http://qunfuz.com/2013/08/29/debating-intervention/ Qunfuz <http://qunfuz.com/>
Robin Yassin-Kassab Debating Intervention leave a comment »<http://qunfuz.com/2013/08/29/debating-intervention/#comments> This morning I participated in a discussion on the BBC World Service Radios World Have Your Say concerning potential strikes on the Assad regime. Listen here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/p01fkg9v/>. Later in the day I made a brief contribution to Newshour (in the last ten minutes). Here it is <http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/p01ftmv3/>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://pulsemedia.org/2013/08/29/intervention/ Intervention? August 29, 2013 § 1 Comment<http://pulsemedia.org/2013/08/29/intervention/#comments> [image: gas] <http://thinkpress.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/gas.jpg>*If the US-led West wished to invade and occupy Syria, or to engineer regime change from afar, it would have taken advantage of the two-and-a-half-year chaos in Syria to intervene long before now.* *When the US-led West invaded Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussain was contained. Hed committed his genocides in the past, when he was an ally of the West against Iran, and in 1991, under Western military noses (as he slaughtered Shia rebels and their families en masse, the allied forces in Kuwait and southern Iraq gave him permission to use helicopter gunships, and watched). But in 2003 Saddam was contained and reasonably quiet. There was no popular revolution against him. The West invaded anyway, on the pretext of inexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction.* *The Syrian regimes ultra-violent repression of a peaceful protest movement spawned an armed resistance. The regime met the armed resistance with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Then a week ago the regime struck multiple targets in the Damascus suburbs with chemical weapons, perhaps killing as many Syrians in three hours as Palestinians were killed in Israels month-long rampage in Gaza (2008/9).* *The conflict has been well and truly internationalised for a long while now. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have provided limited and intermittent military supplies to various parts of the opposition (the US has prevented them from delivering heavy weapons). The international brigades of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham an enemy both of the regime and the democratic opposition to the regime has been empowered in pockets of northern Syria. The regime has received much more serious financial and military help from Russia and Iran, and has brought in Hizbullah and Iraqi sectarian militias to help it fight its battles. Hizbullahs switch from defence against Zionism to repression of a revolutionary Arab people has propelled Lebanon back to the verge of civil war. Meanwhile, between a quarter and a third of Syrians are displaced, destabilising Turkey and Jordan as well as Lebanon.* *A year to the day before the massive poison gas attacks, Obama set a supposed red line on the regimes use of chemical weapons. Whenever the regime has introduced a new weapon, it has done so quietly and steadily, until its use is normalised and forgotten internationally. So it was with artillery, helicopter gunships, aerial bombardment, scud missiles first these were used rarely, then more frequently, then on a daily basis. And so it is with the gas. Obamas chemical red line had already been repeatedly broken in a small way before last weeks atrocities. American inaction made Assad believe he could get away with a bigger show.* *By this mass attack, Assad was not only trying to clear areas close to the capital in which rebels were deeply entrenched and advancing; he was also telling the military and popular opposition, Look, I can do what I want<http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/august/syria-method-in-assad-madness.htm>. I can increase the pace of the ethnic cleansing and genocide, and still noone will intervene or allow you to become properly armed.* *So now Obama feels he must act, symbolically at least, to show the larger world as well as Assad that Americas word still means something, that it still makes claims to ensuring international order.* *It goes without saying that all states if we must compare them with people are hypocrites, and America, as (still) the worlds most powerful state, much more than most. The white phosphorus and depleted uranium munitions it used in Iraq, for instance, can certainly be considered as weapons of mass destruction, though even their use cannot be compared to Assads sarin savagery. And late 20thCentury America actively aided Saddams chemical programme. But simplistic anti-imperialists (the sort who havent noticed Russias blatant imperialism in Syria) should reflect on the complexity of the situation. Should a tyrant be left unchecked to gas his people? If Israel were doing it to the Palestinians, would outside intervention (of course there would be none) to deter Israel be absolutely wrong? Was it right to leave the Bosnian Muslims to be slaughtered? (Many statist leftists would of course unhesitatingly answer yes to this question). Even with our hypocritical and frequently criminal international community, is there no validity in attempting to preserve the semi-taboo on the mass use of WMD?* *I cannot say what will happen, or if it will happen, or what the ramifications will be. I expect, however, that any American-led attack will not dramatically change the balance on the ground. Obama wants to be seen to be acting, and to deter. He will be scared that Assad, Hizbullah or Iran will respond in such a way that he is pressured to expand the operation to end the regime. And he doesnt want to do this. General Martin Dempsey has recently explained why<http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria-analysis-us-military-rules-out-american-intervention/> America cant find any branch of the opposition ready to assume power and serve American interests.* *One reason that the West doesnt want to end the regime is that, in the north and east, the al-Qaida type militias (indirectly created by Assads traumatisation of the country, as well as by the political failures of loyalist traditionalist clerics) are growing in strength. Their strength flows from the fact that the West and the Arabs failed to arm the Free Army. The ineffective Syrian National Coalition must also bear some of the blame for not working harder to organise a national army from the start, before the jihadists had time to establish themselves. Western, Syrian and Arab timidity and Islamophobia have brought on the worst.* *I expect the upcoming attack to be, in effect if not in image, tepid. It may not do any good at all. It may allow Assad to reap the resistance propaganda victory without changing the calculus on the ground.* *If there is any change to calculus on the ground, it will be because the Sauds are increasing military aid after the mass gas attacks. Apparently 40 tons-worth came in through Turkey this week. But will that be sustained? Never before now.* *And again, the Sauds, like the Americans, like all states, are acting according to their interests. They back Sisis junta in Egypt as it rolls back the victories of the revolution there. In Syria, the Sauds are interested in weakening Iran and Hizbullah, obviously not in facilitating victory for either democrats or radical Islamists who reject Saudi kingship. Syrian fighters facing exile or genocide will take weapons from where they can, but they understand that in the medium and long term, they are on their own, as they have been for the last two and a half years.* Anti-Attack Faction in Obama Administration Says Chemical Weapons Intelligence Not a Slam Dunk The US Office of the Director for National Intelligence has put out a report that the Assad regime is most likely responsible for last weeks chemical weapons attacks; however, a group of US officials pushing against American airstrikes have said the assessment is not a slam dunk of proof<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-slam-dunk-20102965?page=2> . The phrase is a deliberate reference to CIA Director George Tenets assurance to President George W. Bush in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a slam dunk. The officials who appear to be part of the faction within the US Administration arguing against military action also warned that American airstrikes could trigger another deadly chemical event. They said that they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assads supplies of chemical weapons, and the regime could have moved them in recent days. Thus, US attacks could accidentally hit newly-hidden supplies of chemical weapons. while outlining gaps in the US intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, US officials and congressional aides said. The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White Houses full-steam-ahead approach to the 21 August attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. The officials also knocked back a report spread by the pro-attack faction within the Administration of an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike. They insisted that the conversation was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander. AP Sources: Intelligence on Weapons No 'Slam Dunk' WASHINGTON August 29, 2013 (AP) Page 2 of 2 [image: Associated Press] Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials. U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored. In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said. So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said. Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said. The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday. The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden. "We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place." The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response. "Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate." Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction. "There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack," Hague told British broadcaster Sky News. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday. Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper, Julie Pace and Lara Jakes contributed to this report. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
