White House peeved at Pentagon leaks By GLENN THRUSH <http://www.politico.com/reporters/GlennThrush.html> | 8/30/13 5:10 PM EDT
Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes. But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself. "Deeply unhelpful," was how one West Winger described the drip-drip of doubt. "They need to shut the f--k up," said a former administration official. "It's embarrassing. Who ever heard this much talk before an attack? It's bizarre." (WATCH: John McCain fumes over Syria leaks<http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/john-mccain-fumes-over-leaks-on-syria.html> ) An obvious example<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html> was a report in Thursday's *Washington Post *in which current and former officers listed their worries about Syria: *I cant believe the president is even considering it, said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.* Far more damaging have been a series of disclosures that more subtlely undermine Obama's claim that the Syria action will be quick and clean, punitive and tailored. Earlier this week the*New York Times* reported on doubts<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?pagewanted=2> that the main weapon likely employed against Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Tomahawk cruise missile, would have a meaningful impact on the regime's chemical weapons facilities which are widely scattered and likely to be well hidden. This graf, I'm told, chafed in particular: *The weapons are not often effective against mobile targets, like missile launchers, and cannot be used to attack underground bunkers. Naval officers and attack planners concede that the elevation of the missile cannot entirely be controlled and that there is a risk of civilian casualties when they fly slightly high.* The back-and-forth is hardly unprecedented; For decades, military officials -- the people who actually have to implement war plans -- have been a source of dissent. Think Pentagon Papers. And Obama officials say the criticism isn't coming from Secretary Chuck Hagel and his cadre of top aides but lower-ranking brass. One top leader who has been publicly skeptical of the costs and dangers of getting involved in the Syrian civil war is Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey who offered a cost estimate of $1 billion per month<http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/22/dempsey-syria-intervention-is-act-of-war-that-could-cost-billions/> for a no-fly zone and buffer-zone ground force during congressional testimony earlier this summer. During the same appearance Dempsey predicted such areas could become sanctuaries for Islamic radicals and said even a limited strike, of the type being contemplated now, could cost "billions." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama goes to Congress on Syria as his International Support Collapses<http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/congress-international-collapses.html> Posted on 09/01/2013 by Juan Cole People have been asking why President Obama did not go to Congress about Libya but is willing to do so with regard to a much less robust action in Syria. The answer is a pragmatic and not a legal or constitutional one. Obama did not need Congress in the case of Libya. He had the Arab League, the UN Security Council, and NATO, along with the 60-year history of the post-WW II imperial presidency, in which all wars are police actions and can be initiated by presidential fiat. Some argued that US treaty obligations under the United Nations treaty obligated military action both in Korea in the 1950s and in Libya in 2011 (Congress wasnt involved either time). But as I have been trying to explain in the past few days, President Obama did not have a favorable international climate for a Syria strike. As time went on, he became more and more isolated. The Arab League declined to call for intervention even though it condemned Damascus for chemical weapons use. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and other Arab countries forthrightly denounced the idea of foreign military intervention in Syria, a very different stance than many of them took in 2011 with regard to Libya. The fall of the Muhammad Morsi government in Egypt, and the stigmatization of the Muslim Brotherhood, led to a 180 degree turn in Egyptian policy, with the military junta now more or less supporting the Baath Party in Damascus and hostile to the rebels, who are mostly adherents of political Islam. Then NATO declined to get involved, with Poland, Belgium and others expressing reluctance. Poland explicitly cited its bad experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. <http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/invoking-international-against.html>Then the British Parliament followed suit. It was as though Europe viewed Washington as like the Peanuts cartoon character Lucy, who set up the football for Charlie Brown to kick and then always pulled it away at the last moment, leaving Charlie flat on his back. Europe was saying it wasnt falling for the unhealthy US obsession with Middle East conflict any more, that some problems cant be resolved militarily. The Obamas own intelligence links cast doubt on whether President Bashar al-Assad had actively ordered the chemical weapons attack of August 21, which seems more likely the action of a local colonel who either went rogue or made an error in mixing too much sarin into crowd control gases. The Ministry of Defense seems to have upbraided him. So by Friday, Obama had painted himself into a box with repeated statements that he had to attack Syria because of the gas attack. But as he looked behind him, the troops he was leading had thinned out faster than Custers at the Little Bighorn. With regard to domestic politics, Obama would be pilloried on Capitol Hill if he backed down as his international support (and elements of his case) collapsed. If he went forward with a unilateral strike, he would be alone and exposed, and risk extreme reputational damage if the operation went bad. (What if a cruise missile went astray and hit a village, killing women and children? What if the missile strikes riled up radical Shiites in Iraq and US facilities in that country were attacked). Obama made a clever political calculation. The Tea Party and the GOP in general had been demanding that he submit the Syria file to them. So he obliged them. If they say no, as the British parliament did, then Obama is off the hook. If they say yes, then they are full partners in any failures that result. Either way, the issue is taken off the agenda of the 2016 election and Democrats are held harmless. Those who think a no vote will make Obama an early lame duck do not reckon with how all the votes have been no for some years now. Nothing will change in that regard. Will Congress authorize a missile strike on Syria? I think the odds are fifty-fifty. It is not impossible that the Libertarian Republicans and the left wing of the Democratic Party will ally to defeat the resolution. They came close to derailing NSA spying, after all. And feelings against entanglements in Middle Eastern wars are far more inflamed than on the issue of domestic surveillance. It is remarkable how important the Iraq experience has been in the debates on Syria, and how decisive. Even if the US goes ahead with the strike, it is likely to attempt to keep the action narrow and symbolic, and to avoid troops on the ground, and indeed, generally to stay out of the conflict thereafter as long as no more chemical attacks are launched. Whether it is possible to bomb Syria and then walk away like that isnt clear; but it is the maximal Obama plan. The minimal one is to be able to blame the Tea Party for isolationism and cold disregard of the regimes violation of international law. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syria Audio Analyses: Obama Kicks Can Down the Road Over Response to Chemical Weapons Attacks I spoke with BBC Radio 5 and BBC West Midlands this morning about President Obamas surprise decision<http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/syria-feature-how-and-why-obama-suddenly-changed-his-mind-on-military-action/> to refer US military action on Syria to Congress for approval<http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/syria-analysis-obamas-baffling-turn-to-congress-for-approval/> . BBC Radio 5 (with Stephen Yates, former Bush Administration official): Listen from 1:05:50 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039c2kg> BBC West Midlands: Listen from 16:32<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ffkkd> Take-away points: 1. Obama effectively kicked the can down the road last night. It will be two weeks before the US can take any military action. It doesnt make any sense strategically. 2. The Assad regime will be breathing a sigh of relief. 3. At the end of the day, Obama looked more to domestic opinion and to his powers as Commander-in-Chief than he did to the specifics of the Syrian situation. There is also discussion whether Obama was motivated by the British Parliaments rejection of immediate military action on Thursday, about the domestic political situation in Britain, and the myth of the US-UK special relationship<http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria-analysis-the-night-the-us-uk-special-relationship-died/> . And the conversation with BBC West Midlands ends with the question, Is there any hope in the future for Syria? http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/syria-audio-analyses-obama-kicks-can-down-the-road-over-response-to-chemical-weapons-attacks/ http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/08/win-win-for-assad-as-obama-response-to.html Saturday, August 31, 2013 Win-Win for Assad as Obama Response to CW Mass Murder Put on Hold *As Obama concluded his address, around 9 p.m. local time, shelling on the rebel-controlled suburbs around Damascus surged according to activists reached by Skype and telephone.* With any promised military response from the United States to the Assad regime's murder of over 1400 people, including over 400 children with illegal nerve gas, put off for at least ten day while President Obama seeks congressional approval<http://www.scribd.com/doc/164539022/Draft-resolution-text>, Bashar al-Assad enjoys the best of both worlds as a result of the chemical weapons attack he perpetrated. On the one hand, he can continue to gain all the political benefits, like renewed support at home, in the Arab nation, and in the US Left, that comes to him as a result of being in a direct military confrontation with US imperialism. Never mind all the dead babies, for some he's the anti-imperialist resistance fighter again. On the other hand, any real damage or pain, as usually accompanies US air strikes, is delayed for weeks if it ever comes at all. For now, he is assured of no US attacks, but since they are only postponed, not canceled, their propaganda value remains intact. In fact, it is enhanced, because an attack this weekend might have proven to be slight and then the whole intervention might be declared over and the whole episode soon fade into history. This way Assad faces weeks with the threat of US military assault hanging over Syria. Not only does this give him a lot of time to prepare and thus mitigate the effects of any air assault, the details of which have already started leaking out with more certain to follow while the mission is on hold, it also gives him a lot of time to shift the focus from his brutal war against his own people to this *"war on hold"* with the mighty US imperialists. Meanwhile the world's attention has been shifted away Assad's *continuing* war crimes in East Ghouta with its hundreds of babies shoveled into mass graves to the *possibility* of a US attack on Syria. We all know how President Barack Obama doesn't shy away from putting those he considers *"bad guys"* on his kill-list. Barack Obama's own government has just determined<http://www.scribd.com/doc/164271084/Government-Assessment-of-the-Syrian-Government%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Chemical-Weapons-on-August-21-2013> that Bashar al-Assad has used illegal chemical weapons to murder 1,429 civilians including 426 children, that makes him a *"bad guy."* Few doubt that Bashar al-Assad could wake up dead before sunrise tomorrow if Barack Obama willed it. Instead he gets treated to this diversion from his war crimes and this PR refreshment of his credentials as an*"anti-imperialist resistance fighter."* This is just what *the doctor* ordered. Is there any thing else Barack Obama could do to make things better for his good buddy Bashar al-Assad? Like I've been saying: *Obama's Dilemma and Assad's Opportunity*<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/08/obamas-dilemma-and-assads-opportunity.html> Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/09/barack-obama-courtship-of-bashar-al_4519.html> Obama Denied Gas Masks to Assad's Victims<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/08/obama-denied-gas-masks-to-assads-victims.html> Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad Exposed!<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/02/barack-obama-courtship-of-bashar-assad_6351.html> Obama "green lights" Assad's slaughter in Syria<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/08/updated-obama-lights-assad-slaughter-in_4655.html> Assad's Redline and Obama's Greenlight!<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/08/assad-redline-and-obama-greenlight_2292.html> Chemical weapons use in Syria, Has Obama's red-line has been crossed?<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/breaking-chemical-weapons-use-reported_2829.html> AP weighs in on Obama's Green Light for Assad's slaughter in Syria<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/ap-weighs-in-on-obama-green-light-for_1624.html> [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/
