West Asia News and Discussions

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

habal wrote:Why in hell's name would Assad do a chemical attack when UN inspectors are present. US and allies seem to be the biggest false-flag campaigners in the world.
Agree there is little incentive for Assad to use CW when UN inspectors are visiting Syria on a visit to check previous CW attack site.

This attack is designed to give maximum eye ball since Global Media and UN Inspectors will be present and will add pressure on the inspectors to check these reports. The best time for PR for FSA/Opposition and the states that support it.

Timed for maximum impact.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

World learns to manage without the US

by David P. Goldman
Asia Times
August 19, 2013

http://www.meforum.org/3590/manage-without-us


The giant sucking sound you here, I said on August 15 on CNBC's The Kudlow Report, is the implosion of America's influence in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin's August 17 offer of Russian military assistance to the Egyptian army after US President Barack Obama cancelled joint exercises with the Egyptians denotes a post-Cold-War low point in America's standing. Along with Russia, Saudi Arabia and China are collaborating to contain the damage left by American blundering. They have being doing this quietly for more than a year.

The pipe-dream has popped of Egyptian democracy led by a Muslim Brotherhood weaned from its wicked past, but official Washington has not woken up. Egypt was on the verge of starvation when military pushed out Mohammed Morsi. Most of the Egyptian poor had been living on nothing but state-subsidized bread for months, and even bread supplies were at risk. The military brought in US$12 billion of aid from the Gulf States, enough to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. That's the reality. It's the one thing that Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel agree about.

America's whimsical attitude towards Egypt is not a blunder but rather a catastrophic institutional failure. President Obama has surrounded himself with a camarilla, with Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, flanked by Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian-born public housing millionaire. Compared to Obama's team, Zbigniew Brzezinski was an intellectual colossus at Jimmy Carter's NSC. These are amateurs, and it is anyone's guess what they will do from one day to the next.

By default, Republican policy is defined by Senator John McCain, whom the head of Egypt's ruling National Salvation Party dismissed as a "senile old man" after the senator's last visit to Cairo. McCain's belief in Egyptian democracy is echoed by a few high-profile Republican pundits, for example, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Robert Kagan, and Max Boot. Most of the Republican foreign policy community disagrees, by my informal poll. Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld blasted Obama for undermining the Egyptian military's ability to keep order, but his statement went unreported by major media.

It doesn't matter what the Republican experts think. Few elected Republicans will challenge McCain, because the voters are sick of hearing about Egypt and don't trust Republicans after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Neither party has an institutional capacity for intelligent deliberation about American interests. Among the veterans of the Reagan and Bush administrations, there are many who understand clearly what is afoot in the world, but the Republican Party is incapable of acting on their advice. That is why the institutional failure is so profound. Republican legislators live in terror of a primary challenge from isolationists like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), and will defer to the Quixotesque McCain.

Other regional and world powers will do their best to contain the mess.

Russia and Saudi Arabia might be the unlikeliest of partners, but they have a profound common interest in containing jihadist radicalism in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Both countries backed Egypt's military unequivocally. Russia Today reported August 7 that "Saudi Arabia has reportedly offered to buy arms worth up to $15 billion from Russia, and provided a raft of economic and political concessions to the Kremlin - all in a bid to weaken Moscow's endorsement of Syrian President Bashar Assad."

No such thing will happen, to be sure. But the Russians and Saudis probably will collaborate to prune the Syrian opposition of fanatics who threaten the Saudi regime as well as Russian security interests in the Caucasus. Chechnyan fighters - along with jihadists from around the world - are active in Syria, which has become a petrie dish for Islamic radicalism on par with Afghanistan during the 1970s.

The Saudis, meanwhile, have installed Chinese missiles aimed at Iran. There are unverifiable reports that Saudi Arabia already has deployed nuclear weapons sourced from Pakistan. The veracity of the reports is of small relevance; if the Saudis do not have such weapons now, they will acquire them if and when Iran succeeds in building nuclear weapons. What seems clear is that Riyadh is relying not on Washington but on Beijing for the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons. China has a profound interest in Saudi security. It is the largest importer of Saudi oil. America might wean itself of dependence on imported oil some time during the next decade, but China will need the Persian Gulf for the indefinite future.

A Russian-Chinese-Saudi condominium of interests has been in preparation for more than a year. On July 30, 2012, I wrote (for the Gatestone Institute):

The fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood and its various offshoots represent a threat to everyone in the region:
The Saudi monarchy fears that the Brotherhood will overthrow it (not an idle threat, since the Brotherhood doesn't look like a bad choice for Saudis who aren't one of the few thousand beneficiaries of the royal family's largesse;
The Russians fear that Islamic radicalism will get out of control in the Caucasus and perhaps elsewhere as Russia evolves into a Muslim-majority country;
The Chinese fear the Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim people who comprise half the population of China's western Xinjiang province
.


But the Obama administration (and establishment Republicans like John McCain) insist that America must support democratically elected Islamist governments. That is deeply misguided. The Muslim Brotherhood is about as democratic as the Nazi Party, which also won a plebiscite confirming Adolf Hitler as leader of Germany. Tribal countries with high illiteracy rates are not a benchmark for democratic decision-making ... As long as the United States declares its support for the humbug of Muslim democracy in Egypt and Syria, the rest of the world will treat us as hapless lunatics and go about the business of securing their own interests without us.

The Turks, to be sure, will complain about the fate of their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is little they can do. The Saudis finance most of their enormous current account deficit, and the Russians provide most of their energy.

Apart from the Egyptian events, American analysts have misread the world picture thoroughly.

On the American right, the consensus view for years held that Russia would implode economically and demographically. Russia's total fertility rate, though, has risen from a calamitously low point of less than 1.2 live births per female in 1990 to about 1.7 in 2012, midway between Europe's 1.5 and America's 1.9. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the trend, but it suggests that it is misguided to write Russia off for the time being. Not long ago, I heard the Russian chess champion and democracy advocate Gary Kasparov tell a Republican audience that Russia would go bankrupt if oil fell below $80 a barrel - an arithmetically nonsensical argument, but one the audience wanted to hear. Like it or not, Russia won't go away.

American analysts view Russia's problems with Muslims in the Caucasus with a degree of Schadenfreude. During the 1980s the Reagan administration supported jihadists in Afghanistan against the Russians because the Soviet Union was the greater evil. Today's Russia is no friend of the United States, to be sure, but Islamist terrorism is today's greater evil, and the United States would be well advised to follow the Saudi example and make common cause with Russia against Islamism.

In the case of China, the consensus has been that the Chinese economy would slow sharply this year, causing political problems. China's June trade data suggest quite the opposite: a surge in imports (including a 26% year-on-year increase in iron ore and a 20% increase in oil) indicate that China is still growing comfortably in excess of 7% a year. China's transition from an export model driven by cheap labor to a high-value-added manufacturing and service economy remains an enormous challenge, perhaps the biggest challenge in economic history, but there is no evidence to date that China is failing. Like it or not, China will continue to set the pace for world economic growth.

America, if it chose to exercise its power and cultivate its innate capabilities, still is capable of overshadowing the contenders. But it has not chosen to do so, and the reins have slipped out of Washington's hands. Americans will hear about important developments in the future if and when other countries choose to make them public. Readers should be warned that those of us with reasonably good track records won't do as well in the future.

My track record in general has been good. I warned in 2003 that the George W Bush administration's attempts to build nations in Iraq and Afghanistan would have a tragic outcome. And in early 2006, I wrote: "Like or not, the US will get chaos, and cannot do anything to forestall it."

In February 2011, I said that we did now know whether then-beleaguered president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt "will be replaced by an Islamist, democratic, or authoritarian state. What is certain is that it will be a failed state." And in March 2011, I added about Syria, "We do not know what kind of state will follow Basher Assad. We only know that it will be a failed state."

In April 2011, I declared Israel to be "the winner in the Arab revolts" because "the most likely outcome [in the Arab world] is a prolonged period of instability, in which two sides that have nothing to gain from compromise and everything to lose from defeat - the dispossessed poor and the entrenched elite - fight it out in the streets. Like Yemen and Libya, Syria will prove impossible to stabilize; whether Egypt's military can prevent a descent into similar chaos remains doubtful."

In January 2012, I announced a "recall notice for the Turkish model", adding, "Among all the dumb things said about the so-called Arab Spring last year, perhaps the dumbest was the idea that the new democracies of the Arab world might follow the Turkish model."

Now the dogs of war are loose and will choose their own direction. You don't need foreign policy analysts any more. You can hear the dogs bark if you open the window. :mrgreen:

Mr. Goldman, president of Macrostrategy LLC, is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the London Center for Policy Research.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

So ideal time for Syrian govt to prove themselves and take the UN inspectors to the site and their CW facilities and give them whatever they need. It's been 2 days, UN inspectors are 15 mins away from the site and Syrian govt not allowing them to go.

UN is sending their top diplomat to convince Damascus to let the UN inspectors do their work
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by member_20317 »

^^^
Hans Blix redux.

habal wrote: The Russian Foreign Ministry, citing its sources, said that a homemade rocket carrying unidentified chemical substances had been launched from an area controlled by the opposition.

Quasaams rockets!
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6922
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by habal »

Hans Blix was an UN inspector. Remember him ?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

@AFP: #BREAKING Iranian President Hassan Rowhani points to the use of chemical weapons in Syria
Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4416
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Mahendra »

The samples being sourced are biopsies of livers and spleens from fatalities, as well as blood and urine from survivors.
:rotfl: :rotfl:

The highly respectable rebels from Saudi Ghusalkhanas are apparently experts in eating hearts and taking biopsies of livers and spleens.
I hope Assad holds on and the Shias across the fake entity called GCC get their freedom and democracy from the jihadi Sheikhs and their supporters
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

#US top military Gen Dempsey, chiefs of staff SaudiArabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, Germany, Italy & Canada will meet in #Jordan
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

The Syrian chem attack appears to be the another "Iranian coup" style CIA mission that overthrew Mossadegh,which the US has only now admitted .DEcades from now they will reveal the truth.Who was responsible for the Bolgona station bombing in Italy blamed on the Red Brigade? It was GLadio,a secret right wing terror group created by NATO!

The fact is that the rebels are on the backfoot in Syria,are disunited and mil. experts have felt that they cannot defeat the regime's mil. foirces.Therefore only outside intervention that would degrade the Syrian forces,just as was done in Libya,on the pretext of "saving civilians" is the only option left.So another CIA dirty tricks operation has been put into plan.
He testified that he had been recruited for an earlier car bomb attack near Venice by Gladio, a shadow army set up by the Italian secret services in the 1950s as part of a Nato plan to create guerrilla resistance in the event of a Soviet invasion or communist takeover in Nato countries.
What about the British "mufti" men who were caught in Iraq with bombs ? Egypt? The UK right leaning Daily Telegraph in a front page report said that the CIA had been planning to overthrow Mubarak for a whole year!

As my Lebanese friend told me recently,the West is engaged and has been for ages, in a conspiracy to make war between the two major factions of Islam,Shia fight Sunni.Once chaos is created,they can safely blame the carnage upon one or the other and demand military intervention in the name of establishing "peace and democracy".

Unfortunately,many such great masterplans are not running to scheme.The "street Arabs" derisively dismissed by the West,are realising that Uncle Sam and co. do not have their best interest at heart and are dragging them down into the cesspool.A massive backlash is in the offing.Unfortunately,Israel will ultimately be the target of the frustrations of the Arab world.The Syrian situ runs a great risk of a superpower confrontation too.Everyone is underestimating Assad,His final option will be the Samson option and he will use whatever chem weapons he has with a vengeance.

As for the report on the Saudis having Paki N-devices,I've been saying this for two decades,ever since the Saudis acquired the Chinese DF ballistic missiles.They bankrolled the Paki N-programme and are joined at the hip with them militarily.Why is it that every time there is a crisis in Pak,they run to the Saudis and why do the Saudis provide comfortable asylum for deposed Paki leaders? It is because they know too much.To admit openly that the Saudis possess N-weapons would destroy the case for attacking Iran for its pursuit of the bomb.How can the Sunnis who aim to destroy the Shiites have the bomb alone?

PS:The blame game is going to go on.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... pons-rebel

Syrian government claims it found chemical weapons in rebel tunnels
State TV says 'chemical agents' discovered in Damascus as Assad regime continues to deny Wednesday's alleged attack
Syrian government claims it found chemical weapons in rebel tunnels

State TV says 'chemical agents' discovered in Damascus as Assad regime continues to deny Wednesday's alleged attack
Saturday 24 August 2013 12.27 BST

The UN high representative for disarmament affairs, Angela Kane, arrives in Damascus, Syria, to press for access to the site of Wednesday’s suspected chemical weapons attack. Photograph: Hassan Ammar/AP

The Syrian government has said it has discovered chemical agents in tunnels in Damascus after the killing of hundreds of Syrians in a suspected chemical weapons attack on Wednesday.

Syrian state television said government soldiers found chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar on Saturday and some of the troops were suffocating.

"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents," state television quoted a source as saying. "In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar."

"Ambulances came to rescue the people who were suffocating in Jobar," the broadcaster said, adding that an army unit was preparing to storm the suburb where rebels fighting to oust the president, Bashar al-Assad, are based.

Syrian activists, supported by the British government, believe Assad's forces launched a nerve and chemical gas attack in Jobar and other suburbs before dawn on Wednesday, killing at least 500 people and possibly more than 1,000.

Assad's government has dismissed the accusation and its major ally Russia has suggested rebel fighters may have launched the attack themselves to provoke international action.

The UN high representative for disarmament affairs, Angela Kane, arrived in Damascus on Saturday to push for access to the suspected attack site for UN inspectors, who are already in Syria to investigate months-old accusations.

Assad's government has not said whether it will allow access to the site despite coming under increasing pressure from the UN, western and Gulf Arab countries and Russia. If confirmed, it would be the world's deadliest chemical attack in decades.

Syria's claim to have discovered chemical weapons in Damascus follows its refusal to accept that a chemical weapons attack had taken place on Wednesday.

The US, Britain, France and Russia have all urged the Assad regime and the rebels to co-operate with the UN and allow its inspectors to look into the alleged attack.

The Assad regime has denied the claims that it was behind the chemical attack, calling them "absolutely baseless" and suggesting they are an attempt to discredit the government.

The UN experts already in Syria are tasked with investigating three earlier purported chemical attacks: one in the village of Khan al-Assal outside the northern city of Aleppo in March, as well as two other locations that have been kept secret for security reasons.

It took months of negotiations between the UN and Damascus before an agreement was struck to allow the 20-member team into Syria to investigate. Its mandate is limited to those three sites and it is only charged with determining whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

Syria's deputy prime minister, Qadri Jamil, told the Associated Press on Thursday that he was personally in favour of a fair, transparent international delegation to investigate the latest incident. But he said that would require a new agreement between the government and the UN, and that the conditions for such a delegation would need to be studied.
member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by member_27444 »

Remember Scott Ritter

Remember Snowden in Russia

Remember Syria broken, Lebanon broken Palestine broken Jordan in kitty Egypt broken
KSA bought Israel secure as Iran is later agenda

Oh by the way the founding nations of NAM all truncated next India

Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Egypt, next India any way , half way done
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

Is the enquiry by impartial UN inspector complete yet?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Wall Street Journal weekend edition has the following article by Waler Russel Mead:


Our Failed Grand Strategy
The Failed Grand Strategy in the Middle East
* By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD


In the beginning, the Hebrew Bible tells us, the universe was all "tohu wabohu," chaos and tumult. This month the Middle East seems to be reverting to that primeval state: Iraq continues to unravel, the Syrian War grinds on with violence spreading to Lebanon and allegations of chemical attacks this week, and Egypt stands on the brink of civil war with the generals crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and street mobs torching churches. Turkey's prime minister, once widely hailed as President Obama's best friend in the region, blames Egypt's violence on the Jews; pretty much everyone else blames it on the U.S.

The Obama administration had a grand strategy in the Middle East. It was well intentioned, carefully crafted and consistently pursued.

Unfortunately, it failed.

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey's AK Party and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the 'moderate middle' of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups.

President Obama (whom I voted for in 2008) and his team hoped that the success of the new grand strategy would demonstrate once and for all that liberal Democrats were capable stewards of American foreign policy. The bad memories of the Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter presidencies would at last be laid to rest; with the public still unhappy with George W. Bush's foreign policy troubles, Democrats would enjoy a long-term advantage as the party most trusted by voters to steer the country through stormy times.

It is much too early to anticipate history's verdict on the Obama administration's foreign policy; the president has 41 months left in his term, and that is more than enough for the picture in the Middle East to change drastically once again. Nevertheless, to get a better outcome, the president will have to change his approach.

Instability has spread from Syria into neighboring countries.

With the advantages of hindsight, it appears that the White House made five big miscalculations about the Middle East. It misread the political maturity and capability of the Islamist groups it supported; it misread the political situation in Egypt; it misread the impact of its strategy on relations with America's two most important regional allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia); it failed to grasp the new dynamics of terrorist movements in the region; and it underestimated the costs of inaction in Syria.

America's Middle East policy in the past few years depended on the belief that relatively moderate Islamist political movements in the region had the political maturity and administrative capability to run governments wisely and well. That proved to be half-true in the case of Turkey's AK Party: Until fairly recently Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whatever mistakes he might make, seemed to be governing Turkey in a reasonably effective and reasonably democratic way. But over time, the bloom is off that rose. Mr. Erdogan's government has arrested journalists, supported dubious prosecutions against political enemies, threatened hostile media outlets and cracked down crudely on protesters. Prominent members of the party leadership look increasingly unhinged, blaming Jews, telekinesis and other mysterious forces for the growing troubles it faces.

Things have reached such a pass that the man President Obama once listed as one of his five best friends among world leaders and praised as "an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend on a wide range of issues" is now being condemned by the U.S. government for "offensive" anti-Semitic charges that Israel was behind the overthrow of Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi.


Compared with Mr. Morsi, however, Mr. Erdogan is a Bismarck of effective governance and smart policy. Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were quite simply not ready for prime time; they failed to understand the limits of their mandate, fumbled incompetently with a crumbling economy and governed so ineptly and erratically that tens of millions of Egyptians cheered on the bloody coup that threw them out.

Tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists and incompetent bumblers make a poor foundation for American grand strategy. We would have done business with the leaders of Turkey and Egypt under almost any circumstances, but to align ourselves with these movements hasn't turned out to be wise. :((

The White House, along with much of the rest of the American foreign policy world, made another key error in the Middle East: It fundamentally misread the nature of the political upheaval in Egypt. Just as Thomas Jefferson mistook the French Revolution for a liberal democratic movement like the American Revolution, so Washington thought that what was happening in Egypt was a "transition to democracy." That was never in the cards.

What happened in Egypt was that the military came to believe that an aging President Hosni Mubarak was attempting to engineer the succession of his son, turning Egypt from a military republic to a dynastic state. The generals fought back; when unrest surged, the military stood back and let Mr. Mubarak fall. The military, incomparably more powerful than either the twittering liberals or the bumbling Brotherhood, has now acted to restore the form of government Egypt has had since the 1950s. Now most of the liberals seem to understand that only the military can protect them from the Islamists, and the Islamists are learning that the military is still in charge. During these events, the Americans and Europeans kept themselves endlessly busy and entertained trying to promote a nonexistent democratic transition.


{On BRF we called it a military restoration of the Mameluke rule instead of the dynastic rule}

The next problem is that the Obama administration misread the impact that its chosen strategies would have on relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia—and underestimated just how miserable those two countries can make America's life in the Middle East if they are sufficiently annoyed.

The break with Israel came early. In those unforgettable early days when President Obama was being hailed by the press as a new Lincoln and Roosevelt, the White House believed that it could force Israel to declare a total settlement freeze to restart negotiations with the Palestinians. The resulting flop was President Obama's first big public failure in foreign policy. It would not be the last. (For the past couple of years, the administration has been working to repair relations with the Israelis; as one result, the peace talks that could have started in 2009 with better U.S. management are now under way.)

The breach with Saudis came later and this one also seems to have caught the White House by surprise. By aligning itself with Turkey and Mr. Morsi's Egypt, the White House was undercutting Saudi policy in the region and siding with Qatar's attempt to seize the diplomatic initiative from its larger neighbor.

{Rule 101 is never align with midgets! US still has not realized the mistake with TSP!}

Many Americans don't understand just how much the Saudis dislike the Brotherhood and the Islamists in Turkey. Not all Islamists are in accord; the Saudis have long considered the Muslim Brotherhood a dangerous rival in the world of Sunni Islam. Prime Minister Erdogan's obvious hunger to revive Turkey's glorious Ottoman days when the center of Sunni Islam was in Istanbul is a direct threat to Saudi primacy. That Qatar and its Al Jazeera press poodle enthusiastically backed the Turks and the Egyptians with money, diplomacy and publicity only angered the Saudis more. With America backing this axis—while also failing to heed Saudi warnings about Iran and Syria—Riyadh wanted to undercut rather than support American diplomacy. An alliance with the Egyptian military against Mr. Morsi's weakening government provided an irresistible opportunity to knock Qatar, the Brotherhood, the Turks and the Americans back on their heels.


The fourth problem is that the administration seems to have underestimated the vitality and adaptability of the loose group of terrorist movements and cells. The death of Osama bin Laden was a significant victory, but the effective suppression of the central al Qaeda organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan was anything but a knockout blow. Today a resurgent terrorist movement can point to significant achievements in the Libya-Mali theater, in northern Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. The closure of 20 American diplomatic facilities this month was a major moral victory for the terrorists, demonstrating that they retain the capacity to affect American behavior in a major way. Recruiting is easier, morale is higher, and funding is easier to get for our enemies than President Obama once hoped.

{So killing OBL was like decapitating a dead snake! Gives great satisfaction but is a waste move.

Worse it has turned out to be akin to killing the dragon in Jason and the Argonauts. We now have the dragon's teeth creating new groups of terrorist.}


Finally, the administration, rightfully concerned about the costs of intervention in Syria, failed to grasp early enough just how much it would cost to stay out of this ugly situation. As the war has dragged on, the humanitarian toll has grown to obscene proportions (far worse than anything that would have happened in Libya without intervention), communal and sectarian hatreds have become poisonous almost ensuring more bloodletting and ethnic and religious cleansing, and instability has spread from Syria into Iraq, Lebanon and even Turkey. All of these problems grow worse the longer the war goes on—but it is becoming harder and costlier almost day by day to intervene.

{The fundamental mistake is more than the above five tactical mistakes. Its a Type 0 problem. The West does not understand the nature of the Islamist meme. Fundamentally in its various forms: Abrahamism and its children: Judaism, Christianism, Marxism, Secularism, it is a violent, subversive political movement. West was fortunate to have the Reformation and Enlightenment and was able to shed the cloak of Abrahamism and move on to Modernism. The Russians similarly shed the cloak of Marxism and moved through the turbulence or chaos of the journey from feudalism to Modernity. China is still a work in progress.}

But beyond these problems, the failure to intervene early in Syria (when "leading from behind" might well have worked) has handed important victories to both the terrorists and the Russia-Iran axis, and has seriously eroded the Obama administration's standing with important allies. Russia and Iran backed Bashar al-Assad; the president called for his overthrow—and failed to achieve it. To hardened realists in Middle Eastern capitals, this is conclusive proof that the American president is irredeemably weak. His failure to seize the opportunity for what the Russians and Iranians fear would have been an easy win in Syria cannot be explained by them in any other way.

This is dangerous. Just as Nikita Khrushchev concluded that President Kennedy was weak and incompetent after the Bay of Pigs failure and the botched Vienna summit, and then proceeded to test the American president from Cuba to Berlin, so President Vladimir Putin and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now believe they are dealing with a dithering and indecisive American leader, and are calibrating their policies accordingly. Khrushchev was wrong about Kennedy, and President Obama's enemies are also underestimating him, but those underestimates can create dangerous crises before they are corrected.

If American policy in Syria has been a boon to the Russians and Iranians, it has been a godsend to the terrorists. The prolongation of the war has allowed terrorist and radical groups to establish themselves as leaders in the Sunni fight against the Shiite enemy. A reputation badly tarnished by both their atrocities and their defeat in Iraq has been polished and enhanced by what is seen as their courage and idealism in Syria. The financial links between wealthy sources in the Gulf and jihadi fighter groups, largely sundered in the last 10 years, have been rebuilt and strengthened. Thousands of radicals are being trained and indoctrinated, to return later to their home countries with new skills, new ideas and new contacts. This development in Syria looks much more dangerous than the development of the original mujahedeen in Afghanistan; Afghanistan is a remote and (most Middle Easterners believe) a barbarous place. Syria is in the heart of the region and the jihadi spillover threatens to be catastrophic.

One of the interesting elements of the current situation is that while American foreign policy has encountered one setback after another in the region, America's three most important historical partners—Egypt's military, Saudi Arabia and Israel—have all done pretty well and each has bested the U.S. when policies diverged.

Alliances play a large role in America's foreign policy success; tending the Middle Eastern alliances now in disarray may be the Obama administration's best hope now to regain its footing.

As the Obama administration struggles to regain its footing in this volatile region, it needs to absorb the lessons of the past 4½ years. First, allies matter. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military have been America's most important regional allies both because they share strategic interests and because they are effective actors in a way that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and smaller states aren't. If these three forces are working with you, then things often go reasonably well. If one or more of them is trying to undercut you, pain comes. The Obama administration undertook the hard work necessary to rebuild its relationship with Israel; it needs to devote more attention to the concerns of the Egyptian generals and the House of Saud. Such relationships don't mean abandoning core American values; rather they recognize the limits on American power and seek to add allies where our own unaided efforts cannot succeed.

Second, the struggle against terror is going to be harder than we hoped. Our enemies have scattered and multiplied, and the violent jihadi current has renewed its appeal. In the Arab world, in parts of Africa, in Europe and in the U.S., a constellation of revitalized and inventive movements now seeks to wreak havoc. It is delusional to believe that we can eliminate this problem by eliminating poverty, underdevelopment, dictatorship or any other "root causes" of the problem; we cannot eliminate them in a policy-relevant time frame. An ugly fight lies ahead. Instead of minimizing the terror threat in hopes of calming the public, the president must prepare public opinion for a long-term struggle.

Third, the focus must now return to Iran. Concern with Iran's growing power is the thread that unites Israel and Saudi Arabia. Developing and moving on an Iran strategy that both Saudis and Israelis can support will help President Obama rebuild America's position in the shifting sands. That is likely to mean a much tougher policy on Syria. Drawing red lines in the sand and stepping back when they are crossed won't rebuild confidence.

President Obama now faces a moment similar to the one President Carter faced when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The assumptions that shaped key elements of his foreign policy have not held up; times have changed radically and policy must shift. The president is a talented leader; the world will be watching what he does.

Mr. Mead is the James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and editor-at-large of the American Interest.

A version of this article appeared August 23, 2013, on page C1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Our Failed Grand Strategy.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

The WR Mead article's first sentence shows the origins of Islam. its the same meme to consider the previous epoch as chaos or jahiliyaya. Islam asserts its the successor to the Hebrew Bible.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by KrishnaK »

Oh by the way the founding nations of NAM all truncated next India
:rotfl:
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Obama & Cameron spoke for 40 mins on #Syria. UK official tells @TheSundayTimes discussed "serious response" inc mil. action

.@thesundaytimes reports "thinking in Whitehall shifted from whether should take military action to what it might do." #Syria
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Well read the Mead article in WSJ this weekend.
It implies destabilizing Assad just like Mubarak will lead to spread of Islamist fanaticism.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Image

Israel said expecting US military response in Syria
Assad’s chemical weapons use reportedly discussed in call between US and Israeli army chiefsBy TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF August 24, 2013, 11:48 pm 3 Share 35

Israel believes that the United States will respond militarily to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, according to unnamed military sources quoted by the Hebrew website Ynet on Saturday night.

When proof surfaces that the Assad regime used chemical weapons last Wednesday, “the US will act even in the event that the UN Security Council does not take a decision to that effect,” the report claimed, citing estimations by Israeli officials.


It said the Syria crisis was discussed by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, in a phone conversation with his Israeli counterpart, Chief of the IDF General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, on Friday.

The assessment in Jerusalem is that “Washington is seriously considering a limited yet effective attack that will make it clear to the regime in Damascus that the international community will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction against Syrian civilians or any other elements,” the report said.

Israel’s Channel 2 news said the likelihood was of a limited “punitive attack,” to deter the regime from further chemical weapons use.

Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi warned Saturday evening against outside military intervention, declaring in a TV interview that “a mass of flames will ignite the Middle East.” He also said, “The American pressure will not help, it is a waste of time, and Syria will not withdraw from its fight against terror.” An attack on Syria, he said, “will not be a picnic.”

Israel is said to be preparing for the possibility that, in response to an American attack, Syria might retaliate against targets in Israel. Syria is reported to have an arsenal of at least 100,000 missiles, some of which can target any areas in Israel.

President Barack Obama discussed options for responding to the Syria crisis with his security chiefs on Saturday, as the US moved a fourth missile warship to the eastern Mediterranean to be ready for any possible military intervention.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday that no decision on action had been taken, but some US reports said Hagel had been tasked by Obama with preparing attack options.

Dempsey is to travel to Jordan in the next few days, along with the head of the US central command, General Lloyd Austin, to coordinate a possible repsonse to the Syrian crisis with chiefs of staff from Turkey, Britain, France, Qatar, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Canada.

US reports have speculated that the US might use cruise missiles to take out Assad’s missile delivery systems, rather than directly targeting chemical weapons stockpiles because of the dangers of triggering chemical fallout. US TV reports Saturday said the administration was “leaning very heavily” toward an attack. Possible targets cited included the Syrian army units directly responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and symbols of the Assad regime.

Over the weekend, Israel’s Channel 2 reported that the Assad regime has concentrated its vast stocks of chemical weaponry in just two or three locations, the report said, under the control of Syrian Air Force Intelligence, itself reporting to the president.

The TV report said the chemical weapons allegedly used to kill hundreds of Syrian civilians — and possibly over 1,000 — last Wednesday were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army
.

This division is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.

The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, the Channel 2 news report said.

It said Israel was increasingly concerned about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and their possibility of these weapons falling into still more dangerous hands than those of Assad. Israel was “privately” making clear its concerns to the United States, the report said.

In his first response Thursday to the alleged attack, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran was closely watching how the world would deal with the attack.

“Syria has become Iran’s testing ground, and Iran is closely watching whether and how the world responds to the atrocities committed there by its client state Syria and its proxy Hezbollah against innocent civilians in Syria,” he said.
Unverified info: Jordanian Northern Command placed on red alert along with US marines stationed in Jordan. 2 Israeli AF bases placed on red alert.

Meetings of military chiefs will start tomorrow and last till Tuesday. likelyhood will be that It will NOT be just missile strikes and it will be special forces action to seize these Chemical weapons as wel. Planning and training has been going on as I revealed since March.

CBS News: US STRIKES NOT AIMED AT HEART OF ASAD REGIME BUT TO PREVENT USAGE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

: U.S. strike target the upcoming chemical weapons stores and bases behind chemical attacks in # Syria - CBS # Syria

David Cameron to give Syria ultimatum - a game-changing resolution at #UNSC for the last chance to disarm. http://t.co/yGyLLdZmR0
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

what if the Syrians claim that the chemical weapons residue was unleashed due to strikes by the West/
member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by member_27444 »

KrishnaK wrote:
Oh by the way the founding nations of NAM all truncated next India
:rotfl:
Sir nothing happens overnight especially in History and geography :roll:
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

The original plan is for SF to seize them as opposed to bombing campaign on the storage sites. They'll only use CM on the units that fired those weapons. The aim of this exercise is not to pick sides but to ensure these don't fall into wrong hands and not used by Asad again.

SMC and West had an agreement not to launch offensive on Al Safira, Aleppo - a major CW site. That has now been anulled since they were used in Damascus and SMC have launched an offensive there and are not far away from Al Safira site.
member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by member_27444 »

So finally Assad is dead meat ?
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6922
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by habal »

So if west does some sleazy trick on Syria including bombing forward formations in Ghouta or Homs under guise of attacking chemical weapons. Only Russians can provide cover by sneaking an attack on Israel using deniable means or leave that to the Iranians & Hezbollah. & openly attacking Jordan & Turkey with BM. While at it, also have a go at BM defence in Poland or Romania.

According to this report 'the natam' ('foul odor' in certain south Indian languages) is already in Syria.

http://nsnbc.me/2012/06/04/nato-special ... -official/

also some details on the bandar sultan, who specifically asked Russians to abstain from US security council resolution on Syria in return for goodies like $15 billion and resulting regional & global non-relevance.

$15 billion for neutering the bear eh ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d73_1377380751
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

so what if syria military starts gifting MANPADS, chemical and bio weapons to anyone who wants it and wants to take a shot at the eagle?
I am sure the brothers among the rebels will be most interested to obtain a few.
the same crew who obtained MANPADS and RPGs from libya and shipped them to who knows where.

this would actually make assad and the al-quada allies against their common enemy.

welcome to the middle east as they say. I got a migraine trying to understand the flow logic of that newspaper clipping...a great letter
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6922
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by habal »

Our source now says that Putin's most serious concern was Saudi Arabia's growing relationship with the #Mossad.
The planning clearly showed that Saudi Arabia was now deeply involved
in planning an attack on Iran which Putin famously believes is a recipe
for global disaster.

We have already published the fact that
Bandar has been given only 8 months to solve the problem of Syria, i.e.
overthrow Dr. Assad's government. He has only 6 and 1/2 months left
.


On August 21, 2013, with childishly obvious coordination, indicating
planning, the Twitter accounts of a multitude of rat supporters of the
cannibal terrorist organizations in Syria exploded in an orgy of
disinformation linked, without any doubt, to the Western Press'
hyperbolic, rampage-like, frenzied explosion of reportage clearly meant
to justify American and NATO intervention in Syria. To know how sleazy
the West has become, all you have to do is follow the traitor journalist
Richard Engel who is an Israeli "Sayan" and "Katsa" for the Zionist
Abomination's Mossad
. Engel's reporting, more than even the BBC's or
PBS's Judy Woodruff, reflects, with incredible exactitude, the breadth
of the Western Press' collusion in the war crimes committed by NATO,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey against the government and people of
Syria.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d73_1377 ... tYs5YGJ.99
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

wasn't Libya first restricted of its nuke program, if I remember correctly.

About action against WMDs, why aren't a comprehensive program developed to have al-mobs killed off? May be because al-mobs are trained by CIA and MI6 James Bond types and it would be totally contradictory now to clear away al-mobs.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Iran army chief warns US of 'harsh consquences' over Syria
Iran on Sunday warned the United States against crossing the "red line" on Syria, saying it would have "severe consequences", according to the Fars news agency.

"America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House," said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, reacting to statements by Western officials regarding the possibility of military intervention in Syria, according to Fars.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

400 tonnes of arms financed by Gulf countries for rebels were sent into Syria from Turkey's Hatay with 20 trucks in the past 24 hours.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

I remember last time there was major CW attack was that Allepo ( ? ) The blamed the regime forces and most of West were on Air threatening strikes and when the UN team went there and one of them from Norway said in TV interview that they had evidence the Attack was from Opposition.... immediately the formal report mentioned it could not be determined and things went cold.

I suspect all CW attacks and investigation by UN will have two result , Either Assad did it or it cannot be determined .... so Assad is dammed any ways.

Would be interesting to see the result of current attack near Damascus.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Al-Nusra threatens to rocket Alawite villages over alleged chemical attack
The head of the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has pledged to target communities from Syria's Alawite faith, followed by President Bashar al-Assad, with rockets in revenge for an alleged chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, according to an audio recording seen on Sunday.

"For every chemical rocket that had fallen on our people in Damascus, one of their villages will, by the will of God, pay for it," Abu Mohammad al-Golani said in the recording posted on YouTube.

"On top of that we will prepare a thousand rockets that will be fired on their towns in revenge for the Damascus Ghouta massacre."
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Evidence implicates Assad in chemical attacks - Hollande

I wonder if France and UK has such strong evidence of SAA initiating this CW attack and are propagating retaliation much before UN has any team over there , why dont they put up the evidence in UN and let the ROW see the merits of it ?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Austin wrote:I remember last time there was major CW attack was that Allepo ( ? ) The blamed the regime forces and most of West were on Air threatening strikes and when the UN team went there and one of them from Norway said in TV interview that they had evidence the Attack was from Opposition.... immediately the formal report mentioned it could not be determined and things went cold.

I suspect all CW attacks and investigation by UN will have two result , Either Assad did it or it cannot be determined .... so Assad is dammed any ways.

Would be interesting to see the result of current attack near Damascus.
Link for any of the above? AFAIK UN inspectors turned up last week for the first time to investigate the Aleppo (khan al asal) incident but Syrian govt hasn't taken them to any of the alleged sites of CW usage yet..

----------------
@MahirZeynalov: Weapons that crossed from Turkey into Syria yesterday were mostly ammunition for shoulder-fired weapons and anti-aircraft machine guns.

ATGMs still not sent... Sitting in warehouse

@natlsecuritycnn: Syria has agreed to allow weapons inspectors access to site of purported chem weapons attack, Syrian Deputy FM tells CNN's Fred Pleitgen
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

@SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: Syrian State TV says country's Government has agreed with UN over visit to site of alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

Austin wrote:Al-Nusra threatens to rocket Alawite villages over alleged chemical attack
The head of the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has pledged to target communities from Syria's Alawite faith, followed by President Bashar al-Assad, with rockets in revenge for an alleged chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, according to an audio recording seen on Sunday.

"For every chemical rocket that had fallen on our people in Damascus, one of their villages will, by the will of God, pay for it," Abu Mohammad al-Golani said in the recording posted on YouTube.

"On top of that we will prepare a thousand rockets that will be fired on their towns in revenge for the Damascus Ghouta massacre."
Is the UN going to do anything about these barbaric al-mobs? UN inspectors should also visit villages and refugees hit by al-mobs and UNSC should bomb away these al-mobs, their supply lines and their depots anywhere including from Turkey etc.

This is an open call to attack villages.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

: From @margbrennan: Sr Admin Official says any deal by Syria to grant UN access to suspected chem weapons site now "too late to be credible."

: Sr. Official quoted by @margbrennan says available evidence at suspected chem weapons site in Syria "has been significantly corrupted."

: UN inspectors have no mandate to say who conducted chem weapons attack in Syria, and both sides agree attack occurred. So what's the point?

Basically this is a last ditch effort after threat of war. It will buy him some time but the west probably have made the decision to seize it

@sheeraf: Israeli officer tells me, "we have no intel that Syrian rebels captured CW stockpiles, especially to level used in attack near Damascus"
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Writing the bin Laden Story

by A.J. Caschetta
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2013, pp. 77-85 (view PDF)

http://www.meforum.org/3595/bin-laden-story
Print Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Great, definitive biographies are rarely written by their subjects' contemporaries. Generations often pass before sufficient evidence can be amassed, analyzed, and written into a narrative by a skilled and dispassionate biographer. The biographies of Osama bin Laden currently in print are all flawed but necessary steps in the path leading to the definitive bin Laden biography. The magnitude and trauma of al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks are so profound and far-reaching that it will likely take a biographer for whom the event is itself history to write the definitive bin Laden biography.

Still, the two-year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden presents an opportune moment to review the biographies of America's late enemy number one—with a focus on the more recent works written while he was still hiding in Pakistan—while anticipating a flurry of postmortem biographies sure to come.

Omar bin Laden, third son of the arch-terrorist, seen here with his wife, provides an insider's account of childhood with the al-Qaeda leader in Growing Up bin Laden, including tales of his father's severe and often abusive behavior.
Prior to bin Laden's Death

Pre-9/11 bin Laden biographies are a rare few, predating the entry of "bin Laden" and "al-Qaeda" into the nation's, indeed the world's, lexicon. Anyone looking to learn about bin Laden on the afternoon of September 10 could find newspaper investigations, interviews, and television shows aplenty, but the only available book-length texts telling bin Laden's story were Yossef Bodansky's Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America[1] and Simon Reeve's The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism.[2] Bodansky refers to bin Laden's "organization," "group," and "network" but does not yet use the name "al-Qaeda." Reeve's book, which does have a chapter titled "al-Qaeda," shows how the FBI and CIA gradually became aware of bin Laden, at first deeming him merely a terror financier (a "Gucci Terrorist" as Reeve puts it) but gradually piecing together the story and revealing an unprecedented threat.

After 9/11, interest naturally grew, and more book-length biographies were written. But they are still only a handful, hardly more numerous than the pre-9/11 texts written over the near decade comprising bin Laden's "underground" era. They were dominated early on by the journalistic accounts of Peter Bergen, one of the few Westerners to have interviewed the arch-terrorist, first in his Holy War, Inc.[3] and then The Osama bin Laden I Know.[4] Any post-9/11 biography of bin Laden had, and still has, to contend with Bergen's work, a combination of biography and "new journalism," a blending of traditional reportage with an account of the reporter's quest for the information. In 2004, former Washington Post correspondent Jonathan Randal weighed in with Osama: The Making of a Terrorist,[5] and as one might suspect from a leftist journalist writing in the run-up to the reelection campaign of President George W. Bush, he seems more concerned with impugning the incumbent president than with writing bin Laden's story. Unlike Bergen, Randal has difficulty curbing his new journalism proclivities: The author reveals almost as much about himself as about bin Laden, and his book might more aptly be titled "Covering Osama," for he interjects himself into every situation, touching on nearly the entire history of the modern Middle East.

Two other important texts, while not exactly bin Laden biographies per se, tell his story in larger contexts. The first by intelligence specialist-turned-author Rohan Gunaratna is Inside al-Qaeda. Global Network of Terror[6] whose 50-page first chapter "Who Is Osama bin Laden?" is still an important source for bin Laden biographers. The other, by journalist/filmmaker/novelist Lawrence Wright is The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.[7] Wright's grand (and grandiose) Pulitzer Prize-winning work is a narrative masterpiece, weaving together the lives of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, FBI specialist John O'Neill, and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki with the authority of a journalist and the skills of a novelist. But the bulk of that authority comes from Wright's hundreds of interviews (there are 560 names in the "Author Interviews" appendix), and the downside is that the book thereby depends on often untraceable information. Readers are left with no way to follow up on the details and are expected to accept them as factual. A third work, Steve Coll's The bin Ladens. An Arabian Family in the American Century[8] expanded the focus to the entire bin Laden clan.
Growing up bin Laden

Perhaps the two most important books post-dating 9/11 but predating bin Laden's death are full-length biographies, and they are must-reads: Najwa and Omar bin Laden's Growing Up bin Laden: Osama's Wife and Son Take Us Inside Their Secret World[9] and Michael Scheuer's Osama Bin Laden[10] published just weeks before bin Laden's death.

In Growing Up bin Laden, the first wife and third son of Osama bin Laden attempt to humanize and yet distance themselves from husband and father. Eighteen chapters by son Omar and twelve by wife Najwa are book-ended by introductions, appendices, and occasional explanatory notes—short chapters really—by Jean Sasson in the role of interviewer/amanuensis/historian. Both Najwa and Omar are invested in the bin Laden legacy and stand to gain or lose depending on how their roles in that legacy are perceived. Both offer interesting and new information.

Najwa's chapters take readers on her personal journey from her native Syria where she met her first cousin and future husband Osama to her married life in Saudi Arabia, then Peshawar during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, later Khartoum, and ultimately to Afghanistan. The chapters reveal small details in the domestic life of the bin Laden household where she was wife number one and, most importantly, mother of son number one, Abdullah.

These details include bin Laden's love of fast cars ("my husband had enough money from his inheritance to buy the latest model automobile and loved seeing how fast it could go") as well as wives, one of which Najwa herself chooses. She offers new information on the question of whether bin Laden ever came to the United States, claiming that the entire family accompanied her husband and Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden's mentor, to Indiana and remained there while the two men went briefly to Los Angeles. Najwa provides fond reminiscences of life in the Sudan where her husband's "favorite undertaking was working the land." These were the same years that al-Qaeda consolidated power with Egyptian extremist groups, confronted the United States in Somalia, financed the first World Trade Center bombing, and mapped out its global jihad. It is difficult not to read irony—and self-delusion—into her recollection: "Those are the best memories, to be busy and part of a worthy mission to produce something practical."

More interesting historically are Omar's chapters, recalling bin Laden's life through the eyes of the son selected to take over the family terror business. Omar portrays himself as a pacifist who loves his father but hates his "work." Najwa calls Omar her "most sensitive child," and Omar plays this role to the hilt, letting readers experience the asceticism and cruelty of his father's tough love through his sensitive eyes: long hikes through the mountains without water, Spartan accommodations in Tora Bora, the insistence that none of the children laugh, joke, or smile so much that they show their teeth, and other "absurd rules." Omar's chapters more often than not come off as equivocating and mewling but occasionally manage to evoke some sympathy as in his description of his predicament as an asthmatic whose father refused to allow any prescription medications in his house because they were not available in the time of the prophet Muhammad. But in spite of his sufferings and self-portrayal as a misunderstood son struggling to earn the respect of his father, he still offers up lines sure to aggravate many readers, such as, "My father was a brilliant man in many ways." It is difficult to gauge the degree to which Omar is being disingenuous when he claims: "Our Muslim deaths were lamented, African deaths ignored, and American deaths celebrated. I was too young to understand the full madness of such thinking."

Omar's chapters also are filled with fascinating tidbits and important details that fill gaps left by previous biographers. For instance, most journalists assert that bin Laden was left-handed, a belief seemingly confirmed by the ubiquitous post-9/11 film clip of the smiling terrorist, firing and then lovingly cradling a Kalashnikov southpaw-style. But Omar reveals instead a childhood accident that left bin Laden "virtually blind in his right eye," thus his adaptation to the injury by shooting left-handed. Omar also refutes the claims that bin Laden suffered from chronic kidney failure explaining that "the only explanation for this rumor is that my father … had a tendency to suffer from kidney stones."

Omar's chapters are designed to depict the barbarity of life with his father and his loyal supporters. The most shocking example of this is Omar's version of an episode from Khartoum when his friend, the son of a high-ranking member of the jihadist al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya group, was raped by several men from Ayman al-Zawahiri's sometime-rival group Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The rapists photographed their violation of the young boy and once the actual photos were spread around, it was the boy victim rather than the adult rapists who received the blame. Omar reports that Zawahiri became so incensed that the boy "was dragged into a room with Zawahiri, who shot him in the head."

Ultimately, Growing Up bin Laden will, and must, be seen as a piece of propaganda—useful and insightful propaganda, but propaganda nevertheless. Bin Laden's malevolence is frequently attributed, both directly and indirectly, to the Egyptians, portrayed throughout as the dominating forces in the terror-master's thinking. Najwa hints at this influence but acknowledges that she was never privy to her husband's secret meetings: "Like all women in Saudi Arabia, I would never attend such gatherings." Omar is more direct, portraying Zawahiri in particular as the villain of his father's life story claiming that "the Egyptian doctor had an evil influence over my father." Sasson's brief chapters also emphasize the malevolent influence of the Egyptians on bin Laden's circle: "While [Palestinian] Abdullah Azzam was not in favor of violence against fellow Muslims, Zawahiri had no such scruples." In sum, Growing Up bin Laden is destined to be read as an interesting but inevitably suspect and unreliable account of the life of Osama bin Laden.
Scheuer's Osama bin Laden

Michael Scheuer, who pursued bin Laden for years from within the CIA's dedicated bin Laden unit, which he himself set up, is uniquely qualified to write a biography of his quarry. Along with John O'Neill who pursued bin Laden from the FBI's dedicated bin Laden unit, Scheuer fought not only bin Laden and al-Qaeda but also "the wall" built between law enforcement and intelligence, a wall begun by the Carter administration in the wake of Watergate and then made insurmountable by the Clinton administration, with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's infamous 1995 memo conferring constitutional protections on foreign terrorists through executive order.[11] Both O'Neill and Scheuer did everything the law would allow to capture, prosecute, or kill bin Laden, and both ended up quitting their posts, in part out of disgust over the rules of engagement forced on them, and in part out of trouble they encountered due to their unique styles. O'Neill would tragically perish on 9/11—a mere twenty days after beginning his new job as head of security for the World Trade Center—while Scheuer would go on to write books, first anonymously (while still at the CIA) and then later openly, after quitting in 2004:

The amount of individual negligence and culpability at the highest levels of the American government was completely whitewashed by the 9/11 commission. And I resigned because I wanted to speak out on those issues.[12]

His post-CIA books have been largely supportive of most aspects of U.S. efforts to destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan but critical of the overall "war on terror" and especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This biography of bin Laden is his latest effort.

Of all the biographies surveyed, Scheuer's is the most sophisticated in its assessment of both the life of Osama bin Laden and of previous biographies. Scheuer is not only an astute historian but also a literary critic, nimbly outlining the concepts behind what he calls "the bin Laden narratives"—a series of eight prevalent distortions of the terrorist's life. Scheuer explains how each one is fallacious and dangerous. Three he dismisses out of hand: those that depict bin Laden and al-Qaeda as "tools of Iran … tools of the CIA … [or] tools of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate." The remaining five narratives are more nuanced and less easily dismissed, but Scheuer argues that several are in need of discounting, such as the perception of bin Laden as a madman, a common criminal, or a good and sensitive Muslim whose view of Islam was corrupted by the Egyptians who came to dominate al-Qaeda. Scheuer argues fervently and convincingly that the "story of al-Zawahiri craftily brainwashing bin Laden and hijacking al-Qaeda is cut from whole cloth by the Saudis and others as part of their 'good-Saudi-boy-led-astray-by-evil-Egyptians' narrative." He is also clear and levelheaded in taking on myths such as the "blow-back" theory that blames Washington for the rise of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and that posits the notion that, in the post-Soviet era, U.S. administrations simply abandoned Afghanistan. While Scheuer takes Lawrence Wright to task for relying too heavily on selective sources (such as Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who Scheuer claims is also invested in the "good Saudi boy" narrative), he overlooks the possibility that he also relies too heavily on his own interviews or his own privileging of sources that may advance their own self-serving or self-exonerating narratives.

Scheuer's is the best book yet to detail the importance of the Advice and Reform Committee (ARC), bin Laden's "think tank" set up in early 1994 in the Sudan. He refers to the ARC communiqués as "our first extended look at bin Laden's written thought" and demonstrates how the ARC essays, which were faxed to the London office and then disseminated to the world, reflect al-Qaeda's increasingly radical agenda. Scheuer is also perhaps the best at explaining bin Laden's tactics and the process by which the terrorist learned from his mistakes (especially at the August 1987 battle of Jaji against Soviet troops in Afghanistan) and later in Jalalabad in March 1989.

Scheuer is very good at exposing the popular but erroneous view of bin Laden as an untrained, neophyte scholar, uncredentialed and unschooled in matters that would confer upon him the title of sheikh and, therefore, unworthy of the authority to issue fatwas (Islamic edicts). Of course bin Laden did indeed issue fatwas. And, deservedly or not, he was called sheikh by his followers, who hung on his every word.

By contrast, Scheuer downplays the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on bin Laden. In fact, there is no serious analysis of the influence of the Brotherhood on bin Laden's thought or that of Sayyid Qutb or Hasan al-Banna, seminal leaders of the organization. This unfortunate omission leads Scheuer to overlook completely bin Laden's caliphate irredentism, the longing to fulfill his prophet Muhammad's quest and to institute Shari'a law, at first in the lands of the "near enemy" (i.e., Saudi Arabia) but surely later in the lands of the "far enemy" (the West). Scheuer might understand bin Laden's project in the larger context of Islamic history and polity were he to read carefully Efraim Karsh's excellent Islamic Imperialism: A History,[13] but, in fact, he dismisses Karsh's work wholesale, along with that of Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Feith, Bernard Lewis, Charles Krauthammer, George Weigel, John Bolton, William Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz, all of whom are denounced as neoconservative imperialists afflicted with a "blind faith in the moral superiority of Israel in general and Likudites in particular."

Readers of this journal may bristle at Scheuer's failure to grasp the natural U.S. connection to Israel as fellow targets of Islamist terrorism. His anti-Israel stance is consistent throughout the book, and he has been unabashed about it since leaving the CIA as in his response to a question posed in an interview conducted prior to bin Laden's death: "I carry no case for the Israeli relationship—I think it is a terrible relationship for America. The public opinion of the Muslim world is deeply hateful towards Israel. If you are going to satisfy the public in this new secular age of democracy you are going to have to be anti-Israeli and probably allow your people to help the Palestinians."[14]

As one might suspect, the author of the anonymously-published Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror[15] has little good to say about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but, along the way, he paradoxically argues: "While in power, Saddam was the best ally of Israel and the United States when it came to Israel's security. He dabbled with supporting Palestinian insurgents, but he also performed yeoman service in preventing the westward flow of Sunni fighters from South Asia to the Levant." The numerous $25,000 checks signed variously by Saddam and his son Uday sent to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers amount to far more than mere "dabbling" from both a moral and legal standpoint. Scheuer also ignores Iraq's role in international terrorism: Salmon Pak, Saddam's premier terrorist training camp, is not mentioned. For Scheuer, the decision to invade Iraq played right into bin Laden's master plan.

The most surprising (and disturbing) aspect of Osama Bin Laden is the degree to which Scheuer admires his subject, a tendency present in his earlier work. In his view, bin Laden is a celebrity, "one of those 'Great Men'… [who] has had a greater impact on how Americans view their society, government, and security than any other individual in the past fifty years." Fawning admiration also permeates Jonathan Randal's descriptions of bin Laden ("Che Guevara, Robin Hood, Saladin and Avenging Angel of Death rolled into one"). Excessive and unnecessary Osama admiration is also evident in the work of Bruce Lawrence, whose otherwise valuable and necessary anthology Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden[16] is marred by a 13-page introduction filled with moral equivalencies (comparing bin Laden to Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, for example) and by footnotes and introductory paragraphs that always seem to accept bin Laden's view of history and take his side while opposing the American version. But even Lawrence (who recently made a splash in Hyderabad's Sissat Daily with the proclamation that, as Robert Spencer put it, "Islam has no connection with terrorism") recognizes the hyperbole of Scheuer's 2004 description of bin Laden in Imperial Hubris as "a pious, charismatic, gentle, generous, talented, and personally courageous Muslim."

Scheuer follows Randal's lead with the grating comparison of bin Laden to Saladin and Robin Hood, but he goes further, comparing the arch-terrorist to a Western management guru using his "skills to run a multiethnic, multinational, and multilingual organization that is unique in the Muslim world … display[ing] the cool reasoning of a cost-benefit-calculating businessman, and the sophistication of a media mogul." Readers will decide for themselves whether such rhetoric is overblown or fair. What is fair, however, is to charge Scheuer with too readily believing bin Laden's own narrative for al-Qaeda's reign of terror. Scheuer argues for instance that al-Qaeda is only engaging in defensive jihad when in fact anyone who has read Raymond Ibrahim's The Al-Qaeda Reader[17] cover-to-cover (which Scheuer acknowledges as an important but incomplete text) knows that both bin Laden and Zawahiri have taken great pains to disguise as defensive their plainly offensive jihad. Nonetheless, Scheuer accepts bin Laden's jihad as a defensive one largely due to the latter's portrayal of a U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia (beginning with Desert Shield in August 1990) as an "occupation."

An honest historical evaluation recognizes that both Desert Shield and Desert Storm saved "the land of the two holy sites" from what would have been a genuinely brutal Iraqi occupation, like the one experienced by Kuwait. Subsequent arms and training deals cut between the Saudis and the administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were mutual agreements between two sovereign nations. Bin Laden's failure to secure the job that the Saudi royal family ultimately entrusted to the U.S. government caused him to portray the relationship between Washington and Riyadh as an occupation: Scheuer should know better.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in the book concerns the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman. He was central to the foundation of the so-called Services Bureau (Maktab al-Khidamat or MAK) and then to its takeover after the assassinations of first Abdullah Azzam and then of Mustafa Shalabi, whom Azzam selected to run the Alkifah Center in Brooklyn—MAK's most important hub. Scheuer's work at the CIA presumably put him in a position to know something about the disastrous and perplexing decisions of the U.S. government to admit Rahman at least three times (in 1986, 1987, and 1990)[18] followed by the catastrophic decision to grant him a green card in 1991[19]—despite everything known about him. Bin Laden's numerous written fatwas demanding Rahman's release, and the 2000 video fatwa urging Muslims to "revenge your sheikh," more than justify an analysis of Rahman's role in bin Laden's life story. Scheuer's failure to provide that analysis can only be seen as an evasion.

The driving principle behind Scheuer's bin Laden narrative is the argument that the "status quo U.S. foreign policy generates Islamist insurgents faster than they can be killed" and that only a change in that foreign policy can change the situation. But again Scheuer is selective in his evidence. A glance at bin Laden's 2002 diatribe, "Why We Are Fighting You," shows that foreign policy is indeed a problem, for the polemic focuses about half of its attention on U.S. foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis the Israeli-Arab conflict. But the other half is devoted to matters that touch at the core of America, matters such as personal freedom, which bin Laden sees as our insufficient submission to God, the fact that Americans "separate religion from your policies," and U.S. law's refusal to prosecute people for "immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury." He complains that women in America are allowed to work and that sex is sold and traded "under the name of 'art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom.'" All of these complaints and others add up to bin Laden's lament that America is "the worst civilization witnessed in the history of mankind." The only solution he offers is that Americans convert: "The first thing we are calling you to is Islam." Scheuer seems earnestly to believe that a change in U.S. foreign policy will end al-Qaeda's war, but he arrives at that conclusion by selectively focusing on parts of bin Laden's program while ignoring others that do not fit his narrative. Sometimes he allows this stance to blind him to reality as when he claims of bin Laden's jihad: "The war is being fought, for now, only on Muslim territory."
Conclusion

Omar and Najwa bin Laden, as participants in the life and history of Osama bin Laden, are able to tell us about their subject through their firsthand dealings with him, relying on their memories rather than research. Lawrence Wright is a storyteller whose sweeping narrative omits and ignores much in the interest of crafting a coherent portrayal of four different lives, spanning decades and continents, producing a work of art and of artifice. But Michael Scheuer is all three: a skilled analyst and historian, a capable storyteller, and a participant in the events of bin Laden's life out to set the record straight.

The future of what may come to be known as "bin Laden studies" and the legacy of the man are still in question. Scheuer's is the most recent biography with all subsequent books likely focusing on the hunt for and killing of bin Laden. And while it is too early to tell what the postmortem biographies will look like (none was available at this writing), it is likely that some will downplay and diminish the role of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, depicting the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, or some other nation-state or non-state entity as the more important force that pushed bin Laden onto the world stage while others will elevate and exaggerate the role of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Still others will claim bin Laden was never killed in May 2011 at all. One wonders how Hollywood will present him in the bio-pics that are sure to come.

The most significant addition to the story will come with the declassification and release of the treasure-trove of information removed from bin Laden's dingy hideout in Abbotabad.[20] Thus far of the dozens of hard-drives, thumb-drives, lap-tops and disks removed by the Navy SEALs, a mere seventeen documents have been made available to West Point's Counter Terrorism Center.[21] Over time that data will be released, and it will be invaluable to future bin Laden biographers, assuming it consists of more than bin Laden's ***** stash[22] and his collection of self-indulgent videos, like the one released on May 7, 2011, of a grey-haired bin Laden squatting in front of a television watching videos of himself.

A.J. Caschetta is senior lecturer in English at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He can be reached at [email protected].

[1] Roseville, Calif.: Prima Lifestyles, 1999.
[2] Holliston, Mass.: Northeastern, 1999.
[3] London: Phoenix Paperbacks, 2002.
[4] New York: Free Press, 2006.
[5] New York: Knopf, 2004.
[6] New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
[7] New York: Knopf, 2006.
[8] New York: Penguin Press, 2008.
[9] New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009.
[10] New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
[11] "A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks, Special Report, Redacted and Unclassified," Nov. 2004 (released publicly June 2005), Office of the Inspector General, chap. 2: Background.
[12] Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Jan. 8, 2007.
[13] New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
[14] Paul Davis, "IACSP Q & A with Michael Scheuer," The Journal of Counter Terrorism and Homeland Security International, 2 (17), p. 70.
[15] Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, Inc., 2004.
[16] London: Verso, annotated ed., 2005.
[17] New York: Doubleday, 2007.
[18] The New York Times, July 22, 1993.
[19] Time Magazine, July 5, 1993.
[20] Mark Owen, No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden (New York: Dutton Adult, 2012), p. 247.
[21] CNN News, May 4, 2012.
[22] CBS News, May 14, 2011.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

The West is on the verge of launching an attack,Russia has persuaded Syria to allow UN inspectors to check the cause of the chem attack.However,some form of mil action will be taken by the West to support the flagging rebel movement which has in recent times been smashed hard by Assad's forces.

After the deadly chemical attack, military action against Syria looms closer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/

Special report: Syria to allow to UN to inspect site of attack as David Cameron and Barack Obama warn Assad that military action looms closer
Britain and US warn President Assad of 'serious response'
hile Britain is against sending "boots on the ground", military action could range from enforcing no-fly zones to air strikes against the Syrian regime.

Britain and the US are demanding that Assad now allows UN weapons inspectors, who are 12 miles away from the scene of Wednesday's attack, to examine the site. President Obama warned last year that a chemical weapons attack would be a "red line" for the US in the crisis. A No 10 source added: "As the days pass, they [Cameron and Obama] think it is increasingly unlikely that inspectors will get in."

The attack, believed to involve a nerve agent, killed as many as 1,000 civilians, including children, and wounded thousands of others, according to Syrian rebel sources.

The charity Médecins Sans Frontières said yesterday that hospitals it supports around Damascus have received about 3,600 patients over the past few days, showing "neurotoxic symptoms", of which 355 have already died. It is feared there could have been hundreds more deaths.

As outrage over the atrocity fuelled calls for action, President Obama called his military and national security advisers for a meeting at the White House to discuss the next steps. There were reports yesterday that US naval forces were moving closer to Syria, with the fourth ballistic-missile warship sent to the Mediterranean.

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the President with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces to be able to carry out different options – whatever options the President might choose," the US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said yesterday.

A White House official said: "We have a range of options available, and we are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest, as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria. The President has directed the intelligence community to gather facts and evidence so that we can determine what occurred in Syria. Once we ascertain the facts, the President will make an informed decision about how to respond."

Tomorrow, defence chiefs from the UK, France and other countries will meet in Amman, Jordan, to discuss the crisis. Sources insisted that the meeting had been planned since June, but it gives defence chiefs the opportunity to better understand the situation within Syria, according to Whitehall sources, including maintaining regional stability. General Sir Nick Houghton, Chief of the Defence Staff, will attend the summit.

After what happened in Iraq, President Obama is cautious about launching any form of action – from imposing no-fly zones and arming the rebels to a full-scale military assault. The Obama-Cameron talks came as Angela Kane, the UN's disarmament chief, arrived in Damascus yesterday, to pressurise the Assad regime to allow UN inspectors, already in Syria, access to the site of the alleged attack.

Rebel forces have accused the Assad regime of launching the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of the capital on Wednesday. But the Syrian government denies responsibility and says the opposition is behind the assault on the outskirts of the city. Western powers and even Syria's ally Russia have urged the Assad regime to let in a team of UN inspectors to investigate the allegations. France and Britain, who have both signalled strongly that they support military action in Syria, have said they believe Assad's forces were responsible.

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, on Thursday. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

For the first time, the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, acknowledged that chemical agents had killed people in Syria, though he didn't say who was responsible. Russia has blamed the rebels. Both Russia and Iran are staunch allies of Damascus.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... inspectors
Syrian state media says the government has reached an agreement with the United Nations to allow a UN team of experts to visit the site of last week's alleged chemical weapons attack.

State TV also said in a statement on Sunday that the two sides were working to set a date and time for the visit to the agreed upon locations outside Damascus purportedly hit by chemical agents on 22 August.

The alleged chemical attack that activists say killed hundreds of civilians in rebel-held areas around Damascus took place on Wednesday 21 August. The discrepancy in the dates could not be immediately reconciled.

The announcement suggests that while an agreement in principle has been reached, the scope and access of a mission has not.

Scientists who specialise in neurotoxins, such as Sarin, say its potency quickly dissipates about 30 minutes after exposure. Sarin is increasingly difficult to detect up until around one week after exposure, after which sampling is considered unviable.

It is now nearly five days since the attack in Damascus in the early hours of Wednesday,

The apparent move by the Syrian regime came as the UK prime minister, David Cameron, and President Barack Obama moved the west closer to military intervention on Saturday as they agreed that last week's alleged chemical weapon attacks had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a "serious response".

In a 40-minute phone call , the two leaders are understood to have concluded that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was almost certainly responsible for the assault that is believed to have killed as many as 1,400 people in Damascus. Cameron was speaking from his holiday in Cornwall.

The prime minister and US president said time was running out for Assad to allow UN weapons inspectors into the areas where the attack took place.

A senior US official told the Associated Press on Sundaythat there was "very little doubt" a chemical weapon had been used by the Syrian regime, but added that Obama had not yet decided how to respond.

Government sources said the two leaders agreed that all options should be kept open, both to end the suffering of the Syrian people and to make clear that the west could not stand by as chemical weapons were used on innocent civilians.

A spokesman for No 10 said: "The prime minister and President Obama are both gravely concerned by the attack that took place in Damascus on Wednesday and the increasing signs that this was a significant chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime against its own people.

"The UN security council had called for immediate access for UN investigators on the ground in Damascus. The fact that President Assad had failed to co-operate with the UN was being seen as suggesting that the regime has something to hide.

"They reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options. They agreed that it is vital that the world upholds the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons and deters further outrages. They agreed to keep in close contact on the issue."

The French president François Hollande said there was "a stack of evidence" suggesting there had been an "attack of a chemical nature" in Syria. He added that "everything leads us to think" the Syrian regime is responsible.

In a statement released on Sunday Hollande said that France was determined "not to let this act go unpunished". He called on the Syrian government to give "total and immediate cooperation" to the United Nations' weapons inspectors "so they have immediate and unrestricted access to the areas concerned by the chemical attacks".

The Elysée Palace said the French president had spoken to the Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd (Australia will take over the presidency of the United Nations security council next month).

The dramatic raising of the stakes came after the international medical charity Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) reported on Saturday that three hospitals in Damascus had received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of 21 August. Of those patients, 355 are reported to have died.

Dr Bart Janssens, MSF's director of operations, said: "Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress."

He said the reported symptoms strongly indicated "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."

The UK foreign secretary, William Hague, said last week that "this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime" and "not something that a humane or civilised world can ignore".

Obama has been reluctant to commit American forces to what has become a bitter and protracted civil war. However, he said last year that use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" triggering a more robust US response. It was confirmed that the US navy is deploying an extra missile warship to the eastern Mediterranean ahead of a summit to debate the massacre.
A worst case scenario.An out-of field piece of info.
Israel attacked a Syrian arms depot near the Syrian (Russian) Naval base at Latakia
destroying a Russian missile shipment. The attack is now being reported to have maybe
been carried out by an Israeli submarine.

According to some non-published intel sources, Russia's President Putin is furious and considers it an act of war. As a result, intel sources report that he has informed the Iranians that if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Russia will declare war on Israel and launch an invasion into Israel. For that purpose, 160,000 Russian ground troops
are being mobilized and sent to an area near Syria/Lebanon for immediate deployment once final orders are given. ALL Russian naval and air forces are on standby High Alert for action in the coming days!

sources are reporting ... just a matter of time... days no later than early September most likely sometime in August but Israel may launch an Iranian attack soon after Bibi Netanyahu announced over the weekend that Iran was crossing the "nuclear redline" even as he was speaking. This indicates Israeli contemplation of an impending attack probably near the next "new moon phase."
http://tatoott1009.com/2013/07/19/they- ... ainst-who/
An excerpt from the Russian report on the English version of the .RU website RIA Novosti reads:

“Russia’s air base of Tu-95MS Bear-H strategic bombers in the Amur Region is switching to full combat readiness as part of massive snap drills in the Eastern Military District, the Defense Ministry’s press office reported on Sunday… The exercise, which involves over 160,000 servicemen, some 1,000 armored vehicles, 130 aircraft and 70 warships from the Pacific Fleet, was ordered by President Vladimir Putin on Friday evening.”

Whether or not escalations reach the point of conflict, and I certainly hope they do not (as Israel vs Russia is the absolute ‘perfect storm’ setup to launch the next world war and potential nuclear armageddon), the amassing of over 160,000 troops and strategic bombers with orders to achieve ‘full combat readiness’ is newsworthy. But apparently not to the mainstream media within the United States. .
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

An earlier report
June 21, 2013 4:53 PM
U.S. training Syrian rebels at secret bases
(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- Since late last year, the CIA has been training small numbers of Syrian rebels at secret bases in Turkey and Jordan, CBS News has confirmed.

The training has included the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, which have been provided by Arab countries, and which the rebels say they badly need to counter the firepower of the Syrian army.

So far, you'd have to say the training hasn't succeeded, since in the past several weeks, the tide of battle has turned in favor of the government forces.

Russian foreign minister: Mixed U.S. signals could derail Syria peace conference
Watch: Joint military exercises in Jordan send signal to Assad
Obama: "Very easy to slip-slide" into deeper Syrian involvement

The vicious conflict began more than two years ago when rebels rose up against the dictatorship of Bashar Assad. More than 90,000 people have been killed, and more than a million have been forced from their homes.

The White House announced last week that it would supply military support to the rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad. The announcement came after the administration concluded the regime used chemical weapons against the rebels.

August 23, 2013 7:36 PM
U.S. preps for possible cruise missile attack on Syrian gov't forces
CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say "initial preparations" because such an attack won't happen until the president gives the green light. And it was clear during an interview on CNN Friday that he is not there yet.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country, without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented," the president told CNN, "then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it -- 'do we have the coalition to make it work?' Those are considerations that we have to take into account."
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Governor assassinated of Syria's Hama province - state TV
The governor of Hama province in central Syria was assassinated in a car bombing on Sunday, state television reported, in an attack it blamed on rebels.

"Terrorists assassinated Anas Abdel Razzaq al-Naem, the Hama governor, in a car bomb attack in the Jarajma district of Hama," it said.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: West Asia News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

vishvak wrote:Is the UN going to do anything about these barbaric al-mobs? UN inspectors should also visit villages and refugees hit by al-mobs and UNSC should bomb away these al-mobs, their supply lines and their depots anywhere including from Turkey etc.

This is an open call to attack villages.
UN has become a virtual lapdog for the US in the past 2 decades , they push the UN to do its work and if thats not possible they do it Unilaterally ..... I doubt among big P-5 states like China and Russia depend on UN any more since the credibility of UN has deteriorated a lot specially dealing with International Geopolitical matters.

The logic of US attacking Syria now is that the evidence may have got corrupted and giving UN signal to do its job is too late .... this is less than one week after the incident unless some one was expecting that UN will simply drive immediately after the incident , something never happened with the UN , since you need to make sure UN people are safe and ceasefire needs to be enforced.

What does West expect immediately after chemical attack , SAA should stop bombarding the place and let FSA take over control of more locations in Damascus to keep evidence pristine so to speak what about FSA counter fire with SAA wouldnt that corrupt the evidence.

Strangely the same reason that corrupted evidence was used last time around to avoid any action against FSA when it was clear from UN member statement that they were responsible for chemical attack and not SAA based on technical analysis and information from the affected people.

If there is any doubt on US not using UN as its own backyard here is more from latest Snowden revelation.

NSA spied on UN videoconferencing meetings - newspaper
Post Reply