Tag Archives: Syria

Congress As A Last Resort

Posted on by

On Monday, Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner about President Obama’s decision to seek authorization from Congress for military intervention in Syria.

The article points out that President Obama first sought approval on the world stage. When it became apparent that the world stage was not interested in giving its approval, President Obama sought approval from Congress.

The article reports:

It was only after it became clear to Obama that he could not win acceptance in other, preferred, circles that he chose to go to Congress. Would he have sought congressional authorization if he had won United Nations approval for a Syrian attack? Highly unlikely. Would he have sought congressional authorization if the British Parliament had voted to join Obama’s action? Also unlikely. Even approval from the Arab League might have been enough for Obama to act.

So where are we?

Yahoo News posted an article today with the following statement by Vladimir Putin:

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

It will be interesting to see how Congress votes on this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama’s Riechstag Fire Moment

Posted on by

A man by the name of Yossef Bodansky posted an article on the website Global Research asking, “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?” At first glance that seems like an absurd question, but Mr. Bodansky makes an interesting case.

The article opens with the following thought:

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

In mid-August US Intelligence was meeting in Turkey with representatives of Qatari and Turkish Intelligence.

The article reports:

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.

Not all Syrians believe Assad was responsible for the attack:

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

I am not familiar with this website. This story could have the level of truth found in Snow White. However, there are a lot of things here that make sense. I think America needs to be really sure of what is going on before we agree to get involved.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Other Side Of The Story

Posted on by

I have posted a number of articles and comments by people opposed to American intervention in Syria. Now I would like to post an article expressing support for American intervention.

On Thursday, Bloomberg News posted an article by Fouad Ajami detailing his reasons for supporting American action in Syria. Fouad Ajami is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is the author of “The Syrian Rebellion,” published by Hoover Press.

The article reminds us:

In his first term, his four principal foreign policy advisers — the secretaries of state and defense, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — supported arming the rebellion in Syria: He overrode them. Earlier this year, he himself promised the rebels weapons that were never delivered.

History will record for Obama that it was Bashar al-Assad who dragged him into this fight. Obama had made much of the distinction between wars of choice and wars of necessity. He is said to have pondered theories of just and unjust wars. To this Syrian ordeal, he came late in the hour, after the barbarisms, after the veritable destruction of Syria’s nationhood, after the jihadis had carved out their emirates. It doesn’t matter much whether this entanglement is one of choice or of necessity. This is only partly a hand that Barack Obama was dealt. To a greater extent, he has shaped the conflict with the passivity he opted for in a standoff with a petty dictator who should have been thwarted long before.

The argument here is that had America intervened at the beginning, it would have been easier to shape the rebel forces, hopefully influencing them toward democracy.

When Bashar al-Assad eventually falls (and I believe he will), there will be few tears shed anywhere. However, there does not seem to be a coalition willing to remove him. Mr. Ajami points out that one of the problems in the Middle East is that dictators get attacked, survive, and claim victory, even after having everything around them destroyed in the attack.

Because of this, Mr. Ajami suggests:

The Syrian regime must then be denied the dividends of an inconclusive military campaign. The regime itself — its barons, its secret police, its elite military units and its air bases — ought to be legitimate targets, and the same is true of Assad’s presidential palace. There should be conviction and courage in this fight with the Assad dictatorship.

President Obama has given no indications that he is capable of conviction and courage. There has been so much dithering in deciding how to deal with Syria, it makes my head hurt.

Again, I wanted to post an opinion in support of American intervention in Syria. Fouad Ajami is someone I respect and who has a very complete knowledge of how the Middle East works. However, I am still not convinced. We didn’t do too well in Egypt when we supported the ousting of a dictator–we got the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, it will be years before peace reigns in Egypt. Are we ready to do that again? It seems that all America accomplishes with her good intentions in the Middle East is to destabilize the region. Until I am convinced that American action in Syria will actually move the region toward peace and democracy, I can’t support action.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Foreign Policy Decisions Impact Countries Other Than America

Posted on by

Yesterday The Times of Israel reported on Israel‘s reaction to President Obama’s handling of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war.

The article explains Israel’s reaction to President Obama’s recent statements:

It is worried, furthermore, at the ever-deeper perception of Obama’s America in the Middle East as weak, hesitant and confused — most especially in the view of the region’s most radical forces, notably including Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.

 And it is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.

I don’t know whether or not Congress will decide to take military action against Syria. I do know that the fact that President Obama did not call Congress into session to vote on Syria now indicates a lack of urgency which I do not believe is appropriate in the situation. It would seem to me that the gassing of upwards of a thousand innocent people might be a reason for quicker, more decisive action.

The article in The Times of Israel concludes:

Jerusalem is worried, too, of a direct line between requesting Congressional approval for military action against Syria — a relatively straightforward target — and feeling compelled to honor the precedent, should the imperative arise, by requesting Congressional approval for military action against Iran — a far more potent enemy, where legislators’ worries about the US being dragged deep into regional conflict would be far more resonant.

Israel remains hopeful that, to put it bluntly, Obama’s America will yet remember that it is, well, America. The alternative, it rather seems, is something the leadership in Jerusalem finds too awful to so much as contemplate just yet.

When America is weak and has a weak President, the world is a more dangerous place. Because we have lost the respect of the world, our having overwhelming force is not enough to deter other countries from doing bad things. Unfortunately, because we are weak, we may have to use our weapons to prevent further bad things from happening.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Thoughts On Syria

Posted on by

As I have said, I have very mixed emotions as to what America needs to do regarding Syria. Today Michael Yon, an independent war correspondent posted a story on his website entitled, “Syria–Outrage is Not a Strategy.” The article details some of the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and the fact that many of the statements made by the American government during the time he was there as a reporter were simply false.

Regarding Syria, Michael Yon quotes a letter written to him by Member of Parliament Adam Holloway. The letter states, “Outrage is not a strategy.”

I have a lot of respect for Michael Yon. If you are not familiar with Michael’s work, I strongly suggest that you visit his blog, Michael Yon – Online Magazine, and read some of what he has been doing in recent years.

Outrage is not a strategy. The gassing of innocent civilians warrants outrage, but the question becomes, “What is the best thing to do with that outrage?” That is where the discussion begins.

What would our goal be in attacking Syria? What would America’s strategy be in attacking Syria? What would be considered a ‘good’ outcome of an American attack on Syria? How would an American attack on Syria bring peace to either Syria or the Middle East? What would be the exit strategy?

Those are the questions I hope will be answered in the coming weeks.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Goes Around Comes Around

Posted on by

What goes around comes around. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is not. What happened in Britain’s Parliament yesterday was one of those times when it is not.

Yesterday Fox News posted a story about the vote taken in Britain yesterday regarding getting involved in Syria. The article points out that with the exception of Vietnam, Britain has historically gone to war as an ally of the United States whether or not Britain had any national interest in the dispute. For Britain to refuse to get involved in Syria as it was becoming apparent that America probably would was a new direction in Britain’s foreign policy.

So what is this about? Up until 2009, when President Obama was sworn into office, American and Britain had a ‘special relationship.’ Britain joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they had no national security interest in either place.

The article at Fox News states:

For instance, although Britain recognized that Al-Qaeda posed a serious threat to the UK, we intervened in Afghanistan because, as Tony Blair succinctly stated at the time, an attack on America was seen as an attack on Britain, such was the strength of the Special Relationship.

With Iraq throughout the nineties and in 2003, America decided Hussein needed dealing with, Britain stepped up. When Clinton expressed broader foreign policy objectives and decided Milosevic needed taking care of in Serbia, Britain was there. There were other reasons too, but Britain’s attitude was “where our ally goes, we go.”

Let’s look at what has happened since 2009. One of President Obama’s first moves in office was to return the bust of Winston Churchill to the British. That bust had been presented to President Bush after 911 as a reminder that Britain stood with us. It was insulting to return it. President Obama declared that America has no stronger ally than France. France? Not a single senior member of the Obama administration attended the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. When Argentina started making noises about wanting to take over the Falkland Islands, the Obama administration, speaking through then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sided against their best ally, and with Kirchner’s Argentina, demanding Britain sit down with Argentina and negotiate sovereignty of the British territory under the pretense of neutrality.

The Obama Administration has treated Britain shamefully. It is no wonder that he did not get the support for intervention in Syria from the British Parliament when he needed it. The President who came into office saying that he was going to ‘undo the damage George Bush had done to America’s image around the world’ has now succeeded in making even America’s friends dislike her.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Syria Debate Continues

Posted on by

Chances are that America will do something in Syria. Hugh Hewitt has stated that he feels an attack will come on Tuesday. He supports American action. Another voice that does not support American action is Frank Gaffney who heads the Center for Security Policy.

This is a video of a conversation between Frank Gaffney and Glenn Beck taken from the Center for Security Policy Website:

Frank Gaffney points out that although our reasons for attacking Syria may be morally compelling, the aftermath of the attack will not be good for America. Mr. Gaffney states that the outcome will bring either the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or Iran to power in Syria. Glenn Beck points out that if we were doing this for humanitarian reasons, we would be helping the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Please watch the video above. Frank Gaffney gives one of the best arguments I have heard for the concept of “peace through strength.” He points out that if your enemies know that you have the will and the way to take action, they are less likely to create a problem.

I don’t know what the right answer in Syria is. I have a son-in-law in the military, so I have a personal concern. The only answer I have is to pray that our leaders have wisdom in dealing with this situation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Do We Do In Syria?

Posted on by

Everyone who has seen the pictures of the innocent people killed by poison gas in Syria is wondering what America should do. There are questions as to who actually released the poison gas, and there are questions as to the motive of whoever used the gas. It is very disconcerting that anyone would use that kind of weapon.

The Heritage Foundation has recently posted two articles that clarify what is happening in Syria and the role America needs to play. One article, entitled “Top 5 Reasons Not To Use Missile Strikes in Syria” was posted on August 25. The other article, entitled “What to Do in Syria” was posted today.

The August 25th article lists five reasons not to attack Syria:

1. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is not adequate justification for direct military intervention. This dangerous doctrine, promoted at the United Nations, undermines U.S. sovereignty by arguing for an obligation of nations to intervene.

2. A vital U.S. interest is not at stake. The U.S. does have an interest in the resolution of the conflict, but military force should be reserved for areas where the U.S. has a compelling need to act in defense of its own interests.

3. It would not be a wise use of military force. Military force should be used only if there is a clear, achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its involvement in the crisis.

4. Missile attacks would only make President Obama look weaker. Much like President Clinton’s ineffective cruise missile strikes on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps, strikes would only be seen as a sign that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action.

5. It would distract from what the U.S. should be doing. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working in a concerted manner with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and the destabilizing efforts of Iran and Hezbollah.

Today’s article at the Heritage Foundation suggests what we should do.

The article suggests:

Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis and terrorist strongholds.

Like any solution to a difficult problem, even that is not a perfect solution. Some of the other countries in the region are working with America to bring down the Assad regime, but other countries in the region are propping up that regime.

However, bringing America into Syria’s civil war at this time will not accomplish anything.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Shouldn’t Get Involved In Syria

Posted on by

On Tuesday, the Washington Post posted an article about the Syrian rebels. It seems that the rebels, which we are considering sending aid to, executed a fourteen-year-old boy because he insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

The article reports:

When a 14-year-old boy from the Syrian city of Aleppo named Mohammad Qatta was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee, he reportedly refused, saying, “Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t.”

According to a story reported by two grassroots Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Aleppo Media Center, Qatta’s words got him killed. A group of Islamist rebels, driving by in a black car, reportedly heard the exchange. They stopped the car, grabbed the boy and took him away.

The boy was later brought back to the place where he was grabbed, and shot to death in front of his family.

The article concludes:

The influx of avowed jihadists and extremists is bad news for Syrians, and not just because those under rebel rule have to worry about sharing Qatta’s fate if they are perceived as insufficiently pious. The growth of these groups seems bound to exacerbate tensions between rebel factions, easing Assad’s military path to victory, and scaring off the Western powers that might otherwise be persuaded to lend the rebels greater support. Lots of people in and outside of Syria could get behind the idea of ousting a cruel and unpopular dictator and replacing him with something more democratic. But few things are more universally loathed than an al-Qaeda-allied group that executes children.

Unfortunately, there is no one we should support in the Syrian civil war. It is unfortunate that civilians are the victims in this struggle, but this is a struggle that will not have a happy ending–neither side supports any sort of freedom for the people of Syria. To further complicate things, Russia and Iran are working very hard to keep the current regime in place. Our involvement in the Syrian civil war would essentially put us in a proxy war with Russia and Iran. We have been in a proxy war with Iran for years, but I really don’t think it would be wise to add Russia to the mix.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Energy Independence Is Important For All Countries

Posted on by

Yesterday the U.K. Telegraph posted a story about an interesting development in the Syrian civil war. Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda off-shoot has become the strongest faction of the rebels around the city of Raqqa and in the desert region to its east. The group is violently anti-Western.

The article reports that the group:

…has been steadily extending its control in the region, is selling the crude oil to local entrepreneurs, who use home-made refineries to produce low-grade petrol and other fuels for Syrians facing acute shortages.

The article explains:

In the battle for the future of the rebel cause, the oil-fields may begin to play an increasingly strategic role. All are in the three provinces closest to Iraq – Hasakeh, Deir al-Zour, and Raqqa, while the Iraqi border regions are the homeland of the Islamic State of Iraq, as al-Qaeda’s branch in the country calls itself.

We may have freed Iraq from the horrors of Saddam Hussein, but because we did not stay to finish the job, Iraq is not a free country–it is a satellite of Iran.

The article reports:

General Selim Idriss, the head of the western-backed opposition Military Council, has appealed for Western help specifically to seize the fields from Jabhat, but the forces required – he put it at 30,000 men – make that a pipe dream. Even pro-Western rebel militias in the area admit that the level of support received from the council is at present minimal.

They have promised to take on Jabhat al-Nusra once the fighting is over, but they are split and fighting among themselves, with their lack of money forcing some to turn to looting and extortion to fund themselves, further alienating the local population.

Arming the rebels in Syria right now would be a mistake–it would be arming al-Qaeda at the risk of having the weapons given used against us in the Middle East or in terrorist attacks elsewhere. The rebels that we would be arming are not in control, and arming them would be somewhat futile. So what is our option? We need to do everything we can to get innocent civilians out of the country and to provide them with food and shelter. We can let the anti-Western Islamists fight among themselves–there are no good guys with any power in this war. If we were actually dumb enough to enter this war, the rebels and the government forces would probably unite against us–after all, we are the infidels.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Big Picture In Syria

Posted on by

Michael Ledeen is a a “Freedom Scholar” at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is a reliable source of information on what is going on in the Middle East. Mr. Ledeen has the ability to step away from the obvious and see the big picture. Today he posted an article at the PJ Media website on the Israeli bombing of Syria.

Mr. Ledeen reminds us that the bombing of Syria by Israel was not really about Israel–it was about Iran and Russia. He also points out that the success of the attack was embarrassing to the Russians as they have supplied antiaircraft systems to both Iran and Syria and Israel seemed to have no problem getting past those systems.

The article at PJ Media reports:

The primary Israeli targets seem to have been Iranian missiles shipped from Iran to Syria, reportedly pending transfer to Hezbollah. They are capable of carrying chemical warheads, which may explain President Obama’s quick support for Israel.

The attacks came after more than a month of diplomatic activity:

–On Thursday, April 25th, the United States announced that we had evidence that the Syrians had used chemical weapons. That announcement was not merely the result of internal American deliberations; it came after several meetings with allies following claims of chemical attacks from the Syrian opposition in late March.

The article at PJ Media gives the timeline of the diplomatic activity regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but it also deals with the larger picture.

The article notes:

These discussions were undoubtedly about the “big picture” as well as the specific question of chemical weapons. I cannot imagine the Israelis not sharing their view of Iran’s regional strategy, which they believe includes a contingency plan (named after Quds Force commander Qasem Suleimani) for the occupation of Syria if Assad were to lose control.

…Syria’s centrality in Iranian strategy was voiced by Mehdi Taaib, who heads Khamenei’s think tank. He recently stated that “Syria is the 35th district of Iran and it has greater strategic importance for Iran than Khuzestan [an Arab-populated district inside Iran].”

Iran’s strategy includes domination of Iraq, which they could use as an operational base if Syria falls.

SIDEBAR: You may have noticed that casualties in Iraq are now running at roughly half those in Syria, as the Iranians apply the same methods they used unsuccessfully against us: foment civil war by the use of terror and religiously inspired mass movements.

We have been engaged in a proxy war with Iran for a number of years. It really is time to go after the root of the problem rather than continually fighting small wars that have no end in countries surrounding Iran.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Are No Good Guys In The Syrian Civil War

Posted on by

Reuters reported today that Israel notified the United States after it carried out two air strikes in Syria–not before.

The article reports:

Israeli jets bombed Syria on Sunday for the second time in 48 hours. Israel does not confirm such missions explicitly – a policy it says is intended to avoid provoking reprisals. But an Israeli official acknowledged that the strikes were carried out by its forces.

“It would not be unusual for them to take aggressive steps when there was some chance that some sophisticated weapons system would fall into the hands of people like Hezbollah,” the U.S. intelligence official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Israel is much closer to the war in Syria than America and has a much more vital interest. Bashar al-Assad is aligned with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran which frequently fires rockets at Israel from various locations. It is suspected that the rockets Israel stopped might eventually wind up in Lebanon aimed at Israel.

The article further reports:

Rather than an attempt to tip the scales against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Israel’s action is seen more as part of its own conflict with Iran, which it fears is sending missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Syria. Those missiles might hit Tel Aviv if Israel makes good on threats to attack Tehran’s nuclear program.

Another Western intelligence source told Reuters the latest attack, like the previous one, was directed against stores of Fateh-110 missiles in transit from Iran to Hezbollah.

Israel has made it clear that it will take action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. It is in the interest of Israel to make sure that if it attacks Iran the allies of Iran that surround Israel have a few rockets as possible.

The war in Syria is a civil war, but it is also a war between terrorists. Hezbollah supports Bashar al-Assad, a Shiite, and many of the rebels have ties to Al Qaeda, which tends Sunni (the majority population of Saudi Arabia). The problem with the war is that if America gets involved, both sides will unite and turn against the ‘infidels.’ At the present time the Obama Administration is said to be negotiating with some of the ‘moderate’ rebels, but there are some serious questions as to how much power the moderates have with the rebels. If America chooses to arm the rebels, we could be shipping arms to Syria that will be used against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in the very near future. Our best bet is to do anything we can to get innocent civilians out of Syria and let the terrorists fight it out among themselves. Israel has more of a reason to get involved because Hezbollah is already sending rockets against her, and because Israel will be directly involved regardless of who wins. It is in Israel’s best interests to limit the number of rockets going from Iran to Syria so as to limit the number of rockets that will be coming in their direction when both sides stop fighting each other.

This attack on the rockets heading for Syria could be seen as a backdoor attack on Iran or as a warning to Iran. I suspect there will be retaliation against Israel and further action by Israel. By making it public that America was not notified until after the attack, it is quite possible that Hezbollah terrorist cells in America will not be activated in response.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes It’s Better Not To Enter The Fight

Posted on by

I say this reluctantly because I know that every day innocent people are dying in Syria, and I would love the see America step in and stop the killing. However, the fact remains that we are not able to step in and stop the killing and that it would not be wise for us to attempt to do so.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review on Saturday about the war in Syria. He points out that the people who are asking us to intervene in Syria are saying that if we don’t there will be a vacuum of leadership there. No, there won’t. Al Qaeda has already filled that vacuum. We need to remember that Bashar al-Assad. is an Alawite, a minority Shiite group in Syria. The rebels in Syria are Sunnis, led by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.. Why in the world would we want to get in the middle of that fight? Neither side represents either democracy or stability in the Middle East.

Andrew McCarthy sums up the problem of intervention in Syria:

…the narrative continues, untold legions of Muslim moderates, secular democrats, and religious minorities who would otherwise be charting Syria’s democratic destiny are being elbowed aside. Even worse, by failing to intervene forcefully — meaning, to fuel the jihad with high-tech combat weapons and an aerial campaign to soften up Assad’s remaining defenses — the administration is frittering away the opportunity to strike up pragmatic alliances with the Vaccum-filling Islamists. Sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought — eager to help the Brotherhood, but too concerned about arms falling into terrorist hands — Obama is forfeiting our chance to influence the outcome.

Right. I mean, look at how ably our decade of heavy investment has steered Iraq and Afghanistan in a pro-American direction. And behold how they love us in Benghazi!

The article concludes:

It is no longer 1996 — the year Iran bombed the Khobar Towers and killed 19 American airmen. The Syria hawks are quite right to argue that Iran remains a major threat to American interests. They are wrong, however, to treat Iran as the only such threat. The Sunni supremacist crescent that the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and their allies would run from Anatolia through the Persian Gulf and across North Africa would be no less hostile to the West than the Shiite competitor Iran is trying to forge. If Assad falls and the Brothers take over, that defeat for Tehran will not be a boon for the United States.

It is not isolationism to insist that American interventions be limited to situations in which a vital American interest must be vindicated. There is no such interest in Syria.

The only American intervention in Syria that would be acceptable to me would be to get the civilians out and let the extremists slug it out among themselves. The best thing we can do is provide aid to the refugee camps that have been set up in neighboring countries.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Of Many Reasons We Need A New Policy Regarding Iran

Posted on by

Iran‘s nuclear program has nothing to do with generating energy. Iran has openly stated that it is working toward the destruction of Israel. This is not a country that is interested in being part of a peaceful family of nations. Recently, they were caught again engaging in activities that undermine peace in the Middle East.

On Friday World Net Daily reported that a Revolutionary Guard spokesman, Ramadan Sherif, confirmed that Iranian General Hassan Shateri was killed when Israeli aircraft bombed a convoy in Syria that had been on its way to Lebanon.

The article reports that Iran described Shateri’s mission in Lebanon as rebuilding public schools, hospitals and mosques that had been impacted by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.

The article at World Net Daily (WND) reports:

However, informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND identified Shateri as the Quds Force commander responsible for coordinating the arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, including restocking the terrorist group with advanced missiles.

The Quds Force is a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for what the Guard calls its “extraterritorial operations.”

Until someone stands up to Iran, they are going to continue to foment unrest in the Middle East.Enhanced by Zemanta

History Revealed

Posted on by

There are lessons to be learned from history, and we ignore them at our peril. This month Elliott Abrams posted a story in Commentary Magazine with a lot of behind-the-scenes information about the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the story.

The story begins:

In the middle of May 2007, we received an urgent request to receive Mossad chief Meir Dagan at the White House. Olmert asked that he be allowed to show some material to Bush personally. We headed that off with a suggestion that he first reveal whatever he had to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and to me; I was then the deputy national-security adviser in charge of the Middle East portfolio on the National Security Council. Vice President Dick Cheney joined us in Hadley’s office for Dagan’s presentation. What Dagan had was astonishing and explosive: He showed us intelligence demonstrating that Syria was constructing a nuclear reactor whose design was supplied by North Korea, and doing so with North Korean technical assistance. Dagan left us with one stark message: All Israeli policymakers who saw the evidence agreed that the reactor had to go away.

The article then details the meetings that followed, the fact that the existence of the site was successfully kept a secret from the American media, and the options debated as to the solution to the problem.

A conclusion was reached:

The arguments for going to the IAEA and UN seemed so flimsy to me, despite the length and detail of the planning memos and scenarios to which they gave rise, that I did not much worry about them. Who could believe these organizations would act effectively? Who could believe we would not be sitting there five years later entangled in the same diplomatic dance over the Syrian program that we were in with respect to Iran?

In the end, our near-perfect policy process produced the wrong result. At a final session in the gracious Yellow Oval Room at the Residence, Bush came down on Rice’s side. We would go to Vienna, to the IAEA; he would call Olmert and tell him what the decision was. I was astounded and realized I had underestimated Rice’s influence even after all this time. The president had gone with Condi.

The Israeli attack on the reactor made President Bush’s plan obsolete:

…We knew the Israelis would strike sooner or later. They acted, in the end, when a leak about the reactor’s existence was imminent and Syria might then have gotten notice that Israel knew of its existence. That would have given Assad time to put civilians or nuclear fuel near the site. The Israelis did not seek, nor did they get, a green or red light from us. Nor did they announce their timing in advance; they told us as they were blowing up the site. Olmert called the president on September 6 with the news.

As I had sat in the Oval Office on July 13, listening to his conversation with Olmert, I had wondered how the president would react to the Israeli action. With anger? Or more pressure? None of it. He heard Olmert out calmly and acknowledged that Israel had a right to protect its national security. After hanging up, the president said something like “that guy has guts,” in an admiring tone. The incident was over; the differences over al-Kibar would obviously not affect Bush’s relationship with Olmert or his view of Israel.

So quickly did he accept the Olmert decision that I wondered then, and do still, if the president did not at some level anticipate and desire this result. He had sided with Condi and shown that she was still in charge of Middle East policy, but her “take it to the UN” plan had been blown up along with the reactor. He did not seem very regretful. What is more, he instructed us all to abandon the diplomatic plans and maintain absolute silence, ensuring that Israel could carry out its plan.

The paragraph below provides food for thought in our current dealings with the Arab world:

A very well-placed Arab diplomat later told us that the strike had left Assad deeply worried as to what was coming next. He had turned Syria into the main transit route for jihadis going to Iraq to kill American soldiers. From Libya or Indonesia, Pakistan or Egypt, they would fly to Damascus International Airport and be shepherded into Iraq. Assad was afraid that on the heels of the Israeli strike would come American action to punish him for all this involvement. But just weeks later, Assad received his invitation to send a Syrian delegation to that big international confab of Condi’s, the Annapolis Conference, and according to the Arab envoy, Assad relaxed immediately; he knew he would be OK. I had not wanted Syria invited to Annapolis because of its involvement in killing Americans in Iraq, but Condi had wanted complete Arab representation as a sign that comprehensive peace might be possible. It was only years later that I learned that Assad had instead interpreted the invitation just as I had: as a sign that the United States would not seriously threaten or punish him for what Syria was doing in Iraq.

Please read the entire article for ‘the rest of the story.’ After reading the entire article, I can’t help but think that pretty much everything American has done in the Arab world in order to make peace has had the opposite effect. I don’t think we understand the culture we are dealing with.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Israel’s Actions Ultimately Protect The Middle East

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Post reported on the Israeli air strike inside Syria. The strike was apparently aimed at a new SA-17 antiaircraft missile battery the Syrians had placed northwest of Damascus.

The article reports:

The Israeli attack on the SA-17 missiles was first reported Wednesday by the Associated Press. What’s intriguing is that the same area that was hit — the Jamraya research center in the suburb known as Dummar, northwest of Damascus — is also a center for chemical weapons research. This led some Syrian opposition sources to believe that the Israelis’ real target was the chemical weapons center.

…The real significance of Wednesday’s attack, to me, is that the Israelis have laid down a marker. This is the first time their jets are known to have staged combat operations inside Syria since a 2007 raid on a nuclear reactor, a preemptive strike which to this day Israel officially refuses to confirm. The Israelis have now shown that they are prepared to strike if they see evidence of weapons that might threaten them — such as the advanced SA-17 missiles or, down the road, chemical weapons that are on the move.

Israel just made every country in the area a little bit safer. There is no telling what will happen to Syria’s chemical weapons when the current regime fails. Hopefully the Israeli strike has made them less useful.Enhanced by Zemanta

Consequences Of The American Election?

Posted on by

When America has a weak President, the world is less safe. I am not questioning President Obama’s quest for peace–I am questioning his logic in trying to broker agreements that will bring peace. One of the places where American foreign policy really matters is the Middle East. America’s strong support of Israel often prevents those who wish to see Israel driven into the sea from acting on their wishes. Unfortunately, when America has a weak President, there is no one to prevent the enemies of Israel from acting.

Today’s Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel fired a guided missile at the Syrian military after two separate incidents of Syrian shells exploding in the Golan Heights.

The article reports:

At the same time, Israel sent a warning message to the UN, saying that any further firing into Israel will result “in a real response,” sources added.

Israel limited its return fire, since its policy is to only fire intensively in response to coming under major Syrian fire. “We didn’t continue firing because this was one mortar we were responding to,” the source said.

“We will not accept any firing into our territory,” he added. “This was a signal to the Syrians, that we will not be so forgiving of everything that lands in a territory.” The source stressed that as of now, Israel and Syria were not a in a conflict situation.

The IDF is currently on standby for a security deterioration on both the northern front and the border with Gaza.

Unfortunately, the United Nations is not going to help Israel in this matter. If the rockets continue to rain on Israel and Israel eventually retaliates, the United Nations will paint Israel as the aggressor. America is not in a strong enough position to exert pressure on Syria to make sure no Syrian shells fall on Israel. The Obama Administration has pretty much sold out Israel, and there is nothing anywhere to cause me to suspect that they will be continuing to do so.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Strong Words From Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, Former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations

Posted on by

On Sunday, the Washington Times posted an article by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, about the September 11 attack in Benghazi.

The Admiral did not mince words, and as a retired military man, he had a better understanding of how the military chain of command works than most of us have.

The article reports:

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety.  According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

What in the world are we doing? Didn’t we learn our lesson when we created the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

The Admiral concludes:

Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.

I suspect that the truth of this event will come out after the election. It should come out before. The events of September 11 reflect very badly on the people in the Obama Administration who were making decisions that night–whoever they were. They need to be held accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Just Isn’t Getting Any Clearer

Posted on by

Yesterday the Weekly Standard reported:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

OK. Who did tell the military special forces not to help those under attack in Benghazi? And why? It seems to me that at least the first question should have been answered by now.There are phone records and email records that should paint a fairly clear picture of who said what.

I heard a theory today that totally unnerved me. The New York Times reported recently that the Obama Administration was selling weapons to the rebels in Syria, despite the fact that these rebels have close connections to Al Qaeda. It also should be noted that Libya has supplied a major portion of the Al Qaeda soldiers we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the Ambassador (who was a good man who had a heart for the Arab people) was about to blow the whistle on our gun running activities in the Middle East? Would that have been a reason not to send help? As I said, that is just someone’s theory, but can someone come up with a better explanation as to why help never came?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes There Are No Good Guys In The Fight

Posted on by

On Sunday The New York Times posted an article about the people attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the arms being supplied to them.

The article reports:

The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reports indicate that the shipments organized from Qatar, in particular, are largely going to hard-line Islamists.

The concern is that the rebels in Syria are another part of the “Arab Spring.” So far the Arab Spring has not brought freedom, but sharia law.

The article further states:

American officials have been trying to understand why hard-line Islamists have received the lion’s share of the arms shipped to the Syrian opposition through the shadowy pipeline with roots in Qatar, and, to a lesser degree, Saudi Arabia. The officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.

Evidently some of the rebels are planning ahead. The article reports:

Late last month in the Turkish border town of Antakya, at least two men who had recently been in Syria said they had seen Islamist rebels buying weapons in large quantities and then burying them in caches, to be used after the collapse of the Assad government. But it was impossible to verify these accounts, and other rebels derided the reports as wildly implausible.

It seems to me that when we are not sure who the good guys are in the fight, we need to stay out of it. My heart goes out to the innocent civilians in Syria, but it seems to me that supplying arms to anyone will simply result in more people being killed. Assad is a horrible dictator, but there are no guarantees that a government that replaces him will be any better.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Informed Perspective On The Middle East

Posted on by

Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is a highly regarded expert on Iran’s Green Movement and maintains close ties to opposition groups inside Iran. He posted an article at PJMedia yesterday that accurately describes what is happening in the Middle East.

He opens his article:

Killing Americans serves several purposes in the war being waged against us (we have yet to seriously engage against our known enemies): first, it’s what the war is all about. They want us dead or dominated. Second, it helps recruitment, which had dropped after the defeat of Iran, Syria, and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Morale had also dropped, and stories claiming that the top American in Libya had been raped before he was executed feeds the blood lust of jihadists, whose language and fantasies are rich with such images. Third, it enhances the power of the unseen moving hand. Fourth, it discourages our current and would-be friends and allies.

No serious person believes that an obscure movie shown to less than a dozen people many months ago was the “cause” of the simultaneous assaults in Cairo and Benghazi. Or that the assaults were unrelated, let alone spontaneous. Or that there was no state actor involved in the operation.

So why is the American press refusing to report this aspect of the story? Because the story behind the story is the total failure of President Obama’s outreach to terrorists.

Mr. Ledeen’s article concludes:

If we do not support revolution within Iran, we will get more of these attacks, and more dead Americans. In the end, we will fulfill Churchill’s prophecy to Chamberlain on the day after Munich: you thought you had to choose between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, and you will have war. We may yet have time to choose honor — support those who have already risked their lives to defeat our enemies — and avoid the big war relentlessly engulfing us.

It would be nice if we could ignore what Iran is doing, but we do so at our own peril.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Don’t Have A Solution, But We Need To Acknowledge That There Is A Problem

Posted on by

Yesterday the Christian Science Monitor posted an article about the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) held in Tehran, Iran, which ended Friday. The summit was attended by 120 countries.

The Obama Administration has consistently claimed that the sanctions the United States has placed on Iran have isolated the country and will slow down the Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon. I don’t think a country that has been successfully isolated could host a conference of 120 nations. It is also disturbing to me that that conference included both Afghanistan and Egypt.

The article reported the positives and the negatives of the summit:

The US pressured NAM members not to go to Tehran, but many countries nevertheless “sent their highest delegates – their head of state, kings, prime ministers,” noted Mr. Zibakalam (Sadegh Zibakalam of Tehran University). “So I think…Iran can justifiably say, ‘I have scored some points against the United States and Israel.”

That view was countered by Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“What Iran does not want to admit [is] that many of these countries that participated in this summit, they are not non-aligned anymore, they have close relationships with the United States, countries like Saudi [Arabia]…like Bahrain, they do not have good relations with Iran,” Mr. Khalaji told AJE.

“The fact that many countries participated in this summit doesn’t mean that Iran can make up [for] its political isolation,” said Khalaji. “Iran has to look for [a] real solution for its problem, instead of focusing on propaganda and public diplomacy.”

Both were on display in Tehran during the two-day summit meeting.

“They put the cars of the murdered scientists in front of the venue, then they had a special press briefing from the families of the murdered scientists,” says the European diplomat. “They were feeding the media all these stories, ‘We are the victims here, and we are getting killed,’ which done with a slightly lighter touch may have worked. But they’ve just overdone it.”

“Instead, coming out of Iran were stories that this was not a successful conference for the Iranians, because the two issues they didn’t want to talk about were talked about from the very beginning, right at the top: the nuclear dossier and Syria.“

The longer the Iranian nuclear program goes unchecked, the more dangerous the world becomes. I have no idea what the solution is to the Iranian nuclear threat, but I suspect that killing their scientists and introducing computer viruses into their software is more effective than the current sanctions. I don’t want to see a war in the Middle East, but unless Iran is stopped, we are going to have one.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Now For Something Completely Different

Posted on by

The civil war in Syria continues despite the fact that the news doesn’t seem to be paying a lot of attention to it. I have no suggestions for a course of action–I am not convinced anyone involved is the ‘good guys.’ My only concern is for the civilians caught in the middle. We need to find a way to get the civilians out of the way and let the people who are determined to fight with each other slug it out. However, the human cost of this civil war is a major concern.

Gary Lane at CBN News posted a story today about the refugees that are fleeing the Syrian civil war.

Please follow the link above to CBN News to see the video showing what is going on in Syria.

The article reports:

The United Nations estimates the number of registered Syrian refugees at more than 170,000. They have scattered across the region, ending up in Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan.

These refugees are being met by Christian relief groups who are helping move from border camps to apartments. I was touched by a quote from a woman who was helped by the Christian groups:

The article reports:

Doyle (Tom Doyle, with the Dallas-based ministry E3 Partners) witnessed how the effort affected the life of one refugee.

“Some of the people were pushing them around and it was mass chaos and this woman looked at me and she said, ‘but it was the Bible people that came to us and gave us food and clothes and loved us and played with our children. It was the Bible people who were there for us,'” Doyle recalled.

“When she got done sharing her story she looked at me and said, ‘And I want you to know, I love Jesus now!'” he said.

Out of wartime tragedy, “The Bible People” are having an impact on the lives of the refugees by sharing the love of Christ, meeting material needs and shining light into the lives of Syrians fleeing chronic darkness.

Obviously, this is an awful situation, but it is encouraging to know that Tom Doyle and others like him are helping the refugees find a new life after fleeing such horrendous violence.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Syrian Warning To NATO

Posted on by

The BBC posted an article today confirming that the Syrian military had shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom jet that Syria claimed had strayed into Syrian airspace over Syrian waters.

The article reports:

A spokesman said the plane, an F-4 Phantom, was dealt with “according to the laws that govern such situations”, the state news agency Sana said.

The Turkish prime minister said his country would “take the necessary steps” once all the facts were known.

Meanwhile, the violence in Syria continues and escalates.

I have no answers for Syria–some of the people rebelling are as bad if not worse than the people in charge. We need to make some effort to protect the innocent civilian population, but I am not convinced that we should want to help arm the rebels or support them in any way.

The little news analysis block next to the news story stated:

The tone of the Syrian statement was strictly factual, and there was no expression of regret. If the plane did indeed violate Syrian airspace, that, and the apparent ease with which it was shot down, will be a considerable embarrassment to the Turkish government.

Hezbollah‘s TV station in Lebanon, al-Manar, which was among the first to report the incident, described it as “a clear message to Nato” about the perils of outside military intervention in the Syrian crisis.

I have no idea what it will take to bring peace and stability to Syria. I just hope that there is someone with some degree of power who does.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disquieting News From The Middle East

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting tonight that the Israeli government has called up six reserve battalions because of increasing danger on its Egyptian and Syrian borders. Since the revolution in Egypt, the Sinai has been used as a point of origin for terrorist attacks, and the continuing unrest in Syria also has the potential of spilling over into Israel.

The article concludes:

Al Qaeda terrorists have reportedly moved into Syria to destabilize the situation even further. Thousands of Al Qaeda members have come into Syria from the north, among whom are Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis and Sudanese. On Monday, April 30, the Al Qaeda groups set a series of bombs in Damascus, after an Al Qaeda terrorist blew himself up along with 9 worshipper in a Damascus mosque two days earlier.

 With the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt and al Qaeda in Syria, Israel is surrounded.  And with Iran rapidly approaching nuclear status, can Israel afford to depend on the United States for help as long as Barack Obama and his anti-Israel animus remain in office?

 Israeli reserves are necessary because the seething cauldron of the Arab Spring, nurtured by its champion in the Oval Office, may soon boil over.

The Obama Administration totally misunderstood the direction of the Arab Spring, and that mistake is about to become very obvious. The Arab Spring was not about democracy–it was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood with the goal of establishing a Muslim Caliphate and eliminating Israel. Backed by Iran (soon to go nuclear), the Arab Spring is about to take the next step in that direction. Last year was the year the dictators fell. This year will be the year when the royal families are undermined and possibly removed from power.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta