Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

This just in.  The U.N. committee has delivered it's vote on the Syrian Chemical Weapons and the bill has passed requiring Syria to give up all chemical weapons to be destroyed.

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain  (click link for full story)

-- The U.N. Security Council, capping a dramatic month of diplomacy, voted unanimously late Friday to require Syria to eliminate its arsenal of chemical weapons -- or face consequences.

"Today's resolution will ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons program happens as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency and accountability," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

A U.N. team will be dispatched to Syria on Tuesday.

[JeffreyS]

Along those lines BT.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/26/226423567/even-as-it-criticizes-the-u-n-the-u-s-relies-on-it-too

Even As It Criticizes The U.N., The U.S. Relies On It, Too

Good read.

[Cheshire Cat]

Had some in America and around the world not said "hell" no to Obama's plan to strike Syria, you know because of that "red line" people would already be dead and among them perhaps would be innocent individuals.  Now we are getting a look at the nasty underbelly of what drives so much in the way of military action taken by the United States.  It's appalling that there are those in this country as well as their partners outside that have no regard for the human cost and global impact of actions such as strikes on foreign lands.  Turns out that there were plenty of "interests" being served by the potential strike and it comes down to dollars and cents. 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/conflicts-of-interest-abounded-among-pundits-pushing-for-syria-strike/170463/
(click link for full story)

According to a recently published report by the Public Accountability Initiative, 22 media commentators and seven think tanks — all of whom directly helped drive the public and policy debates on intervening in Syria — failed to disclose their connections with defense and foreign policy firms that bear a vested interest in American involvement in Syria. This presents a problem, as typically these experts were used to give weight to certain media outlets' pundits — particularly through justifying a prolonged military involvement and verifying arguments that otherwise would be dismissed as biased or unfounded.

Stephen Hadley, a national security advisor to former president George W. Bush, argued intensively for military intervention in a host of appearances on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and Bloomberg TV. In a Washington Post op-ed he authored, he stated:

    "The Arab Awakening has caused a crisis in the Middle East that will take years to sort out. There is one Middle East crisis, however, that must be resolved in months, not years. Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria."

However, at no time during his public appearances did Hadley disclose that he was a director at Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk cruise missile system cited as the weapon of choice for the potential strike against Syria. Hadley is the chair of Raytheon's public affairs committee, with 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock in his possession — shares whose cost spiked during the Syria debate. Hadley earns $128,500 annually in cash compensation from the company.

For some, the conflicts of interest were clear-cut — such as officer and board positions or shares in defense contracting companies. For others — who may have ties to private investment firms and consulting firms with client lists that are not automatically disclosed — the conflicts of interest may be difficult to spot or disguised.

"We found lots of industry ties. Some of them are stronger than others. Some really rise to the level of clear conflicts of interest," said Kevin Connor, PAI's director and a co-author of the report. "These networks and these commentators should err on the side of disclosure.

[Cheshire Cat]

Done and Done!  No airstrikes needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0   (click link for full story)

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syria's ability to produce chemical weapons has been destroyed and its remaining toxic armaments secured, weapons inspectors said Thursday, as President Bashar al-Assad has offered unexpectedly robust cooperation, at least so far, with a Russian-United States accord to dismantle his arsenal
Elimination of Mr. Assad's manufacturing ability is the most significant milestone yet in a process that still faces a monumental task: destroying the government's 1,290 tons of declared chemical weapons in the midst of a bloody civil war that has killed well over 100,000 people and carved up control of the country.

Weapons inspectors who have been in the country just one month say that despite battles raging across the country, deep international disagreement over how to stop the war and even what United States officials say was an Israeli strike on a Syrian Army base late Wednesday night, Syria has so far met all of its commitments and deadlines.

By doing so, Mr. Assad's government can claim success in what it said would be a key benefit of the accord — seizing a new measure of credibility and portraying itself not as an outlaw regime but as a reliable and legitimate international player. But opponents of Mr. Assad, including the rebels, are deeply critical of the deal for that very reason — it has helped buttress his position but done nothing to stop the war.

"They want to tell you, 'It's not because you put a deadline — when we say something, we do it before the time,' " a pro-government Syrian journalist, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said of Syrian officials. "The main problem with the West, until now it never understood how the Syrian regime works. Whenever you threaten them you won't get anything."

Mr. Assad's opponents have bitterly denounced the accord as a distraction, and they were dismayed that the chemical weapons attack in August that American officials say killed 1,400 men, women and children near Damascus led not to American military intervention, as President Obama initially threatened, but to an agreement that allows Mr. Assad's supporters to portray him as a statesman.

The deal also created a de facto expectation that Mr. Assad would remain in office at least until mid-2014, when the elimination of the weapons is supposed to be complete under the agreement, critics say. And Syrians — supporters and opponents of the government alike — widely considered chemical weapons a side issue that global leaders were focusing on, rather than finding ways to end the war and its humanitarian disaster

[civil42806]

 
. ...Had some in America and around the world not said "hell" no to Obama's plan to strike Syria, you know because of that "red line" people would already be dead and among them perhaps would be innocent individuals

Slap yourself on the back more! LOL that hilarious, lots of people are dead, we just didn't kill them ( does it count if there own government kills them and not us?).  The shooting keeps going on, now keep in mind I don't care.  It doesn't affect me or anyone I know.  But please lets not pretend that the un inspection team that looked at only the locations that Syria admits were chemical weapons sites are the only ones that exist, they have no authorization to look anywhere else if they wanted to. Frankly as our greatest secretary of state said "What difference does it make now!"...  But the mother that has her sons killed with a bullet in the head can relax, after all he wasn't killed with a gas.

[NotNow]

Unbelievable. 

What were the strategic goals of this country in Syria three months ago?
What were the strategic goals of Russia in Syria three months ago?
What were the strategic goals of the Syrians three months ago?

Who has accomplished their goals and who has not?

Although Syria is a Russian puppet and is not a major US priority, our "allies" in the area place great importance on the country and its activities.  Assad was in real trouble and his government was in danger of falling.  Not any more.  The US Administration was wildly outclassed by the Russians. 

[JeffreyS]

The leadership in this country thought the goal was to put Assad out of power. The actual goal of this country (it's people) was to not get tangled in this ugly mess. So as much as any other party you mentioned this country accomplished it's goals and Russia and Syria had to cave on the chemical weapons.

[NotNow]

We are supplying weapons and supplies to the rebels.  (Who are now losing badly.)  Many of them are supporting AQ in Iraq, which is currently petitioning the US Government for advanced weapons (F-16's, Abrams tanks and such) as well as the training and money to use them to defeat the AQ threat.  The Syrian rebels (becoming refugees) will be coming to the US (yes, the same ones who support AQ in Iraq).  Assad retains power.  The Russians retain "influence" and a base of operations in the Middle East, including Western Iraq which is now under the control of AQ.  Hamas continues to be supported and guided by....several countries but Syria is the back door supplier along with Egypt now.  Israel has thrown off any semblance of a nation at peace and sees the USG for what it has become, an impotent, incompetent, amateurish source of income and weapons that has essentially switched sides. 

So, yeah, we get to say we didn't "get tangled in this ugly mess" even though we all know that we have been involved in it for sixty five years.  We have now managed to alienate the Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyption's, the UAE, and any Iraqi's who still admit any American loyalties.  Notice that the news reports stipulate that "reported" Syrian WMD's are being destroyed.  That means that the Syrians have told us what they have....and we trust that (there are many questions not being answered on this, and our government is not pressing).  In the meantime, arms are flowing and armies are resupplying.  Iraq (look at a map, it is VERY important) is in danger of completely falling to Islamists and the same will likely happen to Libya and Afghanistan after the US leaves in a year.  Egypt is teetering, and much of the region is holding its breath. 

Look, this is not a military problem until seriously incompetent foreign policy forces us into the use of military power.  Syria was never a focus of US interests in the area but the bungling of the civil war in Syria (and our activities in it) has created a more dangerous world for the US. 

[JeffreyS]

Yes we have been tangled for a long time and I agree the Administrations policy here has been bad. However it is a big improvement in our policy to not get involved in two decade long wars because  middle east  leaders act bad. I give the Administration no credit for this change it has been the American people who made the change.  We see that it may take a long time but diplomacy with Iran is the most important middle east initiative.

Syria was never a focus of US interests in the area but the bungling of the civil war in Syria (and our activities in it) has created a more dangerous world for the US. 

This is true but not significantly more dangerous. Our drone policy is likely more important.

[NotNow]

Two questions Jeffrey...

1.  What did Middle Eastern leaders "acting bad" result in two decade long wars?  In other words, what do you think started the Iraqi war and the Afghanistan war?

2.  What is our "drone policy"?  Or perhaps, what is our assassination policy?

[JeffreyS]

1. I guess acting bad was the excuse(harming their own citizens and small support for terrorists.) The final reason is that Bush wanted those wars.

2. I have not seen the inside of Obama's mind but the policy seems to be kill anyone he feels will have a chance of playing well in the press and don't report it if it looks like a kill that didn't work out that well.

[NotNow]

I disagree with your views, but I hope your are more right than me.  I see great danger in both Iran and resulting from our recent foreign policy debacles.