Bharat Rakshak

Garooda wrote:As anticipated ??
Bypass_UN?

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad's Regime: U.N. Official
Posted GMT 8-26-2013 18:19:25

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof," that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.

Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponte's remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern.

Ms. del Ponte, who in 1999 was appointed to head the U.N. was crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has sometimes been a controversial figure. She was removed from her Rwanda post by the U.N. Security Council in 2003, but she continued as the chief prosecutor for the Yugoslav tribunal until 2008.

Ms. del Ponte, a former Swiss prosecutor and attorney general, told Swiss TV: "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals. According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

She gave no further details, the BBC said.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict which started in March that year.

It is due to issue its next report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June.

Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.

"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Mr. Almokdad told CNN.

"More importantly, we do not aspire to have (chemical weapons) because we view our battle with the regime as a battle for the establishment of a free democratic state. … We want to build a free democratic state that recognizes and abides by all international accords and agreements -- and chemical and biological warfare is something forbidden legally and internationally."

By Shaun Waterman
Washington Times

Syria: Russia Ships 'Bound For Mediterranean'

Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean, according to Russian news agency Interfax.
An armed forces source reportedly said the planned deployment was in response to the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria.
The navy has denied the deployment is linked to events in Syria, saying it is part of a planned rotation of its ships in the Mediterranean.

If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

All three conditions would clearly be met in this case:
(i) The Syrian regime has been killing its people for two years, with reported deaths now over 100,000 and refugees at nearly 2 million. The large-scale use of chemical weapons by the regime in a heavily populated area on 21 August 2013 is a war crime and perhaps the most egregious single incident of the conflict. Given the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons over several months, it is likely that the regime will seek to use such weapons again. It is also likely to continue frustrating the efforts of the United Nations to establish exactly what has happened. Renewed attacks using chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cause further suffering and loss of civilian lives, and would lead to displacement of the civilian population on a large scale and in hostile conditions.

(ii) Previous attempts by the UK and its international partners to secure a resolution of this conflict, end its associated humanitarian suffering and prevent the use of chemical weapons through meaningful action by the Security Council have been blocked over the last two years. If action in the Security Council is blocked again, no practicable alternative would remain to the use of force to deter and degrade the capacity for the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike specific targets with the aim of deterring and disrupting further such attacks would be necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. Such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.

habal wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ml-version

If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures

rgosain wrote:Habal, very well put and thank you for your point. Why I am stressing the Sarin view, is that this likely to be the CW of choice by the usual crowd, or their non-state actors, against India, and that is why identifying the source becomes vital. Had the Assad regime used VX 18 months ago when they were supposed to be on the back foot would have given more credibility to this report.
There is a second factor somewhat that is missing here. The Me-NCO cloud in Bhopal probably claimed more lives, albeit in an accident.

ramana wrote:Philip. Most FDI in India is money being returned by Indians only, under guise of foreign investment. Talk to any babu.
Yes there is some token investment by soft hearted NRIs investing in mutual funds.

Egypt's Tamarod movement has called on Egyptian authorities to close the Suez Canal, preventing military destroyers that could be used in an impending strike on Syria.

The campaign’s website quoted Tamarod spokesperson Hassan Shahin as saying that Egypt should take a firm stance against the anticipated U.S.military strike against Syria.

"We should shut the Suez Canal before destroyers, machinery or oil vessels pass to strike Syria," Shahin also posted on Facebook. "Supporting the Arab Syrian military is a national duty.” jaat bhai to the rescue.

“We’ll support the Arab Syrian army. No place for traitors. Arab people should revolt after schemes by the Free [Syrian] Army and its supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and extremists to strike the whole Arab world were disclosed,” he added.

Egypt severed diplomatic ties with Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime under deposed President Mohamed Morsy, who was vocal in his support for the uprising against the regime. Both countries summoned their ambassadors as a result.

International media has reported that preparations are underway by Western states to strike Syria within a few days, citing evidence of an alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad's forces in Damascus last week.

Hundreds were killed when shells, appearing to contain poisonous or toxic material, landed on areas of the Syrian capital.

Like so many things across North Africa these last two years, the Suez Canal has defied expectations. Despite earth-shaking changes in Cairo and the fresh flash of violence in the neighboring Sinai Peninsula, the Canal continued operating without the expected collapse of security. Sure, local facilities were attacked and nearby gas lines bound for Jordan and Israel became easy targets for local militants. And sure, the number of vessels making the 120 mile trip between the Mediterranean and Red Seas dropped about 6.6 percent from the first half of 2012 to the first half of 2013. However, the Suez Canal continued to operate with a calm that offered a stark contrast to the fiery end to the country’s first post-Hosi Mubarak presidency, bringing in about $2.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped country over the first six months of this year.

According to Bloomberg, this relative calm is all thanks to a sharp uptick in Egyptian military coverage in the region, including increased Navy patrols in the water and Army troops in the ports along the way. Further, with a nod of approval from neighboring Israel, Cairo sent additional tanks and 40,000 troops into the Sinai Peninsula to help combat local militants who had been targeting energy and military facilities. Earlier this month, Egypt’s Major General Ahmed Wasfy, commander of the Second Field Army, highlighted this effort with a tour of the area.

This increased presence provides a stark contrast to the security vacuum that existed in Egypt’s eastern half in the months immediately following the ousting of the long-standing Mubarak. With troops called back to Cairo to deal with growing unrest, the region saw an escalation of militant action, including 15 attacks on gas pipelines and countless armed movements against police and military outposts. In addition to creating a deep sense of uncertainty in the region, the attacks threatened substantial gas flows to Israel and Jordan, resulting in dangerous fuel shortages. With gas exports and an average $5.2 billion in annual tolls from the 2,100 vessels traveling through the Suez Canal in danger, Cairo and the country’s military knew they had to act.

However, as successful as they have been as sustaining a sense of calm through the Canal, which carries about 1.4 millions of petroleum product and 800,000 barrels of crude per day, there are lingering concerns about keeping things that way.

Firstly, since helping oust Mohammad Morsi from office earlier this summer; the military has been cast into a leadership role, which could soon stress their resources if opposition actions continue to spread in Cairo and beyond. Second, some of the military’s more questionable actions have cast a sharp light on the role of U.S. and European aid, raising the possibility of a halt in financial support that could stress the country’s already beleaguered economy and political stability. Finally, growing international pressure to launch military strikes against the Assad government in Syria could add unneeded further strain in the region.

Still, it’s unclear how much of an impact a partial or full stoppage in Suez traffic would have. To be sure, recent violence and worry about Egypt’s stability and regional unrest have driven up global prices. On August 27th, The Wall Street Journal reported that those concerns and the threat of an attack on Syria had driven up oil futures to a six month high. However, others have taken a longer view of the Canal’s importance, including how quickly deliveries could be re-routed around Africa for a cost that is comparable to the tolls paid to travel through the Suez.

Further, David Unger of the Christian Science Monitor pointed out that the importance of the products making the trip from sea to sea has been reduced by energy production growth across the globe.

“The shifting of the global energy landscape has helped minimize the spikes of unrest in Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere in the region. New drilling techniques have flooded North America with its own supplies of oil and gas, loosening the Middle East’s grip on global oil markets,” Unger wrote on August 27th.

Following that approach, it would appear that the consequences for a Suez shutdown are far more damaging for Egypt than anyone else, cutting away at billions in potential revenue when Cairo needs it most.

Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan's defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as "a most formidable report". Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".

Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.

Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev's orbit after the previous year's disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.

By 1957, despite America's opposition to the Suez move, President Eisenhower felt he could no longer ignore the danger of Syria becoming a centre for Moscow to spread communism throughout the Middle East. He and Mr Macmillan feared Syria would destabilise pro-western neighbours by exporting terrorism and encouraging internal dissent. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.

The "preferred plan"adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

"The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities... Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."

Sabotage

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension." That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba'ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and "would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power".

The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria's Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. The following year, the Ba'athists moved against their Communist former allies and took Syria into a federation with Gen Nasser's Egypt, which lasted until 1963.

Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS

Open +44 (0)20 7276 1234 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk

From the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee
Ref: Jp 115
Prime Minister
29 August 2013

SYRIA: REPORTED CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE

Following the widespread open source reports of chemical weapons (CW) use in the suburbs of
Damascus in the early hours of 21 August 2013, the JIC met on 25 August to agree an assessment. At
a subsequent meeting on 27 August we met again to review our level of confidence in the assessment
relating to the regime’s responsibility for the attack. The JIC’s conclusions were agreed by all
Committee members. The final paper informed the National Security Council meeting on 28 August, at
which I provided further background and a summary of the most recent reporting, analysis and
challenge. The paper’s key judgements, based on the information and intelligence available to us
as of 25 August, are attached.

It is important to put these JIC judgements in context. We have assessed previously that the
Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest
possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint
Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources. We think that
there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the
evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.

Unlike previous attacks, the degree of open source reporting of CW use on 21 August has been
considerable. As a result, there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass
casualties on a larger scale than hitherto (including, we judge, at least 350 fatalities) took
place.

It is being claimed, including by the regime, that the attacks were either faked or undertaken by
the Syrian Armed Opposition. We have tested this assertion using a wide range of intelligence and
open sources, and invited HMG and outside experts to help us establish whether such a thing is
possible. There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the
possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible
alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.

We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the
regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition
from strategic parts of Damascus. Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had
access to it all.

Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible
for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in
relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time –
though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.

There has been the closest possible cooperation with the Agencies in producing the JIC’s
assessment. We have also worked in concert with the US intelligence community and agree with the
conclusions they have reached.


JIC assessment of 27 August on Reported Chemical Weapons use in Damascus

A chemical attack occurred in Damascus on the morning of 21 August, resulting in at least 350
fatalities. It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale.
The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some
intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that
the Syrian regime was responsible.

Extensive video footage attributed to the attack in eastern Damascus (which we assess would be very
difficult to falsify) is consistent with the use of a nerve agent, such as sarin, and is not
consistent with the use of blister or riot control agents.

There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger
scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the UN investigation team.
Permission to authorise CW has probably been delegated by President Asad to senior regime
commanders, such as [*], but any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his
authorisation.

There is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW. A number continue to seek a
CW capability, but none currently has the capability to conduct a CW attack on this scale.

Russia claims to have a ‘good degree of confidence’ that the attack was an
‘opposition provocation’ but has announced that they support an investigation into the incident.
We expect them to maintain this line. The Syrian regime has now announced that it will allow
access to the sites by UN inspectors.

There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological samples would have
degraded beyond usefulness. However, the longer it takes inspectors to gain access to the affected
sites, the more difficult it will be to establish the chain of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

......
Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.

Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev's orbit after the previous year's disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.......

The divide between the Conservatives and Labour over Syria widened tonight when Downing Street accused Ed Miliband of giving “succour” to the Assad regime by opposing immediate military action against it.

As the Commons held an emergency seven-hour debate on the crisis, the prospect of a consensus between the Government and Opposition receded amid a bitter row over Labour's change of heart on whether to back British involvement in military strikes.

The Independent has learned that Mr Miliband toughened Labour's stance after being warned by Rosie Winterton, the Opposition Chief Whip, he would face a huge rebellion among the party's MPs if he supported military action. Some Labour insiders claim there could have been “one or more” resignations from the Shadow Cabinet.

With about 60 Conservative MPs and some Liberal Democrats reluctant to support British involvement, Labour's hard line means that Mr Cameron could risk a humiliating Commons defeat if he tries to win backing for military action in the second vote Mr Miliband forced him to concede. Several Tories who supported the Government tonight warned they could oppose it in the final crunch vote.

Although President Barack Obama may go ahead without Britain, Mr Cameron has not given up hope of UK forces taking part. “There is a very, very strong case for action,” one aide said. Downing Street believes that United Nations weapons inspectors may deliver their interim report to the Security Council on Saturday and Mr Cameron has not ruled out recalling the Commons for another emergency debate on Sunday to seek approval for British involvement.

Cameron aides accused Mr Miliband of “flipping and flopping” and “moving the goalposts” on Wednesday, only a day after suggesting he might support the Government. The aides said Mr Cameron believed the Labour leader was “playing politics” and warned that the open divisions displayed in today's Commons debate would give “succour” to President Bashar al-Assad.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, told Channel 4 News: “I'm disappointed with Ed Miliband's behaviour frankly. Anything that stops... a clear united view of the British Parliament will give some succour to the regime.”

Labour hit back angrily, accusing Number 10 of risking the political consensus the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. A Labour spokesman said: “That is frankly insulting. Language like that demeans Downing Street.... It should not lower itself to the level of personal abuse.” He added: “It seems to us that it is uncalled for. It is demeaning to the debate. There will be families up and down this country who are listening to this debate thinking that if there is military action it could be my son involved, it could be my father involved.”

Mr Miliband's tougher line won strong backing at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party today. But his aides denied he had been bounced into a U-turn by his own MPs. “It was about doing the right thing, not the numbers,” one said. Although Diane Abbott warned she might resign as Labour's public health spokeswoman, Labour officials denied knowledge of any threats to resign by more senior party figures.

However, one Labour source admitted: “There was a big internal wobble after what Ed said on Tuesday. That led to quite a dramatic change of tone and a more aggressive stance.” Douglas Alexander, the shadow Foreign Secretary, is said to have played a key role. The discussions also included Tim Livesey, Mr Miliband's chief of staff, and Lord (Stewart) Wood, the shadow Minister Without Portfolio.

Some Labour MPs wanted Mr Miliband to “declare victory” after winning a second Commons vote and support the Government in tonight's vote. But the Labour leader told MPs he could not support the Government's motion because it was being seen as supporting military action in principle. The motion said a strong humanitarian response to last week's chemical weapons attack on civilians near Damascus “may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons.”

Mr Miliband said Labour wanted to see “compelling evidence” about the attack and a stronger commitment to the UN's involvement. Although he insisted that he did not rule out supporting military action, the potential revolt in his own party makes that less likely than it appeared on Tuesday.

Opening the debate, Mr Cameron conceded the British public was “war-weary” about getting involved in conflicts in the Middle East but insisted he would not repeat the mistakes of the 2003 Iraq War. He was not proposing an invasion or taking sides in Syria's civil war, he said.

The Prime Minister said the actions of the Blair Government in the run-up to the Iraq War had “well and truly poisoned the well of public opinion”, but insisted:“We must not let the spectre of previous mistakes paralyse us.”

Mr Cameron conceded there was no smoking gun piece of intelligence or “100 per cent certainty” about who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. He argued that the consequences of inaction would be greater than action, as “if nothing is done it [the Assad regime] will conclude that it can use these weapons again and again and on a larger scale and with impunity.”

Mr Miliband replied that MPs should not “rush to judgement” on military action but take a decision in a “calm and measured way” and be “clear-eyed” about the impact. “I don't think anybody in this House or anybody in the country should be under any illusions about the effect of our relationship to the conflict in Syria if we were to militarily intervene,” he said.“I am very clear about the fact that we have to learn the lessons of Iraq.”

As Russia said it was sending warships to the Mediterranean, Mohammad Jihad al-Laham, the Speaker of Syria's Parliament appealed to British MPs to pause before authorising a reckless missile strike to punish the Assad regime. In an open letter to the Commons, he urged MPs to “turn Great Britain from the warpath” and invited a delegation of MPs to Damascus to check the conclusions of UN weapons inspectors. “Before you rush over the cliffs of war, would it not be wise to pause? Remember the thousands of British soldiers killed and maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said.

David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

29 August 2013 Last updated at 22:49

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

A government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly".

It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.

Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.

But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

Robles: I see. Now what happened in Libya with Muammar Gaddafi? Would you care to comment on what actually eventually happened and how he was killed in street?
Shayler: Gaddafi had been an enemy of the West since 1976, when he nationalized the Libyan oil industry at the expense of British Petroleum, and obviously you get on the wrong side of the oil industry, that’s the problem. That’s why they went after him, nothing else, not because he’s a dictator or anything else, it’s because he’d obviously, as they saw it, caused loss to British commercial interests.
There had been several attempts on his life, one of which one of them I’d blew the whistle on. So you can kind of see who wants to get control of Libya, it’s a key strategic point in North Africa, it’s a relatively rich country by African standards. And what I did in 2011, I just watched it on the mainstream. I thought what I want to do, I won’t go on the Internet, I’ll just watch this and see what happens, as all this Libya stuff was happening.
Because there’s no coherent explanations, why somebody who for years and years was our enemy, then became our friend, suddenly was our enemy again.
Also around the things now I realized that Gaddafi was trying to sell his oil in gold-backed Libyan Dinars, and therefore the same fate awaited him as awaited Saddam, because once you start selling your oil in anything other than Dollars that would immediately provoke an almost overnight collapse of the American economy because you need Dollars to buy oil, and if you don’t need Dollars to buy oil, there is no need to have Dollars at all, so nobody would use them. And so, again, they had to take Gaddafi out, in the same way they took Saddam out, nothing to do with anything other than his threat to finance and the American economy.
Robles: I thought it was a strange coincidence that, I think it was like 18 hours before they invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had decided to change the oil trade into Euros, and in Libya the same thing happened.
Shayler: Yes, exactly, well yeah yeah, no you’ve got to realize, I mean people say this is all about oil, and it is about oil in one sense because oil is part of the control mechanism, you need fuel. It also is to do with the fact that we now live in this crazy world economy, in which nothing is really worth anything apart from the faith behind it. But once you take away that faith, the whole thing collapses, it’s not backed by gold, or silver, or anything else basically.
So we are going to see more and more wars like this if people threaten the economies of the West. I say the economies of the West are extremely weak at the moment, they really really are.
Robles: In your opinion what is the real goal in Syria, is it resources, or …?
Shayler: Well, I think it is a part of this wider agenda, in terms of creating a Third World War, and obviously there are reasons about it, it’s all part of the control mechanism, they can take control, even the way in which the society can handle it, taking even more rights away. They realize, I say, their whole system is teetering at the moment, many people have woken up, and so on.
If they can create the Third World War, then put all those people in prison camps, then they won’t be there to influence other people again, basically, and that I think is part of their agenda. It’s part of the wider, and again I am going to use the word Zionist - I’m not talking about Jews here, clearly Judaism is a religion - Zionism is a political idea, and to me it’s all what’s set out in terms of the Zionist agenda. They want to create a United States of Europe, with a Zionist king on the throne, and then as stated a Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, basically, and obviously if you look at that geography Syria is one of the countries in the way, basically.
Robles: I see, I see.
Shayler: Oh I can tell you something very interesting as well, is that, when I was in MI5 I once saw the European Intelligence Assessment Report that had been circulated. Under the bottom of it, it had writing in Hebrew on it. So I asked someone: “why has it got Hebrew on it?” And this guy told me, he said, and this was when there was only something like 15 nations in Europe, he said: “The Israelis consider themselves as part of the European Union”. They get all the directives. They’ve got no representation there, but the government gets all the European Directives, and stuff like that, so that they can implement them so they can be like Europe basically.
Robles: Wow!
Shayler: Yeah. Can you believe it? I had no inkling of that at all at the time, and I’ve not seen any more about it anywhere else since. But that was in MI5, they were one of the people copied in on European Assessments, because they considered themselves to be a kind of de facto member of the European Union basically.
Robles: I see, and a lot of people were saying Israel is behind all of the conflicts in the Middle East, and directing things behind the scenes. I mean, they’re buying Iranian oil. Is it realistic, I mean, if they cause all this instability, if they destroy all these countries basically, and send them into chaos like Libya right now, Iraq - is that in any way going to help Israel? Or do you think that’s going to put Israel as a state at further risk?
Shayler: Well, you see, it depends on your view of the world, doesn’t it? Obviously, if they weren’t running the world then they would be in genuine risk through all this stuff, of Israel coming under attack from Al-Qaeda basically, who are represented in various countries around Israel.
But the fact that that doesn’t seem to be part of their plan, that risk isn’t in there, it rather suggests to me that this is neither control or conflict, and actually the people who are back in places like Syria, and Lebanon and so on, and that they’ve got them under control, and that’s why they know there’s no at risk of those people then going into Israel, because they’ll then just take them out.
So, to me, this is all evidence to the fact that they could unroll this program without any risk to Israel because they’re backing all of the rebels that have appeared in countries like Egypt and Syria, and so on, in the last few years.

ramana wrote:Shouldnt he resign?

Putin's Support for Assad is Just Words
BY JULIA IOFFE

As the White House struggles, agonizingly, down the road to striking Syria, Moscow has put on its own sideshow, railing against yet another American misadventure in a mysterious and tangled region. Russian ships have started churning the Mediterranean's waters again, ostentatiously getting into position. Russian officials warned obliquely of "catastrophic consequences" should the U.N. Security Countil be bypassed. Dmitry Rogozin, a blustery deputy prime minister who is close to Vladimir Putin, came out to deride the U.S., saying it behaved in the Muslim world "like a monkey with a hand grenade." Meanwhile, Russian state TV, setting aside its programming of bread and circuses, has detailed the ways in which America is again circumventing international institutions and, worse, undermining international law. In the most extraordinary example of the Russian media's exuberance, ITAR-TASS, the state news wire, quoted Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN commission looking into the gas attacks, as saying that the chemical weapons used in Ghouta had been fired by "the paramilitaries of Syria's irreconcilable opposition." The only problem was that Del Ponte had made no such statement, and still, ITAR-TASS, whose story was picked up across Russian news outlets, declined to issue a correction.

The message was the old, familiar no, this time buttressed by some menacing-looking warships.

And as always, it means nothing.

What can Russia really do? Well, not much. It can, and will, veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria. In fact, its representative has already walked out of a meeting in which Samantha Power, America's ambassador to the U.N., called for "immediate action." And you know what? That's both utterly predictable and not insurmountable. The most helpful Russians have been on things like this is simply abstaining on the resolution allowing the use of force in Libya. "They have the power when they say 'no,' but when we say 'no,' they lose their power," says a Senate foreign policy staffer.

Okay, but tactically speaking: Will the Russians use those warships? Fat chance. The state of Russia's military and Russia's navy is notoriously terrible, and, for all their talk, the last thing Russia wants to do is engage in a game of battleship with the U.S.

What about those arms shipments? Well, given Russia's insistence that they're simply fulfilling weapons contracts and that, since there's no embargo on the Syrians, they are not in violation of any international laws, they have, are, and will keep supplying weapons to Assad. Likely, their only real reaction will be to step up shipments of small arms, like anti-tank missiles and launchers, but, as a Reuters investigation shows, they've been doing that anyway, nearly doubling their shipments to Assad since April.

Some have raised the spectre of an outstanding supply of S-300's, a Russian-made long-range anti-aircraft missile system that can hit multiple targets at once, that is said to be a game-changer. Israel even said that it would attack the stuff on delivery to Assad. "It's indeed a serious weapon," Putin said in June, when, seeming to recognize Western concerns, he denied that Bashar al-Assad had received the missiles for which he'd made a down payment. "We don't want to throw the region off-balance." Assad doesn't have the S-300's and he's unlikely to get them now. Even if he does, they take time to be set up and to train people to operate them. Moreover, they won't be used against the rebels; they are insurance against a Western airstrike, and, now, when such an airstrike seems imminent, Assad doesn't have them. Oh, and they've never been tested in battle.

Russia could theoretically pull it's acquiesence for the Northern Distribution Network on which the U.S. depends quite heavily to get materiel into and out of Afghanistan. Okay, but America's out of there soon anyway—as in, it stops being a lever—and besides Russia makes plenty of money off the venture.

So what happens when the Tomahawks start flying? How will Russia react? "It won't," says Georgy Mirsky, a prominent Russian Middle East expert. "It doesn't need to react. Why should it react? No one's touching us, no one's bothering us. Russia will sit back and observe as America gets into another terrible Middle Eastern war. Russia will give Assad all the weapons he needs, and the fighting strength he'll get from Hezbollah and Iran. They have plenty to fight with."

Russians, Mirsky correctly points out, don't really care about what happens in Syria, and, if Russia loses Assad and Syria, well, Syria's not as precious an ally as we imagine them to be. "What do we have in Syria?" Mirsky jibed. "One tiny naval base? Arms sales? We have plenty of arms clients around the world. India alone buys many, many more weapons than Syria, by a factor of tens." Warships or no warships, in other words, when things really flame up, Putin is not coming to the rescue.

If the West attacks and Putin continues to heckle from the sidelines, Mirsky explains, it'll be a propaganda coup. "It'll show people that here, again, America is showing its aggressive face," he said, explaining that two decades (after the end of the Cold War) is not a very long time. "And Putin shows again that he is a strong leader that raised Russia up off its knees, and that he has never and will never dance to an American tune."

Mirsky's advice? Don't pay attention to Russia. Of all the obstacles on Obama's path to Damascus, Putin is not one of them. "All of this is for domestic consumption," he says.

Says the Senate staffer, "They'll just find a way to bang on their high chair, and that'll be the end of that."

habal wrote:

Putin's Support for Assad is Just Words
"What do we have in Syria?"

Attack on Syria is an attack against Russia – Libyan military official

In an interview with the Voice of Russia, a high-level anonymous official with direct working knowledge of the United States missile defense system stated that the system allows 30-40 percent of all missiles to get through and is highly ineffective against small missiles.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, when asked if he could verify admissions by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan that he controlled the terrorists groups in Syria, including Chechen terrorist formations, stated that this was true.
The official then stated that there were rumors in the Libyan Defense Ministry that it was actually Bandar who delivered the chemical weapons from Israel to the Syrian insurgents and that it was Israel who was pushing the United States for a military attack on Syria.

The official stated that all countries in the Middle East were controlled by the United States except Syria, Iran and for the most part Lebanon, with US representatives normally present at all meetings between the leaders and heads of the Middle East states.

The source also stated that it the ambition of Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan to become the King of Saudi Arabia, that drives him to do whatever the US asks of him as he needs their support to make him the king. His mother is not of royal lineage so he is ineligible to be the king.

The official explained the urgency of the United States and US President Barrack Hussein Obama to invade Syria as being due a drive to diminish growing Russian influence in the Middle East and surprisingly as revenge for Russia’s refusal to hand over Edward Snowden.

He stated that Russia’s growing and prospering economy and the US’s ever weakening economic condition is causing countries in the region to look towards Russia and this is unacceptable to the US administration.
When asked about the Muslim Brotherhood, he stated that since its creation by MI6 in the 1940s it had been under the control of the West and was in fact in no way a religious organization. Under several dictators over the decades the Muslim Brotherhood has become a radical armed force.

When asked if the Saudis in fact really controlled Chechen terrorist formations the official revealed that even during the Bosnian War the Bosnian Muslims were controlled and funded by the Saudis, who are controlled by the US and that the Bosnian War was also staged to weaken Russian influence in the region.
The source said he had met with Osama Bin Laden’s brother and that the Bin Laden family were still operating in Saudi Arabia. He added that Osama Bin Laden was never questioned or impeded in Saudi Arabia.

As in Iraq and other post-US-invasion countries such as Afghanistan and Serbia, the United States through its surrogates in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who said is also sponsoring Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups operating in Syria and the Middle East, attempted to instruct the regulate the reformation of the Libyan Army. Qatar attempted to persuade Libya to forego plans for tanks divisions and air-force formations and insisted that Libya merely maintain a small fractured army so it would not pose a threat.

When asked about Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad the official said that he was a very peaceful and intelligent man who limited his own role to dealing with the social circumstances and well being of his people. He said the West’s attempt to portray President Assad as some sort of mad dictator were ridiculous and that there was no way he would ever have launched a chemical attack on his own people in an area that was completely under the control of the Syrian forces. Especially since President Assad is winning.

The urgency of the US attacking is also due to the fact that, as he said, the Syrian insurgents and terrorist forces cannot hold out anymore than 3 or 4 months, they have effectively been almost beaten. The fact that the West has spent millions funding and arming and training these groups makes their urgency that much more pressing.
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_30/Att ... cial-2181/

The source was claimed to have said: “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party.”

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action.

The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for Obama's national security council, indicated the administration would consider acting unliaterally. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government – one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

The US appears to have taken British support for granted. Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike.

Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us."

The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government, was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side.

Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading.

The officials said there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week, Reuters reported. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee.

The 90-minute briefing was conducted by secretary of state John Kerry, secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, among others.

After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.

"Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

The UN has said more time should be given to diplomacy, and France, which earlier this week declared its support for taking action against Syria, is now calling for more time so UN inspections can be completed. A session of the United Nations security council in New York, called by Russia, broke up without agreement.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule. Ban also announced that the team would report to him immediately on departure, raising the possibility that the UN could issue an interim report on the 21 August chemical attacks that left hundreds of people dead.

The inspectors had not been due to deliver their findings for a week at least. The demand for a rushed early assessment reflects the fraught atmosphere at the UN triggered by US threats to launch punitive air strikes within days.

Shortly before Britain's parliamentary vote, the New York Times quoted senior administration officials saying the US administration was prepared to launch strikes on Syria without a UN security council mandate or the support of allies such as Britain.

Earlier on Thursday, Joshua Earnest, the White House deputy spokesman, seemed to confirm that was a possibility when he was asked whether the US would "go it alone". He repeatedly said it was in US "core national security interests" to enforce international chemical weapons norms. "The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America," he said. Any strikes would be "discreet and limited", he said.

However, Earnest also stressed the broad international support for the US position – backing that now appears to be dissipating. The Arab League has blamed Syria for the chemical attack, but stopped short of advocating punitive strikes by the US.

In recent days, Obama has spoken personally with leaders of France, Australia, Canada and Germany. But none were as important as Britain, a traditional ally during US military actions which has been lobbying behind the scenes for months for a tougher action on Syria.

Ken Pollack, a fellow from the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, said that with continuing uncertainty over the intelligence picture, and no obvious legal mandate for military action, the US will be desperate to secure more international backing to argue that intervention is "legitimate".

"If the administration can't even count of the full-throated support of our closest ally, the country that stuck by us even during the worst days of Iraq, that legitimacy is going to be called into question," he said.

Now that the UK parliament has rejected an attack on Syria, Washington's space for planning one is likely to be constrained, particularly as the Obama administration prepares to release its intelligence tying Assad to the 21 August gas attack. An unclassified report is due to be published on Friday.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst and Georgetown professor, said the loss of British support would lead to more "intense" scrutiny of the US case for action against Syria. "The UK is, in many important respects, the most important ally of the United States," said Pillar. "This action by parliament is unquestionably significant in that regard."

Now that the UK parliament has rejected an attack on Syria, Washington's space for planning one is likely to be constrained, particularly as the Obama administration prepares to release its intelligence tying Assad to the 21 August gas attack. An unclassified report is due to be published on Friday.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst and Georgetown professor, said the loss of British support would lead to more "intense" scrutiny of the US case for action against Syria. "The UK is, in many important respects, the most important ally of the United States," said Pillar. "This action by parliament is unquestionably significant in that regard."

The prospect of British involvement in military action in Syria ended dramatically last night when David Cameron suffered a surprise and humiliating Commons defeat on the issue.

Despite concessions by the Prime Minister to opponents of military action, a rebellion by Conservative MPs and strong opposition by Labour saw the Government defeated by 285 votes to 272.

The vote leaves Mr Cameron's foreign policy in disarray and will raise new questions over his leadership. He is unable to deliver British support to American-led strikes on Syria over the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians near Damascus. The vote will dismay the Obama administration, which is now likely to press ahead without the UK, perhaps as early as this weekend. One US military official said after the vote: “We care about what the UK thinks. We value the [Parliamentary] process but we're going to make the decision we need to make.”

The rejected government motion said the response to the weapons attack “may, if necessary, require military action”. Although Mr Cameron promised a second vote next week before any British involvement, he failed to win support last night for what Labour described as a vote in principle for military action.

The Prime Minister immediately abandoned his plan for British involvement in Syria. He told MPs: “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons. But I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly.”

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, confirmed there would now be no participation by the UK. He was “disappointed” by the Commons decision and admitted it would “place some strain” on the US-UK relationship. He blamed the Government's defeat partly on the the Iraq War, saying it had “poisoned the well” of public opinion, which had influenced MPs' votes.

The crushing blow for Mr Cameron is a huge coup for Ed Miliband, who toughened Labour's stance against military action after initially appearing ready to support it. The Opposition's line emboldened rebel Tory MPs. Many voted against a Labour amendment, calling for “compelling evidence” the Assad regime was responsible for the attack before UK involvement, which was rejected by 332 votes to 220.

But many Tories then refused to the support the Government's motion. Labour estimated that 30 Tories voted against, while others abstained. Amid farcical scenes, Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, demanded a recount on the grounds that some ministers had missed the vote. She was rebuffed by the Speaker John Bercow. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary and a hawk on Syria, shouted “disgrace” at Tory and Liberal Democrat rebels. There was speculation that Tory whips had advised the Prime Minister not to recall MPs from their summer break for yesterday's emergency debate in the hope of winning endorsement for military action.

Earlier Downing Street accused Mr Miliband of giving “succour” to the Assad regime by opposing immediate military action against it.

The Independent has learnt that Mr Miliband toughened Labour's stance after being warned by Rosie Winterton, the Opposition Chief Whip, he would face a huge rebellion among the party's MPs if he supported military action. Some Labour insiders claim there could have been “one or more” resignations from the shadow Cabinet.

Last night Jim Fitzpatrick quit as a Labour transport spokesman after telling the Commons he was “opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop”. He voted against both the Government's motion and Labour's amendment to it, saying: “My objection is not having an exit strategy, not having an end game.”

Yesterday Britain sent six Typhoon jets to Cyprus to protect its bases against a strike from Syria, while the US and Russia both bolstered their naval forces in the Mediterranean in preparation for possible military action.

The Prime Minister's aides accused Mr Miliband of “flipping and flopping” and “moving the goalposts” only a day after the Labour leader had suggested he might support the Government, only to then demand a second vote in the Commons before any British strike was launched. The aides said Mr Cameron believed the Labour leader was “playing politics” and warned that the divisions displayed in yesterday's debate would give “succour” to the Assad regime.

Labour hit back angrily, accusing Number 10 of risking the political consensus the PM said he wanted to achieve. A Labour spokesman said: “That is frankly insulting. Language like that demeans Downing Street... It should not lower itself to the level of personal abuse.” He added: “It seems to us that it is uncalled for. There will be families up and down this country who are listening to this debate thinking that if there is military action it could be my son involved, it could be my father involved.”

Mr Miliband's tougher line won strong backing at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party yesterday, but his aides denied he had been bounced into a U-turn by his own MPs. “It was about doing the right thing, not the numbers,” one said.

However, one Labour source admitted: “There was a big internal wobble after what Ed said on Tuesday. That led to quite a dramatic change of tone and a more aggressive stance.” Douglas Alexander, the shadow Foreign Secretary, is said to have played a key role. The discussions also included Tim Livesey, Mr Miliband's chief of staff, and Lord (Stewart) Wood, the shadow Minister Without Portfolio.

Mr Miliband said Labour wanted to see “compelling evidence” of the attack and a stronger commitment to involve the UN. He insisted that he did not rule out supporting military action.

Opening yesterday's debate, Mr Cameron conceded the British public was “war-weary” about getting involved in conflicts in the Middle East but insisted he would not repeat the mistakes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was not proposing an invasion or taking sides in Syria, insisting: “We must not let the spectre of previous mistakes paralyse us.”

Tory ministers lose the plot

Tory ministers seemed to be losing the plot last night after three were reported to have missed the Commons vote, and one kept referring to the wrong dictator.

International Development Secretary Justine Greening and Africa Minister Mark Simmonds were both said to have missed the bell which sounded to let MPs know it was time to vote.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for former justice secretary and Minister without Portfolio Ken Clarke said he was unable to attend because of “logistical family reasons”.

In a later appearance on BBC Newsnight, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond seemed to repeatedly forget the country in which he wanted to see military intervention.

He twice referred to the need to prevent “Saddam Hussein” from using chemical weapons, in a reference to the former Iraqi despot who was executed in 2006.

Will Gant

The Joint Intelligence Committee produced the dossier on Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD arsenal, used by Tony Blair’s government to justify joining George Bush’s invasion of Iraq; a deeply flawed document which became a byword for manipulation and fabrication, even of intelligence to suit a political agenda.

The report the JIC presented today into another tranche of WMDs, this time belonging to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, was written in much more measured tones, acknowledging that much of it was from open source material – videos, testimonies of patients and medics – and not really revealing anything significantly secret.

In the process it failed to make a case for war. There was no evidence directly linking President Assad and his coterie to the attack, the blame attached to the regime was by default, inasmuch it was held the opposition did not have the wherewithal to mount such an operation. There is a key difference between the Iraqi and Syrian regimes when it comes to WMDs. There is little doubt the latter does have chemical stockpiles. And, as some of us witnessed on the ground, its forces are capable of startling, casual brutalities.

But the JIC document does nothing to answer the question asked by many: why would the Damascus regime launch such a sustained assault with chemical weapons with UN inspectors in a hotel a dozen miles away and its forces making advances on the ground using conventional weapons.

David Cameron’s claim in the Commons that Assad was testing the boundaries makes little sense. He admitted that motivation for the attack was the issue which the JIC had the hardest task on reaching a conclusion. In a letter to Mr Cameron, the JIC’s chairman, Jon Day, stated the committee had “high confidence” in the accuracy of all its assessments. But there was one significant qualification: “Except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.”

Persistent reports of intercepted telephone calls, said to be by the Israelis, portray a dysfunctional Syrian military command, battered by two and half years of savage conflict, in which questions are asked about who actually gave the order to fire. Does this point towards a rogue officer, or, if one is into conspiracies, the agents of an enemy state? The Saudis have been accused as being responsible by regime supporters, without any evidence to back it up. In any event mounting such a “false flag” operation, with multiple firing points, would mean a significant infiltration of Assad’s military.

Mr Day stated he had seen “highly sensitive” intelligence to support the view the regime launched the attacks to clear the opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. Using chemical weapons? At such at a time, why? We are none the wiser. In fact the JIC adds there was “no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW [chemical weapons] on an apparently larger scale now” – given the presence of the UN inspectors.

Assad forces, said the JIC report, carried out 14 separate chemical attacks. Does this include Khan al-Assal near Aleppo, in March this year, which the regime blamed on the rebels and asked the UN to investigate? The JIC simply states that a number of (unidentified) opposition groups “continue to seek a CW capability”. It should be noted at this point, the Ghouta massacre, which triggered the proposed Western military action, was blamed by the regime and its Russian and Iranian allies on the rebels. They have so far failed to provide evidence of this.

One attempt at proving overarching culpability by the JIC is the statement that the use of chemical weapons had “probably been delegated” by President Assad to “senior regime commanders, such as [*]”. Who is the commander, is it Maher, the President’s brother, whose 155th Brigade, 4th Armoured Division, was accused of firing chemical-weaponised artillery rounds?

Perhaps answers will emerge in a separate intelligence report due from the US administration – But its strength is already being questioned by some intelligence officials.

Share Tweet Reddit Digg RSS
inShare
China

What remedy does justice prescribe for a "moral obscenity"?

That's the term Secretary of State John Kerry used to describe the Syrian regime's use of chemical arms last week. Few would quarrel with it. Government forces are reportedly culpable for an August 21 assault that, by some estimates, claimed some 1,300 lives. Still, the Obama administration must map out its next steps carefully. Words as strong as Kerry's demand strong deeds to match.

Punishing a moral obscenity flaccidly, with token military action, would constitute a diplomatic mistake of the first order. That's Negotiations Theory 101. Once you commit yourself publicly to some action, you have to keep that commitment or risk becoming a laughingstock. Failing to follow through disheartens your constituents and allies. And what adversary, present or future, will take you seriously the next time you want to coerce or deter? That's a reputation no political leadership should want.

Presidents from both parties have broken this simple rule. President Harry S. Truman, one of my favorite chief executives, was given to statements akin to Secretary Kerry's. For instance, Truman cast the Korean War as another great crusade to reverse aggression and stare down a totalitarian foe. But having portrayed the North Koreans and Chinese as communist equivalents of Adolf Hitler, he allowed the war to bog down in military stalemate and protracted armistice negotiations.

What kind of leader (asked Americans in effect) commits the nation to bloody combat against totalitarianism, then turns around and cuts a deal with the totalitarians? Small wonder the war, and Truman himself, hemorrhaged popular support by the time the 1952 elections rolled around.

Or, President Bush the Elder depicted Saddam Hussein as a latter-day Hitler. (I'm sensing a theme here.) Like Truman, Bush was able to marshal an international coalition to battle cross-border aggression. Repulsing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was wildly popular among the electorate, as was Bush himself. Until, that is, he let the latter-day Hitler survive with his regime intact, along with fighting forces sufficient to quash the rebellion that erupted in the closing days of Desert Storm. Folks back home soon wondered why the president hadn't "finished the job" he had begun.

You get the idea. Savvy diplomats and elected leaders are very sparing with absolute rhetoric. Not just the enemy but allies, friends, and bystanders around the world -- not to mention ordinary citizens -- measure their deeds by their words. No one wants to be known as the leader who fought for justice halfheartedly. Take it from Truman and Bush.