If Obama is not willing to target both the regime and the terrorists in Syria, then Congress should not approve military action

If Obama is not willing to target both the regime and the terrorists in Syria, then Congress should not approve military action

    Monday, September 09, 2013   No comments

by Marc A. Thiessen

Senator Ted Cruz says that in Syria, the United States military should not “serve as al-Qaeda’s air force.” He’s right.

Al-Qaeda has two major strategic objectives: to get control of a nation-state and to get control of weapons of mass destruction. President Obama’s inaction in Syria has brought them closer to accomplishing both objectives.

After announcing that Assad must go in August 2011, Obama dithered for two years. This created a power vacuum, which al-Qaeda has filled — pouring weapons and fighters into Syria, and carving out new safe havens where it controls territory and operates with impunity.

If the United States were to employ military force sufficient to topple Assad, there is now a danger that such an attack could help al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic radicals come to power in Damascus. This may be one reason why the administration is proposing limited, rather than decapitating, strikes against Assad.

But Assad does not have to fall for the terrorists to get their hands on his chemical stockpiles. He simply needs to be weakened enough that he cannot protect them. Al-Qaeda has successfully overrun government prisons in Iraq and military airfields in northern Syria. What is to stop them from overrunning Assad’s chemical weapons facilities? The United States has a vital national interest in making sure that does not happen.

read more >>

Who are the Syrian rebels: al-Qaeda in Syria leaders think that Americans are threatening war in Syria to target them, not the regime; other rebels wish U.S. will bomb jihadists

Who are the Syrian rebels: al-Qaeda in Syria leaders think that Americans are threatening war in Syria to target them, not the regime; other rebels wish U.S. will bomb jihadists

    Monday, September 09, 2013   No comments

The four men around him, jihadists from elsewhere in the Arab world, laughed among themselves and looked around to see another group enter. They too had come from far away for jihad — first against the Assad regime and now the US, again.

At a table down the hall, a group of Free Syrian Army fighters were enjoying a late lunch beside an olive grove, wondering out loud what regime targets the US would go for and revelling in the discomfort of the jihadists, whom they felt had ridden roughshod over their war in recent months. "I don't care if the Americans attack them too," said one of the men, whose unit has been joined by the jihadists in several battles. "I'd like that in fact. They need to be scared of someone." The table erupted in laughter, before the men calmed themselves. "I hope the Americans know where their headquarters are," said one.

Business is better at the restaurant than at any point since the start of the civil war, said the owner, who did not want to be named. "They are always polite and they always leave a tip. They just don't want the narghilas (water pipes smoked by locals) anywhere near them."

Outside a recently empty car park is crawling with trucks. The highway, for much of the past year as long, straight and empty as an airport runway, is a bustling thoroughfare of dilapidated trucks and clapped out motorbikes – the favourite form of transport for jihadists and regular fighters alike, who ride in pairs, guns slung across their backs.

The highway leads past a bomb-pocked concrete plant to the town of al-Bab, roughly 25 miles north-east of Aleppo and an opposition stronghold for the past 14 months. Here the evolution of Syria's civil war is written in paint on the walls of schools, civic buildings and advertising hoardings, hijacked by myriad players intent on leaving their mark.

The black banner of al-Qaida, adopted by ISIS, is more prominent in al-Bab than the gold-edged flag of the other al-Qaida-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusra, or the regular units of the Free Syrian Army.

"We don't like it this way," said a local man, Abu Nashat, pointing at a school wall that had been white-washed and then emblazoned with two giant al-Qaida logos. "But who is going to take them on over a tin of paint? We already have a big fight on our hands against the regime. Opening a new battle is not something to do lightly."

Behind two wrought-iron gates was the ISIS command centre, emptied of most of its men before the anticipated air strikes. Two young boys stood guard, their heads swathed in bandanas, their pants cut at ankle length in the manner of the men they emulate.

New-found authority resonates from the commandeered schoolyard. And ISIS members have not been shy in asserting their will here, or elsewhere in northern Syria, where an internecine struggle is in danger of eclipsing the reason for the war. "They think everyone who doesn't think and act like them is an infidel who needs to be punished," said a young fighter from the Liwa al-Tawheed Brigade – a mainstream militia – who ran a clothes shop before the conflict. "While they may have learned how to fight the Americans, they haven't learned anything else from Iraq."

One lesson from Iraq, however, is embraced by many Syrians: the Awakening Movement, also known as the Sahawa, that drove al-Qaida out of Anbar province in 2007.

"We need the same thing here," said a senior member of the Liwa al-Tawheed. "They want to kidnap this revolution. Maybe they already have. But don't mistake all the black flags you see for community support. We just don't have the stomach to fight them now. And who could we hope to support us even if we did? America? Europe? Shame on them. Do they not see that Syria will drag down the whole Middle East?"
read more >>

Israel: A powerful Middle Eastern axis of Sunni states has taken form in the region, which “does not view Israel as a sworn enemy”

Israel: A powerful Middle Eastern axis of Sunni states has taken form in the region, which “does not view Israel as a sworn enemy”

    Monday, September 09, 2013   No comments

Speaking before the Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s international summit in Herzliya, Amos Gilad, who is director of the Political-Military Affairs Bureau at the Defense Ministry, said that Israel “won’t ever be accepted as a formal member” of the Sunni axis, but that the states that make it up all view the US as the sole superpower and that their regional policies are indirectly beneficial for Israel.

...
Had the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in its plot for regional domination, a ring of hostility would have been formed around Israel, Gilad noted. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, there are two threats to his country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This was reflected in the billions of dollars donated to Egypt by Saudi Arabia and the UAE after Sisi took power, Gilad argued.

“Sisi didn’t act against them [the Muslim Brotherhood] on behalf of the West or Israel, but only for the good of Egypt. He simply saw that Egypt was falling into the abyss, in terms of repression and the economy...

He wishes to save Egypt,” Gilad said.

Jordan, for its part, excels at counter- terrorism due its own interest in combatting radical Islamist interests.

As a result, there are no terrorist attacks in Jordan or attacks from Jordan on Israel, Gilad said. “Their existence as an independent kingdom is impressive,” he added.


read more >>

John Kerry gives Syria a week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack

John Kerry gives Syria a week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack

    Monday, September 09, 2013   No comments

The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack. But John Kerry added that he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply.

Kerry also said he had no doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in east Damascus on 21 August, saying that only three people are responsible for the chemical weapons inside Syria – Assad, one of his brothers and a senior general. He said the entire US intelligence community was united in believing Assad was responsible.

Kerry was speaking on Monday alongside the UK foreign secretary, William Hague, who was forced to deny that he had been pushed to the sidelines by the House of Commons decision 10 days ago to reject the use of UK force in Syria.

The US Senate is due to vote this week on whether to approve an attack and Kerry was ambivalent over whether Barack Obama would use his powers to ignore the legislative chamber, if it were to reject an attack.

The US state department stressed that Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the one-week deadline and unlikelihood of Assad turning over Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. In an emailed statement, the department added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."

read more >>

How has the West responded to ‘gassing’ in West Asia?

How has the West responded to ‘gassing’ in West Asia?

    Sunday, September 08, 2013   No comments

Actually the first to use chemical weapons [gas] in the Middle-East were the British. Soon after the First World War when the British created the state of Iraq consisting of the three former Turkish Vilayats [provinces] of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul; the southern Kurds much to their dislike had been added to the new state of Iraq and in protest broke out in open rebellion. Faced with the prospects of a prolonged conflict, with added financial costs and loss of British life; the British decided that the ‘best method’ for putting down the revolt was to use gas. As the then Colonial Secretary, Sir Winston Churchill had remarked, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.” The then RAF Chief Sir Hugh Trenchard in a report to the British Cabinet admitted that this was a “cheaper form of control.” Even the redoubtable Lawrence of Arabia wrote to the London Observer that “it is odd we do not use poison gas on these occasions.” The poor Kurds were the first to receive the ‘gas’ treatment and as history would prove not the last time!

Let us move ahead in time and come to Saddam Hussein. Iranian official history records that Iraq first used chemical weapons against its soldiers on January 13, 1981. It is reported that between December 28, 1980 and March 20, 1984 Iranians list 63 separate gas attacks by the Iraqis. There is no doubt that the US was acutely aware of what was going on. In a Memorandum on November 1, 1983, officials of the State Department warned the then Secretary of State George Shultz that they had information that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on an ‘almost daily’ basis. Equally blunt was the warning that Iraq had acquired chemical weapons capability from Western firms, including possibly from a US subsidiary. The US was also aware that chemical weapons were being used against ‘Kurdish insurgents’. At the same time the US, according to a media report, continued to provide Iraq with critical battle planning assistance and satellite data on Iranian military movements, knowing very well that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran as also Kurdish insurgents.

read more >>

In Turkey, 72% of respondents to the Transatlantic Trends 2013 survey, which was conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), said their country should stay out of Syria

In Turkey, 72% of respondents to the Transatlantic Trends 2013 survey, which was conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), said their country should stay out of Syria

    Saturday, September 07, 2013   No comments

A majority of Turks disapprove of any potential military intervention in Syria, much like their European and American counterparts, a survey has revealed.

In Turkey, 72 percent of respondents to the Transatlantic Trends 2013 survey, which was conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), said their country should stay out of Syria, up 15 percentage points from last year, while only 21 percent – down 11 percentage points – favored intervention.

The respondents were told that there had recently been discussion about intervening in Syria, where the government has been using military force to suppress an opposition movement. They were then asked whether their government should stay out completely or intervene.

Apart from Turkey, 11 European Union member states were surveyed: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States. Polling was conducted between June 3 and June 27.

read more >>

Refugees Pour Out of Syria, but Number Entering Jordan Slows to Trickle

Refugees Pour Out of Syria, but Number Entering Jordan Slows to Trickle

    Friday, September 06, 2013   No comments

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we come back to Syria with two takes on reaction to the conflict in the Arab world.

We begin with a look at how the crisis has spilled beyond Syria's borders. Earlier this week, the United Nations Refugee Agency announced that more than two million people have fled the fighting.

NewsHour foreign affairs producer Dan Sagalyn was in neighboring Jordan recently on a trip sponsored by CARE, the development and humanitarian organization. His story begins in the remote far eastern corner of the country.

Ray Suarez narrates our report.

RAY SUAREZ: These Syrian men, women and children are stepping into safe territory in Jordan. Some are carrying all their possessions in one suitcase.

These refugees are just a few of the now more than two million who have poured out of their homeland since fighting began in Syria more than two years ago. Jordanian soldiers provided them with food and water, and also stood guard, ready to protect them if Syrian forces opened fire. Their journey out of war was dangerous and often deadly.

read more >>

Washington Post: A majority of House members are now on the record as either against or leaning against authorizing President Obama to use military force against Syria

Washington Post: A majority of House members are now on the record as either against or leaning against authorizing President Obama to use military force against Syria

    Friday, September 06, 2013   No comments

As of Friday afternoon, there were 223 members in the “no” or “leaning no” category, more than the 217 that would be needed to sink the resolution. (The threshold for passage in the House is 217 votes, rather than the usual 218, since there are currently two vacancies.)

While the opposition is led by Republicans, the 106 opponents include 25 Democrats. Another 37 Democrats lean against supporting the use of force, meaning more than 30 percent of the House Democratic caucus is negatively predisposed toward the resolution.
The resolution remains in much better shape in the Senate, where just 15 senators have expressed outright opposition – four of them Democrats – and another 10 lean no. A majority of senators are currently undecided.

To be clear, this count is a moving target. While it’s hard to imagine many of the hard “no’s” reversing course, those leaning no or undecided could well come around to the president’s side by the time the actual vote in the House is held — which is expected to be in two weeks time. President Obama is set to address the country on Tuesday night, a speech the White House hopes will reverse the tide on the resolution in Congress.

read more >>

Obama assembles fragile alliance blaming Assad for chemical attacks

Obama assembles fragile alliance blaming Assad for chemical attacks

    Friday, September 06, 2013   No comments

Barack Obama left a fractious G20 summit in St Petersburg on Friday after assembling a fragile alliance of countries accusing Bashar al-Assad of being responsible for using poison gas against civilians. However, the US president left behind a defiant Russian counterpart threatening unspecified military support for Syria if America attacks.

Vladimir Putin claimed that a majority of the G20 opposed any US-led intervention, and gave no ground by continuing to insist that the chemical weapons attacks were a provocation by Syrian rebels designed to win international backing for an attack on the Assad regime. David Cameron described Putin's position as impossible.

Putin revealed that he and Obama had had a one-to-one meeting lasting around 30 minutes in which they had discussed Syria. Both men had listened to the other's position but they had not agreed, he said.

British sources suggested that Obama, struggling to put together a majority in the US Congress for military strikes, may have to wait for up to a fortnight for a vote in the House of Representatives, where opposition is strong.

Echoing that timing, the French president, François Hollande, the only definite European supporter of a military strike, said he did not expect a congressional vote in the US until the UN weapons inspectors had reported on whether there had been a chemical attack on 21 August. Cameron added that no one doubted there had been an attack, not even Syria; the dispute was over culpability, he said.

read more >>

Stratfor: U.S. military intervention in Syria could actually benefit Tehran

Stratfor: U.S. military intervention in Syria could actually benefit Tehran

    Thursday, September 05, 2013   No comments

Conventional wisdom says that a weakened Syria would undermine Iran's regional influence, but a U.S. military intervention in the country could actually benefit Tehran. The government there has devised a sophisticated strategy for responding to a U.S. attack. Of course, Tehran would activate its militant proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, in the event that the United States launches an attack, but it would also exploit Washington's visceral opposition to Sunni jihadist and Islamist groups to gain concessions elsewhere.

Analysis
Iran already has engaged diplomatically with many of those involved in the Syrian conflict. Over the past weekend, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the foreign affairs and national security head for the Iranian parliament, led a delegation to Damascus, presumably to discuss the potential U.S. attack. Earlier on Aug. 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani over the phone. Their conversation followed U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman's visit to Tehran, where he and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif likewise discussed Syria. Even the Omani sultan paid a rare visit to Iran, reportedly carrying with him positive messages from the Obama administration for Iran's new government.

Notably, the rhetoric from Tehran -- particularly from its military leadership -- has been relatively tame. Typically the government antagonizes Washington when U.S.-Iranian tensions heat up, and indeed the Syria situation has aggravated tensions. Syria is a critical Iranian ally, and the survival of the al Assad regime is a national security interest for Tehran. Iran cannot afford to directly retaliate against the United States, but it is widely expected to retaliate indirectly through militant proxies.


read more >>