HARPER: OBAMA'S SYRIA FLIGHT FORWARD

I am told by current intelligence officials that President Obama intends to bomb Syria in the coming days--with or without Congressional approval.  With the whip count in the House of Representatives looking worse and worse for the war party, the White House is pressing Harry Reid to rush the Senate vote, perhaps as early as Monday evening, Sept. 9, the day that the Congress returns to Washington and the debate is scheduled to begin.  If Obama can get a Senate majority, sources close to the White House say that he will order strikes before the House can get started.  Perhaps this is why Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is saying that a House vote is unlikely before the week of Sept. 16, given that passions are running so high on the issue.  The reality is that opposition in the House is growing and the chance of a "yes" vote from the GOP-led lower chamber is well below 50 percent.

President Obama's problems go way beyond the Halls of Congress.  He is facing three daunting problems with his Syria war scheme, according to one senior US intelligence officer.  First, the case that Assad ordered the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 is, at best, circumstantial.  A triangulation of intercepts by Israeli, German and US sigint agencies has been pitched to Congress as "proof" that Assad did it.  But the case is flimsy and, ultimately, is all based on interpretations of conversations involving Syrian military commanders, Iranian diplomats and Hezbollah leaders.  Clearly the American people are also unconvinced, as the opposition to any military action is polling well above 80 percent in most recent polls.

Second, even if President Obama were to win support of one or both Houses of Congress, any US unilateral action without approval of the United Nations Security Council is a violation of international law.  Obama is about to order a war of aggression which is explicity barred by the UN Charter.

Third, in his private White House meeting on Monday with Senate hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham, President Obama assured them that the planned bombing campaign would indeed alter the military balance on the ground in Syria in favor of the rebels.  The President told McCain and Graham one thing behind closed doors, while professing that his military plan is merely a punishment and deterrent to assure Assad won't ever consider using chemical weapons again in public. Remember that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resigned from the Cabinet over the decision to establish a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian grounds."  Gates was correct when he warned that a no-fly zone is an act of war and that once the combat begins, it only ends with regime change.  Is the President lying to McCain and Graham to get their critical support in the Senate or is he lying to the American people when he says that the objectives of the military operation are strictly limited?

The Obama flight forward in Syria is also premised on the belief that the Assad government and its allies will sit back and do nothing in retaliation for US strikes.  Is there any basis in reality for this assumption?  When Secretary of State John Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday tried to dismiss the al-Qaeda penetration of the Syrian opposition, Russian President Vladimir Putin was so angry that he publicly called Kerry a liar.  US intelligence estimates, that Kerry has clearly seen, warn of the degree of penetration of the Syrian rebel forces by radical jihadists who hate the United States.  Under pressure, Kerry admitted that 15-25 percent of the rebel fighters are jihadists.  Is there a Special National Intelligence Estimate on how the Russians or the Iranians or Hezbollah will respond to Obama's US missile barrage?  The answer is "no."  

Yet President Obama has taken it as an article of blind faith that there will be no retaliation for the so-called "limited" US strikes that he could order at any moment after the Senate vote early next week.  This President, who knows nothing about military affairs, is bringing the United States to the brink of what could rapidly escalate into world war.  It seems that 80 percent of the American people are smart enough to realize that and want nothing of it.  In his remarks in Sweden earlier this week, President Obama was at his Narcissistic peak, proclaiming that "history" has drawn the red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons and that he is merely acting as the messenger and executioner of "history's judgment."  

Comments

[Walrus]

What about a second False Flag chemical attack timed to fit between a Senate affirmative vote and the house vote? That would give Obama an excuse for immediate action. It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[VietnamVet]

It is frightening that the Deciders think that they can pull off another Libyan air campaign and regime change in Syria. First Assad is in it to the end. Second, he has the backing of Iran and Hezbollah. Finally, the Shiites, Christians and Alawites are fighting a holy war of survival against their ancient enemy, Sunni Jihadists; a conflict that is a 1000 years old.

The air campaign will fall flat on its face and there will be enormous pressure to put boots on the ground to save the prestige of the USA. American boys and girls will be caught in the middle of a Holy War once again and be forced to ethnic cleanse the combatants; Iraq, all over again, but at a even greater loss of life and treasure.

[different clue]

If Obama hopes to start the war soon enough after a Senate "yes" vote to render the House's "no" vote irrelevant because the war has already started, then perhaps the first and hardest effort should be aimed at the Senators? Telling them that we will vote based on how they vote, and also that we will support and encourage any Impeachment effort launched by Republicans in the House.

I believe in my tinfoil heart that Obama told his true intentions to McCain and Graham and is lying to the rest of us about his bait-and-switch plan to start a bigger wider war.

My amateur instinct is that Obama and his supporters want to overthrow Assad/Baath in order to install an al Quaeda government in Syria. If not to create more terrorism to scare us into supporting the NSA surveillance state, then maybe for reasons others have suggested; such as preparing for a war against Hezbollah and Iran itself.
I suspect they know very well that if they attack Syria hard enough, they will force it to retaliate directly or through Hezbollah. And Obama will keep ordering attacks until that happens. I suspect Obama is not unaware of the possibility of retaliation against us. I suspect Obama is counting on retaliation happening, if he can work hard enough to make it happen.

[Rd.]

"Robert Gates backs President Obama on Syria"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/exclusive-robert-gates-backs-obama-on-syria-96314.html

It must be time to examine the head of all of these guys, specially Gates!!!! does money speak? or is the stupidity rampant in dc...

[John Minnerath]

I'm at a complete loss for words.
Where do these unconscionable cretins come from?
It doesn't seem possible such ignorance can be running the oval office.
Are we at another "here we go again" moment?
Is there no one left with the wherewithal to apply the reins to the insanity?

[jerseycityjoan]

I have to challenge the idea that opposition to taking action in Syria is related to fears of a world war and "that 80 percent of the American people are smart enough to realize that and want nothing of it."

What basis is there for thinking that world wars are on people's mind?

I"d really like to know.

It never occurred to me that any big ideas of any type were involved in this for most people.

I figured most Americans realized they'd just had enough, sat down in the middle of road and refused to budge, instinctively almost, without thinking. That was my response and I thought that was how others felt too.

I acknowledge that use of chemical weapons is a dangerous precedent. I have doubts they were used, certainly in the way described. But mostly I don't care. I don't want us to do anything, period. I don't trust the Syrian rebels and I think we may make things worse. My donkey-like reaction of NO came first and is not listening to reason.

[Fred]

"President Obama has taken it as an article of blind faith that there will be no retaliation for the so-called "limited" US strikes that he could order at any moment after the Senate vote early next week."

Neither the United States nor its citizens have been attacked by Syria. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is quite clear. Should Obama order an attack after the Senate vote and before the Congressional vote it would be illegal. The Senate has no authority under the Constitution to declare war or authorize military action. The officers and men of the armed forces are sworn to uphold the Constitution not to blind obedience to a politician who willfully violates it.

[kao_hsien-chih]

I hear that there's a radio station in Gleiwitz that's just begging to be gassed....

[Jim Ticehurst]

It Bothers Me Deeply...That President Obama, Our Commander in Chief, keeps getting away with being "Decider" in Chief..with no real Qualifications..when it comes to Military Actions,Decisions and Putting Our Military and Troops in Harms way in Foreign Nations ..Especially his Constant support for Revolutions ..Rebels and Reactionarys who want to overthrown their respective Governments..

Why is He doing this..? He is nothing but a Reactionary Himself..Nothing but a Kid whose BS,at the Right Time,In The right place, attracted attention and Put Him in a position to gain Power and Influence in a Polarized,Unstable Nation, ready for a Reckless turning point.
It was one thing for him to become President of the United States, and therefore..have the Power and Influence,with those Traveling with him, to roll out His Manifesto,and Urfurl his Banner..His "Liberation" has been a total Social Failure, and the Nation of the United States is in the Worse Social, Moral,Political and Ethical Decay it has every been in...

Barack Obamas hometown,Chicago, is a Killing Field, and He, The "Community Organizer" has done nothing about it..Chicago was Obamas "Mein Kampf" Moment..When His "Mentors" Put Him onto the Podium to Dazzle 51%
percent of the "mass's" into believing He was "The One" to Liberate them, and Bring Social Justice and "Freedom" ..

Right Person,Right Time,Right place to over throw the "God Damn US KKKofA"..That is One thing....and Bad enough...Its another thing, That He, as Commander in Chief, feels He can now also use His Powers as Commander in Chief to use Our Armed Forces to carry out that "Manifesto" to overthrow other Governments World Wide, without Clear Vision, Insight,Counsel or Checks and Balances..or understanding of Consequences, ... His "Manifest Destiny" so Far ..has been to be a Failure as Community Organizer,President and Commander in Chief..a Man Full of Secrets,and,Mis- Chief..How can we trust anyone who never Reveals His Golf Score and whose Conduct does not seem very "American" to me..To all You Professionals who have called Obama Out..and the Neo Cons too... Thank You...

[JohnH]

It's not clear what advantage Obama gains by recklessly hurtling to war.

Also, isn't this totally uncharacteristic of the Obama who made leading from behind and voting "present" in the Illinois legislature? I don't recall Obama ever passionately advocating for anything but himself. Where did this sudden fire in the belly come from?

Anyone else sense an air of desperation about the man? If so, what could it be? Something about the NSA scandals or the upcoming Snowden releases?

[mbrenner]

Kerry: "Kerry said that Assad has joined Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein in crossing the proverbial "red line" through his use of chemical weapons, and that inaction will send a "horrendous message of permission."

“If we don’t do this, Assad will have a message that he can use these weapons with impunity," said Kerry. "We will have turned our back on the next batch of children, on the next batch of parents. We will have turned our back on the international norm. We will have lost credibility in the world, and I guarantee you if we turn our backs today, the picture we all saw in the paper today and the media of those people being shot, that will take place more because more extremists will be attracted to this because they will be funded as the only alternative in order to take on Assad.”

Could someone explain what the logical connections among these sentences are. What does funding for salafists have to do with a punitive strike in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons? Is he implying that the vote really is about a major intervention on behalf of the non-salafist opposition?

This is barstool emoting that should embarrass any official - most certainly a Secretary of State at a time of crisis.

[The Twisted Genius]

A recent Fox article talked about possible Russian reactions to U.S. strikes on Syria. Putin said in an interview that Russia could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks. We could see the S-300s in Syria and Iran. General Dempsey testified that Russia could replace any military assets destroyed in a U.S. strike. When asked about Russian options he pointed out that "Russia has capabilities that range from the asymmetric, including cyber, all the way up through strategic nuclear weapons. And again, it wouldn't be helpful in this setting to speculate about that."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/obama-to-engage-putin-on-syria-strike-at-g-20-summit/

Kerry said Russia won't go to war over a strike on Syria. General Dempsey should remind Kerry about Russia's "Pristina Dash" in June 1999. A Russian motorized rifle company sized force drove from Serbia to Pristina Airport overnight before NATO could react. It was a bold and surprising move. Wesley Clark wanted to strike at the Russians, but Sir Mike Jackson, commander of British forces, told him to bugger off, saying something to the effect that he wasn't going to start WW III for him.

Remember earlier this year when Russia moved S-300 regiments by air in an air defense exercise. I think Russia is very capable of doing something surprising in response to a U.S. strike. And Putin is far more formidable today than Yeltsin was in 1999.

[eakens]

Referendums and articles of impeachment. Nothing else will derail this madness.

[Eliot]

"Remember earlier this year when Russia moved S-300 regiments by air in an air defense exercise. I think Russia is very capable of doing something surprising in response to a U.S. strike. And Putin is far more formidable today than Yeltsin was in 1999."

Too true, we're conditioned to think of Russia as that country tottering on the edge of failure. That is no longer accurate. If we keep pushing, at some point, they will bloody our nose.

[confusedponderer]

"history" has drawn the red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons"?

That's two bold assumptions in one breath.

First, it was Obama's choice to draw the line, certainly not history's. I like to hang out with history, studying, and so far she never had any ideas of her own.

Secondly, 'Assad's' use ... far from certain. Indeed, improbable even.

I want to know more about the point Larry Johnson at No Quarter brought up, referring to the Bodansky article. The article said that FSA leaders in Turkey were briefed about a "war changing event" shortly before the chemical incident, and that they were handed out new weapons.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76324/obamas-small-penis-moment-in-syria-this-is-a-usuk-intel-op/

Anyone knows more about that?

Larry Johnson writes today:

"My friends in the CIA are still around and they are now warning me that both the United States and the United Kingdom know that Bashir Assad is not responsible for the incident on 21 August that killed and maimed Syrian civilians. While it is true that a chemical of some sort caused the fatalities and injuries, it was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military quality chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal."

[confusedponderer]

"Kerry said that Assad has joined Adolf Hitler ..."

Gowin's law, proven once again.

[confusedponderer]

The Bushies at the time were just like that, only that the public mood was different, and the people were craving a head on a spike then.

I had my share of debates with Americans in 2002/2003 over Bush's invasion of Iraq. Entirely different mood today. Being antiwar today means facing far less rancor than in 2003.

One differene in character between Bush and Obama is that Bush was sullen, in his 'I do what I godda do because God told me' sort of way. Where Bush was stubborn and sullen, Obama is vain, if not vainglorious. That's about it.

Policywise, there is little difference - it's regime change all the same. One difference is that Obama has made this war hard on himself by having his crew screw up the CW propaganda item, probably because they lacked Republican discipline.

Bush's or Obama's individual motives or drives matter little to the eventual outcome (as in the difference between well meant and well done). Foolish policy ideas put into action result in policy failure.

Believing in America's exceptionalism they both do. Mr. Lang is right, that is indeed the crux, because that is what is propelling America on their various and varied crusades.

In the end, Bush and Obama were/are probably both being told by aidees, themselves no less true believer in American exceptionalism, that he, THEY, show grand leadership when bombing something to smithereens over public opposition.

The White proverbial house bubble must be a insulated, incenstuous and self-reinforcing place.

Obviously, they all need to get out more.

[Jose]

Great analysis, but I don't think you can get 60 votes to bring the resolution to a vote.

[jonst]

Well, without the Col's sound policy of no personal attacks I would be tempted to call you a jackass. One does not have to be a ME expert, or near expert, to see that there are a dozen good reasons not to get involved in Syria. Furthermore, I think there are a hundred good reasons to see that that Syrian strike, whatever it turns out to be, is being driven by amateurs. Gen Dempsey is on board, for now, begrudgingly riding in the back seat. But they are warming up the front seat for him and his moment of truth is approaching.

No JJ, I completely disagree with you....there are a lot of logical reasons to oppose this action...reasons, true that may have little to do with the scope and or location of the action contemplated. But sound reasons just the same...and there is one good one that predominates. This entire governing Class is starting to rot from the head down...and one does not need to be a chef or a fisherman to detect that.

[Kerim]

This is getting more and more interesting...
China might be moving an amphibious transport ship closer to Syria.

US intercepts Iranian order for attack on US interests in Iraq in case Syria attacked:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2013%2F09%2F06%2Fuk-syria-crisis-usa-iran-idUKBRE98503Y20130906&ei=m6cpUrvSDMOBtAbSj4HADA&usg=AFQjCNHx-ku5XiRIL67FG9Hl2qXXqpfSfw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.Yms

Obama and Kerry are lying publicly and S. Powers is saying the UNSC is not doing its job and its because of Russia.

If this continues like this, this "crisis" is going to have a life of its own and will not be controllable any more.

[PS]

From their own history, the Russians know all about how a radical minority can push aside a larger popular revolutionary group.

[William R. Cumming]

Apparently some kind of WH Press Conference just before 10AM!

Also in my opinion Putin had more of the G-20 on his side than President Obama.

AND LARRY SUMMERS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE OLIGARCHS SEIZING POWER IN RUSSIA AND NOW WILL BE DOING THE SAME IN THE USA, IMO OF COURSE!

[Carl O.]

THis is probably the Bodansky article Larry Johnson is referring to: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/08/22/sarajevo-1995-and-damascus-2013-the-use-of-mass-attack-deception-to-decide-wars/

[Babak Makkinejad]

Russians will not give S-300 to Iran or Syria; that is an empthy threat.

Nor will they do anything overt to oppose US; as far as they stand, US is yet again harming herself - why sgould they intevene?

[kao_hsien-chih]

Even if the description of Russia as "tottering on the edge of failure" were accurate, that doesn't mean they'd cower before force. Russia was indeed tottering on the edge of failure inf 1914, but they still opted for war--precisely because everyone was thinking they were tottering on the edge of failure and thus could be safely disregarded, so that Russia had to show that it meant business. In the end, Russia did totter into a failed state, but took down Austria-Hungary with it...