’t), but because the U.S. must preserve its “credibility” in the international arena.

The argument goes something like this: Last year, President Obama made an off-the-cuff remark about a “red line” in Syria, and said if Assad used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, that would “change my equation” vis-à-vis his approach toward Syria, even though Obama never explicitly threatened military action. Now that Assad has used chemical weapons, it is incumbent on Obama to strike to make good on this earlier, vague threat.

Or as the hacktacular David Ignatius recently explained in the Washington Post,

“Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit ... [Obama] needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’”

Although Ignatius says that the main reason for a strike “should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons,” the fact is, the “credibility” argument pervades his thinking, just as it does Obama’s.

Here’s Obama speaking in Sweden on Wednesday:

The international community's credibility is on the line ... And America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because (otherwise) we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

(Full article at the link)

It looks like Washington Post remains the cheerleader of the administration in war, despite the ownership change. (Jeff Bezos of owns the paper, who says "Put readers first not advertisers, don't write to impress each other.")

And here's, on all-out campaign to stop the war, from Daily Caller (9/4/2013): announced its opposition to military action in Syria on Tuesday after conferring with supporters.

The left-wing organization called on supporters on Tuesday to decide the liberal advocacy group’s position on whether the U.S. should use military force to respond to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

On Wednesday, the results were in — 73 percent of respondents said the outfit should oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.

“History has shown again and again that even a ‘limited’ military engagement can quickly become a slippery slope to seemingly endless war. But stopping this war is within reach,” wrote in an email to supporters.

So we need to unleash the power of our more than 8 million member community right away to make it clear to Congress that we oppose military action in Syria,” the organization said. “Congress will vote on the authorization to use military force as soon as next week, and members of Congress are making up their minds right now, so we need to act fast.”, which also opposed the war in Iraq, is encouraging its members to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on the use of military action in Syria.

“President Obama is proposing a military strike that raises the specter of another Iraq War—and we’re still dealing with the costs of that war today,” wrote. “It’s critical that every one of MoveOn’s 8 million members pick up their phones today to let Congress know plain and simple: We oppose a military intervention in Syria.”

Republican Congressman Matt Salmon says he has received 500 calls from his constituents, and only 2 were in support of military intervention in Syria.

Senator Rand Paul says he will filibuster to stall the Senate vote on the war resolution, like he did on the Defense Appropriation Bill over the Obama administration's use of drones.

Maybe he could alert more Americans that the US government has been funding and training "Syrian rebels" who are members of Al-Qaeda affiliates and many of whom are not even Syrians.


Anonymous said...

The World should bomb the crap out of Japan for continuing to unleash an unmitigated radiological attack on the world.

Seriously though, it's about time for financial embargoes and sanctions. Maybe that will get Abe's attention.

Anonymous said...

Then Abe will dump all US Treasuries...

Maju said...

They are playing the congressional card to be able to backtrack while blaming others (those peacenik "doves", you know). Cameron was the most aggressive NATO leader in this defamate-and-bomb campaign and he was the first one to be forced (?) to backtrack. The political consensus is strongly negative everywhere for a simple reason: Assad is Western-minded, while the guerrillas are fanatic Islamists with a clear terror record that would make Kony pale - these can't get any sympathy outside of the Muslim global ghettos.

Probably historians in the future will analyze this episode and spot a lot of subtle changes in the global society, one of them may well be that the mass media is being paid less and less attention and believed even less, also that what the presidents and PMs say is being disbelieved by the masses (and therefore also by many politicians as well). Comparing with the early 2000s, the situation is very different in this regard and that may well mark a very different relation between the global peoples and the media, whose influence and credibility is now dramatically eroded by (mostly) the Internet (a game-changing development perfectly comparable to the printing machine some five centuries ago).

There are also other important issues like the risk of escalation. Russia has already said that it won't go to nuclear war over Syria but Syria has warned it will flatten Israel if attacked, while Iran (a major regional power that can perfectly choke the Strait of Hormuz overnight, never mind gaining control of Iraq, Bahrain, etc.) is also roaring louder and louder. Involving Iran and the whole Persian Gulf in this conflict can only be extremely counter-producing (China wouldn't like that at all for example, the whole global economy could collapse, etc.) This is probably the real reason for many "doves" not to accept the implicit risks: you know how wars begin but not how they end.

So I truly believe that Obama will backtrack with congressional pretext and, naturally, Hollande will not go to war on his own either, risking domestic stability with it.

Anonymous said...

Iran has heavy precision-guided missiles and Hezbollah has been gathering the recon data for them. There would be a major missile exchange between between Iran and GCC oil infrastructure and bases as well, which would evolve into air and sea combat in the days following, amid a concerted effort to sink all US naval forces in the area.

Blocking of the Strait is far worse even than blocking Suez, as all of Asia is affected, so Japan, China Korea, Taiwan and India will tell the US to stop what it is doing immediately and negotiate a ceasefire... or else.

The US would be seen as the enemy and wrecker of of Asia, and they're not going to be nice about it.

So yeah, if Obama has any brains (which is questionable), he and especially Kerry had better shutup very soon.

Anonymous said...

Syria is just a stepping stone. Certain people want certain places wiped out, so they get us to do it for them.

Wish we could just go elsewhere and let them screw themselves.

Anonymous said...

7:27 AM, by "stepping stone" and "certain people" you mean Israel wanting Iran destroyed?

Anonymous said...

It's not their credibility that is at stake---it's their stake that is at stake.

Post a Comment