(OT) Reuters Column: War Without End

The one who started it (who also happens to be one of the Nobel Peace Prize winners) didn't even have a courtesy to inform us first, but now, according to Reuters columnist Jack Shafer, it is "our war" now.

I happened on this column as translated into Japanese at Reuters' Japanese site, and looked for the English original at Reuters. I have no idea whether the column has been read widely or how many retweets it has gotten. My guess is not widely read and few retweets, as it is a depressing read (except for those with ties to the defense industry, I suppose).

From Reuters (9/24/2014; emphasis is mine):

War without end: The U.S. may still be fighting in Syria in 2024, 2034, 2044 . . .

This must be what perpetual war looks like.

In a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Army Lieutenant General Bill Mayville called the cruise missiles and bombs flung at targets in Syria “the beginning of a credible and sustainable persistent campaign.” How long will the campaign last? “I would think of it in terms of years,” Mayville responded.

Although the bombs exploded on Syrian soil, they didn’t target Bashar al-Assad’s battered, murderous regime. The bombs were addressed to Syria’s enemy, the Islamic State, a nascent nation that has pledged to topple both Iraq and Syria, as well as Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Cyprus, and parts of southern Turkey, and erect a caliphate on the parcel.

But in attacking Syria’s enemy, the United States wasn’t looking to make friends with Syria. President Barack Obama called for Assad to step down in 2011, and it was only last year that the United States was prepared to bomb Syria for having crossed the chemical-weapons “red line” to kill its own citizens. Not that the United States is remarkably choosey about which nations it counts among its allies. Among the Middle East nations joining with the United States to strike Syria is Qatar, which has allowed one of its sheikhs to raise funds for an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. As you know, the United States is at war with Al Qaeda in all of its flavors, including the Syria-based Khorasan Group, upon which U.S. bombs fell this week. The Khorasan Group is said to be plotting attacks on the United States and Europe.

Our perpetual war is complicated, however, by the fact that the Islamic State is the sworn enemy of Al Qaeda, from which it split earlier this year because it couldn’t play nice with Al Qaeda’s other affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is also fighting the Assad regime. Or, to look at it another way, the enemies of America’s enemies are not automatically America’s friends; and even America’s friends, which can be permissive about the flow of money to Al Qaeda, aren’t necessarily America’s friends either.

America has allies in Syria’s civil war, of course, including Harakat Hazm, part of the Free Syrian Army. Harakat Hazm is fighting Assad, but it has also fought alongside America’s enemy Jabhat al-Nusra, which has not disqualified it from receiving U.S. weapons and training. Harakat Hazm took exception to the American-led bombing of Syria in a statement, calling it an “external intervention” and “an attack on the revolution,” according to a Los Angeles Times report. So Harakat Hazm, America’s friend, which fought with America’s enemy against Syria—which is neither friend nor enemy—objects to the fact that America bombed Syria in pursuit of the Islamic State, which is also Harakat Hazm’s enemy. Meanwhile, the militant Shiite group Hezbollah is drone-bombing Jabat al-Nusrat along the Lebanon-Syria border at the same time Israel is downing Syrian jets.

Confused yet? You’ll have plenty of time to catch up. As Mayville promised, this conflict will likely go on for years.

It’s a wild card war in which allies and enemies seem arbitrary and ever-shifting. Will the American attacks strengthen the Assad regime by weakening the Islamic State, as some speculate? Or will it drive Jabhat al-Nusra closer to the Islamic State, at least in the interim? Or will the American-funded “moderates” shake off their masters and place Assad in their gun sights instead of the Islamic State? National security reporter Thomas E. Ricks, a man not subject to confusion, can’t decide whether to call the latest hostilities a new installment of a new Thirty Years’ War (1991-2021?) or another chapter in the War of the End of the Ottoman Empire (1914-2040?).

A war with a conclusion that its participants can’t see or can’t imagine is a war without end. None of the dig-in parties in Syria and Iraq look like pushovers, but neither do any of them look like sure bets. Without American intervention, the current war will likely rage on. With regard to American intervention, not even the Pentagon dares to predict an end.

For Americans, at least so far, this war is rumbling on like background noise. The usual markers of military victory—body-counts tabulated, territories seized and banked, no-fly zones established, governments-in-waiting imposed, and elections supervised—don’t apply to the Syria war. The borders, combatants, allegiances, and military objectives in the Syrian war are too fluid to conform to our usual expectations. Nor do the usual markers of peace seem to exist. There are no peace talks taking shape, no shuttle diplomacy, no evidence of a dominant power about to exert its might to create a lasting peace by flattening everybody.

In hypothesizing a 30-year-long war, I fear that Tom Ricks was off by a factor of two or three. In bombing Syria, President Obama, who inherited this war, has made this war his war, the next president’s war, and our war. Today, tomorrow, and for as far as the eye can see. Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Combine this perpetual war for perpetual peace with Ebola scare (the disease is supposedly now out of control, thanks to oh-so-competent (not) WHO and UN), and we have FEAR hanging over us perpetually.

Enter Hermann Goering, who supposedly said the following in Nuremberg:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

Tweet

(OT) Today's John Kerry on Syria: "It Was Me Who Suggested Syria's Chemical Weapon Control Last Week"

After the scramble to spin Secretary Kerry's blunder during a press briefing in London on Monday which gave an opening to Vladimir Putin was unsuccessful, the Obama administration's Tuesday's spin is that it is not Russia but the US who suggested it, and it was last week.

From Buzz Feed (9/10/2013):

Administration Changes Russian Proposal’s Origin Story

WASHINGTON — The Obama Administration’s explanation of how a Russian proposal to get rid of Syrian chemical weapons came to be has morphed rapidly in the past 24 hours from being portrayed as an unexpected slip-up to — in its new incarnation — a plan that U.S. officials were involved in as early as last week.

“I had some conversations about this with my counterpart from Russia last week,” Secretary of State John Kerry said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, referring to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. “President Putin raised the issue with President Obama at St. Petersburg. President Obama directed us to try to continue to talk and see if it is possible. So it is not something that — you know, suddenly emerged, though it did publicly. But it cannot be allowed to be a delay.”

Later, under questioning by Rep. Hank Johnson, Kerry said he had not made a mistake when he suggested the proposal in a press conference in London on Monday.

“I didn’t misspeak,” Kerry said. “I was asked about it. I responded because I was asked.”

(Full article at the link)

How he takes us for fools who cannot (do not, would not) remember what his own department put out yesterday that his remark was nothing but "hypothetical and rhetorical".

But now the Obama administration's "strategy" today is to make it near-impossible for the UN Security Council to come to any agreement on Russia's proposal for an international supervision of Syria's chemical weapons. Russia has just withdrawn the request for the emergency session of the Council.

Meanwhile "Syrian rebels" that the US supports are dead set against political solutions, as they have been planning their offensive around the coming US military attack on Syria.

Mccain-Graham duo now says the Assad administration's willingness to submit its chemical weapons under international supervision is an excellent reason for the US Congress to vote "yes" on launching a military attack on Syria.

President Assad, during his interview with Charlie Rose that was aired on Monday, said:

"... for us in Syria, we have principles. We'll do anything to prevent another crazy war in the region. ... It's not about me, it's about the region."

Tweet

(OT) US Secretary of State John Kerry's Own Goal on Syria, and Obama Takes Credit for Possible "Political Solution"

Now the Obama administration is busy taking credit for possible political solutions on Syria, after Russia made good use of Secretary Kerry's blunder, aka "hypothetical" remark, during a press briefing in London on Monday, and Syria, the UN, and a host of political leaders around the world (including UK's Cameron) warm up to the Russian proposal of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision.

Even the GOP duo McCain and Graham, who have been staunch supporters of President Obama's policies and initiatives, say "the proposal should be given a chance".

Harry Reid has delayed the procedural vote in the US Senate due to this new development (aka he doesn't have enough vote to pass the resolution).

From Washington Post (9/9/2013; emphasis is mine):

(Original title of the article as seen on the browser bar: Syria says it 'welcomes' Russia proposal on chemical weapons)

(Current article title is all about Obama) Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal

Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.

...

The timing of the new proposal was awkward and its apparent genesis perhaps more so.

It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack.

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, adding, “We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer.”

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government “welcomes Russia’s initiative, based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.”

Although Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies having a stockpile of the widely banned weapons, the idea of international control also quickly gained traction among diplomats and at least some senior Democrats whose support Obama seeks for a show of force.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal.

“I think if the U.N. would accept the responsibility of maintaining these facilities, seeing that they’re secure, and that Syria would announce that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we’ve got something,” Feinstein said.

The Russian announcement was met with approval by international backers and critics of a U.S. strike. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has said a U.S. attack on Syria would be illegal without U.N. approval, signaled support, as did British Prime Minister David Cameron.

French Foreign Minister Laurant Fabius, whose government had said it would join an American attack and who two days ago stood at Kerry’s side in Paris to pledge an all-out effort to build public support, said it was worth testing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been wary of a strike, welcomed the idea.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“We should not trust, and we must verify,” the pair said in a joint statement.

A senior State Department official said Kerry warned Lavrov that the United States was “not going to play games.”

Current and former Obama administration officials scrambled Monday to say the proposal should not derail plans for a punitive strike. They suggested it was a delaying tactic after more than two years of diplomatic efforts with Syria and its ally Russia, albeit one spurred by the prospect that a U.S. military attack is imminent.

“It’s very important to note that it’s clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said at the White House. “So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested.”

(Full article at the link)

Senator John McCain's initial reaction to Secretary Kerry's own goal was, "unbelievably unhelpful".

Tweet

(OT) "Coalition of the Willing" to Attack Syria for Whatever Reason that Obama Administration Comes Up With Has Expanded to 25

(UPDATE) The latest and hilarious development over Syria in the new post.

===================

Nations who signed the joint agreement with the US at G20:

Australia
Canada
France
the U.K. (even though the Parliament voted No)
Italy
Japan
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey

As of 9/9/2013, according to Washington Times):

Albania
Croatia
Denmark
Estonia
Germany
Honduras
Hungary
Kosovo
Latvia
Lithuania
Morocco
Qatar
Romania
United Arab Emirates

Total 25 mighty nations of the world.

As the Obama administration sends out top officials (including this one of Benghazi fame) to TV networks to prep the general public for the big speech by Mr. Obama himself on Tuesday, Russia has proposed the initiative for chemical weapon disarmament for Syria, and Syria has welcomed the proposal. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is now calling for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons in internationally supervised safe zones.

Tweet

(OT) Obama's Chief of Staff Says Military Attack on Syria Is to Teach Iran a Lesson (UPDATED)

(UPDATE 9/9/2013) "Coalition of the willing" has added new members. See the list at the bottom.

============================

Rumor has it (other than the amount of money each candidate cities spent on winning the hearts and minds of IOC members) that Istanbul lost because of its proximity to Syria and Middle East. (See Xinhua news, for one.)

True that this Olympic is for 2020 not this year or the next, but it seems the recency bias worked on the IOC members.

The reason for the Obama administration to attack Syria continues to shift, and the latest reason was offered by Obama's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on NBC "Meet the Press" by David Gregory on Sunday, September 8, 2013.

It's about teaching IRAN, not Syria, a lesson.

But instead of attacking Iran to teach the lesson, the Obama administration wants to attack Syria.

Now that's clear, I wonder how many Senators and Congressmen/women will rush to the support of the President.

From NBC News (9/8/2013):

McDonough says attack on Assad regime would send message to Iran

By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday that an impending U.S. attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons.

“This is an opportunity to be bold with the Iranians,” McDonough said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

He said, “nobody is rebutting the intelligence; nobody doubts the intelligence” that is the basis for President Barack Obama pinning the blame for an August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria on President Bashar Assad's regime which is fighting to suppress a rebellion that began in 2011.

McDonough noted that “our troops have not been subject to chemical weapons attacks since World War I” and argued that “we have to make sure that for the sake of our guys – our men and women on the front lines – that we reinforce this prohibition against using chemical weapons.”

If Assad is not deterred, he will put chemical weapons on the front lines in his battle against the Syrian rebels and that would mean “a greater risk of them being proliferated” and perhaps falling into terrorists’ hands, McDonough argued.

He added that “the momentum on the battle field will be changed by a targeted, limited effort” but he said ultimately “there’s not a military resolution” to the civil war in Syria, only a “political, diplomatic resolution.”

(Full article at the link)

In the video segment at the link, Mr. Gregory shows the Youtube video (he doesn't say it's from Youtube) which was then edited by the State Department for public consumption and breathlessly explains that was the work of the Assad regime.

"Nobody is rebutting the intelligence, nobody doubts the intelligence"? I've seen several already, including the one from Russians on March 2013 attack, and the one from the retired US military and intelligence officers. I suppose Mr. McDonough's "nobody" means "nobody" in the administration and in the US Congress who are in support of attacking Syria.

So far, the "coalition of the willing" for Obama on attacking Syria includes:

10 countries at G20 who signed the joint statement with the US):
Australia
Canada
France
the U.K. (even though the Parliament voted No)
Italy
Japan
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey

(and)
few unnamed Arab countries, as per Secretary Kerry

(as of 9/9/2013, according to Washington Times)
Albania
Croatia
Denmark
Estonia
Germany
Honduras
Hungary
Kosovo
Latvia
Lithuania
Morocco
Qatar
Romania
United Arab Emirates

The Japanese government pretends as if the statement they signed at G20 was not about military intervention.

Tweet

(OT) Obama Manages to Get 10 Nations at G20 to Support US Attack on Syria

They are: Australia, Canada, France, the U.K., Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey.

These nations signed a joint statement that says they "support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

Spain is not actually a G20 member but "permanent guest".

(What a coincidence, all three 2020 Olympics candidate nations are with Obama.)

Those nations who didn't sign: Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, India, Germany, South Africa, Indonesia

The European Union is against the military strike.

The joint statement on Syria, full text, via International Business Times (9/6/2013):

The Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leaders' Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:

The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.

We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong U.N. Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.

We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.

We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G-20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.

European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.

So, according to the US and the supporters, there is no military solution for Syria but they will attack Syria militarily anyway:

• "The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime."

• They will attack Syria militarily to "send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated", even though they are fully aware that "Syria’s conflict has no military solution".

One of the keywords here seems to be "clearly". So they are not sure. The word is rather weak to justify bombing a country with 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles and B-2 and B52 bombers.

We haven't been shown any credible evidence beyond rebel-supplied youtube videos and a whisper of secret "intelligence" which may or may not have been doctored. A pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime? The UN has said the March 2013 attack was by the so-called rebels with make-shift devices.

Minor details, obviously, to Mr. Obama and his global supporters.

Tweet

(OT) The US Attack on Syria Much Bigger Than Anticipated, Will Include 200 Tomahawk Missiles and Intense Aerial Bombing by B2, B52

The US military attack on Syria has been being sold by the Obama administration as surgical strikes by cruise missiles to teach Assad a lesson.

Well, President Obama lied, it seems.

Here's ABC News quoting military officials who say the US government is preparing for a much larger-scale campaign involving firing almost all of 200 Tomahawk missiles fired from 4 navy destroyers off the coast of Syria and aerial bombing by B2 and B52 flying from the United States.

According to ABC News, one official said, "This military strike could do more damage to Assad's forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years."

From ABC News (9/5/2013):

As I wrote in my previous post, there is a research reactor near Damascus that uses 90% enriched uranium as the core.

Meanwhile, in an ironic turn of event, President Obama eagerly sought out Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for an hour-long meeting, according to Nikkei Shinbun. The US previously declined to meet with Abe at G20, and when Mr. Abe visited the US earlier this year all President Obama offered was a short, working lunch meeting. Despite whatever personal misgivings that Mr. Obama may have had about Mr. Abe, that was not really a way to treat a prime minister of the world 3rd largest economy and the 2nd largest buyer of US Treasuries (3rd largest, if you include the US Federal Reserve).

But the increasingly lonely US president wanted another staunch ally (France's Hollande is still gung-ho on Syria), and there was Mr. Abe.

Tweet

Russia Warns of Nuclear Disaster if Miniature Neutron Source Reactor Near Damascus Is Hit by the US Attack

There are seven 27-kW Miniature Neutron Source Reactors (MNSR) in the world, which were all made by China. They are research reactors that use 1 kilogram of 90% (or greater) enriched uranium as the core, according to IAEA (see below).

The Russian Foreign Ministry warns that "the region [the Middle East and North Africa] could be at risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium". The ministry spokesman urged IAEA to conduct risk assessment.

About Miniature Neutron Source Reactors, from IAEA (emphasis is mine):

The Chinese-built Miniature Neutron Source Reactors (MNSR, 27 kW) reactors (two in China, five abroad) are low-power, neutron source RRs [Research Reactors] used primarily for neutron activation analysis, education, and training. These reactors have cores consisting of about 1 kilogram of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium], enriched to 90% or greater. The IAEA initiated a Coordinated Research Project (CRP) in June 2006 to assist in the conversion of these reactors to LEU [Low Enriched Uranium].

Institutions in China, Ghana, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria are participating as contract holders in this CRP. The U.S. (Argonne National Laboratory) is an agreement holder. All contract holders have acquired an understanding of the technical and other steps necessary as well as the documentation that will be required to satisfy regulatory requirements. Information acquired through the CRP will be published by the Agency in the form of a technical publication. This will serve as an addendum to the IAEA’s existing core conversion handbook.

Russia's warning, from CBS News (6/5/2013):

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned any military intervention in Syria would create a nuclear disaster.

“If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MSNR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich stated, according to Russia Today.

Lukashevich said if a military strike were launched without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council that new suffering for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa would occur. He added that the region could be at risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium and it would no longer be possible to account for nuclear material, its safety and control.”

He urged the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to complete a risk evaluation carrying out “an analysis of the risks linked to possible American strikes on the MNSR and other facilities in Syria.”

Rueters quoted an IAEA spokesperson stating the agency was aware of the statement, but is waiting for a formal request asking the agency to complete risk evaluation and that the group would consider the questions raised if a request is received.

(Full article at the link)

The atomic bomb that was detonated over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Little Boy, contained 65 kilograms of uranium enriched to 80%. Less than 1 kilogram underwent nuclear fission, and 0.6 gram was transformed into initially kinetic energy, then heat and light, according to Wiki.

A typical light-water reactor has the core with Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) enriched to 3 to 5%.

Tweet

(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 Policymic.com (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 Amazon.com owns the paper, who says "Put readers first not advertisers, don't write to impress each other.")

And here's MoveOn.org, on all-out campaign to stop the war, from Daily Caller (9/4/2013):

MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org 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,” MoveOn.org 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.”

MoveOn.org, 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,” MoveOn.org 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.

Tweet

(OT) Russia's Foreign Minister: Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, "US and Allies on a Slippery Slope"

(UPDATE) UK's Guardian says warplanes are gathering in the UK base in Cyprus, and the UN inspection team was attacked in Syria.

===================

From Bloomberg News (8/26/2013):

The U.S. and its allies are on a “slippery slope” to military intervention in Syria that will have “extremely dangerous” consequences for the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

Any military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law,” Lavrov told reporters in Moscow today. He ruled out a Russian military response.

World leaders from Washington to Istanbul called for action to punish Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for what they said was his use of chemical weapons as United Nations inspectors attempted to probe the allegations. Some Syrian opposition groups say 1,300 people were killed in the Aug. 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

“Western leaders are making statements that indicate that they won’t wait for the results of this commission, they have already decided everything,” Lavrov said. “It’s a very dangerous slippery slope that our Western partners have gone on before. I hope common sense prevails.”

U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain is convinced Assad was behind the Aug. 21 attack and that there was agreement with the U.S. and France on the need to respond. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said his country will join a “coalition” against Syria if the UN fails to act.

The accusations are “nonsense,” Assad said in an interview with Russian newspaper Izvestia published today.

“First they make an accusation and only then search for evidence,” he said.

‘Past Mistakes’

Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council which has blocked all resolutions condemning its Soviet-era ally Syria, yesterday urged the U.S. not to “repeat past mistakes” like the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. and its allies attacked Iraq without UN approval after Russia, France and Germany refused to endorse the military operation to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the situation in Syria with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone today, according to a statement on the Kremlin’s website.

U.S. statements expressing readiness for involvement in Syria’s more than two-year conflict have set off “deep alarm” in Russia, Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in a phone conversation yesterday, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said on its website.

There are “multiple indications” that the Syrian opposition staged the attack to incriminate Assad’s government, Lavrov said.

(Full article at the link)

Back in the days right before the US-led attack on Iraq after a group of mostly Saudi nationals slammed highjacked jets into the World Trade Center buildings, the Bush administration sent Colin Powell to the UN ("weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq) and Condoleezza Rice to the media (you don't want to see "mushroom cloud") to flat-out lie. Those were the good old days when enough people bought their lies.

Meanwhile, the US stock market ended near the day's low, rapidly (in about 8 minutes) reversing a modest gain after Secretary of State John Kerry stopped speaking:

What jumped was gold, without waiting for the drop in the stock market:

Tweet

(Wag the Dog) US Decides Syrian Government Used Chemical Weapons Against Rebels (and Not the Other Way Around)

(UPDATE 2) Washington Post reports (6/14/2013) CIA is preparing to deliver arms to rebels in Syria via clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan. The government officials, including Obama's speechwriter-turned-advisor Ben Rhodes, are quoted in the article expressing confidence that they know who are the "good" rebels and who are the "bad" rebels. Trust us, they are saying...

================================

(UPDATE) By the way, a war game is underway in Jordan, called "Eager Lion 2013". How coincidental. 18 nations join the US. 5,000 Americans from all services, including Marines, participate.

================================

Benghazi scandal

Phone records scandal

DOJ Spying on journalists scandal

IRS scandal

State Department sex and drug ring scandal

NSA leak and snooping scandal

Blitzkrieg on the Obama administration and President Obama has finally succeeded. So, now,

"U.S. Concludes Assad Used Chemical Weapons Against Rebels"

Time for direct military support including training rebels in Jordan, and no-fly zone out of Jordan. (I see. That's why NSA was very busy collecting intelligence out of Jordan in March this year.)

Didn't UN say it was the so-called "rebels" who may have used sarin gas? Don't bother with details, I guess.

From Bloomberg (6/13/2013):

The U.S. has confirmed that Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria used chemical weapons against rebels and will escalate deliveries of military aid to opposition forces, an administration official said.

Assad’s forces used the nerve gas sarin on a “small scale” several times against the opposition, causing 100 to 150 deaths, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters on a conference call.

The U.S. is stepping up assistance to the Syrian opposition, including aid that would have “direct military purposes on the ground,” Rhodes said, without elaborating. He refused to say whether that would include weapons.

“We’re just not going to be able to lay out an inventory of what exactly falls under the scope of that assistance,” Rhodes said. He said the administration has “not made any decision to pursue” establishing a no-fly zone over Syria.

“We’ve prepared for many contingencies,” he said.

(Full article at the link)

And Wall Street Journal (6/13/2013) on Jordan:

WASHINGTON—A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials.

Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border.

To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials.

The White House is currently considering proposals to arm the rebels in Jordan, according to U.S. officials. White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to comment on the details of those deliberations.

The limited no-fly zone wouldn't require the destruction of Syrian antiaircraft batteries, U.S. officials said.

Officials said the White House could decide to authorize the U.S. to arm and train rebels in Jordan without authorizing the no-fly zone recommended by military planners. A White House announcement could come soon, officials said.

(Full article at the link)

Wall Street Journal says "officials" but it looks the "officials" are Mr. Ben Rhodes.

His entry on Wikipedia says he has been Obama's foreign policy speech writer since 2007. His brother is the president of CBS. For more about Mr. Rhodes, here's one link that is informative.

Right on cue, the usual suspects issue their joint statement praising the administration's decision.

The Obama administration, with the strong support from politicians like Graham and McCain, will support the "rebels" who executed a 14-year-old boy in front of his parents because the boy "insulted Islam".

Totally irrelevant but not knowing it, Japan's Prime Minister Abe is likely to announce at G-8 that Japan will join the EU and the US in directly supporting the Syrian "rebels", without ever wondering who these "rebels" are. He is just desperate for Japan to join the winning side.

Tweet

"Depleted Uranium Used by Israel" in Bombing Outside Damascus, Syrian Military Official Alleges

From Jerusalem Post quoting Russia Today (5/6/2013):

'Israel used depleted uranium shells in Syria'

Israel used depleted uranium shells in the alleged strike in Syria on Sunday, a senior Syrian military source told Russia Today on Monday.

"When the explosion happened it felt like an earthquake, then a giant golden mushroom of fire appeared. This tells us that Israel used depleted uranium shells," the source said.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the production of enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors. It is 2.5 times as dense as steel, which allows it to penetrate heavy protection. The material is known to be toxic, but not dangerously radioactive.

Syrian state television claimed the bombing occurred around a military research facility at Jamraya. The New York Times reported that the strike also targeted the bases of the elite Republican Guard and storehouses of long-range missiles.
The senior official speaking to RT downplayed the strategic importance of the weapons targeted in the attack, saying the military losses were "negligible" and that valuable equipment was removed from the site of attack after a previous strike.

"The target was just an ordinary weapons warehouse. The bombing is an ultimatum to us – it had no strategic motivation," he was quoted by RT as saying.

A Western intelligence source told Reuters the attack targeted "stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah," while a senior Hezbollah source denied to Kuwaiti daily Alrai on Monday that the weapons targeted belonged to his organization.

(Full article at the link)

It is interesting, almost amusing, that the Israeli newspaper quotes all these news sources in describing the attacks allegedly by Israel. The Israeli government remains silent on the attacks.

Meanwhile, contradicting what the US administration has been saying (and still saying, as of Monday), the UN investigators say it may have been the rebel forces in Syria that used sarin gas, not the Assad regime.

Tweet

(OT) Stratfor: The Consequences of Intervening in Syria

"Unintended" consequences of indirect intervention in Syria, as per Stratfor, with a short summary of the situation in Africa as introduction.

From Stratfor, by Scott Stewart (1/31/2013; part, emphasis is mine):

The Consequences of Intervening in Syria

The French military's current campaign to dislodge jihadist militants from northern Mali and the recent high-profile attack against a natural gas facility in Algeria are both directly linked to the foreign intervention in Libya that overthrew the Gadhafi regime. There is also a strong connection between these events and foreign powers' decision not to intervene in Mali when the military conducted a coup in March 2012. The coup occurred as thousands of heavily armed Tuareg tribesmen were returning home to northern Mali after serving in Moammar Gadhafi's military, and the confluence of these events resulted in an implosion of the Malian military and a power vacuum in the north. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other jihadists were able to take advantage of this situation to seize power in the northern part of the African nation.

As all these events transpire in northern Africa, another type of foreign intervention is occurring in Syria. Instead of direct foreign military intervention, like that taken against the Gadhafi regime in Libya in 2011, or the lack of intervention seen in Mali in March 2012, the West -- and its Middle Eastern partners -- have pursued a middle-ground approach in Syria. That is, these powers are providing logistical aid to the various Syrian rebel factions but are not intervening directly.

Just as there were repercussions for the decisions to conduct a direct intervention in Libya and not to intervene in Mali, there will be repercussions for the partial intervention approach in Syria. Those consequences are becoming more apparent as the crisis drags on.

Intervention in Syria

For more than a year now, countries such as the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and European states have been providing aid to the Syrian rebels. Much of this aid has been in the form of humanitarian assistance, providing things such as shelter, food and medical care for refugees. Other aid has helped provide the rebels with non-lethal military supplies such as radios and ballistic vests. But a review of the weapons spotted on the battlefield reveals that the rebels are also receiving an increasing number of lethal supplies.

For example, there have been numerous videos released showing Syrian rebels using weapons such as the M79 Osa rocket launcher, the RPG-22, the M-60 recoilless rifle and the RBG-6 multiple grenade launcher. The Syrian government has also released videos of these weapons after seizing them in arms caches. What is so interesting about these weapons is that they were not in the Syrian military's inventory prior to the crisis, and they all likely were purchased from Croatia. We have also seen many reports and photos of Syrian rebels carrying Austrian Steyr Aug rifles, and the Swiss government has complained that Swiss-made hand grenades sold to the United Arab Emirates are making their way to the Syrian rebels.

With the Syrian rebel groups using predominantly second-hand weapons from the region, weapons captured from the regime, or an assortment of odd ordnance they have manufactured themselves, the appearance and spread of these exogenous weapons in rebel arsenals over the past several months is at first glance evidence of external arms supply. The appearance of a single Steyr Aug or RBG-6 on the battlefield could be an interesting anomaly, but the variety and concentration of these weapons seen in Syria are well beyond the point where they could be considered coincidental.

This means that the current level of external intervention in Syria is similar to the level exercised against the Soviet Union and its communist proxies following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The external supporters are providing not only training, intelligence and assistance, but also weapons -- exogenous weapons that make the external provision of weapons obvious to the world. It is also interesting that in Syria, like Afghanistan, two of the major external supporters are Washington and Riyadh -- though in Syria they are joined by regional powers such as Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, rather than Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, the Saudis and the Americans allowed their partners in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to determine which of the myriad militant groups in Afghanistan received the bulk of the funds and weapons they were providing. This resulted in two things. First, the Pakistanis funded and armed groups that they thought they could best use as surrogates in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. Second, they pragmatically tended to funnel cash and weapons to the groups that were the most successful on the battlefield -- groups such as those led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose effectiveness on the battlefield was tied directly to their zealous theology that made waging jihad against the infidels a religious duty and death during such a struggle the ultimate accomplishment.

A similar process has been taking place for nearly two years in Syria. The opposition groups that have been the most effective on the battlefield have tended to be the jihadist-oriented groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. Not surprisingly, one reason for their effectiveness was the skills and tactics they learned fighting the coalition forces in Iraq. Yet despite this, the Saudis -- along with the Qataris and the Emiratis -- have been arming and funding the jihadist groups in large part because of their success on the battlefield. As my colleague Kamran Bokhari noted in February 2012, the situation in Syria was providing an opportunity for jihadists, even without external support. In the fractured landscape of the Syrian opposition, the unity of purpose and battlefield effectiveness of the jihadists was in itself enough to ensure that these groups attracted a large number of new recruits.

But that is not the only factor conducive to the radicalization of Syrian rebels. First, war -- and particularly a brutal, drawn-out war -- tends to make extremists out of the fighters involved in it. Think Stalingrad, the Cold War struggles in Central America or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans following the dissolution of Yugoslavia; this degree of struggle and suffering tends to make even non-ideological people ideological. In Syria, we have seen many secular Muslims become stringent jihadists. Second, the lack of hope for an intervention by the West removed any impetus for maintaining a secular narrative. Many fighters who had pinned their hopes on NATO were greatly disappointed and angered that their suffering was ignored. It is not unusual for Syrian fighters to say something akin to, "What has the West done for us? We now have only God."

When these ideological factors were combined with the infusion of money and arms that has been channeled to jihadist groups in Syria over the past year, the growth of Syrian jihadist groups accelerated dramatically. Not only are they a factor on the battlefield today, but they also will be a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Read more: The Consequences of Intervening in Syria | Stratfor

(The Consequences of Intervening in Syria is republished with permission of Stratfor.)

I have heard other stories (here, here, and here for example) about Syrian jihadist "rebels", but not from Stratfor.

Now comes Israel.

Tweet