An Open Letter on Syria to Western Narcissists

[JustJohn or JJ]

An Open Letter on Syria to Western Narcissists


Posted: 08/30/2013 10:17 am

On the eve of what seem to be ineluctable strikes on Syria, I've been struggling with what my position on Syria should be. Before I get to that though, I should say that while I'm not Syrian, I too have some skin in the game, as it were. On our way to donate blood for a friend's mother's surgery last month, my wife got a call from a friend telling us to avoid the neighborhood of Bir al-Abed in Beirut's southern suburbs, since there had just been a large explosion there. At Bahman Hospital, my wife and baby daughter and I saw ambulances speeding toward us carrying those who had just been wounded. And a few days after I'd left for southern Turkey to conduct interviews with Syrians who had fled the war in their homes, I found out that a car bomb had just gone off a few blocks from my mother in law's home in the "Hezbollah stronghold" of Rweiss. It kills me that my daughter has heard the sound of a car bomb before her first birthday.

Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesn't want them. And even now, we're making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if there's a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.

All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isn't just of academic interest to me; it's personal as well. This is partially why I have so little patience for some of the rhetoric I've been seeing from Western leftist circles, where this conflict seems like nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for scoring ideological points. This has been illustrated by the passing around of an article by Robert Fisk, who asks, "Does Obama know he's fighting on al Qaeda's side?" This lazy and facile opinion piece assures us that if the U.S. attacks Syria, then "the United States will be on the same side as al Qaeda." It is the flip side of the rhetoric that was so evident in the run-up to war in Iraq that equated any opposition to an idiotic war with support for Saddam Hussein. Well, guess what? There are lots of perfectly fine opinions that might put you on the same side as al Qaeda. Just to name one: if you're against drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as I am, then you're also "on the same side as al Qaeda" according to this logic.

This is the caricature of knee-jerk leftism, where everything is always and everywhere about the United States. The narcissism of such a position boggles the mind. In such an ideological stance it's not enough to be critical of Washington's actions and motivations, as well we should be, it is necessary to parrot the talking points of Washington's enemies. (The same phenomenon can be seen in certain Islamophobic and right-wing circles.) In this narrative, the militarization of the uprising in Syria was an American plan, not a foreseeable reaction to a brutally violent crackdown on a predominately peaceful opposition movement by the security forces of the Ba'ath regime. This conflict is, so the argument goes, a creation of Washington, and perhaps Riyadh, and the opposition is made up of only of blood-thirsty sectarian Islamists who are generally seen as but tools of malicious statecraft. Such a narrative, of course, denies the agency of Syrians, seeing them as so many lifeless puppets waiting for a tug from the imperialist American hand.

This is why discussions of Syria in such quarters tend not to be discussions of Syria. They're actually discussions of "American capitalism" or "American imperialism" -- take your pick. So let me be clear: if your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United States, I have no interest in hearing it, and it's probably safe to say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are faced with the business end of the regime's ordinance don't either. I can't think of a single Syrian who's willing to get killed so you can flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your local coffee shop.

Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention here, let me set a few things straight. In addition to endangering my family's lives, the proposed "punitive strikes" that are all but inevitable probably won't make anything better on the ground, and may make things worse, which is why I'm against them. My opinion on American intervention in general and in this conflict in particular (about which more in a subsequent post) is that the U.S. is not to be trusted to act in anything but what it sees as its interests, and often a woefully short-sighted understanding of those interests to boot. So no, Washington does not really care about those children killed last week in a chemical attack, just as it didn't care about the Iranians or Kurds killed in previous ones. Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitik in Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria, burning the country to the ground as they do so.

But please, don't let the conflict in Syria be about opposing America. Let it be about Syria, and what might actually help Syrians -- you know, the actually existing people who are dying by the tens of thousands in this brutal war. But if you can't do that, then do me a favor, and please shut up.


Sean Lee is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at Northwestern University, where he researches communal violence and civil war in the Levant and Central Africa. He blogs at humanprovince.wordpress.com, where this post originally appeared.

[JustJohn or JJ]

The Raw Story

Winston Churchill’s shocking use of chemical weapons

By Giles Milton, The Guardian

Sunday, September 1, 2013 19:00 EDT

Winston Churchill


The use of chemical weapons in Syria has outraged the world. But it is easy to forget that Britain has used them – and that Winston Churchill was a powerful advocate for them

Secrecy was paramount. Britain’s imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret “M Device”, an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it “the most effective chemical weapon ever devised”.

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. “If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda.”The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill’s irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes,” he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their “squeamishness”, declaring that “the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war.”

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: “Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?” he asked. “It is really too silly.”

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013

[pieter]

Sept 2, 2013 4:58:18 GMT -7 JustJohn or JJ said:

An Open Letter on Syria to Western Narcissists


Posted: 08/30/2013 10:17 am

On the eve of what seem to be ineluctable strikes on Syria, I've been struggling with what my position on Syria should be. Before I get to that though, I should say that while I'm not Syrian, I too have some skin in the game, as it were. On our way to donate blood for a friend's mother's surgery last month, my wife got a call from a friend telling us to avoid the neighborhood of Bir al-Abed in Beirut's southern suburbs, since there had just been a large explosion there. At Bahman Hospital, my wife and baby daughter and I saw ambulances speeding toward us carrying those who had just been wounded. And a few days after I'd left for southern Turkey to conduct interviews with Syrians who had fled the war in their homes, I found out that a car bomb had just gone off a few blocks from my mother in law's home in the "Hezbollah stronghold" of Rweiss. It kills me that my daughter has heard the sound of a car bomb before her first birthday.

Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesn't want them. And even now, we're making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if there's a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.

All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isn't just of academic interest to me; it's personal as well. This is partially why I have so little patience for some of the rhetoric I've been seeing from Western leftist circles, where this conflict seems like nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for scoring ideological points. This has been illustrated by the passing around of an article by Robert Fisk, who asks, "Does Obama know he's fighting on al Qaeda's side?" This lazy and facile opinion piece assures us that if the U.S. attacks Syria, then "the United States will be on the same side as al Qaeda." It is the flip side of the rhetoric that was so evident in the run-up to war in Iraq that equated any opposition to an idiotic war with support for Saddam Hussein. Well, guess what? There are lots of perfectly fine opinions that might put you on the same side as al Qaeda. Just to name one: if you're against drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as I am, then you're also "on the same side as al Qaeda" according to this logic.

This is the caricature of knee-jerk leftism, where everything is always and everywhere about the United States. The narcissism of such a position boggles the mind. In such an ideological stance it's not enough to be critical of Washington's actions and motivations, as well we should be, it is necessary to parrot the talking points of Washington's enemies. (The same phenomenon can be seen in certain Islamophobic and right-wing circles.) In this narrative, the militarization of the uprising in Syria was an American plan, not a foreseeable reaction to a brutally violent crackdown on a predominately peaceful opposition movement by the security forces of the Ba'ath regime. This conflict is, so the argument goes, a creation of Washington, and perhaps Riyadh, and the opposition is made up of only of blood-thirsty sectarian Islamists who are generally seen as but tools of malicious statecraft. Such a narrative, of course, denies the agency of Syrians, seeing them as so many lifeless puppets waiting for a tug from the imperialist American hand.

This is why discussions of Syria in such quarters tend not to be discussions of Syria. They're actually discussions of "American capitalism" or "American imperialism" -- take your pick. So let me be clear: if your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United States, I have no interest in hearing it, and it's probably safe to say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are faced with the business end of the regime's ordinance don't either. I can't think of a single Syrian who's willing to get killed so you can flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your local coffee shop.

Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention here, let me set a few things straight. In addition to endangering my family's lives, the proposed "punitive strikes" that are all but inevitable probably won't make anything better on the ground, and may make things worse, which is why I'm against them. My opinion on American intervention in general and in this conflict in particular (about which more in a subsequent post) is that the U.S. is not to be trusted to act in anything but what it sees as its interests, and often a woefully short-sighted understanding of those interests to boot. So no, Washington does not really care about those children killed last week in a chemical attack, just as it didn't care about the Iranians or Kurds killed in previous ones. Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitik in Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria, burning the country to the ground as they do so.

But please, don't let the conflict in Syria be about opposing America. Let it be about Syria, and what might actually help Syrians -- you know, the actually existing people who are dying by the tens of thousands in this brutal war. But if you can't do that, then do me a favor, and please shut up.


Sean Lee is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at Northwestern University, where he researches communal violence and civil war in the Levant and Central Africa. He blogs at humanprovince.wordpress.com, where this post originally appeared.

John,

Interesting, sincere and realistic article of Sean Lee. I agree with his opinion about leftist circles who always criticize America (the United States of America). I also agree with his opinion about American realpolitik. I have contacts with people form Afghanistan, Iraq and former Yugoslavia. People with experiance with war. Syria is not a black and white situation. There is not simply the opposition and the freedom fighters on one side and the regime supporters on the other side. You see a strange secular (Baath party) and Shia Muslim (religious Islamist, theocratic) coalition which is supported by Iran, Iraq, Russia and China. On the the other side you see the Sunni Muslim majority which is under attack of regime forces commanded by Allawite officers. The Druze, Christian and Allawite and Shia Muslim minorities are afraid of the Free Syrian Army and the Al-Qaida affiliated militia forces. The Kurds clashed in Nortern-Iraq with these Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra Front fighters. The dangerous situation right now is the fact that the Syrian regime is willing to use chemical weapons against opposition and rebels targets and area's and if provoked will attack Israel, Jordan, Turkey and the Mediterranean sea where the US Navy ships are. Iran, Hezbollah and Russia will assist Syria with supplies, military aid and active support of it's own forces and advisors.

My Afghan colleage told me today that this war will develop itself in a larger Sunni-Shia war in the Middle-east. If you realize that extremist Islamist suicide terrorists from both sides blow themselves up in Shia and Sunni Mosques in Pakistan and Iraq. And if you look at the large bomb explosions in Shia and Sunni neighbourhoods in Lebanon and the clashes between Sunni fighters and Allawite Assad supporters in Tripoli in Lebanon you know that this conflict is not just a Syrian conflict. The massacre of the civilian population by the Assad regime and by the armed resistance fighters who kill civilians too must stop under international pressure. But it seems that -like Sean Lee letter suggests- nobody is really interested in the fate of Syrian civilians; women, children, elderly people and teenagers. The world is to polarised, busy with it's own interests and afraid to act.

I have to admid that I have wondered if the Syrian Assad regime before the demonstrations which were inspired by the 'Arab spring' was really that bad. There was a dictatorship, yes, a one party regime, but the state was relatively secular (no theocracy), not strict communist or fascist. The regime respected minority rights and women had many liberties, they didn't have in other Arab states. Okay, a religious sect, a minority, held the key positions in the political and military field. But the Sunni Muslim majority had a great influence in economy and agriculture where it dominated. Did Bashar Hafez al-Assad had enough time to reform the Syrian political system and economy? A very political incorrect question in this fase of the Syrian civil war.

Cheers,
Pieter

[karl]

Deletion by Karl

[JustJohn or JJ]

Note: I haven't been able to find the German article mentioned. Maybe Karl can help


Historical disgrace: the U.S. military mutiny forced Obama to retreat (German article, translated)

Historical disgrace: the U.S. military mutiny forced Obama to retreat

U.S. President Barack Obama apparently had to call off the planned military strike against Syria because of a formidable mutiny in the U.S. military leadership. The soldiers could not recognize the President’s strategy – and expressed grave concerns against the action. Never before have America’s soldiers so openly refused to follow a president.


The U.S. military refused to follow U.S. President Barack Obama (shown here with the Chief of General Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in memory of September 11): Obama has gone too far in the fight against terror. His soldiers did not want to go to war which they do not understand. (Photo: White House)
U.S. President Barack Obama’s surprising withdrawal from his Syria plans is apparently due to a massive mutiny in the U.S. Army.



The Washington Post reports that from four-star generals to the ordinary soldiers hardly anyone saw the benefit the military action promoted by Obama.
The Post reports that the soldiers are especially missing a clear strategy of what would happen after the planned military strikes. Many U.S. soldiers have had bad experiences with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first they were promised heroic goals. But no sooner were the interventions in process, the troops were sent into always new adventures. In both cases there was no exit strategy. The announcements to withdraw from the battle zones were contradictory and drawn out in length.

In the case of Syria, Obama did not succeed in convincing the military of the sense of a military operation.

So far, the U.S. military has always been publicly silent and obeyed the orders of the military-political leadership. The bases for most operations were that the president succeeded in convincing the soldiers to believe that the particular mission served the "national security."

Obama also tried to use this concept in Syria’s case.

But his own soldiers did not believe him.

Even more embarrassing for Obama: Most of the officers and soldiers have a much clearer concept of reality than their president and commander in chief.

So said the retired Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold in the Post, "The politicians are naive about the obligations that exist in foreign policy. Many are woefully ignorant about what a military operation can achieve." Newbold was in the leading cadres of the Iraq war. He said that many of his active colleagues share his serious concerns.

An officer who would only comment anonymously, said, "I cannot believe that the president even takes this step into consideration. In the past 10 years we have been fighting against insurgents. Syria has advanced weapons systems. We would have to fight in a conventional war."

Already in the past week had Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed to the headlessness of the Obama administration. He told the ABC, "The simple use of weapons, without a detailed strategy on how the mission will be completed, probably never leads to the conclusion that we imagine."
General James Mattis said, "If the Americans actually perform such an operation, then it will be a brutal, very, very serious war."
Another active officer said, "What political end state do we want to achieve? I do not know what it is. We say it should not be a regime change. If there is to be punishment - there are other ways to punish someone. "
Many military leaders are also uncertain because of the rapid decay of the anti-Syria coalition leads to new tactical planning: Without the British the operation presents itself differently. Nato’s lukewarm support has also caused the military to wonder. Simply relying on France seems to many to be too little. And Turkey is already viewed with suspicion by the U.S. military. President Erdogan is not at all trusted, because by many U.S. elites the AKP is considered an Islamist movement that pursues its own agenda.

The fickleness of Cyprus, which made difficulties at the last minute due to Russia’s pressure, has also required logistical replanning - not even considering the legal ramifications.

Pictures like this are circulating on the Internet. Although it cannot be said whether this is a true soldier: the willingness of U.S. forces to fight is low. (via @ NewsNinja2012))
Other officers criticized the half-heartedness of the operation. The military operation, as planned by Obama, gives the U.S. allies in the Middle East the impression that the Americans do not want to seriously defend their interests in the region. The action would appear as if rockets are fired, just so that something would be done.

In the Post article, experienced officers point to the fact that the risk of a military strike is enormous. Especially when in Syria, as John Kerry unveiled on Sunday, the poison gas sarin is in use, a military strike could have unforeseeable consequences. A cruise missile attack could create be more problems than solve them.

Most active soldiers and military officials said explicitly that nothing is further from them than to back-stab the political leadership.

That much more remarkable is the fact that they speak out at all, and do not simply fall again into the always successfully retrieved reflex of simple patriotism as happened since September 11, 2001.
The war on terror seems to no longer serve as motivation to those who are sent to it into the fire. Most U.S. soldiers cannot make sense out of their political leaders’ geopolitical fights. They obviously have no desire to be sent as world police into increasingly remote regions of the world.
The dissent agrees with the assessment of the American population: Only a small minority favors a military strike.
For Obama, it will now be difficult to convince the Congress. Even the representatives face the action more than skeptical. 200 members have signed a petition against the military use.
On top of that, for Congress the same problem arises that also the soldiers have for their rejection: The defense budget has been dramatically reduced because the U.S. budget has gone through decades of an uncontrolled debt policy, which got out of hand.
The mutiny of the U.S. Army is a first in American history.
However, the pressure on Obama seems to have grown so large in recent days that he finally pulled the ripcord, and he had to call off the imminent military action.
And so we experience a phenomenon that until recently, many could not imagine: The mighty U.S. President declared war on a country. And his own soldiers say, "Imagine: The president says it is war, and nobody goes."

Sep 2, 2013

[JustJohn or JJ]

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/us-may-have-to-act-alone-against-syria/2013/08/30/000ad929-247a-41fc-8a9c-256b177b6776_video.html
^{Video: The Obama administration may have to act alone if it decides to strike Syria. Britain's parliament voted against military action on Thursday.}
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: August 29

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

New cycle of attacks?

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”

“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.

A National Security Council spokeswoman said Thursday she would not discuss “internal deliberations.” White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement.

Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer who is wrapping up a year-long tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect “very dangerous.”

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the 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.”

Dempsey’s warning

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.

“As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

Dempsey has not spoken publicly about the administration’s planned strike on Syria, and it is unclear to what extent his position shifted after last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack. Dempsey said this month in an interview with ABC News that the lessons of Iraq weigh heavily on his calculations regarding Syria.

“It has branded in me the idea that the use of military power must be part of an overall strategic solution that includes international partners and a whole of government,” he said in the Aug. 4 interview. “Simply the application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek.”

The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.

The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.

“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”

President Obama said in a PBS interview on Wednesday that he is not contemplating a lengthy engagement, but instead “limited, tailored approaches.”

A retired Central Command officer said the administration’s plan would “gravely disappoint our allies and accomplish little other than to be seen as doing something.”

“It will be seen as a half measure by our allies in the Middle East,” the officer said. “Iran and Syria will portray it as proof that the U.S. is unwilling to defend its interests in the region.”

Still, some within the military, while apprehensive, support striking Syria. W. Andrew Terrill, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Army War College, said the limited history of the use of chemical weapons in the region suggests that a muted response from the West can be dangerous.

“There is a feeling as you look back that if you don’t stand up to chemical weapons, they’re going to take it as a green light and use them on a recurring basis,” he said.

An Army lieutenant colonel said the White House has only bad options but should resist the urge to abort the plan now.

“When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy,” he said, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons. “It cannot appear to be scared or tepid. Remember, with respect to policy choices concerning Syria, we are discussing degrees of bad and worse.”

[karl]

J.J.

Refererence to the artical: U.S. military have deep doubts about impact-

This was an artical from publication: Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten as follows: Please excuse the various breaks in the original, there are many photos creating many breaks. The original as shown.

deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/09/01/historische-blamage-meuterei-der-us-militaers-zwang-obama-zum-rueckzug/




Politik und Krieg



Historische Blamage: Meuterei der US-Militärs zwang Obama zum Rückzug

Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten | Veröffentlicht: 01.09.13, 02:51 | 364 Kommentare

US-Präsident Barack Obama musste den geplanten Militärschlag gegen Syrien offenbar wegen einer gewaltigen Meuterei in der US-Militärführung abblasen. Die Soldaten konnten keine Strategie des Präsidenten erkennen – und äußerten massive Bedenken gegen die Aktion. Noch nie haben die Soldaten in Amerika einem Präsidenten derart offen die Gefolgschaft verweigert.


Die US-Militärs verweigerten US-Präsident Barack Obama (hier mit dem Chef des Generalstabs, Admiral Michael Mullen und Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates beim Gedenken an den 11. September) die Gefolgschaft: Obama hat den Bogen im Kampf gegen den Terror überspannt. Seine Soldaten wollen nicht in einen Krieg ziehen, den sie nicht verstehen. (Foto: White House)

Der überraschende Rückzieher von US-Präsident Barack Obama von seinen Syrien-Plänen ist offenbar auf eine massive Meuterei in der US-Armee zurückzuführen.

Die Washington Post berichtet, dass von den vier-Sterne-Generälen bis zu den einfachen Soldaten kaum einer den Nutzen der von Obama vorangetriebenen Militär-Aktion erkennen konnte.

Die Post berichtet, dass den Soldaten vor allem eine klare Strategie fehlt, was denn nach den geplanten Militärschlägen geschehen solle. Viele US-Soldaten haben schlechte Erfahrungen mit den Einsätzen im Irak und in Afghanistan gemacht. Zunächst wurden ihnen heroische Ziele versprochen. Doch kaum waren die Interventionen im Gang, wurden die Truppen in stets neue Abenteuer geschickt. In beiden Fällen gab es keine Exit-Strategie. Die Ankündigungen zum Rückzug aus den Kampfzonen waren widersprüchlich und zogen sich in die Länge.

Im Falle Syriens ist es Obama nicht gelungen, die Militärs vom Sinn einer militärischen Operation zu überzeugen.

Bisher haben die US-Militärs stets öffentlich geschwiegen und den Befehlen der militärisch-politischen Führung gehorcht. Grundlage für die Einsätze war meist, dass es den Präsidenten gelungen war, die Soldaten davon zu überzeugen, dass der jeweilige Einsatz der „nationalen Sicherheit“ diene.

Auch im Falle Syriens bemühte Obama diesen Begriff.

Doch seine eigenen Soldaten glauben ihm nicht.

Noch peinlicher für Obama: Die meisten Offiziere und Soldaten haben einen wesentlich klareren Blick für die Realität als ihr Präsident und Oberbefehlshaber.

So sagte der pensionierte Generalleutnant Gregory S. Newbold der Post: „Die Politiker sind naiv über die Verpflichtungen, die es in der Außenpolitik gibt. Viele sind erschreckend ahnungslos über das, was ein Militär-Einsatz erreichen kann.“ Newbold war im Führungskader im Irak-Krieg. Er sagte, dass viele seiner aktiven Kollegen seine schweren Bedenken teilen.

Ein Offizier, der sich nur anonym äußern wollte, sagte: „Ich kann es nicht fassen, dass der Präsident diesen Schritt überhaupt in Erwägung zieht. In den vergangenen 10 Jahren haben wir gegen Aufständische gekämpft. Syrien hat moderne Waffensysteme. Wir würden in einen klassischen Krieg kämpfen müssen.“

Schon in der vergangenen Woche hatte General Martin Dempsey, der Chef der Oberbefehlshaber, auf die Kopflosigkeit der Obama-Administration hingewiesen. Er sagte dem Sender ABC: „Der simple Einsatz von Waffen, ohne eine genaue Strategie, wie der Einsatz zu Ende geführt wird, führt vermutlich nie zu dem Ergebnis, das wir uns vorstellen.“

General James Mattis sagte: „Wenn die Amerikaner tatsächlich einen derartigen Einsatz durchführen, dann wird das ein brutaler, sehr, sehr ernster Krieg.“

Ein anderer aktiver Offizier sagte: „Welchen politischen Endzustand wollen wir erreichen? Ich weiß nicht, was es ist. Wir sagen, es soll kein Regime-Wechsel sein. Wenn es Bestrafung sein soll – es gibt andere Wege, um jemanden zu bestrafen.“


Bilder wie dieses kursieren im Internet. Hier handelt es sich allerdings um keinen Soldaten, sondern um jemanden, der eine Uniform der Küstenwache trägt. Und die muss ja wohl nicht gegen Syrien ran. (via @newsninja2012))

Viele führende Militärs sind auch verunsichert, weil der rasche Zerfall der Anti-Syrien-Koalition zu neuen taktischen Planungen führt: Ohne die Briten (hier) stellt sich eine Operation anders dar. Die lauwarme Unterstützung von der Nato hat den Militärs ebenfalls zu denken gegeben. Sich nur auf Frankreich zu verlassen (hier), scheint vielen zuwenig zu sein. Und die Türkei wird bei den US-Militärs ohnehin mit Misstrauen beäugt. Man traut dem Präsidenten Erdogan nicht über den Weg, weil die AKP von vielen US-Eliten als islamistische Bewegung eingestuft wird, die ihre eigene Agenda verfolgt (hier).

Die Wankelmütigkeit Zyperns, das in letzter Minute auf russischen Druck Schwierigkeiten machte, hat ebenfalls logistische Neuplanungen erforderlich gemacht – von den rechtlichen Bedenken einmal abgesehen (hier).

Andere Offiziere kritisieren die Halbherzigkeit des Einsatzes. So wie von Obama geplant, werde ein Militärschlag bei den Verbündeten der USA im Nahen Osten den Eindruck erwecken, dass die Amerikaner nicht ernsthaft ihre Interessen in der Region verteidigen wollen. Die Aktion hätte den Anschein, dass Raketen abgefeuert werden, bloß, damit irgendetwas getan würde.

Erfahrene Offiziere verweisen in der Post darauf, dass das Risiko eines Militärschlags enorm sei. Gerade wenn in Syrien wirklich, wie die John Kerry am Sonntag enthüllte, das Giftgas Sarin im Einsatz ist, dann könne eine Militärschlag unabsehbare Folgen haben. Mit einem Cruise Missile Angriff könnten mehr Probleme geschaffen als gelöst werden.

Die meisten aktiven Soldaten und Militärs sagten ausdrücklich, dass ihnen nichts ferner liege, als der politischen Führung in den Rücken zu fallen.

Umso bemerkenswerter ist die Tatsache, dass sie sich überhaupt äußern und nicht in den nach dem 11. September 2001 immer wieder erfolgreich abgerufenen Reflex eines simplen Patriotismus verfallen.

Der Krieg gegen den Terror scheint bei denen, die für ihn ins Feuer geschickt werden, nicht mehr als Motivation zu verfangen. Die meisten US-Soldaten können nicht mehr nachvollziehen, welchen Sinn die geopolitischen Volten ihrer politischen Führung haben. Sie haben offenbar keine Lust, als Weltpolizei in immer entferntere Regionen der Erde geschickt zu werden.

Der Dissens deckt sich mit der Einschätzung der amerikanischen Bevölkerung: Nur eine kleine Minderheit befürwortet einen Militärschlag.

Für Obama dürfte es nun schwierig werden, den Kongress zu überzeugen. Denn auch die Abgeordneten stehen der Aktion mehr als skeptisch gegenüber. 200 Abgeordnete hatten eine Petition gegen den Militär-Einsatz unterzeichnet.

Für den Kongress stellt sich darüber hinaus ein Problem, das auch die Soldaten als Grund für ihre Ablehnung nannten: Der Verteidigungs-Haushalt wurde dramatisch gekürzt, weil das US-Budget durch die jahrzehntelange Schuldenpolitik unkontrolliert aus dem Ruder gelaufen ist.

Die Meuterei der US-Armee ist ein Novum in der amerikanischen Geschichte.

Der Druck auf Obama scheint jedoch in den vergangenen Tagen so groß geworden zu sein, dass er schließlich die Reißleine ziehen und den unmittelbar bevorstehenden Einsatz wieder abblasen musste.

Und so erleben wir ein Phänomen, das sich viele bis vor kurzem nicht vorstellen konnte: Der mächtige US-Präsident erklärt einem Land den Krieg. Und seine eigenen Soldaten sagen: „Stell Dir vor: Der Präsident sagt, es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin.“


Presenter

Karl

[JustJohn or JJ]

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
September 3, 2013

Source: The Economic Collapse Blog


Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?


[kaima]

Sept 4, 2013 4:03:05 GMT -7 JustJohn or JJ said:

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
September 3, 2013

Source: The Economic Collapse Blog

think you love those strange conspiracy blogs. The problem I see with a lot of those is that while they satisfy for seeking the "truth", being un-selective in what you spend time reading keeps you from approaching what may really be happening.

In this case I quickly dismissed the Natural Gas Pipeline because of the surplus of gas in America - a surplus that makes the building of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline fully uneconomical. If we were going to war over natural gas, I would expect we would already have the Alaska pipeline or would be actively building it.

This article is so much distracting fluff.

[karl]

Sept 4, 2013 6:38:10 GMT -7 kaima said:

Sept 4, 2013 4:03:05 GMT -7 JustJohn or JJ said:

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
September 3, 2013

Source: The Economic Collapse Blog

think you love those strange conspiracy blogs. The problem I see with a lot of those is that while they satisfy for seeking the "truth", being un-selective in what you spend time reading keeps you from approaching what may really be happening.

In this case I quickly dismissed the Natural Gas Pipeline because of the surplus of gas in America - a surplus that makes the building of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline fully uneconomical. If we were going to war over natural gas, I would expect we would already have the Alaska pipeline or would be actively building it.

This article is so much distracting fluff.

Kai

An excellet reply to enstill a governer speed limiter upon the racing motor of information. For I do find agreement with your reply as expressed.

Whilst though the situation is in favour of US interest, there layst the situation of economics and potentual control of energy resources. This is a prime concern to such highly industrial nations that depend upon manufactured exports. For to remain competative,it is empartive of uninteruptive enegy be available at all times, energy being both electrical and fossil fuel supplies both in reserve for times of high consumption overtaking supply delivery and that meeting demand.

Commensurate to above, is the endangerment of a central control. If perhaps the gas {earth gas} pipe is completed to end source in Europe {West Europe} would only be competative if addition to the Qatar supply source, other producing enities such as Iran are allowed to enter with cross shipment through the pipe. Other wise, there is a standing endangerment of single control of the pipe with the endangerment of threat of shut off for any of a host of reasons both political and/or economic.

In short, who will be the gate keeper of decision other wise?

Karl

[JustJohn or JJ]

Sept 4, 2013 7:16:29 GMT -7 karl said:

Sept 4, 2013 6:38:10 GMT -7 kaima said:

think you love those strange conspiracy blogs. The problem I see with a lot of those is that while they satisfy for seeking the "truth", being un-selective in what you spend time reading keeps you from approaching what may really be happening.

In this case I quickly dismissed the Natural Gas Pipeline because of the surplus of gas in America - a surplus that makes the building of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline fully uneconomical. If we were going to war over natural gas, I would expect we would already have the Alaska pipeline or would be actively building it.

This article is so much distracting fluff.

Kai

An excellet reply to enstill a governer speed limiter upon the racing motor of information. For I do find agreement with your reply as expressed.

Whilst though the situation is in favour of US interest, there layst the situation of economics and potentual control of energy resources. This is a prime concern to such highly industrial nations that depend upon manufactured exports. For to remain competative,it is empartive of uninteruptive enegy be available at all times, energy being both electrical and fossil fuel supplies both in reserve for times of high consumption overtaking supply delivery and that meeting demand.

Commensurate to above, is the endangerment of a central control. If perhaps the gas {earth gas} pipe is completed to end source in Europe {West Europe} would only be competative if addition to the Qatar supply source, other producing enities such as Iran are allowed to enter with cross shipment through the pipe. Other wise, there is a standing endangerment of single control of the pipe with the endangerment of threat of shut off for any of a host of reasons both political and/or economic.

In short, who will be the gate keeper of decision other wise?

Karl



So the following:

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

Would be the ideal solution. And it appears to be progressing to a point. And, it appears the general consensus is that NG pipelines are not a contributing factor to the strife going on.

[karl]

J.J.

Thank you for your informative reply in reguards to the currant and present situation in Syria. It is most agreeable of the non-reason of conflict being of failed pipe line negotiations between Syria and The UK.

What perhaps is an interesting matter of the currant Syrian situation is on the surface, some what complicated. But in this simular stance, will go the adage of: Most every thing is relativily simple, it is people to enjoy making the simply into complication..

The fact of the matter, a soverign country has been invaded by an out side enity with the entent to over throw that goverment. All the noise and rheteric is about the use of poisness gas, but nothing of the related distruction of private and public property, and the Syrian people.

So, why is this?

What should be as a responsible act of assistance, is for the US and Allies of providing assistance to a stressed nation in provision of military assistance in providing assets of control. The invasion was an illegal act and should have been handled in such a manner.

This would be the responsable act of a reasonable nation.

Karl

[Nictoshek]

Victims of what is considered the largest chemical warfare attack ever directed at civilians, by Iraq around Halabja in 1988.


A Weapon Seen as Too Horrible, Even in War

By STEVEN ERLANGER
September 6, 2013

LONDON — Wilfred Owen, the British soldier-poet, wrote in his best-known work, “Dulce et Decorum Est,” an effort to depict the horrors of chemical warfare, “If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood / Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs.”

Germany is recognized as the first to use chemical weapons on a mass scale, on April 22, 1915, at Ypres, Belgium, where 6,000 British and French troops succumbed. Chemical weapons, rarely used since that war, have once again emerged as an issue after the massacre in Syria last month, in which the United States says nearly 1,500 people, men, women and children, were killed, many as they slept.

As in World War I, that represents only a small fraction of the more than 100,000 lives that have been lost during the two and a half years of Syria’s civil war. Yet, President Obama is prepared to initiate a military attack in response.

Why, it is fair to ask, does the killing of 100,000 or more with conventional weapons elicit little more than a concerned shrug, while the killing of a relative few from poison gas is enough to trigger an intervention?

Whatever the reasons for the distinction, it has long been recognized.

Roughly 16 million people died and 20 million were wounded during World War I, that “war to end all wars,” yet only about 2 percent of the casualties and fewer than 1 percent of the deaths are estimated to have resulted from chemical warfare.

Nevertheless, the universal revulsion that followed World War I led to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which banned the use, though not the possession, of chemical and biological weapons. In effect from 1928, the protocol is one of the few treaties that have been almost universally accepted and become an international norm. Syria, too, is a signatory.

No Western army used gas on the battlefield during the global slaughter of World War II. Hitler, himself gassed during World War I, refused to order its use against combatants, however willing he and the Nazis were to gas noncombatant Jews, Gypsies and others.

Since World War II and the atomic bomb, which redefined warfare, chemical weapons have been categorized as “weapons of mass destruction,” even if they do not have the killing power of nuclear weapons.

The Geneva Protocol was not even the first effort to ban the use of poison in war, said Joanna Kidd of King’s College London. “Throughout history, there has been a general revulsion against the use of poisons against human beings in warfare, going back to the Greeks,” she said. Some date a first effort to ban such weaponry to 1675, when France and the Holy Roman Empire agreed in Strasbourg not to use poisoned bullets.

With the industrial revolution and advances in chemistry, many nations agreed in the Hague Convention of 1899 not to use “projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases,” which were not then widely understood. There was a follow-on agreement in 1907, but World War I proved just how hollow that effort was.

There have been only a few known instances of poison gas being used since 1925, and in each case the perpetrator never openly admitted it. In the first two cases, gas was used by authoritarian regimes against those they considered lesser races. In 1935-36, Mussolini used several hundred tons of mustard gas in Abyssinia, now Ethiopia, and in 1940-41, the Japanese used chemical and biological weapons widely in China, where unexploded poison gas shells are still being dug up at the expense of the Japanese government.

François Heisbourg, a special adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, argued that one reason Japan stopped the use of chemical weapons, while then denying their use, is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped in and, in quiet diplomacy, “told the Japanese that we knew of the use and that there would be consequences.”

In 1965-67, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt ordered intermittent use of chemical weapons in the course of a long and disastrous war in Yemen, and the American use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was widely criticized, but it was legally considered a defoliant, despite its impact on human health.

It was only in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, started by Iraq after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that chemical weapons were again used in large amounts, and by the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against Iranian forces and his own Kurds. The Iraqis used both first- and second-generation nerve gases to blunt Iranian offensives in southern Iraq and forestall defeat. Given American and Western unease with Iran’s revolution, there was little public outrage as Muslims used poison on other Muslims.

The world’s indifference altered sharply, however, in March 1988, when Mr. Hussein killed between 3,200 and 5,000 Kurds around the town of Halabja and injured thousands more, most of them civilians, some of whom died later from complications.

The Halabja killings, considered the largest chemical warfare attack ever directed at civilians, led to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, in force since 1997, which bans not just the use but also the possession, manufacture and transfer of chemical weapons. It has since been signed and ratified by 189 states, according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which carries out the treaty. Syria is among only five states — with North Korea, South Sudan, Angola and Egypt — that have neither signed nor ratified it.

Tellingly, said Camille Grand, who worked on chemical disarmament for the French Foreign Ministry, Iraq never used its chemical weapons again — not in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, although American troops were prepared for their use, or in the 2003 American invasion, which overthrew Mr. Hussein.

“Halabja changed nothing but changed everything,” Mr. Heisbourg said. “In the gulf war the dechemicalization of Iraq became a war aim, and we achieved it, even though we didn’t know or believe it.”

That still leaves the question of why Syria’s use of chemical weapons to kill perhaps 1,500 people has elicited such a strong response.

Former Senator Richard G. Lugar said the difference lay in the danger of proliferation. “We are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about chemical weapons in particular, which may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk that we have, much more than another government, for example, or another nation because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups,” he told the BBC. “The use of these weapons of mass destruction has got to concern us, and concern us to the point that we take action whenever any country crosses that line and uses these weapons as have the Syrians.”

Others say that by using gas against its own civilians Syria is violating taboos built up over more than a century that need to be defended. “We signed up for over 100 years to not use these weapons,” Ms. Kidd of King’s College said, “and if we just stand by and not do anything, what is the value of the treaty and the norm?”

Mr. Grand agreed, saying that “it really breaks a taboo and puts Syria in breach of its own commitments in Geneva and a long list of international norms.”

While militaries find chemical weapons hard to control, given the vagaries of wind and weather, they can be effective against the unprepared, and especially deadly to unsuspecting civilians. “You just have to watch the videos from Syria from Aug. 21,” Mr. Heisbourg said. “This is killing people like cockroaches and using the same chemicals to do it.”

Thousands of people were killed by machetes in Rwanda, he noted. “That’s gruesome,” Mr. Heisbourg said, “but the production and sale of machetes is not considered a threat to international security.”

[Nictoshek]

With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas

By DAVID E. SANGER, ANDREW W. LEHREN and RICK GLADSTONE
September 7, 2013

WASHINGTON — Syria’s top leaders amassed one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons with help from the Soviet Union and Iran, as well as Western European suppliers and even a handful of American companies, according to American diplomatic cables and declassified intelligence records.

While an expanding group of nations banded together in the 1980s to try to block the Syrian effort, prohibiting the sale of goods that would bolster the growing chemical weapons stockpile, the archives show that Syria’s governing Assad family exploited large loopholes, lax enforcement and a far greater international emphasis on limiting the spread of nuclear arms.

Now, as President Obama confronts enormous difficulties in rallying a reluctant Congress and a skeptical world to punish the Syrian government with a military strike over what is said to be its apparent use of deadly nerve agents last month, he appears to be facing a similar challenge to the one that allowed the Assads to accumulate their huge stockpile. While countries around the world condemned Syria for adding to its arsenal as most nations were eliminating their own, few challenged the buildup, and some were eager to profit from it.

“It was frustrating,” Juan C. Zarate, a former deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism in the George W. Bush administration, recalled Friday.

“People tried. There were always other understandably urgent priorities — Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea,” said Mr. Zarate, who has written a book about American efforts to crack down on illegal financing for terrorist groups and states including Syria, Iran and North Korea. “It was an issue that was always there, but never rose to the top of the world’s agenda.”

Proliferation experts said President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his father before him, former President Hafez al-Assad, were greatly helped in their chemical weapons ambitions by a basic underlying fact: often innocuous, legally exportable materials are also the precursors to manufacturing deadly chemical weapons.

Soon after Mr. Obama came to office, newly installed officials grew increasingly alarmed by the ease with which Mr. Assad was using a network of front companies to import the precursors needed to make VX and sarin, deadly chemical poisons that are internationally banned, according to leaked diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy group.

Sarin gas has been identified by the United States as the agent loaded atop small rockets on Aug. 21 and shot into the densely populated suburbs of Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people, according to administration officials.

The growth of Syria’s ability was the subject of a sharply worded secret cable transmitted by the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name in the fall of 2009. It instructed diplomats to “emphasize that failure to halt the flow” of chemicals and equipment into Syria, Iran and North Korea could render irrelevant a group of antiproliferation countries that organized to stop that flow.

The cable was included in a trove of State Department messages leaked to WikiLeaks in 2010.

Another leaked State Department cable on the Syrians asserted that “part of their modus operandi is to hide procurement under the guise of legitimate pharmaceutical or other transactions.”

Publicly, American officials contend that they have done much since then to limit the flow of raw materials that feed Syria’s chemical weapons industry, in particular Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, which has been identified as a principal government enterprise for weapons development. Israel struck a missile convoy outside the center in January, American intelligence officials have said, on suspicions that weapons were headed for delivery to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“For several years, the Treasury Department, working with our partners across the U.S. government, has taken steps to expose and disrupt the Syrian regime’s W.M.D. proliferation activities,” David S. Cohen, the Treasury under secretary in charge of sanctions, said in an e-mailed statement. “We will continue to use all of our authorities to undermine the Syrian government’s W.M.D. proliferation efforts within Syria as well as around the world.”

The diplomatic cables and other intelligence documents show that, over time, the two generations of Assads built up a huge stockpile by creating companies with the appearance of legitimacy, importing chemicals that had many legitimate uses and capitalizing on the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. A Russian general responsible for dismantling old Soviet chemical weapons, who died a decade ago, was identified by a colleague as the man who helped the Syrian government establish its chemical weapons program.

As early as 1991, under the first Bush presidency, a now declassified National Intelligence Estimate concluded that “both Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union provided the chemical agents, delivery systems and training that flowed to Syria.” The same report concluded that Syria most likely possessed 500-kilogram aerial bombs containing sarin — larger, it appears, than the warheads mounted atop rockets that killed so many in the Ghouta suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.

While investigations by the United Nations into the attack remain incomplete, a group of outside academic experts reported last week that some of the warheads used contained 100 kilograms or more of sarin agent.

But even with such a large stockpile of weapons on hand, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., reported to Congress earlier this year that Syria “remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements” of its program. That dependence points to an important vulnerability that the West may be able to exploit as it tries to stop Syria from expanding its program.

The most detailed and highly classified cables in the WikiLeaks trove underscore that, while Syria has the ability to make chemical weapons, it relies heavily on other nations for getting precursor ingredients that can also be used for medicine.

Crucial chemicals and the missiles to deliver them have come not just from nations long allied with the Assad government, like Iran and Russia, but also from China (sometimes operating through North Korea) and a variety of Western nations, the cables and other documents show. In a few instances, American companies became players in Syria’s efforts to add to the sophistication of its stores.

One of the best-known cases in the United States involved a Waterville, Me., company once known as Maine Biological Laboratories. The company and several top executives were found guilty of allowing a series of shipments to Syria in 2001, including restricted biological agents.

That was one of several instances that involved deals with American firms, the cables show. In another case, an unidentified American company sold potassium cyanide to a Syrian pediatric hospital in 2006, but made no effort to check whether it was used for treating patients, as the Syrians had insisted was done, or instead was diverted for making chemical weapons.

A March 2006 State Department cable from the American Embassy in Damascus described how Syrians seemed to be exploiting trade with the West. “Syrian businessmen regularly report on the ease with which their fellow businessmen illegally import U.S. commodities with seeming impunity, as well as express concerns that the USG’s lack of enforcement of the economic sanctions” are “hurting those that choose to play by the rules.”

Those transactions presumably included chemicals that could be precursors for chemical warfare.

The Americans were not the only ones concerned.

According to another leaked cable, the Netherlands discussed how monoethylene glycol, an important raw material used to manufacture urethane and antifreeze, was shipped by a Dutch concern to the Syrian Ministry of Industry, considered a front for the Syrian military. The Dutch outlined how the chemical could also be used as a precursor for sulfur mustard, and possibly for VX and sarin.

These and other instances caused diplomats to seek more international control of goods that could aid Syria’s chemical weapons program. In 2009, the State Department pressured its delegation to the Australia Group, the 40-nation organization aimed at stopping the spread of chemical weapons, to push harder to constrain such trade.

“Emphasize that failure to halt the flow of AG-controlled goods into Syria, Iran and North Korea,” said a leaked State Department cable sent out over Mrs. Clinton’s name, could “call into question the AG’s relevance and important role in nonproliferation.”

Proliferation-monitoring officials attribute some of this failure to a simple lack of government resources to police the enormous volume of international chemical transactions, the globalization of that industry, and a greater concern about monitoring nuclear weapons.

“Precursor chemicals have not gotten the same attention as the nuclear trade,” said one Congressional expert, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to talk about investigative findings. “It’s been a known problem for a long time, and yet it happens.”

[JustJohn or JJ]

Christian Science Monitor

Military strikes in Syria: Five reasons Americans are wary

Opposition to US use of military force in Syria crosses party lines, ideology, race, religion, education, and income levels. On Capitol Hill, liberal Democrats and tea party Republicans use the same talking points as they argue against a congressional resolution to use force in Syria.

Many opponents do not quibble with the Obama administration's premise for striking at Syria: that the regime of Bashar al-Assad turned chemical weapons on civilians in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21, killing at least 1,400 people. But they are not persuaded that American military involvement there will yield anything productive. Here are the top five reasons Americans are wary of US military strikes in Syria.

- Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff writer


1. People are war weary

A decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has taken a toll on American support for military ventures – and on the public's confidence that US airstrikes can make the situation in Syria better.

While robust majorities initially supported the US intervention in Afghanistan (82 percent) and Iraq (59 percent), only 36 percent favor the US taking military action to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, according to a Gallup poll released Sept. 6.

More than 2 in 3 Americans, on average, approved of previous US military engagements over the last 20 years, at the outset of the conflict. Syria ranks the lowest. "After more than a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, war fatigue may be lingering," the Gallup poll concluded.

Other recent polls show even starker opposition. Just 29 percent of Americans in a Pew Research Poll favor airstrikes in Syria, with 48 percent opposed. Nearly three-quarters of those polled say US airstrikes are likely to stir a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region, and 61 percent say they are likely to lead to a long-term US military commitment in Syria.

"Americans have heard it before – that we'll be in and out quick," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, commenting on the poll. "You could call it war weariness or just a lack of faith in this kind of promise. There's also a related sense that our efforts overseas have not been effective ... or done more harm than good."

To many Americans, the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East – or anywhere, for that matter – is a bridge too far. In June, only 28 percent of Americans said that the Afghan war had been worth fighting, according to an ABC/Washington post poll. The shorthand for all that negativity on war is "war weary."

Six in 10 Americans oppose missile strikes against Syria, even if it's clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Sept. 3. That opposition is deep and robust: It extends across party lines, regions, age groups, income, and education levels, the survey showed. Fifty-four percent of Democrats oppose missile strikes, as do 55 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents.

2. Unintended consequences

What if a US strike not only fails to deter the Assad regime from future use of chemical weapons, but also makes things worse, such as provoking attacks on Israel or Turkey or empowering extremist elements of the Syrian opposition more hostile to US interests than the current regime?

If the US were to launch strikes against Syria, Assad could respond with reprisals against his own people or attacks against US allies in the region. Allies such as Iran or Hezbollah also could launch their own reprisals, say lawmakers on Capitol Hill, citing the responses they're getting from constituents.

"What happens if this thing gets away from us?" said Sen. Jim Risch (R) of Idaho, noting the prospect that Hezbollah in Lebanon could launch a counterstrike against Israel. "What happens if they get into it with Israel? What's our response to that going to be?"

The president and top administration spokesmen insist that, even in such a case, the US has options and can respond effectively without going to war.

"If [Assad] is foolish enough to respond to the world's enforcement against his criminal activity, if he does, he will invite something fare worse, and I believe, something absolutely unsustainable for him," said Secretary of State John Kerry at a Sept. 3 hearing. "That doesn't mean the United States of America is going to war, as I said in my comments. There are plenty of options here."

In response, Sen. Chris Murphy (D) of Connecticut credited the Obama administration with having made a convincing case that atrocities had been committed in Syria but questioned whether Americans still believed that US military power could lessen that "moral atrocity" or advance US national interests in the region.

"And clearly, though there is not some direct linkage between what happened in Iraq and what happened in Syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that American military might can influence politics on the ground in Syria after they have watched the last 10 years," he added.

Members of Congress say that their e-mail and letters, citing such concerns, are running strongly against the war.

"We get calls by the thousands: Nobody's calling in favor of this war," says Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, a likely 2016 presidential contender. "We all agree that chemical attacks are a horrendous thing. But people are not excited about getting involved, and they also don't think it's going to work. And they're skeptical of what will occur with this."

On Sept. 5, the State Department issued a travel alert to Iraq, noting that terrorist activity is "at levels unseen since 2008." On Sept. 6, Turkey and Lebanon were added to the travel alert list.

3. Limits of US military involvement unclear

Obama describes his strategy as a "shot across the bow" to "deter and degrade" the ability of Syria's Mr. Assad to use chemical weapons. In testimony before House and Senate panels on Sept. 3 and 4, Secretary Kerry, Defense Secretary Hagel, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made it clear that the president is not asking the nation to go to war or to assume responsibility for the Syrian civil war. And, most emphatically: No American boots on the ground.

But many Americans and members of Congress are wary that what starts as a limited "shot across the bow" could wind up as a full-blown war, requiring boots on the ground, as events spin out of control.

Americans want assurances that Syria will not be the next Afghanistan or Iraq. But asked to commit to a strictly limited operation, Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and General Dempsey hedged answers to questions about how "limited" a US military campaign in Syria must be.

Asked at the Sept. 3 Senate hearing whether the Obama administration could accept a proposed congressional resolution that explicitly prohibited American "boots on the ground" in Syria, Kerry said, "it would be preferable not to." That option might be needed "in the event Syria imploded" or to prevent Syria's chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist groups, he explained.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country," he added.

Responding to the same question, Dempsey said: "Well, it won't surprise you to know that, as the military leader responsible for this, the broader the resolution, the less limiting, the better off I will be in crafting a set of options."

Asked how confident he was that the US can "calibrate" military action to keep to the limited goal of "degrading and deterring" the Assad regime, Dempsey said: "Well, we can calibrate it on our side. There is always the risk of escalation on the other."

While only one-third of Americans believe airstrikes against Syria are likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons, 61 percent expect that airstrikes will lead to a "long-term military commitment there," according to the Pew Research poll.

“I don’t think there are any of us here that are willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on the ground,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the end, the foreign relations panel added a limitation to the Senate version of the use of force resolution that specifies that US armed forces are not authorized to be used on the ground in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations."

“No one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground, because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that,” Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona told a Phoenix radio station on Sept. 5.

4. Distrust of the intelligence

The Bush administration's briefings on the "slam dunk" certainty that the US would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, now universally discredited, dog the Obama administration's claims that its intelligence to justify airstrikes in Syria is credible.

Today's Congress must make a decision about use of force in Syria "in the shadow of the war in Iraq, which included a political mortal sin that misled people to war," says Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois, the assistant majority leader, who backs the Obama administration on Syria.

To most Americans, distrust of the Obama intelligence on Syria is largely a reflection of the discredited Bush claims. But increasingly, the news media and some members of Congress are questioning Obama claims, as well.

One issue is whether intelligence proves that the Assad regime ordered the use of chemical weapons against its own people on Aug. 21. In an unclassified intelligence assessment made public on Aug. 30, the Obama administration says that it has "high confidence" that that is the case.

"We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely," the report concludes. "The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition."

But the Obama administration's unclassified assessment does not include the satellite imagery or transcripts that marked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's case before the United Nations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The evidence was later discredited but was, at least, presented to the public with enough specificity to make such debunking possible.

British members of Parliament cited doubts about intelligence on Aug. 29, before rejecting, 272 to 285, participation alongside the US in airstrikes against Syria. Now US critics are challenging whether the Obama administration has, in fact, "cherry-picked" the intelligence or, at least, failed to provide the satellite images or the actual text of military intercepts to back up its claims.

To counter such concerns, the administration needs to release the intercepted messages and satellite images that show that the Assad regime was preparing for a chemical weapons attack on the eve of Aug. 21 or that missiles were launched from Assad-controlled territory, critics say.

Critics also charge that Kerry's characterization of the Syrian opposition as increasingly dominated by moderates is at odds with other intelligence reports.

"Who are the rebel forces?" said Rep. Michael McCaul (R) of Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. "Every time I get briefed on this, it gets worse and worse because the majority now of these rebel forces – and I say majority now – are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world to come to Syria for the fight."

"Are the rebel forces, the extremists, going to take over not only the government but these weapons? Because they are the ones most likely to use these weapons against Americans in the United States," he added at a Sept. 4 hearing.

"There's no clarity," said Hagel, in response. "Every point you made, the complications of the various terrorist groups which we have noted are there.... [But] we are seeing some movement ... in the right direction."

Another point not clear in the unclassified version of the US intelligence assessment is why on Aug. 21, with United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria, the Assad regime chose to launch a chemical weapons attack. The British intelligence assessment, released Aug. 29 by the British Joint Intelligence Organisation, made a similar point: "The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime's precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time, although intelligence may increase our confidence in the future."

5. Doubts about going it alone

Ever since the Vietnam War, American presidents have made a point of rallying international support before launching high-profile military operations, such as the Gulf War, the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, most recently, the no-fly-zone to protect opposition forces fighting Muammar Qaddafi in Libya.

But Obama knew that the United Nations would not authorize a military strike in a bid to uphold the international ban on chemical-weapon use – mainly because Russia and China would oppose any such Security Council resolution. Then Britain's Parliament voted Aug. 29 to reject military participation in a strike against Syria. Together, these two repudiations of Obama's preferred course of action have fanned concerns at home in the US.

"I would greatly prefer to be working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done, but ultimately what I believe in even more deeply ... requires that when there is a breach this brazen of a norm this important and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel ... and that makes for a more dangerous world," Obama said at a press briefing at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sept. 6.

"Americans are not eager to be the world's policeman," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "And it doesn't help when traditional allies, like Britain, aren't backing us up."

It's a concern that carries weight with members of Congress, who are hearing from voters back home that the US can no longer afford to police the world.

"With limited international support, we are being told the United States must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with a surgical bombing campaign of our own," said Sen. Tom Udall (D) of New Mexico at the Sept. 3 hearing.

"We're being told we're bombing in order to send a message. But what message are we sending? To the international community we're saying once again the United States will be the world's policeman," he said. On Sept. 4, Senator Udall was one of two Democrats and five Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations panel to oppose the resolution to use force. The measure passed the committee but faces bipartisan opposition in both the Senate and, especially, the House.