Harper commmentary to pass on

I received the following email this evening, with an invitation to pass it along to others.  I make no claim of accuracy but from past experience, the author is generally well informed.  It certainly tracks well with events of the past week.  pl

 ------------------------------------------------

"From a series of meetings in Washington today with a number of contacts, I have reached the following conclusions regarding an imminent U.S. attack on Syria.

First, as of late Friday afternoon, Aug. 23, President Obama concluded that Syrian government forces had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb.  At that point, the White House put out a statement to select reporters from an "unnamed senior White House official" making it clear that the President was convinced of the Syrian government's use of CW.



 

By Tuesday morning, the Obama strategy and timetable had shifted and some hardened decisions had been made.  Track I was abandoned because it would take too much time to go to the UN Security Council when there was near-certainty that Russia and China would veto.  By then, enough European, Arab and other allied states had agreed to back a retaliatory action that it was felt there was enough credible international support to attack soon.  



 



 

Although JCS Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel opposed military action, once the President made the decision, the objectives of the Pentagon shifted to controlling the targeting decisions and limiting the possibility of an all-out war.  For Obama and his inner circles of advisors (Rice, Jarrett, Axelrod, Power, Michelle Obama), the level of military attack had to be sufficient to avoid Republican attacks for only making a symbolic response to the alleged CW attacks, while avoiding a major escalation or a clear intervention to give the rebels a decisive edge.  It appears that cruise missile attacks are planned, to target command and control sites and storage facilities for missiles, other delivery systems, and possibly some CW.



Secretary of State Kerry has spoken with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, and has informed him of the American plans, along with reassurances that the United States is not targeting any Russian strategic interests in Syria or seeking regime change.  The Russians were told that the U.S. is convinced Assad's forces used chemical weapons, and the U.S. actions are in retaliation for the Syrians crossing Obama's "red line."  One source indicated that there is some tacit agreement from the Russians that, so long as the attack is so limited, they will not escalate.  This is, of course, a very risky proposition, given the degeneration of U.S.-Russian relations of late. It is likely that there are also military-to-military back channels communicating this message as well, although I do not have details.

 

There is no clear assessment of how Iran will respond, and what impact this will have on the new Rowhani government in Tehran.

 

Israel and the Israel Lobby have been pressing for such U.S. action since last week.  Israel believes that the longstanding cease-fire deal that they had with Syria is over, given the penetration of both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah networks inside Syrian territory.  Last week, rockets were fired into northern Israel and Israeli intelligence concluded that the rockets were fired by Al Qaeda linked rebel factions.  Israel wants the United States to take care of the Syria crisis fast, because the status quo is intolerable for Israeli security.

 

It would appear that these limited strikes by the U.S. are imminent, and that they could likely occur before President Obama leaves early next week for St. Petersburg for the G-20 heads of state summit. 

Harper"

 

-----------------------------------

Comments are welcome.  pl

Comments

[Popsmoke]

Colonel Lang,

I am not in competition with you and yes there are several additional orders but as you note those are of a different ranking within our Church the SMOM, EDSHJ and the Teutonics while the Church Orders all do their share in support. However you mistake my point. My point was SMOM is more than just a Catholic Lay Order and its members are subject to direct authority of their Grand Master and especially their Superior, Our Holy Father.

But Its been 15 years since I worked for then Archbishop McCarrick and his Regional Bishop David Aries. So forgive me if my memory of details lapses. As I hold you in high regard I hold those Orders of our Church with extreme regard for their service. But in Sir Nicholas's case if one is going to take a stand that opposes the directives of his Order and its Superior. Then one must make sure that one removes his cover...so.to speak... It just goes aganist the grain..

With High regards..

[rhack]

Well, I've explained this here before.

1) Israel wants a war with Iran.
2) Israel can't have a "cheap" war with Iran without taking out Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon. Because otherwise Israel will have to deal with Iranian, Syrian AND Hizballah missiles. This will keep the Israeli electorate in bomb shelters for most of every day, hurting the economy and ticking off said electorate who might vote out the Likud in the next elections...Netanyahu doesn't want that.
3) As Colonel Lang has said in the past, the only way to do that is to take out Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley.
4) Only way to do that is cross Syrian territory, which means engaging Syrian forces, which means a two-front war and casualties.
5) BUT IF Syria were already under attack by the US and NATO - a la Libya - then Syrian forces would be degraded and pinned down allowing an Israeli force to cross Syrian territory and enter the Bekaa Valley from the flank.
6) A US/NATO air campaign will also get rid of the very Syrian missiles and aircraft which could threaten Israel in an Iran war.
7) This was the plan since day one of the Syria crisis which is proven by the fact that the US inserted UN Chapter 7 language into the first three UNSC Resolutions - which is why Russia and China vetoed them.
8) Then the US had the insurgents fire into Turkey and had Turkey fire back to get Syria to retaliate - but Syria didn't.
9) Then the US had the insurgents fire into Israel and had Israel fire back to get Syria to retaliate - but Syria didn't.
10) That left them with the "chemical weapons" ploy - except Assad didn't use chemical weapons.
11) That left the US and Israel with "false flag" operations conducted by insurgents which the US has ADMITTED training in the handling of chemical weapons!
12) And here we are...

I have been saying that the US and NATO would attack Syria by the end of this year. Regardless of how the present situation pans out, we would seem to be on track.

Once the US and whatever allies it can gather have degraded Syria's forces sufficiently, Israel will use some "Hizballah is getting chemical weapons from Syria" BS excuse to attack Lebanon, sending one armored division into Syria to protect the flank of a second armored division which will go up and over in the Bekka Valley, along with a third armored division which will go up through Southern Lebanon as in 2006.

Except this time Israel will commit all its forces to an all-out effort to dislodge and remove Hizballah from southern Lebanon, seize and/or destroy as many of Hizballah's missile arsenal as they can, and push Hizballah far enough north so that its remaining missiles can not cover all of Israel.

Once Syria and Hizballah have been sufficiently degraded so that they cannot be effective actors against Israel in an Iran war, then Israel will start the Iran war - and Obama will delightedly commit the US to support Israel in that war.