The UK Telegraph has the story The rush to judgment on Syria is a catastrophic and deadly error.

His [British Prime Minister Cameron] problem is that the British and American foreign policy, intelligence and military establishments have made a series of dreadful mistakes over the past 15 years. It can be stated with complete fairness that the Stop the War Coalition (a miscellaneous collection of mainly far-Left political organisations, by no means all of them reputable, which marches through London this Saturday in protest) has consistently shown far more mature judgment on these great issues of war and peace than Downing Street, the White House or the CIA.
.
.
.
More surprising still, the Stop the War Coalition has often proved better informed than these centres of Western power, coolly warning against the diet of propaganda masquerading as bona fide intelligence.
.
.
.
The rush to judgment by Britain and the US looks premature, especially in view of the record of our intelligence agencies in providing misleading and fabricated evidence as a justification for war before 2003. (This time it is said that they have been convinced by intercept evidence, but this too can prove seriously misleading.)
.
.
.
The moral authority of Britain and America in the Middle East is shaky, as an article published in Foreign Policy magazine last week reminds us. It provides documentary evidence that the US helped Saddam Hussein’s Iraq launch a series of chemical weapons attacks upon Iran in the late 1980s, an offensive that killed approximately 20,000 Iranian troops – which dwarfs the number of victims of the Syrian attack. Iran, of course, is Assad’s closest ally. Our moral indignation over chemical weapons looks selective.

One of the comments on this story pointed to some videos of questionable authenticity showing the rebels launching sarin gas attacks.  More about that in the next blog post Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies.

Reader Supported News has the article Elizabeth Warren’s Secret by David Dayen, Salon.

The senator tells Salon how one senator can wield tremendous power – and (kind of) addresses those ’16 rumors

It’s been well-documented that the 113th Congress specializes in getting nothing consequential done. While the nation’s supply of named post offices is apparently well-stocked, anything more critical has generally stalled out, with little hope to break the gridlock.

So let’s say you’re a high-profile freshman senator walking into this den of inertia, and you want to make your large following proud and advance your agenda, but you’re in no position to do that legislatively? How do you, Elizabeth Warren, find your way through this minefield, and even chalk up successes?

A very nice article that gives a lot of insight about how a Senator can change the way things are done even without making legislative changes.  Part of what I like about the way Elizabeth Warren works is that she understands you have to change the terms of the debate before you present legislation.  If you don’t do that, you end up like the feckless President who bargains himself down before he even faces his opposition.

The President defers to Congress to dream up the legislation to advance his agenda.  All the while that this process is playing out, the opposition has a heyday framing the debate on terms unfavorable to the President’s agenda.  At the very tail end, the President jumps in and is forced to debate the topic on the opposition’s terms.  His own terms never even get a chance to be part of the debate.

Here is the scenario if the President used the Warren strategy.  You start talking about the issue.  You make some high profile appearances where you set the terms of the debate.  After the conversation seems to be going in your desired direction, you propose some specific legislation.  Since you have set the tone of the debate, the opposition is forced to debate you on your terms and hardly has time to get to their debating points.  Notice that you don’t move to the succeeding steps until you have some indication that your point of view has sunk in sufficiently to weather whatever storm the opposition can try to raise.  If you are not making the progress you want at each phase, you adjust your tactics, and keep trying until it works.  I often don’t have the stomach for this in my world, but that is why Obama was elected as the country’s President and I was not (at least one of the reasons :-).

France24 has the article Intercepted call ‘proves Syria used chemical weapons’.

US intelligence intercepted a panicked phone call between Syrian army officials shortly after the chemical weapons attack on civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21, according to the magazine Foreign Policy.

Further down in the article we have this added detail:

“Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defence exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers after a nerve gas strike killed more than 1,000 people,” Foreign Policy said on Tuesday.

I can imagine the phone call.

High Official: What the heck is going on? Did you use chemical weapons?

Officer: No, of course we didn’t use chemical weapons. It was probably the rebels that did it.

Based on this frantic call, the US concludes that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. You can take that to the bank.

The article further goes on to say:

Meanwhile, German magazine Focus has reported that Israeli intelligence services also intercepted a phone call between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons.The conversation was then relayed to the US, according to an unnamed former Mossad official quoted in the magazine.

There you have it, the phone call was intercepted by two ‘reliable’ sources who have no reason to lie.

Somehow I would like to see an independent translation of the intercepted call to see if I would interpret the call in the same way as the CIA/Mossad did.  I would also like to hear the recording so I can judge the panic level.  It’s not that I am suspicious of motives at all.  It’s just that if I am asked to approve the bombing of another country, I don’t want to take one side’s word for what the evidence is without hearing what the other side has to say.

I have created a petition, President Obama: Don’t bomb side that didn’t use chemical weapons to favor side that did.  The wording might not be ideal because I had to shrink it to 75 characters.

My previous posts, Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack Carried Out by Rebels, Says UN (UPDATE) and In Rush to Strike Syria, US Tried to Derail UN Probe, show that it is quite likely that President Obama has identified the wrong side as the user of chemical weapons in Syria.

It would be a horrible miscarriage of justice and it would severely harm the interests of humanity if we were to punish the side that did not use chemical weapons in a way that could bring to power the people who did use chemical weapons.

If past history is any guide we will be saddled with the aftermath of this huge blunder for more than 50 years. See my previous post, A CIA Hand in an American ‘Coup’? about our legacy in Iran.

At least don’t let this horrible mistake be on your conscience.  Please sign the petition.  Please spread the word about this petition.

August 29, 2013

I changed the title of the petition to

President Obama: Don’t bomb the wrong side over the use of chemical weapons

When you sign the petition, the following email will go out:

To:
The President of the United States
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
Rep. Edward Markey, Massachusetts-05
Rep. Richard Neal, Massachusetts-01
Barack Obama, President of the United States

Don’t bomb the wrong side over the use of chemical weapons

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Truth Out has the article In Rush to Strike Syria, US Tried to Derail UN Probe by Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service.

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

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

 

Not only do we now know that the administration would rather not hear any facts that contradict their preconceived notions, we now know that any Wall Street type that reads the news pages of The Wall Street Journal knows it too.  My observation in the past has been that The Wall Street Journal news pages and The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are written in different worlds.  The editorial pages can be said to come from an alternate universe from the one in which most of us live. If I stumble onto something on the editorial pages, I can rest assured that it is proven wrong in its own news pages.  Perhaps the people who are inclined to believe the editorials think that the editorials disprove the news if they even bother to read the news.

Gareth Porter’s conclusion of his article states the following:

The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of U.N. inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD programme.

In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.

Maybe we should ask the President the classical question from the Verizon ads, “Can you hear me now?”

The Las Vegas Guardian Express has the story Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack Carried Out by Rebels, Says UN (UPDATE).  Please read the following quote before drawing any conclusions from the headline.

UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify one or two points that some of our readers found misleading: The chemical attack earlier this year was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. It is this attack that the UN now concludes was carried out by Syrian rebels. It appears unlikely – for a number of reasons – that the most recent August 21st attack was carried out by government forces – despite the rush to judgement within the international community – although this has yet to be fully determined. It is clear that both sides in the Syrian conflict have the means to use chemical weapons and it would be misguided to assume that either side has a moral objection to such attacks.

As Jean Pascal Zanders, formerly of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, has pointed out ”In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage. For the West’s credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation.”

This article is NOT SAYING that the current attack was carried out by the rebels. However, it is saying that the possibility still exists.  So why is everybody seeing the Russians as being obstinate because they won’t rush to judgment?  Could it be that our mainstream press is not giving us access to all the news?

By the way, I first heard about Carla del Ponte and her comments to Swiss radio late Sunday from a comment on a CBS news article.  That comment mentioned “Carla del Ponte” and “Swiss radio late on Sunday.” I found the article that is the subject of this post that you are now reading by Googling carla del ponte syria chemical weapons.  Follow the previous link to do your own research to see what else you can find out.

Before reading this article, I had been wondering if it would be possible to analyze the blood samples from the victims to determine what chemical agent was used.  Then from this information and possibly deeper analysis of the blood samples, could we make some inferences as to who had access to the exact agent that was used?  If so, why would we want to rush to judgment and possibly destroy evidence by making an attack?

Following up on some other links from my Google search, I found that the BBC has the article UN’s Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels ‘used sarin’.

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

Again, I ask, why are people in Europe exposed to key information that is never mentioned in our own mainstream press? Should we feel so smug and sure of our own knowledge when faced with incontrovertible evidence that there is often key information to be had that is being suppressed in our own country? Is President Obama as in the dark about this key information as we were? How could this possibly be? If he does know about this information, why doesn’t he tell us if our own press corps won’t?

I may have to reread my article on how President Obama is different from George Bush father or son. I am starting to forget what those differences are.

The New York Times has the story Syria Asserts Claim of New Strikes as U.N. Impasse Looms. The previous link is to the supposedly unhacked version of the web site.  In this age of internet chicanery, there is no guarantee of anything.

Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, added a new level of complexity to the issue on Wednesday, announcing that he had submitted evidence of three previously unreported instances of chemical weapons use in Syria, which he asserted had been carried out by Syrian insurgents. Mr. Jaafari said the Syrian government had requested that the United Nations investigators expand their inquiry to include those events as well, which could lengthen their stay in the country.

Mr. Jaafari said the new instances occurred on Aug. 22, 24 and 25, and were also in the Damascus suburbs. He said Syrian soldiers were the targets. The ambassador did not explain why he was only now bringing forth the allegations, which critics were likely to view as a stalling exercise.

Mr. Jaafari repeated the Syrian government’s denials that it had ever used chemical weapons in the conflict and said the accusations were a conspiracy by Western nations acting on Israel’s behalf. He rejected assertions by the United States, Britain and other Western allies that there was persuasive evidence of Syrian government culpability in the use of the banned weapons.

The natural reaction to this might be, well of course Syria is going to deny this.  Why should we believe anything they say to avoid the consequences of their actions?  Yes, but what if in this case they are right.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Syrian government was actually not responsible for the chemical weapons attack. What could they say that would convince us that they were telling the truth?  If the answer is that there is nothing they could say, then we have a problem.

Haven’t we seen this movie before?  The UN inspectors couldn’t find any WMD in Iraq before we invaded.  So we said, well of course, Saddam Hussein is hiding them.  I thought at the time that he was caught between a rock and a hard place.  He had to convince his local adversaries that he did have WMD to scare them away form attacking him.  He had to convince the US that he did not have WMD to keep us from attacking him.  Not that I have any sympathy for Saddam Hussein, but what our misguided propaganda war cost us in US soldiers’ lives is what distrubs me.

President Obama has prove once again that he does not understand the principles of negotiation.  This shows up in the trouble he is in because he announced his red line in the Syrian conflict.  He announced to the world that if Syria used chemical weapons that would be crossing his red line, after which he would take military action against Syria.

When you make such an announcement to the world, anyone who wants you to attack Syria now knows what has to be done to get you to take action.  Who would want you to take action against Syria?  Some of the rebels in Syria would certainly want you to take action.  Some people in your own government want you to take action.  They also know that it must look like the Syrian government did it.

If you must have a red line, you should only tell where that red line is to the people who would not want you to take action.

Announcing red lines is akin to going into a negotiation to sell something at a particular offering price, but announcing up front what is your actual minimum acceptable price.  Obama has already proven himself to be a past master of this technique.

The Real News Network has the interview, Bennis: There is No Military Solution to Syria. Why should we listen to what Phyllis Bennis has to say?

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.

At the end is a great summary of the forces at work in the Syrian conflict.

BENNIS: We need to be clear there are five separate wars being fought in Syria. And, unfortunately, the victim of all of them is the people of Syria. There is certainly one war between the Syrian regime and a component of the Syrian people, as I mentioned earlier, with a very complex combination of forces challenging and fighting against the regime.

There is a sectarian war that’s underway. It didn’t start that way, but it has become a thoroughly sectarian war between, on the regional side, Sunni and Shia, with the Alawite leadership in Syria on the Shia side. And that takes shape when you see Iraq and Syria and Iran on one side versus Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey on the other side.

Then there’s a regional war for power, largely between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but being fought in Syria to the last Syrian, and with other forces such as Turkey, such as Qatar and others playing a role.

You have the war, the new Cold War, if you will, between the United States and Russia over sea lanes, over control of resources, control of oil fields, etc., pipelines. All those factors come into play. And that war is being fought to the last Syrian.

And then, of course, you have the war between Israel and United States on the one hand and Iran on the other hand over Iran’s alleged nuclear aspirations. And that war right now is being fought to the last Syrian. So you have a number of wars that are taking shape inside Syria. And the people of Syria are the ones who are paying the highest price.

One thing about our tough military stance that we usually take in these situations seems so obvious, that I cannot understand why nobody else has noticed.

What would prevent us from attacking Syria? Would we attack them if they had nuclear weapons? Is Iran correct that having nuclear weapons is the only thing that would stop us? So, has Iran made a completely rational decision based on what we did to them in 1953 and what we are doing now, that having nuclear weapons is the only good defense? Does this mean that the more pressure we put on Iran and the less willing we are to talk to them, the more we confirm their suspicions? Knowing this, should we try some other strategy?

We don’t remember Theodore Roosevelt because he said, “Speak harshly, and carry a big stick.”

Truth Out has the oped piece War on Syria: Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten-Pound Bag. I’ll quote the beginning and the end of the piece.

I’m just going to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up: instead of attacking Syria, how about we don’t attack Syria?
.
.
.
I think I read somewhere that Mr. Obama is a pretty smart guy. Now would be a fantastic time for him to prove it by coming up with an answer to this that does not involve cruise missiles, bombs and mayhem.

When, a few months ago, Obama first issued the ultimatum against using chemical weapons, it sounded to me like a pretty reasonable thing to do.  Now that we are facing the consequences, I hark back to an excuse we used to use in the Army to try to get out of almost any predicament involving the intervention of our superiors in rank, “Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time.”

The implication being, “Yes, I see why you want to mete out some punishment because it doesn’t sound like such a good idea anymore, but I am just a lowly soldier who can’t always think for himself.”

All of the talk about the things we could do to punish Bashar al-Assad were all tried when we wanted to stop the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953.  It didn’t stop them then.  It isn’t stopping Iran today when we try the same tactics.  It probably won’t stop al-Assad.  Except for saving face, what will we gain by spending billions of dollars on an effort that we know will not succeed and will only further enrage the Arab population of the Middle East?

What would happen if  we actually talked to the Russians and Chinese, since they are the stumbling blocks in getting anything out of the United Nations Security Council?  Instead of trying to convince them of our point of view, or going our own way if we fail, what if we really debated the pros and cons of what they want to do against what we want to do?  Could some actual, viable alternative course of action be figured out?

In the 1953 coup that we and the British created in Iran, the British used a clever ploy to get us to rescue them from the severe loss of control over the oil fields in Iran.  Rather than stating the need for the coup in those terms, they recast the issue as one of preventing the Communists in Russia from gaining control of the Iranian oil.  Apparently President Truman was smart enough to rebuff them, but Eisenhower fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Let’s not use the same inability to talk to the Russians (and Chinese) just like we were still in the cold war.

The issues in Syria are very tough ones.  Rather than resort to our brute strength, maybe it is time to use our brains.

In talking with my SO about this issue and blog post, we almost simultaneously came up with another idea.

A quote from the article brings the point home.

Doctors Without Borders seems pretty convinced it happened, despite the fact that the use of such weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense, given the fickle nature of chemical weapons and how closely concentrated his own forces were near the area of the attack. A rogue military commander, perhaps? The rebels themselves?

So, who might gain by a use of chemical weapons?  The USA (CIA), Israel (Mossad), al-Qaida? So maybe the Russians are  right in saying that even if the chemical weapons attack is proven, we don’t know for sure who is responsible.  The Russians are saying that the UNSC has a protocol for finding the answers to these questions before they sanction military action.   Or should we just take the word of the CIA and the US administration that they have incontrovertible proof.  After all, the CIA has wiretaps. The recent NSA scandal has shown us how much the word of the clandestine part of our government is worth.  We also have plenty of experience with the hotheads in the Republican party that are calling for immediate action whether we know who is responsible or not.  If anyone has the motto “Ready, Fire, Aim” it is the Republicans and our own media.