G-20 debate on Syria: Putin knows clearly which side he wants to win in Syria and why; Obama can’t begin to explain why America should want jihadists to take control of Syria

G-20 debate on Syria: Putin knows clearly which side he wants to win in Syria and why; Obama can’t begin to explain why America should want jihadists to take control of Syria

    Tuesday, September 03, 2013   No comments

Putin has a clear policy on Syria, and he has pursued it with cold determination; Obama’s actions have been hesitant, and his policy objectives are general and obscure. Putin knows clearly which side he wants to win in Syria and why; Obama can’t begin to explain why America should want jihadists to take control of Syria.
Each man will justify his policy and actions at the G20 summit, and Obama, despite America’s enormous military power and vastly larger economy, will be at a disadvantage against Putin. If this is a staring contest, Obama has already blinked.
Obama’s problems this week are partly due to his August 7 decision to cancel the one-on-one summit he’d scheduled with Putin to precede the G20 gathering.

That was a deliberate snub following Putin’s decision to grant former NSA contractor Edward Snowden temporary sanctuary. But in snubbing Putin, Obama allowed his embarrassment over the Snowden affair to derail a yearlong effort to build a dialogue with Russia.
When it decided to snub Putin, the Obama Administration failed to see that Syria would be an important issue at the St. Petersburg summit, which Putin is hosting. At the least it threw away an opportunity to reduce public disagreements with Russia before the G20 gets underway, and perhaps even to defuse the situation in Syria.

 read more >>

The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria

The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria

    Monday, September 02, 2013   No comments

 The Obama Administration has released the text of its proposed congressional resolution for Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria, here is the text:

Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians; Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war; Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons; Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States; Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security; Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction; Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.

SEC. ___ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) Authorization. -- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements. --

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements. -- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began

    Monday, September 02, 2013   No comments

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

read more >>

US President Barack Obama’s decision to seek the approval of Congress over military strikes in Syria has led to calls for French President François Hollande to also put the question of action against Damascus to a parliamentary vote

US President Barack Obama’s decision to seek the approval of Congress over military strikes in Syria has led to calls for French President François Hollande to also put the question of action against Damascus to a parliamentary vote

    Sunday, September 01, 2013   No comments

Pressure is mounting on French President François Hollande to put any motion to launch military strikes against Syria before a parliamentary vote.

It follows Barack Obama’s surprise announcement Saturday that he would seek approval from Congress before taking action against Damascus and Thursday's shock defeat of a motion to approve a military strike in the UK parliament.

On Saturday evening, Jean-Louis Borloo, leader of the centrist UDI party, urged Hollande to follow the example of the US and UK and also seek parliamentary approval before going ahead with an attack on Syria.

The French parliament is due to debate the issue on Wednesday, but as yet, no formal vote on Syria has been scheduled. Under the French constitution, Hollande does not require parliament’s approval in order to launch a military strike.

“Like the US president, who decided to consult the US Congress in the name of democratic principles, the French president must organise, after the debate, a formal vote in parliament," said Borloo in a statement.

A similar request was made by Christian Jacob, the leader in parliament of the right-wing UMP, as well as representatives of several other smaller French political parties on both the left and right.

France on its own as US stalls, UK backs out

read more >>

Putin: it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning its war with rebels

Putin: it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning its war with rebels

    Saturday, August 31, 2013   No comments

Putin told journalists that if Obama had evidence Assad's forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the U.N. weapons inspectors and the Security Council.

"I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin said.

The Russian president said Obama, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should remember the impact any U.S. attack would have on Syrian civilians.

World powers should discuss the Syrian crisis at a meeting of the leaders of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations in St. Petersburg next week, he added. "This (G20 summit) is a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not use it?" Putin said.

read more >>

U.S. intelligence assessment of August 21 suspected chemical-weapons attack near Damascus cites

U.S. intelligence assessment of August 21 suspected chemical-weapons attack near Damascus cites

    Friday, August 30, 2013   No comments

A U.S. intelligence assessment of last week’s suspected chemical-

weapons attack near Damascus cites intercepted communications that allegedly showed Syrian government officials making preparations to use chemical weapons three days before the attack and then launching efforts afterward to cover it up. While it did not present evidence showing complicity by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle, it asserts “with high confidence” that government forces were behind the attack.

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons

Representative Adam Smith: Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of 'doing something' will not secure our interests in Syria

Representative Adam Smith: Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of 'doing something' will not secure our interests in Syria

    Friday, August 30, 2013   No comments

What seemed inevitable just 48 hours ago – an imminent U.S. missile attack on Syrian targets in response to an alleged chemical attack that reportedly killed hundreds of Syrian citizens – stalled Thursday as the justification for military action faced increasing questioning both here and abroad.

Growing calls by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers for consultations with, if not formal authorisation by, Congress before Obama takes any military action have raised the potential political costs on Capitol Hill if Obama proceeds on his own.

While the administration continues to express certainty that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged Aug. 21 attack, the Associated Press, quoting U.S. intelligence officials, reported Thursday that such a case fell short of a “slam dunk” – a reference to then-CIA director George Tenet’s mistaken declaration that President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Some officials cited in the story said they could not entirely rule out the possibility that rebels were responsible for the attack on a Damascus suburb – as alleged by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

According to AP, officials could not tie Assad or his inner circle to any directive ordering the use of chemical weapons or even to foreknowledge of the attack, suggesting that the decision may have made by lower-ranking military officers or a rogue commander.

The administration has scheduled a telephone conference call with members of Congress for Thursday evening, but officials said the briefing would not include classified information that could confirm the nature of the attack or who was responsible. A White House spokesman said the administration still hopes to release an unclassified intelligence assessment by the weekend.

Meanwhile, the administration faced other problems overseas, not least of which was the refusal earlier this week of the Arab League to explicitly endorse a military attack and the appeals by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, to await the findings of U.N. inspectors who have been in Syria this week investigating the site of the alleged attack, taking testimony and blood samples from its victims. Ban said Thursday the inspectors would not leave Syria until Saturday.

read more >>

After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation

After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation

    Thursday, August 29, 2013   No comments

In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe.

The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.

In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the U.N. investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.

The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the U.N. investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the U.N. as hindering its plans for an attack.

Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the U.N. team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.

After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.

The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “U.S. officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”

But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of U.S. policy, refused to withdraw the U.N. team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the U.N. inspectors to “continue their work”.

read more >>

We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But now?

We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But now?

    Thursday, August 29, 2013   No comments

Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all now have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the Cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic Republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.  Iran is Israel’s enemy.  Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy.  So there is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus.  Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing.  But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad.  Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we nightmared over.  And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf.  And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah.  But there you go.  Different days, different standards.

read more >>

A Pilgrimage to a Person

A Pilgrimage to a Person

    Thursday, August 29, 2013   No comments

When you are not with close friends,
you are not in the presence.

It is sad to leave the people you travel with.
How much more so those who remind you of God.
Hurry back to the ones protecting you.

On every trip, have only one objective,
to meet those who are friends
inside the presence.

If you stay home, keep the same purpose,
to meet the innermost presence
as it lives in people.

Be a pilgrim to the Ka`ba inside a human being,and Mecca will rise into view on its own.

__________
A Rumi's poem, translated by Coleman Barks