The 5 Most Ludicrous War Claims in Obama’s Syria Speech

By Matthew Rothschild, September 10, 2013     

1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”

No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.

2. Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “a danger to our security.”

Note that four paragraphs later, he said it wasn’t “a direct or imminent threat to our security.” So what kind of a threat is it? Well, a rather tenuous one. “Other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Really? It is very unlikely that some dictator would do this because he would know that if he did, the U.S. would drop a nuke on his head. That was the warning that Saddam Hussein got from the U.S. in January of 1991, and he didn’t use his chemical weapons even as the U.S. was destroying most of his army. If that threat was enough to stop Saddam, it’s likely good enough to stop other dictators.

Obama also acknowledged that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.”

3. “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.”

Let’s just look at Israel. Obama contradicted himself just a few minutes later when he said, “Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.”

4. “It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed.”

Only? If U.S. missile strikes seriously degrade Assad’s military, they would certainly help the extremists who are allied with Al Qaeda in Syria.

5. “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.”

Was the U.S. an anchor of global security and an enforcer of international agreements when it overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, or the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954?

Is the world a better place because the U.S. helped overthrow Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile almost exactly 40 years ago?

Is the world a better place because the United States killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and because we dropped 20 million gallons of napalm (waging our own version of chemical warfare) on those countries?

Is the world a better place because the United States supported brutal governments in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed tens of thousands of their own people?

Is the world a better place because George Bush waged an illegal war against Iraq and killed between 100,000 and a million civilians?

And what international agreements was the United States enforcing when it tortured people after 9/11?

Puccinin, the recently freed Belgian hostage, declares: "Al Assad is not behind the gas attacks!"

The Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin da Prate and Domenico Quirico, a journalist at La Stampa, both kidnapped in Syria in April 2013 by the Syrian rebels (whose main military arm is Jabhat Al-nusra which closely linked to Al Qaeda), were released on Sunday (8/9/2013).

 

During his interview with RTL-TVI, Piccinin indicated that it is the Syrian rebels and not the Syrian regime who used the sarin gas (in Al Ghouta). Puccini held on strongly to his statement especially when told that Quirico denies being that certain of this fact. He then insisted that it would be suicidal for the West to support the extremists who now lead the so-called Syrian revolution.

 

Puccini, who was a strong supporter of the Syrian rebels at the beginning of the uprise in 2011, said that "it is a moral duty to relay such information. It is not the Government of Bashar Al-Assad which used sarin gas , or any other gas, in the outskirts of Damascus. We are certain of this fact since we overheard a shocking conversation between the Syrian rebels. My statement comes at a high personal cost since I used to support the Free Syrian Army in their just struggle for democracy."

 

On the other hand, Domenico Quirico said "One day, we overheard a conversation in English via Skype between three men through the door of the room in which we were imprisoned. In this conversation, the men said that the gas attacks in the two districts of Damascus were committed by the rebels as a provocation to push the West to launch an attack on Syria". He also said that he is not sure of "the reliability nor the identity of the persons involved in this conversation. "I cannot assert whether this conversation was based on real facts or on a rumor. It is folly to claim that I know that it is not Assad who used the gas."

 

Puccinin, in response to Quirico's suspicions, said: "I'm a little bit surprised because we were together when we heard this conversation. It involved the Free Syrian Army general who was holding prisoners and a militant from Al-Farouq brigade. It was clear that, according to this conversation, Al-Assad's regime is not responsible for the gas attacks gas based on which the world shall decide whether or not to attack the regime of Bashar Al-Assad."

 

Puccinin, and in response to questions from Michel De Maegd, reiterated that, according to the two men, no, it is not the regime "of Al-Assad who is behind this attack". The Belgian ex-hostage continued: "The regime could not have made a more precious beautiful gift to the rebels had it really used these chemical weapons." Mr. Piccinin completely opposes the idea of an international attack on Syria. "The Free Syrian Army is now controlled by extremists. It would be crazy and suicidal for the West to support these people."

 

Puccinin explained: "It wasn't always the same group that held us. We were detained by different, anti-Western, anti-Christian, violent extremists. At many times, we were subjected to extreme physical violence" humiliation, bullying, and mock executions. Domenico underwent two mock executions by the revolver. At one time, we were convinced that they were going to kill us since they told us that we became a burden on them and that they were going to get rid of us".

 

Consult the interview in French here

Who Are the Syrian Rebels Supported by the US and its Allies?

Here are a few videos revealing the nature of the Syrian Rebels (closely linked to Al Qaeda)Supported by the US and its Allies?

CAUTION: Graphic content!

1- A Syrian rebel kills a soldier and eats his heart! Glenn Beck:THIS is who the US is helping in Syria

2- Syrian Rebels Execute 7 Army Officers: Brutality of Syrian Rebels

3- Syrian rebels Execute 51 Soldiers

4- Free Syrian Army (FSA )War Crimes: Execution of captured soldiers

(...to be continued)
 

 

Fox News: Judge Jeanine Pirro Attacks Barack Obama on Syria

September 7, 2013 - Fox News - Judge Jeanine Pirro - Opening Statement - Attacks Barack Obama on Syria (video)

U.S. Military Intelligence Involved in Chemical Attack in Syria

Voltaire Network| Moscow (Russia)| 5 September 2013

The situation in Syria is still in focus of the world media. Another U.S.-led “humanitarian intervention” may be unleashed soon. The Pentagon announced that it is ready to attack Syria in order to punish Bashar al-Assad and Syrian army for the alleged use of chemical weapons against the civilians.

 


A photo taken by Marco di Lauro/AP in Iraq in 2003 was presented by US State Secretary Kerry on August 30, 2013 as evidence of "Assad’s chemical attack."

Meanwhile, the new evidence of the U.S. intelligence being involved in chemical attack near Damascus on August 21, 2013 has been leaked to Internet.

A hacker got access to the U.S. intelligence correspondence and published private emails of Col. Anthony J. Macdonald, who is the General Staff Director, Operations and Plans Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence the US Army Staff.

In an email exchange on August 22, 2013 with the US Army civilian analyst Eugene P. Furst congratulates Col. on successful operation and refers him to a Washington Post publication about chemical attack in Syria.

E.FURST: By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.

A.MACDONALD: As you see, I’m far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
Another set of private correspondence between his wife Jeniffer MacDonald and Mary Shapiro reveals that colonel did not keep his mouth shut in the bedroom:

M.SHAPIRO: I can’t stop thinking about that terrible gas attack in Syria now. Did you see those kids? I was really crying- They were poisoned, they died. When is it over? I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?

J.MACDONALD: I saw it too and got afraid very much. But Tony comforted me. He said the kids weren’t hurt, it was done for cameras. So you don’t worry, my dear.
M.SHAPIRO: I’m still thinking about those Syrian kids. Thanks God, they are alive. I hope they got a kind of present or some cash.



From Col. MacDonalds’s wife dialog with her friend it’s clear that the video with the children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus was staged by the U.S. Military Intelligence.

This information sheds new light on the US administration’s confession that “there were indications three days prior that an attack [on August 21] was coming”.

As Joseff Budansky from GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs wrote on Sunday:
“On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.”

According to the same source,
On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.

The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four Hizballah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the Hizballah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack.

The samples of toxic agents were reportedly sent to Moscow for a detailed analysis.

Published data clearly indicate that the US administration is about to create any pretext to launch a military strike on Syria. Most recent revelation that the US Secretary of State John Kerry has used a photo taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate “Syrian victims of gas attack” last Friday to justify his bellicous message to the US Congressmen gives even more evidence that the “intelligence information” the warmongers claim to be based on is groundless or simply fabricated.

Now the vast majority of people worldwide perfectly understand that a kind of tricky game is being played on their behalf. The British parliament has already met the demand of clearly expressed public opinion and opposed the suicidal war over Mediterranean. Will the US legislators show us the same prudence and common sense? We will see it next week.

Source: Oriental Review (Russia)

George Galloway British Parliament Speaks On Syria

Listen to George Galloway's intervention on the chemical attacks in Syria's Ghouta in the British Parliament. Simply superb! 

Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack Syria's Ghouta

By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013

 

 

 

• 

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

 

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

 

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

 

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

 

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

 

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

 

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

 

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

 

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

 

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

 

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

 

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

Saudi involvement

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

 

Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

 

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.

 

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.

 

“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

 

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.

 

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.

 

“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

 

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

 

To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.

 

The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:

His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.

Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.

 

Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”

 

But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

 

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:

Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.

 

It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.

Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates .

Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and has reported from Amman, Jordan, writing for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC. An expert in Middle Eastern affairs, Gavlak covers the Levant region, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com

Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) Warn Obama on Syrian Intel

Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

September 6, 2013

 

Exclusive: Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?
That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role
Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation
We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

Western rationality

by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, Voltaire Network| Damascus (Syria)| 7 September 2013

 

You liked the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Vietnam War, the Kuwaiti incubators and the first Gulf War, the Racak massacre and the war in Kosovo, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the second Gulf War and the threats to Benghazi and the Libyan war? You will just love the gassing of civilians in Ghouta and the bombing of Syria.

In a statement released by the White House, the U.S. Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, said that 1,429 people were killed in a massive chemical attack on a dozen localities, August 21, 2013 in the suburbs of Damascus [1] .

The French services were unable to conduct an on-site victim toll, according to the declassified notes of intelligence coordinator Alain Zebulun [2]. However, they saw about 281 victims on videos, while the French "non-governmental" organization, Doctors Without Borders, counted 355 in hospitals.
Allied services all refer to videos. So, the Americans have collected a hundred on YouTube, while the French have only found 47. Washington and Paris consider them all as authentic. However, some of them were posted at 7:00 am, Damascus time (which explains why they are dated August 20th on YouTube, which is based in California), but with an almost midday sun, which implies they were filmed in advance [3].

All observers have noted the high proportion of children among the victims. The United States has counted 426, or more than a third. Some observers, but neither those of the US nor their French counterparts, were intrigued to find that victims were almost all of the same age and they had no families to cry over them. Stranger still, the gas would have killed children and adult men, but would have spared women.

The wide distribution of satellite channel images of victims allowed Alawite families near Latakia to recognize their children who had been abducted two weeks prior by the "rebels." This identification was long in coming because there are few survivors of the massacre by the allies of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in loyalist villages where more than a thousand bodies of civilians were discovered in mass graves.

Americans, British and French agree that the victims were killed by nerve gas that could be sarin or contain sarin. They claim to base their findings on their own analysis, carried out in their laboratories on samples collected by each of their services. However, the UN inspectors, who came on site to collect other samples will give their verdict in a dozen days. Indeed, the analyzes carried out by the Americans, British and French are unknown to the world scientific community for whom culturing tissue samples requires a much longer period.

Though it is clear that the children died of chemical poisoning, it is not at all certain that they were gassed. The videos show that the dying produce a white foam while sarin causes yellow emissions. The three Western powers also agreed to attribute the responsibility for this event to various extents to the Syrian Arab army. The U.S. Director of Intelligence says that its services observed the Syrian military, during the previous four days, mixing chemicals. The chairman of the British Intelligence Committee, Jon Day, assures that the Syrian Arab army is not at its first attempt and has used gas 14 times since 2012 [4] that is to say as many cases as reports of the use of chemical weapons by the United States during the Second Gulf War.

The revelations of the US, British and French services are corroborated by a telephone interception. According to this narrative, a senior official of Syrian defense would have made a panicked call to the head of the chemical gases unit about the massacre. However, the interception was not made ​​by the Americans, British or French, but was provided by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Mossad [5].

In summary, US, British and French services are 100% certain that the Syrian Arab army gassed an unknown number of civilians:

1. For this they would have used a new kind of old sarin gas that does not affect women.
2. For four days, the United States observed the preparing of the crime without intervening.
3. The day before use, the magic gas killed children who were kidnapped by jihadists two weeks earlier and more than 200 miles away.
4. These events are known through authentic films made and sometimes posted in advance on YouTube.
5. They are confirmed by a telephone interception produced ​​by the Israeli enemy.
6. Western secret services have a secret method for identifying sarin gas without having to culture human tissue.
7. As it would be the fifteenth such operation, the "régime" would have crossed a "red line " and should be "punished" by bombing it to deprive it of its means of defense.

In international law, war propaganda is the most serious crime because it makes all other crimes possible.

[1] " U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government ’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 ", Voltaire Network, 30 August 2013.
[2] " Summary of the French Information about the chemical attack of 21 August 2013 ", Voltaire Network, 2 September 2013.
[3] " About videos of the massacre of August 21s ", Voltaire Network, 30 August 2013 .
[4] " Letter From the Chairman of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee on Syria ", Voltaire Network, 29 August 2013.
[5] “Israel’s role in the announcement of the attack against Syria”, Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 1 September 2013.

The Grand Narrative for War: Manufacturing Consent on Syria

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO, the Counterpunch, Weekend Edition September 6-8, 2013

 

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky gained much notoriety from their seminal book, Manufacturing Consent, more than two decades ago. The central thesis of that book – that political and media elites construct propaganda narratives in order to build support for U.S. foreign policy – remains as relevant today as ever. Obama’s proposed intervention in Syria is a case in point. Public support for military action remains quite low – ranging from between one-quarter to one-third of Americans according to recent polls. That’s likely to change in coming weeks to months as the administration ramps up its pro-intervention rhetoric, and as political elites, reporters, and media pundits uncritically repeat and embrace his messages. The 2011 intervention in Libya provides a template for the administration’s plan:

1. defend an intervention via humanitarian rhetoric that lambastes a dictator for serious human rights abuses;
2. deliver a number of public speeches in an effort to build support for war;
3. and once troops begin to enter harm’s way, sit back and enjoy increased support as Americans “rally around the flag” in support of the conflict.

This formula was enough to gain support for intervention from between 50 to 60 percent of Americans in the case of Libya, and is likely to do the same in Syria once Congress goes along.
The process has already begun. A senate committee already voted 10-7 to grant authorization for force, and a floor resolution is likely to follow in this Democratic controlled chamber. The Obama administration has largely controlled the narrative on Syria over the last year and a half, stressing that the United States is seriously concerned with Assad’s abuses and use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. A September survey from the Pew Research Center finds that by a factor of more than two-to-one, Americans conclude that, from what they have “read and heard,” that “there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.”
The beleaguered peoples of Syria, Obama contends, need a helping hand from the United States, which is said to be unconditionally concerned with protecting the safety and security of those targeted by Weapons of Mass Destruction. The claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people has been largely accepted in political and media discourse, despite the fact that the administration has yet to present any concrete evidence. The failure to present evidence presents a particular problem considering claims appearing in news reports that rebel groups may be guilty of using chemical weapons. The Syrian government may very well have used these weapons, and this would probably surprise few people, but the key point here is that the administration has done nothing to present that case before announcing its campaign for war.

In analyzing major news stories via the Lexis Nexis academic database, my findings suggests that during early 2012 and in the first half of 2013 (both periods when reporting of the Syrian civil war was growing), the percent of stories referencing the Obama administration significantly outnumbered references to Congressional Republican opponents in the news by between ten to twenty percentage points. In other words, the administration had a clear advantage in controlling the narrative on Syria – as presidents typically do when it comes to foreign policy. Reports claiming that both the Syrian government and rebel groups have engaged in human rights abuses and used chemical weapons represent a challenge to Obama’s Syria narrative.

According to Lexis Nexis, reports referencing these two points barely appeared in U.S. news stories from 2012 to 2013. Instead, the grand narrative on Syria emphasized Obama’s rhetoric on the need to confront Assad, while also stressing the efforts of rebels to take down the government. Predictably, those paying close attention to news on Syria have fallen in line behind the president. My analysis of Pew Research Center polling data from 2012 finds that those paying “a lot” or “some attention” to Syria in the news were significantly more likely to support U.S. military intervention and more likely to embrace supplying weapons to rebels than those paying attention to Syria news “not at all.” The effects of pro-administration media content, however, were blunted by the fact that relatively few Americans were paying attention to Syria from 2012 through early 2013 (typically less than 50 percent in polls when this question was surveyed). Pro-administration coverage is likely to produce growing support for intervention by late 2013 however, considering that a strong majority of Americans (over 60 percent from recent survey findings) are now paying attention as the U.S. prepares for war. Mass support will be necessary to tip the scales in favor of intervention.

Clearly, Obama read the writing on the wall and saw from the latest polling figures that opposition to war has persisted by a factor of two-to-one; hence his effort to achieve support from Congress. This president would like to spread responsibility for the intervention between himself and the legislature, in an obvious effort to prevent a public mutiny focused on executive and to avoid the tarnishing of his presidential “legacy.” This effort has little to do with a commitment to the rule of law, as Obama argues (Congress according to the Constitution has the power to declare war, not the president). Obama showed contempt for Congress and little interest in securing a congressional resolution in the 2011 Libya intervention. Receiving support from Republican hawks and Democratic allies on Syria, however, will add an element of perceived “legitimacy” to the war effort, likely bumping up public support. This much seems clear from late August NBC polling demonstrating that 79 percent of Americans feel that “Obama should be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria.”

1. Obama’s delivery of a number of speeches shortly before the conflict begins (as happened in Libya), will likely be accompanied by growing support among those paying attention to presidential rhetoric and reporting on Syria.
2. Pundits in the media will fawn over the president for his efforts to promote “transparency” in the intervention by presenting “clear cut” and “definitive” evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons – of course, without bothering to pressure for a return of inspectors to verify these claims.
3. Finally, as the U.S. military enters into the hostilities, many will grant short-term support to the president, seeking to demonstrate their “support for the troops” during a difficult time.

This “rally effect” has accompanied every war in recent history, and it will be no different in Syria. The combination of these three developments will likely result in at least a bare majority of Americans (perhaps more) supporting limited intervention, so long as ground troops are not introduced.

The notion of “manufacturing consent” seems appropriate here, considering that challenges to war are being marginalized in political discourse. Some of those points are worth reflecting on:

* Why should Americans accept Obama’s artificial “red line” in the sand that dictates intervention based upon evidence of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons? Estimates suggest that approximately 100,000 Syrians have already been killed in the civil war. Do we even know how many have died as a result of chemical weapons use as compared to conventional weapons? What makes a death via chemical weapons more morally outrageous than a death via conventional weapons? Do the families of the dead care about this distinction? A murder is a murder regardless of the type of bomb used. The “red line” narrative appears to be little more than a propaganda line used to drum up public support for war at the expense of critical thought.

* Should we really believe that air strikes are going to disarm the Syrian regime, or at least render its alleged chemical stockpile harmless? This seems fanciful, despite the fact that so many pundits are accepting this position. Those familiar with the disarmament process know that it requires the introduction of international inspectors, which first need to identify facilities where chemical weapons reside, in order to disarm them. Without such efforts, there is reason to question the assumption that a bombing campaign will prevent future use of chemical weapons. The bombing campaign seems intended to degrade Assad’s military capabilities – rather than his chemical weapons stockpiles – so as to provide the Syrian rebels with an opportunity to take the offensive against the government. Obama hasn’t been honest with the public about this motive for action.

* Why is military intervention superior to intensifying sanctions? Increased sanctions send the message that repression is unacceptable, as the guilty country becomes even further isolated from the rest of the world. This solution has the added advantage of removing U.S. responsibility for the bombing of civilians in large numbers. Furthermore, the sanctions alternative will at least ensure that the U.S. does not further exacerbate instability in Syria, considering the concern that violence could spill into neighboring countries. Hezbollah has announced that it will launch attacks against Israel following a U.S. intervention in Syria. Hezbollah’s attacks would most certainly be accompanied by Israeli incursion into Lebanon, contributing to further regional instability, death, and destruction.

* Why Syria, and why now? There are so many examples of repressive allied regimes that receive a free pass on human rights abuses. Reports suggest that more than 600 civilians were killed in the recent military crackdown by the U.S.-allied Egyptian dictatorship, with scarcely a word from the president, compared to the 1,500 hundred who died in the Syrian government’s alleged chemical weapons attack last month. Plenty of examples of human rights abuses by U.S. favored dictators (or by countries with little strategic value) have produced little to no response from U.S. presidents. To name a few: the Saudi and Bahraini government crackdown on protesters in Bahrain during the Arab Spring; government genocide against civilians in Darfur during the 2000s; the Turkish government’s suppression of tens of thousands of Kurds from the 1990s onward; the murder of hundreds of thousands via genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s; the Indonesian government’s occupation and genocide in East Timor from the 1970s through 1990s; Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds during the mid to late 1980s, when he remained a valued U.S. ally. We could add more countries to the list, but the main point is that allied human rights abusers (or those responsible for abuses in countries with little strategic value) receive a pass, while designated enemies of state (Libya and Syria being the most recent examples) are targeted due to geopolitical U.S. interests – the most salient being Middle Eastern oil.

* What about those chemical weapons? Why should the Obama administration expect the public to accept that Assad used chemical weapons when literally no evidence has been presented? To simply accept presidential rhetoric without evidence would be a serious mistake in light of the way that intelligence was knowingly and criminally manipulated by Bush in selling the war with Iraq. If it turns out that both sides are guilty of using chemical weapons, what is the humanitarian or moral basis for intervening in favor of rebels – who themselves have amassed quite a horrendous human rights record – against the government?

* What of humanitarian concerns? Do we really think that bombing military emplacements located in civilian areas can be defended as humanitarian? Such attacks are likely to escalate the human rights abuses in Syria, rather than curtail them. It is a historical fact that the vast majority of deaths during war are civilians. Perhaps we should stop defending wars by using mythical humanitarian rhetoric when we know that they produce destruction and death, instead of humanitarian relief.

To date, I have seen little effort to address these criticisms. Such concerns have been brought up from time to time in the news, but if past trends continue, media coverage will privilege presidential narratives over anti-war views. At day’s end, Syria appears to have all the makings of a classic effort to “manufacture consent” in favor of war.

Anthony DiMaggio holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois, Chicago. He has taught American Government and Global Politics at a number of colleges and universities, and is the author of numerous books, including Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008); When Media Goes to War (2010); Crashing the Tea Party (2011); and The Rise of the Tea Party (2011). He is currently completing a book on presidential rhetoric: From Fear to Democracy: Presidential Rhetoric from the War on Terror to the Arab Spring, and can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

Jabhat al-Nusra and Free Syrian Army: we want to free Maaloula from faithless christians!

Watch the video shot by Jabhat al-Nusra (linked to Al-Qaeda) militants as they attacked the town of Maaloula in Syria yesterday (Thursday 6th 2013):

-At 0:17, the guy says "bombing of Mar Sarkis Church, Allaho Akbar"
-At 1:36, the guy says: "targeting the Mar Takla monument".

This video another also shot by this by these militants as they entered the twon of Maaloula. They were shooting at houses and churches and at the mountains where the Safir Hotel, to which town residents fled, lies.

And this is a video a militant of Jabhat al-Nusra cutting a Syrian soldier open after killing him and eating his heart and internal organs as a sign of victory (contains graphic material).

Syrian Free Army (SFA) and Al-Qaeda linked Jabat al-Nusra, fighting under the umbrealla of Syrain rebels, are supported and funded by the all mighty US and the all blood-thirsty Bandar Bin Sultan's KSA. They say they want to free Maaloula from the "faithless" crusaders (i.e. Christians!!).

Notes:

1- Maaloula is a Christian town north of Damascus (population: 2000) whose residents are said to be the last speakers of Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.

2- John McCain wants us to think that these people, i.e. the FSA and jabahat Al-nusra are moderate muslims and their "Allaho Akbar" screams whenever they kill, shoot, or bomb, are similar to the "thanks God" Christian say when rejoying in any occasion!

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo (March 2012) (By: Daniel Byman, Michael Doran, Kenneth Pollack, and Salman Shaikh) lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so. These are:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;

2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;

3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;

4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;

5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and

6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

 The memo considers option 6 as the Goldilocks Solution

 Option Six: International Intervention: The Goldilocks Solution?

One variant on the invasion option that bears separate consideration because it could prove to be an attractive alternative is for NATO to invade Syria with Arab League diplomatic support and ideally some Arab military participation. UN authorization would be desirable, but given Russian opposition would probably not be forthcoming. Invading forces would depose the Asad regime, impose a ceasefire on the warring parties, and provide security for a long term, international effort to rebuild Syria. The closest model here would be the NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1995—although it would differ in at least one critical respect since there would be no Dayton Peace Accords to precede it.

 In a nutshell, NATO would have to agree to mount the invasion and then provide the military means to enforce the peace and protect a UN-led multilateral effort to rebuild the country. A key consideration would have to be that the UN would lead the kind of reconciliation talks between Sunni and Alawi in Syria that never occurred in Iraq. Likewise, NATO forces would have to remain for as long as necessary, even if in diminishing numbers, to ensure the Alawis and Syria’s other minorities that they would not be oppressed by the majority Sunni community (again, as NATO did in Bosnia, but the United States did not do for long enough in Iraq). In essence, NATO would depose the Alawis and other minorities and then work to protect them from a possibly vengeful majority.

 Four conditions would have to be met for this model to be workable:

 1. Turkey would have to be willing to provide the logistical base and much of the ground troops for the operation. Turkey is best placed of any country to intervene in Syria: it has a large, reasonably capable military; it has vital interests in Syria; and its interest is in seeing peace and democratic transition. However, this condition may pose difficulties because the Alawis do not trust the Sunni Turks, and Ankara might like to see a Muslim Brotherhood-led government take power in Syria. Turkey would also be reluctant to spearhead an invasion because it would not want to significantly change Syria’s Kurds’ status, fearing unrest in Turkey itself. Of equal or greater importance, the long-term occupation and reconstruction of Syria would likely be well beyond Turkish resources alone. Thus, while Turkey would need to be a key player—perhaps the key player, as Australia was in the similar intervention in East Timor—it cannot be the only player; it will need financial help and multilateral assistance and cover.

 2. The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

 3. The United States will have to be willing to provide critical logistical, command and control, and some combat components. As always, there are certain things, particularly leadership, strategic direction, mobility assets, and certain precision strike capabilities that only the U.S. armed forces know how to provide and that if Washington is not willing to offer, the operation would likely falter. Along similar lines, if the United States does not furnish some ground forces, no one else will either, and American troops may be critical to reassure the Syrians that the Turks will not run amuck—something they will fear regardless of whether it is a reasonable concern. In addition, as noted, because of the United States’ experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a lot of Americans with useful skills who can contribute to pacification and reconstruction in Syria.

 4. The operation must be conducted under a multilateral—if not international framework. NATO participation (as in Libya, Bosnia, and Kosovo) is essential because it creates the appropriate framework both for Turkish intervention and for Western assistance alongside Turkey. Arab League participation would be extremely helpful both as a source of additional (Arabic-speaking) ground troops and to legitimize the invasion in the eyes of both the Syrian people and the wider region. Ideally, the UN Security Council would authorize the mission, or at least provide a special representative of the secretary-general to internationalize the reconstruction effort, bringing in scores of other countries and non-governmental organizations that have resources and skills that will be sorely needed for that effort. If the United States is willing and able to secure these various conditions, the international intervention approach has numerous benefits.

Of greatest importance, it would cost the United States much, much less than mounting an invasion itself, but would have far, far greater certainty of achieving American goals than any of the other options. However, securing any of these four conditions could prove impossible. The Russians have shown every sign that they would fight tooth and nail to prevent any UN mandate for such an operation. It is also not clear that the Turks are ready to make so large a commitment (although the worse things get in Syria, the more likely they probably would be since their own list of options looks even less appealing than our own). Western Europe and the United States are mired in severe economic difficulties, and the only time that the Arab states were willing to pick up the tab for a major Western military operation in the Middle East was the 1991 Gulf War. Thus, as attractive as this option might be, it will ultimately prove very hard to implement.

 

The memo lays down the following conclusion

Conclusion

No option for U.S. policy for Syria is simple or costfree. All are flawed, some quite deeply. A number of the easiest options to implement, such as diplomacy and coercing regime change, also are the most likely to fail or succeed incompletely. Others, like having opposition forces act alone or with U.S. support, might put more pressure on Asad but are potentially costly and by no means guaranteed of success. For now, some options—particularly an American invasion—are not in the cards politically in the United States and are not being called for by Syrians, regardless of their (debatable) desirability. Recognizing a range of options is vital, however, because in practice many of the options slip easily into one another and, indeed, policymakers are likely to mix components of each. The diplomatic approach, for example, could bolster all of the other options: the United States will want to build coalitions, try to flip the Russians, and otherwise use its diplomatic power if is trying to coerce or use force to get Asad out. Similarly, all the military options would be enhanced if the United States also continued economic pressure on the Asad regime. Such mixes may mitigate some of the problems described with each option above, yet trying to mix and match aspects of different options will often bring on new sets of costs and disadvantages.

Some of the options can be considered steps on an escalation ladder—some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.

Several steps are vital for almost any conceivable effort to oust Asad. The United States will want to build within the “Friends of Syria” a smaller contact group, regardless of which approach is taken. Indeed, should Asad not fall, this group would also be vital for containing the spillover from a Syrian civil war. In addition, the United States will want to expand ties to the Syrian opposition and try to push them to be more cohesive. A stronger opposition will not only bolster the policy options, it will be critical to the shared goal of all the options. It is the opposition that will play a greater role even if there is only limited regime change, and of course would be the government of Syria should Asad and his henchman fall completely. Finally, U.S. regional allies, particularly Turkey, are vital. They will play a major role in determining how tight sanctions are and the degree of isolation felt by the regime. Because of their proximity to Syria, they are also essential to various military options, even if they themselves do not take the lead.

 Policymakers should recognize, however, that diplomacy and coercion alone may not topple Asad. The options in this paper offer alternatives for escalation and, at the same time, reasons that escalation would be costly and risky. In the end, policymakers may decide that the price for removing Asad is too high and the consequences for Syria’s long-term stability too uncertain. If so, they must focus on the problem of a weakened but defiant Asad who is also more dependent on Iran. This would require thinking through how to structure sanctions on Syria and regional diplomacy to limit the humanitarian impact on the Syrian people while still maintaining pressure on the Syrian regime.

Whether Asad stays or falls, the civil war in Syria may spill over into neighboring states, which requires efforts to shore them up and try to reduce the scale and scope of the civil conflict. So even as the United States pursues regime change, it must also work to bolster neighboring states to care for refugees, prevent terrorism, and refrain from self-defeating interventions.

 As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act—even failing to decide—is an action and a decision. Not choosing to intervene is the same as choosing not to intervene, and it would be far better that whatever course the United States follows, that it be the product of a conscious decision so that we can pursue it properly, rather than the outcome of a paralyzing indecision that prevents Washington from doing anything to protect this country’s many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria.

 

Read the full memo

PS: In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment. Saban has stated of himself, “I’m a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel”, and was described by the New York Times as a “tireless cheerleader for Israel.” The Centre is directed by AIPAC’s former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.