I'm willing to wait a couple of weeks, but ...
as to the President, we really will have to wait and see. From Bill Moore's cited Reuters article:
Quote:
Obama has been reluctant to intervene in Syria's 2-1/2-year-old conflict and U.S. officials stressed that he has yet to make a decision on how to respond. A senior senator, Republican Bob Corker, said on Sunday he believed Obama would ask Congress for authorization to use force when lawmakers return from summer recess next month.
To be clear upfront, I'd vote against the "2013 Syrian AUMF".
However, I haven't a clue about what Congress would do if given that AUMF. But, I can't think of an "AUMF" that was voted down when initially requested by a President. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin AUMF was revoked, but years after the event.
So, my feeling that missiles will fly is still there. The unanswered question is whether we'll see unilateral Presidential action during the Congressional recess ? Or, joint Presidential-Congressional action after Congress returns ? In either case, alia jacta est.
The issues become (and the political temptations will tease), after tossing some missiles and air strikes at Assad: (1) do you remove the "bad guys" from power by serious and costly warfare ?; and, if so, (2) do you then engage in equally serious and even more costly state building to assure that the "good guys" hold onto power ?
And, of course, who in hell (Syria) are the good guys and who are the bad guys ?
So, I believe, it's heading - Lessons Learned ? I doubt it.
Regards
Mike
Bill Moore Scoops Jack Goldsmith; Fox on Syria
This morning's lede article on Lawfare by Jack Goldsmith, General Dempsey on Syria Intervention:
Quote:
As at least some form of minimal military intervention in Syria now looks likely, it is worth reading carefully the letter that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey sent last Monday to Representative Eliot Engel. The letter includes this passage:
Quote:
[T]here are certainly actions short of tipping the balance of the conflict [in Syria] that could impose a cost on them for unacceptable behavior. We can destroy the Syrian Air Force. The loss of Assad’s Air Force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict. In a variety of ways, the use of US military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.
Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not. The crisis in Syria is tragic and complex. It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and violent struggles for power will continue after Assad’s rule ends. We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options in this context.
From two days ago, we have Bill Moore, A voice of reason. So, HT to Bill; and SWC: getting there firstest with the mostest. :)
-------------------------------------
One article and two videos from Fox - just a quick review of the weekend's events.
As Obama appears closer to Syria response, Congress now urges caution:
Quote:
U.S. confirmation took more than four months after rebels similarly reported chemical attacks in February, though in this instance a U.N. chemical weapons team is already on the ground in Syria. Assad's government, then as now, has denied the claims as baseless.
I don't see the President waiting for 4 months, unless he decides that no military action should be taken. That would be OK with me, but not likely to be the case.
Is military action inevitable in Syria? (5 min; Homeland Security Committee Chair Rep. McCaul).
Time for the US to intervene in Syria? (13 min.; Sen. Bob Corker and Rep. Eliot Engel).
Regards
Mike
PS: Added for the enjoyment of Carl and all other "the USG is full of hot air" proponents: Judge Jeanine: US gov’t full of nothing but hot air?
Syria Special Issue of the CTC Sentinel
Syria Special Issue of the CTC Sentinel
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
From the Voice of the Obama WH,
NBC News.
Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say.
Quote:
Video (10 min.) - NBC News reports that a military strike against Syria could come as early as Thursday. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, Politico's Rebecca Sinderbrand, The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., discuss.
Quote:
Hard copy - By Jim Miklaszewski, Catherine Chomiak and Erin McClam, NBC News
The United States could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to the Syrian regime than to cripple its military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.
The disclosure added to a growing drumbeat around the world for military action against Syria, believed to have used chemical weapons in recent days against scores of civilians and rebels who have been fighting the government for two years.
In three days of strikes, the Pentagon could assess the effectiveness of the first wave and target what was missed in further rounds, the officials said.
U.S. military options in Syria: A briefing.
Quote:
Video (2 min.) - NBC's Richard Engel reports from the Turkish border that Syrians believe that if the U.S. does not respond with military force to what they believe are chemical attacks against citizens, it will only encourage Bashar al-Assad to strike again.
Quote:
Hard copy - By Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Erin McClam, NBC News
The crisis in Syria deepened Monday as U.N. weapons inspectors, allowed to access the area where an alleged chemical attack occurred last week, were fired on by snipers. As the situation deteriorates, military intervention becomes less of an “if” and more of a “when” — and that task would probably fall to the United States.
Regards
Mike
What a fine kettle of fish this is
I was reading earlier today on the AP newswire a Syrian Kurd stated it wouldn't make sense for Assad to use a chem weapon that close to his stronghold. However, it would make perfect sense for rebels to use it on some civilians and point the finger at Assad. We've been saying for months chemical weapons represented a "red line" and hinted force would be used. He certainly made an interesting point. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing who set off that weapon. None. Without that information, I doubt we won't see more out of the UN than a strongly condemnation. I'm sure both Assad and the rebels will quiver in abject terror when they read it.
If Muslim nations take the lead, it may devolve into a sectarian war. Iran is focused on Western interference at the moment, so other Muslims taking the lead will throw a wrench in that. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia take the lead, I would expect to see the rhetoric change- most likely stop- and Syrian Shi'ite militias with new toys and training. It's not like they don't have decades of experience supporting proxies. I don't think boots-on-the-ground is an option for two reasons:
1. It would be political suicide at home.
2. Getting there is mighty tough with Iraq and Turkey in the way.
Extremists will say whatever Muslim country comes to help the other side is a Puppet of the West, so that's about par for the course.
What could go wrong?" / "something must be done!
The title is taken from a column by James Fallows in The Atlantic. In effect he asks Americans and those in power to ponder upon:
Quote:
In the face of evil we should do something, except when the something would likely make a bad situation worse.
Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-syria/279086/
In the UK little mention has been made of the Kosovo air campaign in 1999, unlike what appears via my Twitter feed from the USA. Perhaps PM David Cameron will "sing the same tune" on Thursday, as Parliament has been recalled to debate what next.
Fallows cites a linked article that looks at Kosovo, which has a telling passage:
Quote:
That the NATO alliance of 780 million people eventually prevailed over Serbia, a country of ten million with a gross domestic product equal to two-thirds that of Fairfax County, Virginia, is hardly a precedent to celebrate, particularly since it proved so spectacularly that the marriage of coercive diplomacy to limited precision bombardment is a colossal failure.
From:http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/...the-crosshair/