31 aug 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack had suffered, including twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing. Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC, illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The Secretary of State forgot to mention, however, that this photo was taken during US intervention in Iraq back in 2003.
The photo which was later retracted was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons launched by Assad’s regime.
However, it was later exposed that the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq.
The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.
The decision came after the UK Parliament voted against military action in Syria on Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.
Germany also voiced opposition to a Syrian military intervention saying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it”.
France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond”.
Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group, Doctors Without Borders, reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry”.
The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense”.
He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, inconceivable and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.
Any US action in Syria will be a limited and politically tailored response - Kerry
On Friday Secretary of State Kerry claimed that US intelligence concluded the Assad government is responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus on August 21. Kerry said that the evidence the US has is "clear and compelling" but did not offer and proof. Kerry also added that any action that Barack Obama might decide to take will be limited. "We know there is no ultimate military solution. It has to be political," Kerry said.
According to Kerry, the US knows "where the rockets were launched from and at what time. ... We know where they landed and when."
Kerry claims that 1,429 people were killed in the attack, including 426 children, and said the assessment was based on "multiple" streams of intelligence.
The Assad regime has consistently denied it was responsible.
"Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack," Kerry said, referring to last week's alleged chemical strike outside Damascus."It's done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment."
As Kerry spoke, the White House sent reporters a "unclassified" summary of the US intelligence community's "assessment of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21, 2013."
It says, in part that:
"The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013."
"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information."
"We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack."
"Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah."
Voice of Russia, Infowars
The photo which was later retracted was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons launched by Assad’s regime.
However, it was later exposed that the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq.
The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.
The decision came after the UK Parliament voted against military action in Syria on Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.
Germany also voiced opposition to a Syrian military intervention saying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it”.
France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond”.
Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group, Doctors Without Borders, reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry”.
The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense”.
He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, inconceivable and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.
Any US action in Syria will be a limited and politically tailored response - Kerry
On Friday Secretary of State Kerry claimed that US intelligence concluded the Assad government is responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus on August 21. Kerry said that the evidence the US has is "clear and compelling" but did not offer and proof. Kerry also added that any action that Barack Obama might decide to take will be limited. "We know there is no ultimate military solution. It has to be political," Kerry said.
According to Kerry, the US knows "where the rockets were launched from and at what time. ... We know where they landed and when."
Kerry claims that 1,429 people were killed in the attack, including 426 children, and said the assessment was based on "multiple" streams of intelligence.
The Assad regime has consistently denied it was responsible.
"Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack," Kerry said, referring to last week's alleged chemical strike outside Damascus."It's done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment."
As Kerry spoke, the White House sent reporters a "unclassified" summary of the US intelligence community's "assessment of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21, 2013."
It says, in part that:
"The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013."
"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information."
"We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack."
"Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah."
Voice of Russia, Infowars
News links Syria
Obama says he has decided US should attack Syria
Report: Assad army shells rebel areas after Obama statement
McCain, Graham say cannot support limited Syria strikes
Officials: WH believes Congress will support Syria military strike
Hollande reaffirms support for Syria strike
Agency: Analyzing Syria evidence could take 3 weeks
Report: Assad in bunker; wife, children, safe
UN weapons inspectors arrive in The Netherlands
UN experts in the Netherlands after Syria chemical probe
Iran: If Syria is attacked, Zionists will be attacked
Syrian rebels say plan raids to exploit Western strikes
Obama Reveals His Dictatorship
Obama says U.S. will take military action against Syria, pending Congress’s approval
Saudi spy chief Bandar bin Sultan insults Qataris
Iranian parliamentary delegation arrives in Syria
IRGC cmdr. warns of regional consequences of US attack on Syria
US not contemplating congressional approval for Syria strikes: Lawmaker
Syria ready for foreign strikes: PM
‘Israel beneficiary of US war in Syria’
America’s Israel Lobby Demands “Direct Military Strikes” Against Syria
US: Kerry, Hagel to explain to senators reasons for Syria attack
IDF bolsters troops; IAF circles Lebanon sky
Arab ministers to meet over Syria
Obama says he has decided US should attack Syria
Report: Assad army shells rebel areas after Obama statement
McCain, Graham say cannot support limited Syria strikes
Officials: WH believes Congress will support Syria military strike
Hollande reaffirms support for Syria strike
Agency: Analyzing Syria evidence could take 3 weeks
Report: Assad in bunker; wife, children, safe
UN weapons inspectors arrive in The Netherlands
UN experts in the Netherlands after Syria chemical probe
Iran: If Syria is attacked, Zionists will be attacked
Syrian rebels say plan raids to exploit Western strikes
Obama Reveals His Dictatorship
Obama says U.S. will take military action against Syria, pending Congress’s approval
Saudi spy chief Bandar bin Sultan insults Qataris
Iranian parliamentary delegation arrives in Syria
IRGC cmdr. warns of regional consequences of US attack on Syria
US not contemplating congressional approval for Syria strikes: Lawmaker
Syria ready for foreign strikes: PM
‘Israel beneficiary of US war in Syria’
America’s Israel Lobby Demands “Direct Military Strikes” Against Syria
US: Kerry, Hagel to explain to senators reasons for Syria attack
IDF bolsters troops; IAF circles Lebanon sky
Arab ministers to meet over Syria
Russian President Vladimir Putin says the accusation that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the foreign-backed militants in the country is 'utter nonsense'.
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions. In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense,” Putin told the journalists in the eastern city of Vladivostok on Saturday.
He also called on the United States to show proof that Damascus was behind the attack.
"Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used ... chemical weapons, and say that they have proof; well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," Putin added.
The Russian president added that if Washington fails to show the proof, “that means there is none."
The remarks came after US President Barack Obama said on Friday that he is considering military action against Syria based on intelligence reports.
Putin also told the journalists that President Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should think of the potential victims of a military attack against Syria.
The war rhetoric against Syria primarily intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
A number of Western countries, including the United States, France, and the UK, were quick to engage in a major publicity campaign to promote war against Syria despite the fact that Damascus categorically rejected the claim that it has been behind the attack.
Putin also expressed surprise at a vote in the British parliament on Thursday that rejected London’s role in a potential war on Syria.
“This was completely unexpected for me,” Putin said, noting, "This shows that in Great Britain, even if it is the USA's main geopolitical ally in the world ... there are people who are guided by national interests and common sense, and value their sovereignty."
The Russian President pointed out that the upcoming G20 summit, which will be held next week in Russia’s Saint Petersburg, could be a platform to discuss the crisis in Syria.
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions. In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense,” Putin told the journalists in the eastern city of Vladivostok on Saturday.
He also called on the United States to show proof that Damascus was behind the attack.
"Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used ... chemical weapons, and say that they have proof; well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," Putin added.
The Russian president added that if Washington fails to show the proof, “that means there is none."
The remarks came after US President Barack Obama said on Friday that he is considering military action against Syria based on intelligence reports.
Putin also told the journalists that President Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should think of the potential victims of a military attack against Syria.
The war rhetoric against Syria primarily intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
A number of Western countries, including the United States, France, and the UK, were quick to engage in a major publicity campaign to promote war against Syria despite the fact that Damascus categorically rejected the claim that it has been behind the attack.
Putin also expressed surprise at a vote in the British parliament on Thursday that rejected London’s role in a potential war on Syria.
“This was completely unexpected for me,” Putin said, noting, "This shows that in Great Britain, even if it is the USA's main geopolitical ally in the world ... there are people who are guided by national interests and common sense, and value their sovereignty."
The Russian President pointed out that the upcoming G20 summit, which will be held next week in Russia’s Saint Petersburg, could be a platform to discuss the crisis in Syria.
Obama discusses Syria in PBS interview
According to Israel Radio, Kuwaiti press quotes sources in the Gulf as saying that Washington will launch strikes against Syria from bases in Turkey and Cyprus.
With debate raging over the proper response to President Bashar Assad's purported use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians near Damascus 10 days ago, a US-led assault on Syria is just hours away, Arab media sources said over the weekend.
According to Israel Radio, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas quoted diplomatic sources in the Gulf on Saturday as saying that Washington will launch strikes against Syria either Saturday or Sunday from a number of bases, including those in Turkey, Cyprus and Greece.
The diplomats quoted in the article said that the Americans are waiting for United Nations inspectors to wrap up their investigation of the alleged attack before giving the go-ahead to strike.
The team of inspectors arrived at Beirut International Airport on Saturday, a Reuters witness said.
The team had crossed the land border from Syria into Lebanon earlier in the day after completing its four-day investigation.
In a sign that the government is growing more convinced that an American attack is imminent, Syrian propaganda authorities have instructed the various television stations in the country to begin broadcasting special "war programming" in a bid to raise morale among troops, Israel Radio reported.
According to the report, all of the country's television channels were told on Saturday morning to merge their broadcasts into one and flash images of a more patriotic nature.
Another Kuwaiti daily, Al-Rai, cites sources as indicating that Assad has instructed his armed forces to use all means necessary – including chemical arms – if and when his country comes under attack. The news item was posted on Israel Radio's website and first reported by its Arab language correspondent.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bolster its ally, the Assad government, in its quest to squash a rebel-led campaign to unseat it. According to Israel Radio, the BBC reported that the chairman of the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, Aladdin Burucerdi, visited the Damascus to reassure the regime of Tehran's support.
According to Israel Radio, Kuwaiti press quotes sources in the Gulf as saying that Washington will launch strikes against Syria from bases in Turkey and Cyprus.
With debate raging over the proper response to President Bashar Assad's purported use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians near Damascus 10 days ago, a US-led assault on Syria is just hours away, Arab media sources said over the weekend.
According to Israel Radio, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas quoted diplomatic sources in the Gulf on Saturday as saying that Washington will launch strikes against Syria either Saturday or Sunday from a number of bases, including those in Turkey, Cyprus and Greece.
The diplomats quoted in the article said that the Americans are waiting for United Nations inspectors to wrap up their investigation of the alleged attack before giving the go-ahead to strike.
The team of inspectors arrived at Beirut International Airport on Saturday, a Reuters witness said.
The team had crossed the land border from Syria into Lebanon earlier in the day after completing its four-day investigation.
In a sign that the government is growing more convinced that an American attack is imminent, Syrian propaganda authorities have instructed the various television stations in the country to begin broadcasting special "war programming" in a bid to raise morale among troops, Israel Radio reported.
According to the report, all of the country's television channels were told on Saturday morning to merge their broadcasts into one and flash images of a more patriotic nature.
Another Kuwaiti daily, Al-Rai, cites sources as indicating that Assad has instructed his armed forces to use all means necessary – including chemical arms – if and when his country comes under attack. The news item was posted on Israel Radio's website and first reported by its Arab language correspondent.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bolster its ally, the Assad government, in its quest to squash a rebel-led campaign to unseat it. According to Israel Radio, the BBC reported that the chairman of the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, Aladdin Burucerdi, visited the Damascus to reassure the regime of Tehran's support.
News links Syria
Unilateral US strike on Syria against international law: Russia
Putin: US claim on Syria chemical attack 'nonsense'
Syria says it expects an attack 'at any moment'
Iran MPs to visit Syria to 'condemn chemical arms use'
6th US ship now in eastern Mediterranean 'as precaution'
US claim on Syria 'nonsense' - Putin
‘World awakens against war on Syria’
Unilateral US strike on Syria against international law: Russia
UN team wraps up work, starts to leave Syria
Unilateral US strike on Syria against international law: Russia
Putin: US claim on Syria chemical attack 'nonsense'
Syria says it expects an attack 'at any moment'
Iran MPs to visit Syria to 'condemn chemical arms use'
6th US ship now in eastern Mediterranean 'as precaution'
US claim on Syria 'nonsense' - Putin
‘World awakens against war on Syria’
Unilateral US strike on Syria against international law: Russia
UN team wraps up work, starts to leave Syria
White House image shows US President Barack Obama (R) meeting with his National Security Staff, August 30, 2013
President Barack Obama said the United States was weighing "limited, narrow" action against Syria, as UN inspectors left the country Saturday and opened a window into a possible strike.
Obama emphasized he had made no "final decision" on unleashing military strikes against Bashar Assad's regime, but gave his clearest indication yet that an attack was imminent.
His remarks came after the United States released an intelligence report that concluded the regime had launched a chemical onslaught in the suburbs of Damascus last week, killing 1,429 people, including at least 426 children.
"This kind of attack is a challenge to the world," Obama told reporters at the White House.
"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale," he said, calling the attack a threat to US national security interests.
"The world has an obligation to make sure we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons," the president said, slamming the failure of the UN Security Council to agree on action.
Obama said he was looking at a "wide range of options" but had ruled out "boots on the ground" or a "long-term campaign."
"We are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act," he added.
UN experts meanwhile left Syria and crossed by land into Lebanon in a convoy early Saturday after completing their investigation into the attacks around Damascus and said they would "expedite" a report on whether chemical weapons had been used there.
The team is due to report back immediately to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who has appealed to the West to allow time for their findings to be assessed.
France gave its backing to the US plans, saying a "strong message" should be sent to the Assad regime, but British lawmakers have voted against any involvement in military action and other close US allies said they would not sign up.
Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, has questioned US intelligence about the August 21 gas attacks and has warned against any military strikes without UN backing.
US Secretary of State John Kerry cited "multiple streams of intelligence" indicating that the Syrian government had carried out the chemical attack and that Assad himself is the "ultimate decision maker".
Kerry said failure to act would not only erode the nearly century-old norm against the use of chemical weapons, but would embolden Syrian allies Iran and Hezbollah.
But the United States, faced with an impasse at the Security Council and the British parliament's shock vote Thursday, has been forced to look elsewhere for international partners.
While Germany and Canada ruled out joining any military strikes, French President Francois Hollande -- whose country was a strident opponent of the US-led war on Iraq -- said the British decision would not affect his government's stance.
Hollande said he and Obama "agreed that the international community cannot tolerate the use of chemical weapons, that it should hold the Syrian regime accountable for it and send a strong message."
Turkey, Syria's neighbor, went further still, demanding not just surgical strikes to send a message about chemical weapons but a sustained campaign to topple the regime.
"A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us," Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying by the NTV news channel.
Gruesome pictures of some of the reported victims of the attacks, including children, have shocked the world and piled on the pressure for a response that could draw a reluctant West into the vicious Syrian civil war.
But Russia and Iran, and even some US allies, have warned against any intervention, saying it risks sparking a wider conflict.
Leftist Latin American leaders from the UNASUR bloc expressed their "extreme" concern about the situation in Syria and condemned any possible US intervention.
Divisions over Syria have further chilled the frosty relations between Washington and Moscow ahead of the G20 summit next week in Saint Petersburg, where pointedly there will be no face-to-face talks between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Syria has denied using chemical weapons, and the foreign ministry said that the US intelligence report was "nothing but tired legends that the terrorists have been circulating for more than a week, with their share of lies and entirely fabricated stories."
The military buildup was meanwhile continuing, with US warships armed with scores of cruise missiles converging on the eastern Mediterranean.
In Damascus, the mood was heavy with fear and security forces were making preparations for possible air strikes, pulling soldiers back from potential targets.
More than 100,000 people have died since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and two million have become refugees, half of them children, according to the United Nations.
Some commentators have questioned the wisdom of Obama dragging the United States into another conflict after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- particularly as Al-Qaeda militants are among the rebels fighting the Assad regime.
Some members of the US Congress have voiced support for limited missile strikes, while urging transparency from the administration.
But a new opinion poll found that half of all Americans oppose any US intervention.
President Barack Obama said the United States was weighing "limited, narrow" action against Syria, as UN inspectors left the country Saturday and opened a window into a possible strike.
Obama emphasized he had made no "final decision" on unleashing military strikes against Bashar Assad's regime, but gave his clearest indication yet that an attack was imminent.
His remarks came after the United States released an intelligence report that concluded the regime had launched a chemical onslaught in the suburbs of Damascus last week, killing 1,429 people, including at least 426 children.
"This kind of attack is a challenge to the world," Obama told reporters at the White House.
"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale," he said, calling the attack a threat to US national security interests.
"The world has an obligation to make sure we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons," the president said, slamming the failure of the UN Security Council to agree on action.
Obama said he was looking at a "wide range of options" but had ruled out "boots on the ground" or a "long-term campaign."
"We are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act," he added.
UN experts meanwhile left Syria and crossed by land into Lebanon in a convoy early Saturday after completing their investigation into the attacks around Damascus and said they would "expedite" a report on whether chemical weapons had been used there.
The team is due to report back immediately to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who has appealed to the West to allow time for their findings to be assessed.
France gave its backing to the US plans, saying a "strong message" should be sent to the Assad regime, but British lawmakers have voted against any involvement in military action and other close US allies said they would not sign up.
Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, has questioned US intelligence about the August 21 gas attacks and has warned against any military strikes without UN backing.
US Secretary of State John Kerry cited "multiple streams of intelligence" indicating that the Syrian government had carried out the chemical attack and that Assad himself is the "ultimate decision maker".
Kerry said failure to act would not only erode the nearly century-old norm against the use of chemical weapons, but would embolden Syrian allies Iran and Hezbollah.
But the United States, faced with an impasse at the Security Council and the British parliament's shock vote Thursday, has been forced to look elsewhere for international partners.
While Germany and Canada ruled out joining any military strikes, French President Francois Hollande -- whose country was a strident opponent of the US-led war on Iraq -- said the British decision would not affect his government's stance.
Hollande said he and Obama "agreed that the international community cannot tolerate the use of chemical weapons, that it should hold the Syrian regime accountable for it and send a strong message."
Turkey, Syria's neighbor, went further still, demanding not just surgical strikes to send a message about chemical weapons but a sustained campaign to topple the regime.
"A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us," Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying by the NTV news channel.
Gruesome pictures of some of the reported victims of the attacks, including children, have shocked the world and piled on the pressure for a response that could draw a reluctant West into the vicious Syrian civil war.
But Russia and Iran, and even some US allies, have warned against any intervention, saying it risks sparking a wider conflict.
Leftist Latin American leaders from the UNASUR bloc expressed their "extreme" concern about the situation in Syria and condemned any possible US intervention.
Divisions over Syria have further chilled the frosty relations between Washington and Moscow ahead of the G20 summit next week in Saint Petersburg, where pointedly there will be no face-to-face talks between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Syria has denied using chemical weapons, and the foreign ministry said that the US intelligence report was "nothing but tired legends that the terrorists have been circulating for more than a week, with their share of lies and entirely fabricated stories."
The military buildup was meanwhile continuing, with US warships armed with scores of cruise missiles converging on the eastern Mediterranean.
In Damascus, the mood was heavy with fear and security forces were making preparations for possible air strikes, pulling soldiers back from potential targets.
More than 100,000 people have died since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and two million have become refugees, half of them children, according to the United Nations.
Some commentators have questioned the wisdom of Obama dragging the United States into another conflict after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- particularly as Al-Qaeda militants are among the rebels fighting the Assad regime.
Some members of the US Congress have voiced support for limited missile strikes, while urging transparency from the administration.
But a new opinion poll found that half of all Americans oppose any US intervention.
30 aug 2013
News links Syria
Elizabeth O'Bagy: On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War
11 Reasons Why We Should Not Attack Syria
U.S. may have to act alone against Syria
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria
Elizabeth O'Bagy: On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War
11 Reasons Why We Should Not Attack Syria
U.S. may have to act alone against Syria
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria
Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident.
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.
His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.
According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.
“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.
If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.
Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.
The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”
As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.
UPDATE: Associated Press contacted us to confirm that Dave Gavlak is an AP correspondent, but that her story was not published under the banner of the Associated Press. We didn’t claim this was the case, we merely pointed to Gavlak’s credentials to stress that she is a credible source, being not only an AP correspondent, but also having written for PBS, BBC and Salon.com.
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.
His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.
According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.
“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.
If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.
Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.
The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”
As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.
UPDATE: Associated Press contacted us to confirm that Dave Gavlak is an AP correspondent, but that her story was not published under the banner of the Associated Press. We didn’t claim this was the case, we merely pointed to Gavlak’s credentials to stress that she is a credible source, being not only an AP correspondent, but also having written for PBS, BBC and Salon.com.
Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack suffered, including twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing.
Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The photo was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons via Assad’s regime.
However, it was later exposed the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq. It was not related to Syrian deaths whatsoever and was later retracted.
The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.
The decision came after UK Parliament voted no to military action against Syria Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.
Germany also voiced their opposition to Syria military intervention saying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it.”
France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond.”
Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group Doctors Without Borders reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.”
The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense.”
He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, inconceivable and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.
While Kerry blamed Syria for blocking and delaying the UN chemical weapons investigation, an Infowars report revealed the “Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that ‘there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission,’ a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.”
“Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was ‘too late,’ and that the evidence could have been destroyed,” reported Infowars.
Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding the Syrian rebels, leaving the uninformed public incompetent to form an accurate opinion.
The good news is for the first time in over two hundred years a “British Prime Minister lost a vote on war since 1782, when Parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony’s rebellion,” reported Reuters.
Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The photo was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons via Assad’s regime.
However, it was later exposed the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq. It was not related to Syrian deaths whatsoever and was later retracted.
The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.
The decision came after UK Parliament voted no to military action against Syria Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.
Germany also voiced their opposition to Syria military intervention saying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it.”
France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond.”
Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group Doctors Without Borders reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.”
The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense.”
He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, inconceivable and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.
While Kerry blamed Syria for blocking and delaying the UN chemical weapons investigation, an Infowars report revealed the “Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that ‘there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission,’ a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.”
“Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was ‘too late,’ and that the evidence could have been destroyed,” reported Infowars.
Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding the Syrian rebels, leaving the uninformed public incompetent to form an accurate opinion.
The good news is for the first time in over two hundred years a “British Prime Minister lost a vote on war since 1782, when Parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony’s rebellion,” reported Reuters.
The European al-Wafa' Campaign to help Syrian victims said that it has almost completed arrangements for its second aid convoy to deliver much needed aid to refugee camps in Syria. The organisation said that this convoy is a follow up of a previous one, four months ago. The aid will be transported to the port in Beirut, from where it be transported to the Lebanese Syrian borders ready to be transported into Syria. The aid convoy will start its journey on Monday 2 September, according to a statement by the organisation on Friday.
The statement added that the aid comprises 24 containers loaded with food, child milk and cloths, as well as kitchens for make shift camps that accommodate people displaced because of the crisis and is carried by 12 lorries.
The organisers said that the aid will be distributed to all those in refugee camps, both Palestinians and Syrians.
The statement added that the aid comprises 24 containers loaded with food, child milk and cloths, as well as kitchens for make shift camps that accommodate people displaced because of the crisis and is carried by 12 lorries.
The organisers said that the aid will be distributed to all those in refugee camps, both Palestinians and Syrians.
News links Syria
Kerry: Intel. shows Syria used chemical weapons
US says has 'duty' to act after Syria nerve gas attack
Obama says hasn't made final decision on Syria, looking at limited action, not open-ended commitment
Rand Paul warns Obama of starting major war with Russia over Syria
US to release intelligence on Syria chemical attack on Friday
Netanyahu in general staff meeting: IDF stronger than ever
Kerry: Syrian regime tried to destroy evidence
Kerry: Intel. shows Syria used chemical weapons
US says has 'duty' to act after Syria nerve gas attack
Obama says hasn't made final decision on Syria, looking at limited action, not open-ended commitment
Rand Paul warns Obama of starting major war with Russia over Syria
US to release intelligence on Syria chemical attack on Friday
Netanyahu in general staff meeting: IDF stronger than ever
Kerry: Syrian regime tried to destroy evidence
Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud
Syrians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta say Saudi Arabia provided chemical weapons for an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group which they blame for the August 21 chemical attack in the region, a report says.
The article co-authored by a veteran AP reporter, said interviews with doctors, residents, anti-government forces and their families in Ghouta suggest the terrorists in question received chemical weapons via Saudi spymaster Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud.
The report quoted the father of a militant as saying that his son and 12 others were killed inside a tunnel used to store weapons supplied by a Saudi militant leader, known as Abu Ayesha.
The man described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Anti-government forces, interviewed in the article, complained they were not informed of the nature of the weapons they had been given, nor did they receive instructions how to use them.
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” said one militant.
Another militant accused the Takfiri militants of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front of refusing to cooperate with other insurgents or sharing secret information. “They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” he added.
The authors noted that the doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers against asking questions regarding who exactly was responsible for the deadly assault.
Also more than a dozen militants interviewed said their salaries came from the Saudi government. They reportedly said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” (the lover) by al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria.
According to Independent, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first accused the Syrian government in February of using sarin gas in a bid to rally support for Riyadh’s efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
And The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Saudi spy chief is considered by the CIA as "a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world [who] could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and...wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout."
Syrians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta say Saudi Arabia provided chemical weapons for an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group which they blame for the August 21 chemical attack in the region, a report says.
The article co-authored by a veteran AP reporter, said interviews with doctors, residents, anti-government forces and their families in Ghouta suggest the terrorists in question received chemical weapons via Saudi spymaster Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud.
The report quoted the father of a militant as saying that his son and 12 others were killed inside a tunnel used to store weapons supplied by a Saudi militant leader, known as Abu Ayesha.
The man described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Anti-government forces, interviewed in the article, complained they were not informed of the nature of the weapons they had been given, nor did they receive instructions how to use them.
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” said one militant.
Another militant accused the Takfiri militants of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front of refusing to cooperate with other insurgents or sharing secret information. “They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” he added.
The authors noted that the doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers against asking questions regarding who exactly was responsible for the deadly assault.
Also more than a dozen militants interviewed said their salaries came from the Saudi government. They reportedly said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” (the lover) by al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria.
According to Independent, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first accused the Syrian government in February of using sarin gas in a bid to rally support for Riyadh’s efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
And The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Saudi spy chief is considered by the CIA as "a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world [who] could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and...wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout."
News links Syria
Turkey wants regime change in Syria: Erdogan
Turkish PM says Syria intervention should aim to end Assad rule
Obama: Syrian chemical weapons threaten Israel
Kerry: Syria strike will not be similar to Iraq
US says 1,429 Syrian citizens killed in chemical arms attack
Kerry: Conclusive evidence Assad used chemical arms in Damascus
Sunni cleric implicitly endorses Western strike on Syria's Assad
Senior US official: Obama consults national security team
Syria to UN chief: We'll reject partial reports on chemical use
Turkey says no doubt Assad's forces behind poison gas attack
China tells France facts on Syria a precondition for action
Tel Aviv: Dozens call on Russia to stop supporting Assad
Minister: Germany rules out joining Syria military strike
France says Syria strike possible by Wednesday
Italy FM warns Syria attack could turn conflict global
UN chem. team visits Syria hospital
UN inspectors begin last Syria probe
Turkey wants regime change in Syria: Erdogan
Turkish PM says Syria intervention should aim to end Assad rule
Obama: Syrian chemical weapons threaten Israel
Kerry: Syria strike will not be similar to Iraq
US says 1,429 Syrian citizens killed in chemical arms attack
Kerry: Conclusive evidence Assad used chemical arms in Damascus
Sunni cleric implicitly endorses Western strike on Syria's Assad
Senior US official: Obama consults national security team
Syria to UN chief: We'll reject partial reports on chemical use
Turkey says no doubt Assad's forces behind poison gas attack
China tells France facts on Syria a precondition for action
Tel Aviv: Dozens call on Russia to stop supporting Assad
Minister: Germany rules out joining Syria military strike
France says Syria strike possible by Wednesday
Italy FM warns Syria attack could turn conflict global
UN chem. team visits Syria hospital
UN inspectors begin last Syria probe
A Palestinian youth is silhouetted against the light as Muslim worshippers walked at sunset on 4 August 2013 towards Israel's Qalandia checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem
For the first time since the second intifada, Qalandia airport was the scene of intense activity by both Israeli civilian and military vehicles over the past two days, according to eyewitnesses in the area who spoke to Al-Akhbar. It is believed that the Israeli occupation forces are repurposing the airport to receive civilian and military aircraft, on the back of mounting talk about an imminent region-wide war.
The Jerusalem International Airport, or Qalandia airport as it is commonly called, overlooks the road linking Ramallah to occupied Jerusalem. The airport is located between populated Palestinian areas under the control of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The British Mandate authorities built the airport in the 1920s. Under the Jordanian administration, the airport became a hub for tourism and commerce.
Following the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, it was used in a limited fashion for civil aviation, before the Israelis turned it into an army base during the second intifada. Israel closed down the airport completely in 2000. Recently, the Israelis considered turning it into an industrial park after ownership of the land was transferred to the Jerusalem municipality.
The airport has been also used as a bargaining chip between the Israeli and Palestinian sides during negotiations, with the PNA demanding to turn it into a civilian airport under its control as a condition for negotiations. However, Thursday’s activity at the airport has now raised questions about the goal for rehabilitating it at this time in particular, prompting speculations that Israel may be seeking to turn it into an emergency airport in the event of a full-scale war.
Mahmoud Awadallah, an eyewitness living near the airport, told Al-Akhbar, “We noticed suspicious activity at the airport over the past two days. Two delegations entered the premises, one civilian and one military, accompanied by military vehicles. They conducted repairs and tested the runway by driving over it at high speed. They also installed what appear to be reflectors to facilitate aircraft landing. But they stopped working today.”
In Israel, every aspect of life is being prepared for the worst-case scenario. Shelters are present in every city on a very large scale. Protection gear is widely available, even among ordinary citizens.
Furthermore, there are major expressways that can act as emergency landing strips for military and civilian aircraft, if Israeli airports in the north should come under bombardment. All this raises questions about the reason Israel has chosen to rehabilitate Qalandia airport. Awadallah said, “The occupation wants to shelter itself among the Palestinians, as the old airport, which has been neglected since the beginning of the second intifada, is unlikely to come under attack given its location among Palestinian population centers and its proximity to Ramallah.”
Israel does not have military airports in Jerusalem. Most Israeli air bases are located in the southern regions adjacent to the Gaza Strip, in a cluster stretching from Tel Aviv along the Mediterranean, to the Negev Desert in the south. If Israeli military airports in the north were to be bombed, Qalandia would be the closest functioning airport to Syrian territory.
The Israeli home front is living a real state of war reminiscent of the situation that prevailed inside the Jewish state shortly before the Iraq war in 2003. Anyone following Israeli media would come out with the impression that the international campaign against Syria will begin in a matter of hours. Anti-missile systems like Patriot, Arrow, and the Iron Dome have been widely deployed along occupied Palestine’s northern border, as Israelis flocked to distribution centers providing gas masks for the second day in a row, in anticipation of any chemical attack from the north.
For the first time since the second intifada, Qalandia airport was the scene of intense activity by both Israeli civilian and military vehicles over the past two days, according to eyewitnesses in the area who spoke to Al-Akhbar. It is believed that the Israeli occupation forces are repurposing the airport to receive civilian and military aircraft, on the back of mounting talk about an imminent region-wide war.
The Jerusalem International Airport, or Qalandia airport as it is commonly called, overlooks the road linking Ramallah to occupied Jerusalem. The airport is located between populated Palestinian areas under the control of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The British Mandate authorities built the airport in the 1920s. Under the Jordanian administration, the airport became a hub for tourism and commerce.
Following the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, it was used in a limited fashion for civil aviation, before the Israelis turned it into an army base during the second intifada. Israel closed down the airport completely in 2000. Recently, the Israelis considered turning it into an industrial park after ownership of the land was transferred to the Jerusalem municipality.
The airport has been also used as a bargaining chip between the Israeli and Palestinian sides during negotiations, with the PNA demanding to turn it into a civilian airport under its control as a condition for negotiations. However, Thursday’s activity at the airport has now raised questions about the goal for rehabilitating it at this time in particular, prompting speculations that Israel may be seeking to turn it into an emergency airport in the event of a full-scale war.
Mahmoud Awadallah, an eyewitness living near the airport, told Al-Akhbar, “We noticed suspicious activity at the airport over the past two days. Two delegations entered the premises, one civilian and one military, accompanied by military vehicles. They conducted repairs and tested the runway by driving over it at high speed. They also installed what appear to be reflectors to facilitate aircraft landing. But they stopped working today.”
In Israel, every aspect of life is being prepared for the worst-case scenario. Shelters are present in every city on a very large scale. Protection gear is widely available, even among ordinary citizens.
Furthermore, there are major expressways that can act as emergency landing strips for military and civilian aircraft, if Israeli airports in the north should come under bombardment. All this raises questions about the reason Israel has chosen to rehabilitate Qalandia airport. Awadallah said, “The occupation wants to shelter itself among the Palestinians, as the old airport, which has been neglected since the beginning of the second intifada, is unlikely to come under attack given its location among Palestinian population centers and its proximity to Ramallah.”
Israel does not have military airports in Jerusalem. Most Israeli air bases are located in the southern regions adjacent to the Gaza Strip, in a cluster stretching from Tel Aviv along the Mediterranean, to the Negev Desert in the south. If Israeli military airports in the north were to be bombed, Qalandia would be the closest functioning airport to Syrian territory.
The Israeli home front is living a real state of war reminiscent of the situation that prevailed inside the Jewish state shortly before the Iraq war in 2003. Anyone following Israeli media would come out with the impression that the international campaign against Syria will begin in a matter of hours. Anti-missile systems like Patriot, Arrow, and the Iron Dome have been widely deployed along occupied Palestine’s northern border, as Israelis flocked to distribution centers providing gas masks for the second day in a row, in anticipation of any chemical attack from the north.
Informed opinion agrees that the response to the presumed Assad regime’s responsibility for the use on August 21st of chemical weapons in Ghuta, a neighborhood in the eastern surrounding suburbs of Damascus, is intended to be punitive. This is a way of signaling that it is a punishment for the use of chemical weapons that does not have the ambition of altering the course of the internal struggle for power in Syria or to decapitate Bashar el-Assad. Of course, if it achieved some larger goal unexpectedly this would likely be welcomed, although not necessarily, by such interested centers of influence on Syrian policy as Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belie in influential Western circles, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
Contra Syria Attack
Informed opinion agrees that the response to the presumed Assad regime’s responsibility for the use on August 21st of chemical weapons in Ghuta, a neighborhood in the eastern surrounding suburbs of Damascus, is intended to be punitive. This is a way of signaling that it is a punishment for the use of chemical weapons that does not have the ambition of altering the course of the internal struggle for power in Syria or to decapitate Bashar el-Assad. Of course, if it achieved some larger goal unexpectedly this would likely be welcomed, although not necessarily, by such interested centers of influence on Syrian policy as Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belief, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
Contra Syria Attack
Informed opinion agrees that the response to the presumed Assad regime’s responsibility for the use on August 21st of chemical weapons in Ghuta, a neighborhood in the eastern surrounding suburbs of Damascus, is intended to be punitive. This is a way of signaling that it is a punishment for the use of chemical weapons that does not have the ambition of altering the course of the internal struggle for power in Syria or to decapitate Bashar el-Assad. Of course, if it achieved some larger goal unexpectedly this would likely be welcomed, although not necessarily, by such interested centers of influence on Syrian policy as Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belief, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belie in influential Western circles, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
Contra Syria Attack
Informed opinion agrees that the response to the presumed Assad regime’s responsibility for the use on August 21st of chemical weapons in Ghuta, a neighborhood in the eastern surrounding suburbs of Damascus, is intended to be punitive. This is a way of signaling that it is a punishment for the use of chemical weapons that does not have the ambition of altering the course of the internal struggle for power in Syria or to decapitate Bashar el-Assad. Of course, if it achieved some larger goal unexpectedly this would likely be welcomed, although not necessarily, by such interested centers of influence on Syrian policy as Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belief, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
Contra Syria Attack
Informed opinion agrees that the response to the presumed Assad regime’s responsibility for the use on August 21st of chemical weapons in Ghuta, a neighborhood in the eastern surrounding suburbs of Damascus, is intended to be punitive. This is a way of signaling that it is a punishment for the use of chemical weapons that does not have the ambition of altering the course of the internal struggle for power in Syria or to decapitate Bashar el-Assad. Of course, if it achieved some larger goal unexpectedly this would likely be welcomed, although not necessarily, by such interested centers of influence on Syrian policy as Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv.
Why not necessarily? Because there is a growing belief, highlighted in a cynical article by Edward Luttwak published a few days ago in the NY Times, [“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” Aug. 24, 2013] that it is better for the United States and Israel if the civil war goes on and on, and there are no winners. Accorded to this warped reasoning, if Assad wins, that represents significant regional gains for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; if the Syrian Free Army, and its Nusra Front and Al Qaeda allies win, it gives violent extremist forces a base of operations that would likely work strongly against Western interests. Only Turkey, the frontline opponent of the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, the regional champion of Sunni sectarianism, stand to gain by resolving the conflict in favor of the Sunni-led opposition forces as that would both contribute, as Ankara and Riyadh see it, to greater regional stability, a measure of ideological alignment, involving a major setback for Iran and Russia.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are split on whether it matters that with the fall of Assad a regime is defeated that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in waging a war against its own people. Their contradictory responses to the el-Sisi coup and massacres in Egypt is illuminating on this score: Turkey has adhered to principle at the probable expense of its material interests in the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia has rushed in to provide massive economic assistance and diplomatic support a military takeover that is crushing the leading Muslim political organization in the country.
Another way of thinking about the grand strategy of the United States in the Middle East after the dust began to settle in the region is suggested by the noted Israeli peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery [“Poor Obama,” August 31, 2013]: work frantically behind the scenes to restore the function of governance to military dictators, with Egypt as the poster child. Avnery attributes such Machiavellian machinations to CIA masterminds swimming in dark waters.
The rationale for an American-led attack: a variety of reasons have been given:
–America’s credibility is at stake after Obama ‘red line’ was crossed by launching a large-scale lethal chemical weapons attack;
–America’s credibility is makes important contributions to world order, and should not jeopardized by continued passivity in relation to the criminal conduct of the Assad regime; inaction has been tried and failed [not clearly tried—Hilary Clinton was avowed early supporter of rebel cause, including arms supplies; recent reports indicate American led ‘special forces operations’ being conducted to bolster anti-Assad struggle];
–a punitive strike will deter future reliance on chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, teaching Assad and other leaders that serious adverse consequences will follow upon a failure to heed warnings issued by an American president;
–even if the attack will not shift the balance in Syria back to the insurgent forces it will restore their political will to persist in the struggle for political victory over Assad and offset their recently weakened position;
–it is possible that the attack will unexpectedly enhance prospects for a diplomatic compromise, allowing a reconvening of the U.S.-Russia chaired Geneva diplomatic conference, promoting transition to a post-Assad Syria.
Why is this rationale insufficient?
–it does not take account of the fact that a punitive attack of the kind evidently being planned by Washington lacks any foundation in international law as it is neither undertaken in self-defense, nor after authorization by the UN Security Council, nor in a manner that can be justified as humanitarian intervention (in fact, innocent Syrian civilians are almost certain to be among the casualties);
–it presupposes that the U.S. Government rightfully exercises police powers on the global stage, and by unilateral (or ‘coalition of the willing’) decision, can give legitimacy to an other unlawful undertaking; it may be that the United States remains the dominant hard power political actor, but its war making since Vietnam is inconsistent with the global public good; international law and the UNSC are preferable sources of police powers than is reliance on the discretion and leadership of the United States at this stage of world history;
–U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama has similarities to that of George W. Bush in relation to international law, despite differences in rhetoric and style: Obama evades the constraints of international law by the practice of ‘reverential interpretations,’ while Bush defied as matter of national self-assertion and the meta-norms of grand strategy; as a result Obama comes off as a hypocrite while Bush as an outlaw or cowboy; in an ideal form of global law both would be held accountable for their violations of international criminal law;
–the impacts of a punitive strike could generate harmful results: weakening diplomatic prospects; increasing spillover effects on Lebanon, Turkey, elsewhere; complicating relations with Iran and Russia; producing retaliatory responses that widen the combat zone; causing a worldwide rise in anti-Americanism.
There is one conceptual issue that deserves further attention. In the aftermath of the Kosovo NATO War of 1999 there was developed by the Independent International Commission the argument that the military attack was ‘illegal, but legitimate.’[1] The argument was that the obstacles to a lawful use of force could not be overcome because the use of force was non-defensive and not authorized by the Security Council. It was treated as legitimate because of compelling moral reasons (imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe; regional European consensus; overwhelming Kosovar political consensus—except small Serbian minority) relating to self-determination; Serb record of criminality in Bosnia and Kosovo) coupled with considerations of political feasibility (NATO capabilities and political will; a clear and attainable objective—withdrawal of Serb administrative and political control—that was achieved).
None of these Kosovo elements are present in relation to Syria: it is manifestly unlawful and also illegitimate (the attack will harm innocent Syrians without achieving proportionate political ends benefitting their wellbeing; the principal justifications for using force relate to geopolitical concerns such as ‘credibility,’ ‘deterrence,’ and ‘U.S. leadership.’ [For intelligent counter-argument contending that an attack on Syria at this time would be ‘illegal, but legitimate,’ see Ian Hurd, “Saving Syria, International Law is not the answer,” Aljazeera, August 27, 2013]
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
[1] In the spirit of ‘truth in advertising’ I should acknowledge that I was a member of the Kosovo Commission, and indeed responsible for drafting the section of the report that developed the ‘illegal, but legitimate’ rationale. I admit to some misgivings at the time, which grew larger during the Iraq War debate in which the distinction was again invoked to rationalize an illegal war. In the larger picture of norm development it was the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) norm that attained the greater influence, especially within inter-governmental and UN circles, providing the rationale for the UN authorized attack on Libya in March 2011.
Israel deployed its Iron Dome missile defense system in Tel Aviv on Friday, as the United States weighed military strikes on neighboring Syria, local media said.
Army radio said that a battery of the mobile system was set up during the morning in the greater Tel Aviv area.
News website Ynet said that unlike last November when the interceptor missiles brought down rockets fired from Gaza, to the south, this time they were pointing north, toward Syria.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said Israel had deployed its Iron Dome system to meet its current security needs.
He did not specify where, but media reported earlier in the week that the military was moving two of its short-range Iron Dome batteries and one battery of the mid-range Patriot missile to northern Israel.
"We have decided to deploy Iron Dome and other interceptors," Netanyahu said Thursday night in a statement as he went into security talks at the defense ministry in Tel Aviv.
"We are not involved in the war in Syria. But I repeat: if anyone tries to harm Israeli citizens, the Israeli army will respond with force," Netanyahu said in other remarks broadcast by Israeli television.
There are fears that if the United States and its allies launch military strikes on Syria, forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad or its Lebanese Hezbollah proxies could retaliate against next-door Israel, Washington's key ally in the region.
A poll published by Maariv newspaper on Friday showed 77 percent of respondents saying that if Washington decides not to strike Assad's regime Israel should not take unilateral military action.
Eleven percent, however, did think that Israel should launch a strike if nobody else was prepared to do so.
Twelve percent had no opinion according to the poll of 519 people, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
Army radio said that a battery of the mobile system was set up during the morning in the greater Tel Aviv area.
News website Ynet said that unlike last November when the interceptor missiles brought down rockets fired from Gaza, to the south, this time they were pointing north, toward Syria.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said Israel had deployed its Iron Dome system to meet its current security needs.
He did not specify where, but media reported earlier in the week that the military was moving two of its short-range Iron Dome batteries and one battery of the mid-range Patriot missile to northern Israel.
"We have decided to deploy Iron Dome and other interceptors," Netanyahu said Thursday night in a statement as he went into security talks at the defense ministry in Tel Aviv.
"We are not involved in the war in Syria. But I repeat: if anyone tries to harm Israeli citizens, the Israeli army will respond with force," Netanyahu said in other remarks broadcast by Israeli television.
There are fears that if the United States and its allies launch military strikes on Syria, forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad or its Lebanese Hezbollah proxies could retaliate against next-door Israel, Washington's key ally in the region.
A poll published by Maariv newspaper on Friday showed 77 percent of respondents saying that if Washington decides not to strike Assad's regime Israel should not take unilateral military action.
Eleven percent, however, did think that Israel should launch a strike if nobody else was prepared to do so.
Twelve percent had no opinion according to the poll of 519 people, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
The Israeli regime has threatened that its military will use ‘great force’ in response to the escalation of violence in the region, specifically Syria.
On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the Tel Aviv regime was “not involved in the war in Syria,” but added that the Israeli military “will respond with force” under certain circumstances.
The Israeli threats come amid regional tensions over the crisis in Syria.
Netanyahu said Israel had deployed missile systems such as the Iron Dome.
Meanwhile, Israeli military chief of staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz said the military was “ready for all scenarios.”
Over the past few days, the United States, along with a number of other Western countries, have adopted the rhetoric of war against Syria over allegations that the Syrian government was behind a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar, that killed hundreds of people on August 21.
However, the Syrian government categorically rejected the baseless claims, and announced later that the chemical attack had actually been carried out by the militants themselves as a false flag operation.
On August 26, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that failure awaits the United States - the staunch ally of the Israeli regime - if it launches a war on Syria, describing the recent allegations against Damascus as an “insult to common sense” and “nonsense.”
Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said on Wednesday that the West is seeking to turn Syria into a second Iraq and that the issue of chemical weapons use is only a pretext for war.
He added that any military action against Syria would serve the interests of Israel and al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting against the Syrian government.
On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the Tel Aviv regime was “not involved in the war in Syria,” but added that the Israeli military “will respond with force” under certain circumstances.
The Israeli threats come amid regional tensions over the crisis in Syria.
Netanyahu said Israel had deployed missile systems such as the Iron Dome.
Meanwhile, Israeli military chief of staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz said the military was “ready for all scenarios.”
Over the past few days, the United States, along with a number of other Western countries, have adopted the rhetoric of war against Syria over allegations that the Syrian government was behind a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar, that killed hundreds of people on August 21.
However, the Syrian government categorically rejected the baseless claims, and announced later that the chemical attack had actually been carried out by the militants themselves as a false flag operation.
On August 26, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that failure awaits the United States - the staunch ally of the Israeli regime - if it launches a war on Syria, describing the recent allegations against Damascus as an “insult to common sense” and “nonsense.”
Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said on Wednesday that the West is seeking to turn Syria into a second Iraq and that the issue of chemical weapons use is only a pretext for war.
He added that any military action against Syria would serve the interests of Israel and al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting against the Syrian government.
