West Asia News and Discussions

[habal]

tell me which armed force in the world deals with 'full truths' as compared to 'half truths'. US army was there to 'liberate Iraq' from 'Al Qaeda' .. wasn't that rich ? So is it rich to believe that they cannot even cross the border with Israel.

[Johann]

Lilo,

a) One of the scariest facts of the way the world really works is how much bad decision making there really is at the highest levels of every government. Conspiracy theorists find this impossible to believe, but even the most sophisticated intelligence gathering can not substitute for sound political judgement.

b) 'H&D' is not an inherently irrational basis for decision-making. It is a source of power in and of itself in politics. Having people and principalities defer to you and let you have your way is an enormous advantage. The question is whether you can sustain what it takes to maintain that sort of position. The Soviet Union could not. America also sometimes over-extends itself in situations that it belatedly comes to recognise as peripheral rather than central to its national interests.

For example LBJ and the Democratic hawks around him Vietnam was central to US interests in Asia, while underestimating the costs of pursuing its policies there. The Republicans under Nixon and Kissinger on the other hand regarded Vietnam as a sideshow, and their only concern was to exit on American terms - i.e. getting its POWs back without forcing Saigon to include the communists in a coalition government.

Bush regarded the ME as central to US power, and regime change in Iraq as central to cementing the US position in the region. Obama disagreed on both counts regarding the US efforts as both wasteful and unsustainable compared to the threat to US power in the Pacific from the PRC. He partially disengaged from the region, much to the disgust of the NeoCons. What you are seeing is a reversal of Obama's basic foreign policy, and a return to the Bush era position. That is a *very* big deal.

[habal]

Lilo,

a) One of the scariest facts of the way the world really works is how much bad decision making there really is at the highest levels of every government. Conspiracy theorists find this impossible to believe, but even the most sophisticated intelligence gathering can not substitute for sound political judgement.

though addressed to Lilo, this is incorrect. There is no bad decision making as such, just that the true motives not yet revealed to the commons who beat around the bush along with various theories.

[Manish_Sharma]

Lilo, with due deference I think there are many like me who love both India and the United States.

So IT IS ONLY RIGHT TO LOVE BOTH BHARAT & UNITED STATES? Only you have the right to love US or country of your choice? Others can't love Bharat and Russia?

I call a spade a spade. Assad is a genocidal war criminal and I'll rejoice the day he is butchered like the kids and women that he did in. You can support whom you want. Ultimately, good trumps evil notwithstanding the blood that all countries including the US have on their hands.

So you want a unanimous support for US policies.

Some may differ and say US has also been killing women and kids in vietnam and other countries. Used chemical weapons like 'Agent Orange', but that doesn't stop you from loving US.

Yeah right Assad will at this juncture use chemical weapons when the whole world's attention is upon him.

But amreeka always speaks the truth like:

weapons of mass destruction - iraq - saddam hussein.......

PS:
I don't live in US but in Bharatvarsh, not even having a passport and never been outside the country.

[Singha]

completely OT, but I think israel is over rated (based on their last major victory 4 decades ago) just as the US army is grossly underrated by lay media (soft/needs burger king everywhere/unwilling to engage in infantry vs infantry)

israel has a limited number of POL storages and a limited number of bases. if a strong BM/CM assault could shut these down for a while, their trump card vs the local opposition aka IDFAF will be in reduced sortie mode. in the generally hilly and rocky terrain of the region, even the thick hide of the merkavas are prone to good missiles and mines and mass breakouts are tough to sustain. if someone more badass like Iran were located where Jordan-Lebanon is I would bet on a good fight.

[Lilo]

Johann ji,
What you speak of is maybe for an old world. And in the old world west was not the hyperpower it is now to game scenarios consistently where its sure to be the victor. So it took gambles - lost some but won most.

In this century its a networked world of transnational interest s dominating politics and wars - financial flows(black money), drug flows , Energy flows, competition to the access of resources are increasingly coupled with the old reasons since the old wars like the rise of competing ideologies by competing upstarts which upset the future plans of the master or his minions.

You should know how much is stake in the ME ("wells of power" as somebody termed it) why would anyone aim to upset the applecart without having a good sense of what the end state is likely to be. Thus an Individual can't act by personal whims at least in the western camp - its the networks that decide whether to wage a war - and they do it after a careful analysis of the consequences - you your self were saying - why did west waste 2 years keeping the situation on slow cooking ? If it ultimately wanted a war in the end? - it was to get precisely a situation where there is no clear winner - and that is its desired end state of state destruction and chaos - this stateless place which was once Syria will be the sandbox for mounting future more audacious games of power.

[Johann]

Singha,

The Israelis have heavily invested in effective ballistic missile and rocket defences in the last 2 decades for good reason. Arrow and Iron Dome have full operational capability and have been deployed, in addition to the PAC-3.

The IDF's major combat operations (as opposed to it special operations) with the exception of 1967 have never been quite as flawless as their PR machine suggests.

Regardless of the hype they have a remarkable ability to improvise and learn lessons on the fly, as well as strategic clarity, unity of effort, and a more efficient state machinery than any of their regional rivals, including Iran. Their routine planning, training and maintenance efforts have always been far more intense, consistent and thorough than any ME force - that is why when they take bold risks they pay a far lower price than their enemies.

[Johann]

Johann ji,
What you speak of is maybe for an old world. And in the old world west was not the hyperpower it is now to game scenarios consistently where its sure to be the victor. So it took gambles - lost some but won most...

You should know how much is stake in the ME ("wells of power" as somebody termed it) why would anyone aim to upset the applecart without having a good sense of what the end state is likely to be. Thus an Individual can't act by personal whims at least in the western camp - its the networks that decide whether to wage a war - and they do it after a careful analysis of the consequences - you your self were saying - why did west waste 2 years keeping the situation on slow cooking ? If it ultimately wanted a war in the end? - it was to get precisely a situation where there is no clear winner - and that is its desired end state of state destruction and chaos - this stateless place which was once Syria will be the sandbox for mounting future more audacious games of power.

Again there's a real difference between knowledge and wisdom, between intelligence assessments and political judgement.

The Bush administration had *no* idea that it was going to face a massive Sunni insurgency in Iraq after Saddam and the Baathist leadership was captured. That was not the plan. The plan was to turn Iraq into the equivalent of the defeated Axis powers and former communist Eastern European states - a pliant ally and regional anchor.

The professional expertise that could have warned them certainly existed in government, but the political appointees among the Neocons did not *want* to believe them for ideological reasons, and silenced those voices. Under such conditions speaking truth to power is impossible even at the highest level of clearances unless you are willing to lose your job and end your career. Most people lack that kind of moral courage.

Suggesting that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops, five years, thousands of casualties and tens of billions of dollars to contain the insurgency was not something NeoCons wanted to hear. Being arrogant and conspiracy minded themselves they regarded such warnings from professionals within the intelligence community and Pentagon as attempts by weak-hearted liberals to derail a US effort that would easily shock and awe the opposition into submission.

It is a documented fact that the White House remained in denial in the face of these realities for over a year. Not until the Republicans got a hiding in the elections of December 2006 and Rumsfeld resigned did the Bush administration start to put a winning strategy in place.

[Lilo]

Ohh one more which I for got to add.

That doesn't mean that West will always win....
It means that it can predict the end state into the "short term" future - beyond that its too fuzzy for even their TFTA systems to predict. Further these short term scenarios may not chain into one long time victory of western ascendancy - its again unpredictable what a decade of seemingly western victory will turn out into in a span of century.

Basically this quantum of predicable future has increased by a big value for west after technological and political gains after cold war.

[Garooda]

Mccain_Playing_Poker_During_Hearing

[habal]

Last I looked Israel was still in Mid-East and not in Europe. It was not part of EU. It was not signatory to NATO. And for all it's defensive-offensive posturing Iron-dome, Patriot missile shield etc. There isn't much they could do once you could lance through their country and sit inside some big cities. Then all the F-16s, Nukes, Dolphins, Air power, etc come to naught. Their problem is they have no depth and how far is Golan or Haifa or even Tel Aviv from Lebanon and Damascus. All are within 40-100 kms radius.

Also Sisi is acting much like Abdal Nassar and blocking the odd shipment to rebels via the Suez. The Morsi-era of open-ended support to rebels is well and truly over. He well knows that after Syria is snared, it could well be Egypt's turn.

[member_20317]

I call a spade a spade. Assad is a genocidal war criminal and I'll rejoice the day he is butchered like the kids and women that he did in. You can support whom you want. Ultimately, good trumps evil notwithstanding the blood that all countries including the US have on their hands.

So you want a unanimous support for US policies.

Calling a spade, a spade is honesty.

But calling a spade, stuck in the ass, a spade is dishonest. Then you have to stop calling the spade, a spade and instead call the ass a seriously hurt ass.


Dhananjay ji,

it never ceases to surprise me, how some people can bring 'you love me you love my classmate' kind of argument into play. If Indians citizens working in US are supposed to support US then how come Indians living and working in India cannot see things in a way that is beneficial for India. For me Assad may be a war-criminal but so is US. Was it not the US that forced this war and is the prime instigator of the escalation.

Perhaps there is an underlying presumption that India living in the chhatrachaya of US is the ideal state of affairs.

[ranjbe]

Whatever tactical errors the US might make (Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria) it is worthwhile to sit back and look at US strategic gains since the 1960's. There were a number of non-friendly (in US eyes) nations at that time. Two major criteria determined their 'unfriendliness' in US eyes:
1. Bought their arms from the USSR/Russia, and did not support the US in international forums wholeheartedly in international forums.
2. Acted overtly and covertly against US interests.
Nations in the first category were usually co-opted. Examples are Egypt, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.
Nations that met both criteria were Libya, Iraq and Syria. You know what has happened to them. Iran, like all monarchies in the ME at that time was solidly pro-USA, but now fulfills both criteria after the Ayotollah's took over.
The USA either has a very, very long memory or has been very, very lucky. Interesting to see if the future is different.

[vinod]

Singha,

The Israelis have heavily invested in effective ballistic missile and rocket defences in the last 2 decades for good reason. Arrow and Iron Dome have full operational capability and have been deployed, in addition to the PAC-3.

Israel may be the best prepared one for war, but I doubt any nation would want war on their land. With CW flying around and shady characters involved, that's the last thing they would want. So, I doubt Israel would do anything very overt. I think they would be targetting the delivery systems, CW etc amongst all the confusion -- all covert. Probably take a snipe at Hezbollah as well.

[habal]

Al Qaeda is not a US ally but a collection of mercenaries owned by the Empire
and created by the US during the Afghanistan war fought by the former USSR.
Thy will be discarded when the Empire will get complete control of the Middle-East, Iran and Russia and their satellites.
The USSA is the military tool of the Empire.

World War 3 started on 3/3/2003 and is entering its final phase.
Ordo ab chaos.

[svinayak]

Lilo, with due deference I think there are many like me who love both India and the United States.

So IT IS ONLY RIGHT TO LOVE BOTH BHARAT & UNITED STATES? Only you have the right to love US or country of your choice? Others can't love Bharat and Russia?

I call a spade a spade. Assad is a genocidal war criminal and I'll rejoice the day he is butchered like the kids and women that he did in. You can support whom you want. Ultimately, good trumps evil notwithstanding the blood that all countries including the US have on their hands.

So you want a unanimous support for US policies.

What is important is the Indian interest. It overrides other country's interest including US

Personal friendship does not count here.

[Garooda]

Red line on Syria is the world's, not his (Ombaba)

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the red line he outlined last year regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons came from international treaties and past congressional action, and now it is time for the international community to make good on its opposition to the banned armaments.

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," Obama told reporters on the first day of a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia to attend a G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.

In particular, Obama said the global red line came when governments representing 98% of the world's population "passed a treaty forbidding (chemical weapons) use, even when countries are engaged in war."

The president spoke as a Senate committee prepared to consider a resolution authorizing a limited military strike on Syria in response to what the administration calls a major chemical weapons attack on August 21 that killed hundreds of people in suburban Damascus.

A year ago, Obama warned Syria that his position on the civil war there would change if President Bashar al-Assad's regime used its stockpiles of chemical weapons.

"A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama said then. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Conservative critics have said Obama painted himself into a corner with that statement and now must respond to save face, even if this is not an imminent national security matter for the United States.

The administration and top congressional leaders pushed back against that criticism Tuesday during debate on Capitol Hill. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, said any president would have drawn that red line based on international norms.

Obama said Wednesday that "my credibility is not on the line -- the international community's credibility is on the line."

He framed the question for the United Nations and the global community at large as: "Are we going to try to find a reason not to act? And if that's the case, then I think the (world) community should admit it."

"I respect the U.N. process," he told a joint news conference in Stockholm with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who opposes military intervention without U.N. approval.

"We agree that the international community cannot be silent," Obama said, adding that a team of U.N. investigators has done "heroic work."

However, the U.N. team's mandate was only to determine if chemical weapons had been used, Obama said, repeating that U.S. intelligence has confirmed that beyond any reasonable doubt, and has further confirmed that al-Assad's regime "was the source." No surprise here

'Syria is not our responsibility'

Tragic milestone in Syria refugee crisis Syrian allies Russia and China are likely to block any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.

Later Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to consider a revised resolution to set a 60-day deadline for use of force in Syria, with an option for an additional 30 days.

[member_27444]

Vishwak et al

There are certain written and unwritten covenants that need to be observed when declaring war real or proxy. But rogue states like TSP act as proxy to big uncles defying all decency covenants

Unkil uses his propaganda and apparently free media and speech to further its national interests. That is no,thing wrong if it is done blatantly but using fog leaves to pretend all for a egalitarian cause is bogus.

Russia PRC have their own cherries to pick in the after math

Remember those days when great powers were exercised with great caution , no longer any more
All because of UNO polar world.

There is only one king in this jungle of nations all others are hyenas growling around the corpse of meal

[ramana]

so this is about obama's h&d?and putin's h&d
so basically - the syrians are musharraffed

This is about the h&d of every government that claims to be relevant to the ME situation - the US, Russia, France, Saudi, Iran, Qatar and Turkey.

The British public has decided the game isn't worth it, hence the comments from McCain that it is former rather than current power. Plus of course it would have been incredibly helpful to have access to British airbases on Cyprus.

US action is aimed at re-establishing its eroded (in Obama's first term) position as the prime mover in the ME, a reminder to 'allies' like Saudi and Qatar, not just Iran and Russia.

The problem is that cruise missiles are not enough to establish that, however much people like Bill Clinton and Obama wish it was. The US is going to find itself sucked in at a much higher price than it really wants to pay.

Bilkul satya vachan!!!

The Brits like the Italians found out Empire is not worth it when you lose your soul and identity.
An italian American told me that Italaisn then called Romans were the first Europeans to be bitten by the Empire bug. And paid the price and lost what Rome was really about. And went back to a queissant state for many centuries till Garibaldi woke the national spirit.

I asked what about the Greeks! He said forget them for they are not true Europeans and they too paid the price for the Macedonian's blood lust. They got conquered by Romans, Christianity, Turks and only got their nation-state in the 19th century.

Yes US allies need to be reminded of the US power more than the challengers.

Yes boots on the ground are the only true power. Hitting from far is brutus fulmen : useless thunderbolt!
--------------

Anyway so far as we know Syria has two types of chemcial weapons:
- Two part weapons based on Sarin components of which are stored separately and mixed before use.

Striking those before they are combined will not lead to collateral damage.
- One part weapons based on VX. Now these can lead to collateral damage.


Its possible Syrians could use VX on the rebels and blame it on collateral release due to US weapon strikes?

All those reports of every square inch is mapped are eeriely similar to hubris about Saddam's non-existent WMD!!!!

In above report:

Obama said Wednesday that "my credibility is not on the line -- the international community's credibility is on the line."

Shades of Louis the XIV's utterance "I am the state." Obama is saying "US is the world."

[vishvak]

Well I did think that once bombing and cause of bombing is over Indians could reach to Syria and smash away at al-mobs and bakipan pukes within Syria along with Syrian and other forces. But al-mobs are bankrolled by Saudi-Qatar-Kuwaut-UAE axis and so is the whole war too.

No red lines observed by 'international' people for pukis though. The word 'international' has no standards!

[Dipanker]

Can Syria make lemonade out of lemon by completely finishing off the Al-Mob in the fog of oncoming bombing? Granted they will come out much weaker at the other end of it but at least have fewer brutes leftover to fight?

[member_27444]

Al mob is a very useful tool for many
One of things is to keep Al mob away from the shores of .....

[Lalmohan]

if this kicks off big time, then everyone will be settling scores
expect to see MASSIVE brutal atrocities on civilians left right and centre that will make the balkans look like disneyland

[Philip]

"Oh what a tangled web we weave ,when first we practice to deceive". O'Bomber gets tongue-tied and Kerry is accused of lying by Putin.O'Bomber now has the temerity to pontificate to the world that its reputation is on the line and not his! "Hail Caesar Hussein",the thousands of Syrian civilians who are about to die would love to shoot not salute you!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle ... -west-live

Syria crisis: Obama says 'I didn't set a red line' on chemical weapons - live

Live• President said ban on chemical weapons is global choice
• Former Syrian defense minister defects, Reuters reports
• Putin: strikes without UN approval would be 'aggression'
• French assembly debates attack on Syria

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/09/john- ... mir-putin/

John Kerry lied, and he knows he was lying during US Congress debate – Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin says he managed to catch US Secretary of State John Kerry in a blatant lie on al-Qaeda in Syria, Russian media reported.putin

“Congress of any country can sanction such things. They are sanctioning aggression, because anything that is beyond the UN Security Council framework except self-defense is aggression,” Putin said at a meeting of the presidential Human Rights Council on Wednesday.

As Syria is not attacking the United States, the matter is not about self-defense, he said.

“What the US Senate is doing now is in fact legitimizing aggression, and we have all glued ourselves to TV screens and are waiting to see whether there will be a sanction or not. What we should be talking about is that this is absurd in principle,” Putin said.

The Russian leader once again insisted that it would be absurd to presume that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “used chemical weapons while he is on the offensive.”

“After all, this is a last resort weapon, if one can imagine this. And if he is on the offensive, has encircled [the insurgents] at some places and is finishing them off, they need urgent help,” Putin said.

“Surely, this lie is not very elegant,” he said.

“I watched the debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr. [US Secretary of State John] Kerry: ‘Is there al-Qaeda there? There has been rumor that they are gaining strength’. He [Kerry] replies, ‘No. I am telling you firmly: there are none of them there’,” Putin said.

As a matter of fact, “the principal combative unit [acting in Syria now] is the so-called Nusra, which is an al-Qaeda unit,” Putin said. “And they know this. I even felt quite awkward. We are communicating with them and assume that they are decent people. And he is telling an outright lie, and he knows that he is lying. This is sad,” Putin said apparently referring to Kerry.

[Prem]

Afghanistan war now winding down, Uncle getting out, had Saudi demanded Assad's ass as price to strangle the remnant of Islamists by choking the money supply and chopping the heads? Pukes as usual loyal Naukkar will obey Saudi and other adopted fathers.Eagerly waiting for two faced Iran's turn.
BTW, MMS have also eatablished Dhimma relation by accepting Saudi supremacy in many issues pertaining to India's long term economic, cultural and secuirty interests. Only true friend India can have there is Kurdistan.

[habal]

read this to understand McCain & Obama's frustration
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/03/ ... om-jordan/

Syrian Army crushes U.S.-backed rebel assault from Jordan
Special to WorldTribune.com
LONDON — President Bashar Assad has defeated a U.S. effort to use
Jordan as a launching pad for the overthrow of his regime.
Western diplomatic sources said Assad’s military and security forces
crushed a U.S. campaign to send hundreds of trained and equipped Sunni
rebels from Jordan to regain a key city in southern city.

The sources said a force sponsored by the Western-backed Free Syrian Army failed to reach even 10 kilometers within Syria before the rebels were detected and attacked by the Syrian Army.
“This was a well-trained and equipped force meant to eventually reach Damascus and overthrow the regime,” a source said. “Instead, the rebels crossed the Jordanian border and within hours were on the run.”
The sources said the FSA force, with fighters from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, consisted of two battalion-size units, or nearly 600 fighters.
The sources said the fighters, trained by the CIA as well as Jordan’s Special Operations Force Command, were equipped with anti-tank, anti-aircraft missiles as well as night-vision systems.
Most of the equipment was said to have come from the former Yugoslavia.
Since late 2012, Jordan has served as the main venue for the U.S.-sponsored
project to train and equip Syrian rebels.
On Aug. 17, the two FSA units crossed the Jordanian border for the
nearby Syrian city of Dera, a distance of fewer than 15 kilometers. But the
sources said the FSA fighters were immediately besieged by Druse and Bedouin
militias and refused help by Al Qaida-aligned units.
“Nobody wanted them, and even those who have been fighting Assad saw
them as a threat,” another source said.
Within hours, Syrian Army units arrived and pursued FSA fighters west
toward the Golan Heights and the frontier with Israel. The sources said
discipline broke down within the FSA units and some of the fighters tried to
attack a United Nations peace-keeping force in the Golan in an attempt to
acquire human shields.
“The CIA plan was simple: To establish an FSA presence in southern Syria
that would serve as a magnet for other opposition forces to march on to
Damascus,” the second source said.
By Aug. 20, the sources said, the FSA force, which contained Western
mercenaries disguised as rebels, was routed, with elements besieged by
Syrian Army units. They said the FSA defeat ended U.S. hopes of using Jordan
for a rapid rebel advance that could decide the Syrian war in 2013.
The sources said the defeat highlighted the increasing isolation of
Washington in directing the rebel campaign in Syria. They said the U.S.
strategy drew from the revolt against Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in
2011, in which NATO allies used Benghazi as a launching pad for attacks.
“The Americans have been pursuing this Benghazi strategy for more than a
year despite the fact that Syria is not Libya, Assad is certainly not
Gadhafi, and that Damascus has powerful allies that are fighting to save
the regime,” the second source said. “But the feeling among the allies is
that America is not listening.”
Be Sociable, Share!

[vishvak]

the sources said, the FSA force, which contained Western mercenaries disguised as rebels"

Western mercenaries in FSA and al-Q don't seem to slow each other it seems. However no one wants these in Syria, is just another facet of this.

[member_27444]

I wish shyamd ji posted his view
If he feels strongly then he should come back and contribute

[Austin]

US Lied When It Said There’s No Al-Qaida in Syria – Putin

MOSCOW, September 4 (RIA Novosti) – When US Secretary of State John Kerry said during a debate in Congress that there was no al-Qaida in Syria, he was lying, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.

Al-Qaida is one of the main forces supporting the Syrian opposition, Putin said in televised comments at a meeting of Russia’s presidential human rights council.

“I watched the debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr. Kerry: ‘Is al-Qaida there?’ He says: ‘No, we are telling you responsibly that they are not,’” Putin said.

The Syrian rebels’ “main combat unit is the so-called Al-Nusra, an al-Qaida unit. They [the US] are aware of that. … He [Kerry] lied. And he knows that he lied. This is sad,” Putin said.

The president added that it was beyond the authority of the US Congress to sanction a military strike on Syria.

“What are they sanctioning? They’re sanctioning aggression, because anything outside the UN Security Council framework is aggression, except for self-defense. But, as we know, Syria is not attacking the US, so this isn’t about defense,” Putin said. “This is inadmissible in principle.”

Putin pointed out that the United States expected that the Syrian rebels would defeat the pro-government troops and US military intervention on the ground would not be needed. But, he said, the Syrian government just a short time ago appeared likely to win the war.

“Why do they [the US] say that not a single US soldier will appear in Syria? Because they think this is unnecessary, that those militants will cope on their own. What they need is support by means and equipment they don’t have – planes, missile equipment. This should be given to them. Well, they’ll get it, right now,” he said.

The Russian president also questioned the reliability of US evidence of the Syrian regime’s alleged involvement in conducting a chemical weapons attack late last month that killed civilians. Putin said it was absurd to assume that the Syrian government would have decided to use such weapons at a point when it was about to defeat its opponents.

The United States has said it is confident that an August 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs was carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and US President Barack Obama is lobbying US lawmakers to support punitive military action against Syrian state targets in response.

[ramana]

Nightwatch reports for last few days:

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00189.aspx

Syria: The Asad government continues to insist that it did not use chemical weapons in the attack on 21 August. It approved an extension of the UN inspection team's visit and requested that it investigate three gas attacks against Syrian soldiers since 21 August.


Lebanon's Daily Star reported on 26 August that at least four Hizballah fighters are receiving treatment in Beirut after coming into contact with chemical agents in Syria, a security source said.


The source said four or five members came into contact with the chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend. (The attack on 21 August is being called the Jobar incident.)


Last Saturday, Syrian state television said Syrian soldiers found chemical agents in Jobar and that some had suffocated while entering the tunnels


Comment: The three primary questions about the attack remain unanswered.

- What agent was used?

- How was it delivered?

- By whom?


What appeared to be a slam dunk on Tuesday has weakened as more information has emerged about the source of US intelligence and about Syrian rebel chemical warfare capabilities. A lot of information has emerged, but is not receiving mainstream coverage in the US.


The agent. All experts who provided Feedback to NightWatch agreed some kind of chemical incident occurred on 21 August east of Damascus. As for the agent, multiple experts in Feedback claimed it was sarin. An equal number of experts in Feedback disagreed and claimed it was some other agent. Almost all based their judgments on symptoms observed in videos posted by rebels or on second hand reports of medical examinations.


Other videos posted to the web showed bags of chemicals with the label "made in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalis" that were captured in rebel strongholds. The factory, known as SACHLO, is located in Riyadh and is hiring at this time.

Still other videos showed liquids in canisters that the reporter said were found in rebel tunnels. A third set purported to show a cache of chemical canisters and rockets that had been captured in a rebel bunker that could be fired by an artillery piece.


All the videos are inconclusive. None are dated; the location is never established; and none have a reliable chain of custody. At best they establish that both sides have chemicals, have used chemicals at some time and that more than one agent has been used by one or other side.


The delivery system. The open source information on instrumentality indicates rockets or modified artillery shells. Both sides have rockets that can deliver chemicals. The rebels have posted to the Web that they have such a capability and showed it to Sky News.


The attacker. Concerning the attacker, the mainstream media overwhelming claim that the Syrian government executed the attack. The evidence is not as clear as this assertion implies.


The Syrian government denies responsibility and claims its own forces suffered from a rebel chemical attack. The government is winning the fight and has no obvious motive to undertake action that would invite US military intervention that might affect the momentum of its successes. At least, that is what the Syrian government has said.


The rebels have strong motives to internationalize their fight and to manipulate the US into fighting on behalf of Islamists whose colleagues attacked the US in 2001. Some American officials and experts have asserted that the rebels have no chemical weapons. Not even the rebels say that.


What has not been reported nor evaluated are rebel claims, published by Sky News in July 2013 for example, that they have a sarin chemical weapons program and delivery systems.


So the media tally is the rebels claim they have gas and were gassed. The Government acknowledges that the rebels have gas and admits it has gas, but denies it used it. The Government claims that its gas is under strict control and the US officially has confirmed the Syrian government's claim. Both sides also have rockets that can deliver gas.


No news service has investigated rebel use of gas on 21 August. Nobody has bothered to ask any questions.

The role of Israeli intelligence. Finally, there is the question of the intercepted conversations. They remain classified so no one knows what was said, by whom, in what language, in what context, obtained by what reliable collection system, translated by whom, with what periodicity of collection and with what editing by supervisors. Some reporters claimed the conversations were between low level people. Others claimed a senior civilian official talked directly with a chemical unit military commander. That kind of direct communication is not possible even in the US military.

A further complication is two US sources assert that Israeli intelligence intercepted the conversations and passed the content to NSA. This scenario raises a new set of concerns about the reliability of the channel. Was the information doctored? Do some Israelis have a motive to lie to the US regarding events in Syria?


At this point, there are no answers to the three primary questions based on open source reporting. The findings of the UN investigators most likely will be inconclusive as to who executed the attack, but should help confirm the nature of the agent and the most likely delivery system

Administrative note: Thanks to all who provided Feedback on this issue.


Russia: Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia has decided to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days."


Comment: Earlier this summer, Russian sources stated that the Russian Navy had established a permanent squadron in the Mediterranean Sea of 16 ships. Today's announcement said the two new ships would be part of a routine rotation. That is the language the US uses to increase its naval presence anywhere through overlapping rotation schedules.


This deployment does not necessarily mean the Russians will defend Syria. It does mean the Russians have raised the price and risks of a US attack on Syria.


UK-US-Syria: For the record. The British parliament voted against military action against Syria. The British have fought Muslims and Muslim tribes for nearly 200 years. This generation has had enough of war against Muslims.

End of NightWatch for 29 August.

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00190.aspx

Syria: President Asad gave an interview to Le Figaro which was published by the Syrian news agency Sana on 3 September. Excerpts follow.


Asad denied Syrian forces launched a chemical attack. He said Syria has no motive to make such an attack because it is winning the fight. He challenged the US to produce its proof and show it to the UN since the party making the accusations has the burden of proving them.


He said his soldiers were wounded in the attack on the 21st and the UN inspectors visited them in hospital.


He accused the US President of being a weak leader who succumbed to pressure from small groups and as one who starts wars instead of prevents them.


Concerning a Syrian response to a US attack, he reminded the interviewer that the architects of a war only control the first shot. He said the first and the greatest danger is that the situation will explode into a regional war.


In response to a question about Russian support he said,

"Today, stability in the region depends on the situation in Syria; Russia fully fathoms this. Russia is neither defending the President nor Syria, but rather it is defending stability in this region knowing all too well that otherwise it will also be affected. To assess the situation through the narrow lens of a Syrian-Iranian alliance is a naive and over simplistic view; we are dealing with a situation of far greater significance."


Concerning contacts with Americans, he said,

"I don't think anyone can trust the Americans; I don't think there is a country in the world that can guarantee that the Americans will or will not take any form of action towards another country, so it is pointless to look for such reassurances. The Americans adopt one position in the morning, only to endorse the complete opposite in the evening. As long as the US does not comply with or listen to the UN, we should not be reassured."


He saw no reason why the US could not wait until after the UN lab tests are finished.


Asad blamed the fighting almost entirely on foreign terrorists.

"…today we are fighting terrorists, 80-90% of them affiliated to Al-Qaida. These terrorists are not interested in reform, or politics, or legislations. The only way to deal with the terrorists is to strike them; only then can we talk about political steps. So in response to your question, the solution today lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria and stopping the financial, military or any other support they receive."


He cited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, France, Britain and Turkey as supporting the terrorists.


He said he considers the present French government's policies to be an enemy of the Syrian people, but not the French people.


Comment: The interview summarized the main issues and Syria's position. The written text indicates Asad is well informed and articulate in answering the questions. He expressed views that echo in many countries. He did not deny that chemicals were used, he blamed their use on the opposition.

UN: For the record. On 3 September, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated that any unilateral punitive military action against Syria would be illegal. He said the only lawful uses of military force by UN members are in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and pursuant to Security Council approval.


Special comment: The thrust of US public discourse centers on US military action and its effect. Very little attention and intelligent commentary are being paid to the ripple effects from the manners in which Syria and its allies will respond and the measures the US and its allies need to take to minimize damage around the world.


Both Hizballah and Iran have joined Syria in threatening responses. Hizballah and the Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force have the capacity for terrorist attacks on every continent. US targets, from tourists to business enterprises, are vulnerable everywhere.


As time passes without action since 21 August, the outrage over the chemical attack is in danger of succumbing to the inuring effects of too much TV exposure of the same images. What is likely to emerge to replace those images is the image of the most powerful country in the history of the world attacking Syria without waiting for the UN to announce its findings.


Readers may be confident that the Syrian propagandists already have developed an information strategy for showing the world images of dead women and children from stray US missiles.


Israel-US and Russia-Syria: Press services reported and showed video and the US Defense Department released a press statement that the US and Israel fired one or two missiles to test Israel's Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The US announcement said that the exercise was long planned and had nothing to do with the Syria situation.


Russia actually was the first to detect the test or at least the first to publicize it. It announced that its ballistic missile early warning system successfully detected two ballistic objects flying from the central Mediterranean Sea on an easterly heading. The Defense Ministry ordered heightened combat readiness for the Aerospace Defense Troops, according to Ria Novosti.


The US and Israel initially denied the report of a test, but corrected themselves later.


Comment: The US and Israel appear to be testing whether the Arrow system can detect Syrian missiles in time for them to be shot down before reaching Israel.


The Russian disclosure of the previously unannounced missile test caused the price of crude to jump $1.00 almost instantaneously on fear of a US surprise attack against Syria. The implication of the Russian announcement is that the US must expect that Russia can and will provide missile attack warnings to Syria, should the US attack Syria, to the extent it is able. Russian "advisors" probably are manning some of Syria's air defense systems.


Russia press reported that the Russian Navy has ordered two more ships to the Mediterranean Sea as part of the "routine rotation of ships. Two large amphibious landing ships are expected to arrive by the end of this week. They can carry 500 tons of cargo or ten battle tanks and 200 soldiers.


Comment: They would be useful in resupply and in evacuation of Russians from the port of Tartus. Thus far, President Putin has shown no inclination to pull the Russian Navy from Tartus.

[member_27444]

Turkey brutally suppressed the Kurdish independence movement with help of US just a history point

Once Syrian Kurds Turkish Kurds iraqi Kurds and Iranian Kurds join hands will US be ready to preside over ...

British and US subs are there no Russian subs?

[devesh]

does anyone know why KForce isn't a top honcho like some of the other "analysis" agencies?
they have a level head and are very analytical in their conclusions. the US could definitely use some of that logic, and distance from blindly jumping into IED's laid by pretend-friends.

[anmol]

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

[ramana]

So US military is now a mercenary army that fights for money paid to GOTUS, thanks to Kerrorist leading the SD?

[RamaY]

Ramanaji,

Recently there was a program on History channel called "The Men who built America". I think the switch to mercantilist nation was complete by mid 1950s.

Since then all the wars US entered into are for commercial interests.

[abhishek_sharma]

Interview: Bashar al-Assad

[abhishek_sharma]

Indian jihadis are fighting in Syria, says Assad's envoy

[chanakyaa]

Indian jihadis are fighting in Syria, says Assad's envoy

So these people get on-the-job training, get their certificate and head back home to do what, create one more Bakistan (isn't the population of Bakistan and Indian muslims the same)?

[RamaY]

Common Chanakya garu,

Didn't al-bin-sourci proclaim that GCC uses Malsi & terrorism only as external policy and not internal? Also remember their pinky promise to make india a duper-power. All these trained keedas will come home and make india duper power.

Sonia Gandhi is a great leader & MMS is a greater bargainer. He paid $8b more for oil from GCC instead of Iran.

[anmol]

To some, US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes
by Mark Seibel and Hannah Allam, mcclatchydc.com
August 30th 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s public case for attacking Syria is riddled with inconsistencies and hinges mainly on circumstantial evidence, undermining U.S. efforts this week to build support at home and abroad for a punitive strike against Bashar Assad’s regime.

The case Secretary of State John Kerry laid out last Friday contained claims that were disputed by the United Nations, inconsistent in some details with British and French intelligence reports or lacking sufficient transparency for international chemical weapons experts to accept at face value.

After the false weapons claims preceding the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the threshold for evidence to support intervention is exceedingly high. And while there’s little dispute that a chemical agent was used in an Aug. 21 attack outside of Damascus – and probably on a smaller scale before that – there are calls from many quarters for independent, scientific evidence to support the U.S. narrative that the Assad regime used sarin gas in an operation that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

Some of the U.S. points in question:

The Obama administration dismissed the value of a U.N. inspection team’s work by saying that the investigators arrived too late for the findings to be credible and wouldn’t provide any information the United State didn’t already have.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq countered that it was “rare” for such an investigation to begin within such a short time and said that “the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples,” according to the U.N.’s website. For example, Haq added, sarin can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use.

The U.S. claims that sarin was used in the Aug. 21 attack, citing a positive test on first responders’ hair and blood – samples “that were provided to the United States,” Kerry said on television Sunday without elaboration on the collection methods.

Experts say the evidence deteriorates over time, but that it’s simply untrue that there wouldn’t be any value in an investigation five days after an alleged attack. As a New York Times report noted, two human rights groups dispatched a forensics team to northern Iraq in 1992 and found trace evidence of sarin as well as mustard gas – four years after a chemical attack.

The U.S. assertion also was disputed in an intelligence summary the British government made public last week. "There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological samples would have degraded beyond usefulness," according to the report, which was distributed to Parliament ahead of its vote not to permit Britain to participate in any strike.

Another point of dispute is the death toll from the alleged attacks on Aug. 21. Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.”

Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.

He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and "tens" of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.

“President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ – creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”

An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.

Another eyebrow-raising administration claim was that U.S. intelligence had “collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” that showed the regime preparing for an attack three days before the event. The U.S. assessment says regime personnel were in an area known to be used to “mix chemical weapons, including sarin,” and that regime forces prepared for the Aug. 21 attack by putting on gas masks.

That claim raises two questions: Why didn’t the U.S. warn rebels about the impending attack and save hundreds of lives? And why did the administration keep mum about the suspicious activity when on at least one previous occasion U.S. officials have raised an international fuss when they observed similar actions?

On Dec. 3, 2012, after U.S. officials said they detected Syria mixing ingredients for chemical weapons, President Barack Obama repeated his warning to Assad that the use of such arms would be an unacceptable breach of the red line he’d imposed that summer. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in, and the United Nations withdrew all nonessential staff from Syria.

Last month’s suspicious activity, however, wasn’t raised publicly until after the deadly attack. And Syrian opposition figures say the rebels weren’t warned in advance in order to protect civilians in the area.

“When I read the administration’s memo, it was very compelling, but they knew three days before the attack and never alerted anyone in the area,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian opposition activist who runs the Washington-based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies. “Everyone was watching this evidence but didn’t take any action?”

Among chemical weapons experts and other analysts who’ve closely studied the Syrian battlefield, the main reservation about the U.S. claims is that there’s no understanding of the methodology behind the intelligence-gathering. They say that the evidence presented points to the use of some type of chemical agent, but say that there are still questions as to how the evidence was collected, the integrity of the chain of custody of such samples, and which laboratories were involved.

Eliot Higgins, a British chronicler of the Syrian civil war who writes the Brown Moses blog, a widely cited repository of information on the weapons observed on the Syrian battlefield, wrote a detailed post Monday listing photographs and videos that would seem to support U.S. claims that the Assad regime has possession of munitions that could be used to deliver chemical weapons. But he wouldn’t make the leap.

On the blog, Higgins asked: “How do we know these are chemical weapons? That’s the thing, we don’t. As I’ve said all along, these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It’s ultimately up to the U.N. to confirm if chemical weapons were used.”

Holes in the case already have allowed Russia to dismiss the U.S. evidence as “inconclusive,” with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying in a speech Monday that Moscow was shown “some sketches, but there was nothing concrete, no geographical coordinates, or details…and no proof the test was done by professionals,” according to the state-backed RT news agency.

“When we ask for further clarification, we receive the following response: ‘you are aware that this is classified information, therefore we cannot show it to you,’” Lavrov said. “So there are still no facts.”

Lavrov’s remarks signaled that Russia, one of the last Assad allies, was nowhere near being convinced enough stop its repeated blocking of U.N. Security Council resolutions targeting the regime.

But there’s also skepticism among U.S.-friendly nations, such as Jordan, which declined to endorse action until it studies the findings of a U.N. chemical weapons investigation, and the United Kingdom, where Parliament voted against intervention even before the U.S. released an intelligence assessment that contradicted one released a day before by British authorities.

It’s unclear how much a factor the evidence was in Parliament’s decisions; there’s also a high degree of wariness of any U.S.-led intervention after the Iraq experience.

The U.S. did get a boost Monday from the commander of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who told a news conference he’d seen “concrete information” that convinced him of the Assad regime’s responsibility for an apparent chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in August.

Rasmussen said it would send a “dangerous signal to dictators” if the world didn’t respond, but he left it up to NATO nations to decide their own responses and didn’t advocate action beyond protecting member state Turkey, which borders Syria.

U.S. allies across the Arab world and Europe have said they prefer delaying any potential military strikes until after the U.N. inspection team releases its findings. The U.N. mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons were used, but not to assign culpability. U.N. officials have said they’re trying to expedite the inspection team’s work while protecting the integrity of the process.

Jonathan Landay in Amman, Jordan, Matthew Schofield in Berlin and Special Correspondent Mitchell Prothero in Beirut contributed to this report.