16
Jan
If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence…
16
Dec
My opposition to intervention in Syria [and] my hope for a diplomatic solution in Iran is due to the fact that I think we need to understand that the blunt instrument of military power, whether it’s with invasions or attacks from the sky, just doesn’t work very well in the information age in which people can turn what we think we’re trying to do for good into an avenue to recruit jihadists against us…
11
Oct
In a coordinated attack, numerous rebel groups fought off a small garrison of government troops and swept into the villages, killing 190 people, according to a Human Rights Watch report to be released on Friday. At least 67 of the dead appeared to have been shot or stabbed while unarmed or fleeing, including 48 women and 11 children, the report said. More than 200 civilians are still being held hostage.
-

Syrian Civilians Bore Brunt of Rebels’ Fury, Report Says

I’m dreading the seemingly inevitable report that shows that arms supplied to Syrian rebels by the CIA were used to murder civilians. Will anyone in the Obama administration decry that “moral obscenity" if/when it occurs?

27
Sep
Do you think Obama’s been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for?
17
Sep
A small town in Sweden called Södertälje has accepted more refugees from Iraq than the U.S. and Canada put together.
-

In Surprisingly Bold Move, Sweden Offers a Home to All Syrian Refugees

Sweden, a country with a laudable open-armed immigration policy, has decided to offer permanent residency to literally all Syrian refugees. There are currently 8,000 Syrians living in Sweden with temporary residency permits and they are likely to be joined by many more asylum seekers. The UN estimates that over 2 million Syrians have fled their war-torn homeland in search of safety and prosperity. Sweden’s decision to welcome all refugees, which was made with the realization that Syria’s civil war is unlikely to cease any time soon, is burdened with possible long-term consequences:

Malek Laesker, the vice chairman of the Syrian Arabian Cultural Association of Sweden, welcomed the decision.

However, he warned it could inflame the debate on immigration, encourage people-trafficking, and cause problems further down the line.

"The fact that Sweden is the first country to open its arms is both positive and negative," he said.

"We already have a crisis around that issue in Sweden. I hope that our politicians solve it in a nice way." 

Indeed, any instance of mass migration, especially when vast cultural and political differences are involved, could yield serious consequences, not to mention logistical nightmares. But Sweden has knowingly taken such risks in the interest of humanitarianism.

Compare Sweden’s Syrian refugee policy with the limited bombing campaign proposed by President Obama. Which plan poses less of a threat to innocent Syrians? Which runs less risk of instigating more warfare and conflict? Which one manages to “do something” about the crisis in Syria without provoking the ire of Russia and Iran? The answers to these questions are obvious and they illuminate the absurdity of referring to any bombing campaign as a “humanitarian” act.

While it’s probably not advisable or feasible for every country to imitate Sweden’s refugee policy, surely there is more that can be done to aid the Syrian families fleeing death and persecution. If we fail these people, as we have so clearly failed the people of Iraq (many of whom were escaping a war zone that we created), then the words etched onto the Statue of Liberty, which declare that we welcome the “huddled masses yearning to be free,” is nothing but hollow rhetoric, as empty and meaningless as our professed commitment to humanitarianism. 

12
Sep

Arming Syria’s Rebels: A Fool’s Errand

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

[…]

Although the Obama administration signaled months ago that it would increase aid to Syrian rebels, the efforts have lagged because of the logistical challenges involved in delivering equipment in a war zone and officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists.

The Washington Post

How confused is U.S. strategy in Syria? We’d like to witness a rebel victory and aid in that effort by supplying weapons to the rebels, yet we’d also like to prevent a portion of those rebels from emerging victorious with an armful of weapons. According to Secretary of State Kerry in a recent interview, there is a vetting process to determine which rebels are worthy of being armed, but the efficacy of this vetting process has been questioned (for instance, the infamous rebel soldier who ate the heart of his vanquished enemy was part of a so-called “moderate” faction).

In the context of a brutal Middle Eastern civil war, “moderate” may be a difficult term to define. Once upon a time, Assad himself was labeled a moderate by various media outlets. His wife Asma was described as “glamorous, young, and very chic" with "a killer IQ" in a glowing 2011 Vogue magazine profile. John Kerry and his wife even dined with Assad and Asma in 2009. Our understanding of what constitutes moderateness in the Middle East is in constant flux and thus rarely correct for any substantial length of time. So even if, in a best case scenario, the U.S. only supplies moderate rebels with weapons and the rebels then topple Assad and seize power, who can be even remotely sure that Syria will be a better place to live or that the persecution of minority groups won’t continue or that the newly installed regime will align itself with U.S. interests? Perhaps the greatest problem in President Obama’s Syria strategy is that even if it works (which is doubtful), it still does little to improve the living standards of the average Syrian.

Occasionally, some nations are ripe for foreign-influenced democratic reform. Post-war Japan was one such nation. But Syria is not on the brink of democracy, its people largely despise us (a mere 14% of Syrians approve of the job performance of U.S. leadership), and when we intervene in Syria’s internal affairs, we risk entangling ourselves with forces that are either enacting or pursuing policies of violence and oppression. 

11
Sep
You want to know about innocent children dying in horrible circumstances? Read John Hersey’s “Hiroshima.” That book made clear, as the Syrian videos have, that death in warfare is terrible, and particularly heart-wrenching and unbearable to know about when it involves children. …But as the Hiroshima comparison illustrates, to mention the suffering of children does not settle political, strategic, or even moral questions. You can argue that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were historical necessities and even “merciful” in some way, in averting later and much larger numbers of Japanese and American deaths during an invasion. You can argue the reverse. Either way, little children had their flesh roasted as they walked to school or happily played. Their suffering does not answer the “was Truman right?” or the “is deterrence moral?” questions. The suffering of people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania 12 years ago today did not answer the “should we invade Iraq?” question. The Syria videos tell us that something horrible happened, not what we should do about it.
10
Sep

First and most importantly, an attack on Syria does not make the American people safer. Secondly, the possible death of innocent Syrian civilians as collateral damage from missile strikes may increase local and regional anti-Western sentiment and risks increasing the ranks of terrorists. Thirdly, the lack of a United Nations (UN) mandate or a strong global coalition in support of military action undermines our legitimacy to act.

Finally, we should be cautious in evaluating who we are assisting. While there are responsible elements among the Syrian opposition that want peace and democracy for Syria, extremists — some affiliated with Al-Qaeda — are growing stronger each day, and an American attack may inadvertently strengthen extremists while undermining support for more moderate forces.

[…]

One of the factors that led me to run for Congress was my opposition to the unnecessary war in Iraq, which was predicated by faulty intelligence and cost almost 7,000 American lives and, countless Iraqi lives. During my tenure in Congress, I have consistently voted against continued funding for the Iraq war and am proud to have been a part of ending the conflict. I am now in a position to stop another unnecessary war before it begins.

The President has chosen to ask for the advice and counsel of Congress, and with my voice and my vote, I respond: do not attack Syria.

09
Sep
[Mitt Romney] implies by the speech that he’s ready to go to war in Syria and Iran. …He wants to move from cooperation to confrontation with Putin’s Russia.
-

Joe Biden, warning Obama supporters of the dangers of a Romney presidency on September 2, 2012. 

It sure would be awful to go to war with Syria and have a testy relationship with Russia. I’m glad we dodged that bullet…

05
Sep
If we could end suffering in Syria through a military strike, that would be a decision worth thinking about. But no one is suggesting that’s going to happen here. No one is suggesting this will end the dictatorship. No one is suggesting this will defeat the al-Nusra rebels who want sharia law and no rights for women. No one is suggesting this will actually prevent a gas attack in the future. No one is suggesting this will do much of anything except give a slap on the wrist to [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad in hopes that maybe something good will come out of that. I actually would support humanitarian aid to the refugees. There are 2 million of them in Jordan and Turkey right now, and I think they could use our help. My concept of humanitarian aid is food, medicine, shelter, clothing, not bombs. The concept of a humanitarian war, humanitarian bombs, humanitarian missiles, is bizarre to me.
05
Sep

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.
The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

-

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

President Obama intends to provide these same rebels with “small arms, ammunition and perhaps anti-tank weapons" in order "to keep the Syrian opposition going…” 

In another time, country, or scenario, these rebels might be the targets of U.S. opposition or perhaps even U.S. drones. Our false hope that all who rebel against dictators must in some sense embody the spirit of ‘76 has repeatedly led us to support criminal organizations. This game we play of propping up a Middle Eastern dictator one day only to demand his ouster the next (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussein, etc.) clearly hasn’t altered the systemic problems that have long existed in those countries. If our cause is truly humanitarian, we should heed the International Crisis Group’s counsel, and avoid the further horror that would surely result from flooding Syria with our own bombs and weapons. 

04
Sep
Assuming the U.S. Congress authorises them, Washington (together with some allies) soon will launch military strikes against Syrian regime targets. If so, it will have taken such action for reasons largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people. The administration has cited the need to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons - a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict without this prompting much collective action in their defence. The administration also refers to the need, given President Obama’s asserted “redline” against use of chemical weapons, to protect Washington’s credibility - again an understandable objective though unlikely to resonate much with Syrians. Quite apart from talk of outrage, deterrence and restoring U.S. credibility, the priority must be the welfare of the Syrian people. Whether or not military strikes are ordered, this only can be achieved through imposition of a sustained ceasefire and widely accepted political transition.
03
Sep

Text of draft legislation submitted by Obama to Congress

jakke:

Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;

Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;

Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world’s population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;

Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

Whereas, the objective of the United States’ use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and

Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.

SEC. ___ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to —

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements. —

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements. — Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

So here’s actually what Obama is proposing. This is not necessarily just airstrikes and not limited to Syria in particular. Rather, this resolution looks quite a bit more like the post-9/11 authorization in terms of open-endedness.

The bit about the War Powers Resolution is intended to address previous legislation that says the President can’t do indefinite military actions without Congressional approval. (Short military actions are allowed, which is what most people thought Obama was planning before he started talking about Congressional approval.) So basically that part says that this is a formal authorization to carry out military actions and the time limit and related restrictions don’t apply.

Legislators are all talking about amending the resolution but it’s not clear how much support they’ll have. Expect the legislative process to begin next week, because (not even kidding) Congress members haven’t deigned to return from summer vacation to start talking about authorizing a war just yet.

If the planned attack is proportional…limited,” and “does not involve boots on the ground,” as the President keeps promising, then why isn’t similar language present in this proposal? Obama is promising restraint but requesting excessive power. 

03
Sep
On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said [Syrian President Bashar] Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.”
-

Remember Bashar Assad, ‘Reformer’?

OK, our Secretary of State may have once issued wildly inaccurate predictions about Assad, but he’s totally got a handle on the situation this time, you guys. Because if there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s knowing precisely what will happen in the Middle East.

31
Aug

Obama says U.S. will take military action against Syria, pending Congress's approval

This is a welcomed surprise that breaks an unfortunate precedent set by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Of course, seeking Congressional approval before going to war should be a matter of routine and it’s upsetting that Obama (now officially) believes it’s necessary to bomb Syria.

It’ll be interesting to see how Congress votes. Republicans will be forced to take some responsibility for a major foreign policy decision, rather than continue to reflexively condemn everything Obama does. And the ideological divide between the hawkish John McCain wing of the GOP and the noninterventionist Rand Paul coalition may produce some heated (and necessary) debates.

Elsewhere