Credibility Boost

From an NYTimes article:

United Nations weapons inspectors left Syria for Lebanon on Saturday as the Obama administration made an aggressive and coordinated push to justify a military intervention on the grounds that American credibility was at stake.

American . . . what was at stake? And since when do you improve your credibility by bombing people?

This isn’t foreign policy. This is a completely irresponsible and stupid approach that will cost us all very dearly. At this point, it feels like Obama is simply laughing in our faces.

Rate this:

26 responses to “Credibility Boost”

August 31, 2013

Do you have some thoughts about the real reasons the intervention will be good for US and Israeli interests?

Btw, Assad does seem to use chemical weapons. If it’s true, should nothing be done? The world did nothing during Holocaust, at which point should others interfere, when a dictator is killing his own people and makes thousands refugees? I know there are many differences between Holocaust and today’s Syria, but asking how far would/should not-toothless UN let Assad go in his attacks.

LikeLike

Stringer Bell

August 31, 2013

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/little-kerry/40a106cbceaf3ff85cc0f67952513459da9f8f6c/

LikeLike

Reply
1. el
  
  August 31, 2013
  
  Thank you for the link. Can non subscribers read any full articles on that site? May be a few hours after publishing or, on the contrary, old articles? Any other good sources of news for free that you can recommend?
  
  On the whole, the article is very good. I loved understanding more about Alawite – Sunni conflict. However, I can’t believe with what the author sees as the main reason for the attack. Quote:
  
  —————
  The three options the US has are:
  
  Attack the Alawites’ forces decisively, with the goal of seriously weakening Assad’s ability to make war;
  Stage a pure FX attack, with lots of noise and explosions but no effect on the Alawites’ military power;
  Do nothing.
  
  It’s obvious that #3, “Do nothing,” is the right option, like it has been all along. It’s starting to look like even Obama’s mentally-confused team of Imperialist do-gooders realizes that. But if they had the guts to do nothing, after making all this belligerent noise about red lines, they’d look stupid. They’d be laughed at. Worst of all, from a DC insider’s view, the people who really count, the Saudis and the Israelis, would be un-pleased.
  
  That’s the big twosome in DC lobbies, Saudi and Israel. […] It would take an administration much braver than this one to oppose Saudi and Israel combined. So you probably don’t have to worry about the US doing nothing.
  ——————
  
  Because of two lobbies, US, the only empire among the three, will stage an attack that won’t change anything anyway? Naturally, both Saudis and Israel will understand it was pure noise, so why should they be much happier than in “Do nothing” case anyway?
  
  I can’t believe US will attack because of Israel and Saudis. Hopefully, Israel’s lobby wasn’t blamed for Bush invading Iraq too? Or have I been fortunate to miss this until now?
  
  Another quote made me think of something:
  
  ————
  When the Sunni revolted against Alawite domination in Hama in 1982, one of the slogans of the Syrian Ikhwan or Muslim Brotherhood was “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the graveyard.” The SAA dealt with the revolt by blasting rebellious neighborhoods with artillery, killing thousands.
  ———-
  
  We’re supposed to believe this slogan (which I do fully!), yet when Hamas makes all kinds of declarations about Israel, many demand from Israel not take it literally. For example, support Palestinian state, even if we, the Israelis, hear that the other side won’t see it as the final solution to the conflict.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    August 31, 2013
    
    I still believe that the lobby which is pushing Obama into this is the military-industrial lobby right here in the US. All of these Blockhead Martins made out like bandits in Iraq robbing the taxpayers blind. So they want the repeat.
    
    The Saudi lobby was super strong during the Bush administration but he had personal family connections. Israel lobby doesn’t seem to gain much from this war.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. el
  
  August 31, 2013
  
  Btw, in Israeli press along with articles about Israel’s need not to interfere and articles about desire at least make a moral statement against Assad’s deeds, there are numerous articles about Assad probably being the best among bad choices. We have had years of calm on the border with Syria under Assad, after him this calm will most likely be broken. Why should Israel want Assad to go so much?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
3. el
  
  August 31, 2013
  
  I watched an Israeli weekly TV news program and (probably) got the answer why Israel may be against Assad staying. The expert said that no matter whether Assad stays or not, what we have known as “Assad” won’t be there any longer. The new Assad will be indebted to Iran and, in practice, Israel will get Iran on Syrian border too, in addition to Hezbollah in Lebanon. I guess the quiet Syrian border may become a memory soon, no matter who wins. 😦
  
  Also, they showed Palestinians, whose living in Syria relatives were killed by Assad’s chemical attack.
  
  // Hopefully, Israel’s lobby wasn’t blamed for Bush invading Iraq too? Or have I been fortunate to miss this until now?
  
  And interviewed a Palestinian politician (who lives abroad, forgot whom) who blamed Israel for pushing US to attack Iraq and now Syria. But I still don’t believe US attacked Iraq or will attack Syria because of Israel as its’ main reason. US isn’t Israel’s lapdog or servant, it’s a much stronger country who sticks to what it sees as its own interests.
  
  There is also another factor here: for Palestinians blaming Israel, and not Assad for example, is The safe option. The news program also mentioned Syrian Palestinians trying not to join sides out of fear.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
4. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 31, 2013
  
  Great article! I especially like the description of Obama.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

August 31, 2013

US report: Assad’s responsible for nerve gas attack
Report concludes with ‘high degree of confidence’ that Assad fired missiles carrying nerve gas at Damascus suburbs, killing 1,429 people. Read in full
…
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared with the US Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the US Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place.
…
We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4424387,00.html

LikeLike

Wirbelwind

August 31, 2013

Obama’s greatest achievement: Putin starts to look like the only sane man. Did I mention that Russians want to petition Norwegian Nobel Committee to take away Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize in case he attacks Syria ?
Seriously, this is all a joke. It’s the same pattern we’ve seen in Iraq: big bad government kills its citizens with chemical weapons, has weapons of mass destruction and it needs to be overthrown. Then, after American troops bring “peace and democracy” they congratulate themselves and withdraw, leaving a hellhole where hundreds of people die daily in a complete anarchy.
For Americans bombs are not scary because they were never bombed; they never had enemy armor crushing their cities; they never had white phosphorous, napalm or siege artillery “bringing democracy” to them. What America needs is a serious war on their own territory that will finally wake them up.

LikeLike

Stille (@aperfectbalance)

August 31, 2013

Frankly, I’d rather they learned this lesson without the need for a war on their own territory 😦

LikeLike

Reply

Benoni

August 31, 2013

To be fair, David Cameron’s lost a lot of supporters over his inability to get parliament to agree to war, and there have been interviews with Syrians on the radio who’ve accused Britain of failing them. So maybe I can see where the credibility thing came from.

LikeLike

August 31, 2013

I flinch every time it’s discussed on the radio or tv. Some of our politicians are saying unbelievably stupid things, ‘teach Assad a lesson’ etc and I find myself wondering if they could hear themselves, whether they’d realise how fatuous they sound, or whether they’ve got their heads so far up their collective echo chamber that they really think they are making sense.
One particular Conservative mp was on tv last night talking about delivering surgical strikes and giving Assad a short sharp shock, without destabilising the region or interfering with the balance of power. Yet unless the surgical strike actually hits Assad, he’s not going to care. And that is de facto ruled out, but he couldn’t seem to see the incongruity, nor could he answer how exactly bombing the Syrian people was going to make their lives better.

LikeLike

Hattie

August 31, 2013

Amy Goodman says put it up to a vote in Congress. Let’s see who votes for and against this action and make them take responsibility.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

August 31, 2013

I don’t think the Congress will even support this war.

LikeLike

Reply

August 31, 2013

// I still believe that the lobby which is pushing Obama into this is the military-industrial lobby right here in the US.

Oh! I see the connection with:

“The powerful urge to find a scapegoat for the disturbing images of US poverty makes people search for the extraneous, foreign body within their society that can be blamed for all of the existing ills.”

Only exchange the word “poverty” for “escapades abroad” and put Israeli and Saudi lobbies as the foreign bodies, and you’ll get Gary Brecher’s analysis of reasons for future attack (the article is very worth reading anyway, but in this point he misses the mark). It can’t be our own local lobby, must be foreign ones.

Who is to blame? Those are the all-capable Jews, sorry, it’s called Israelis today. Super powerful and with much more influence over US than all US’s other partners.

// Obama’s greatest achievement: Putin starts to look like the only sane man.

After watching this news program, turns out Putin is even saner than it may seem. The expert on Russia told that:

1 – Putin said Russia won’t interfere in the Syrian war (f.e. if US attacks)

2 – Unlike Obama, who put himself in a corner with his red line, Putin only warned of consequences, without specifying. May be, those are consequences from God, or concerns about moral position in the realm of Ideas. 🙂

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

August 31, 2013

I happen to believe that the extent of Israel’s influence on US politics is highly overrated. It serves the US purposes that have a conflict endlessly brewing in the Middle East, so it ensures the conflict continues. The moment it stops being useful, Israel will be told to go stuff itself. There is absolutely no reason for the US to care about Israel or Israel’s interests aside from the need to hassle the Middle East all the time.

LikeLike

Reply

Titfortat

August 31, 2013

This pretty much sums it up in regards to any war America partakes itself in.

LikeLike

Stringer Bell

September 1, 2013

“I happen to believe that the extent of Israel’s influence on US politics is highly overrated.”

To be overrated, it must first be rated. Apart from maybe some progressive blogs, you don’t hear anything about this at all. Not on MSNBC, or Fox news, or CNN, or any national newspaper or magazine. This is probably the one issue that unites media across the political spectrum. Where are you hearing about it?/

LikeLike

el

September 1, 2013

Do you hear much about the influence of US own lobbies, like the military-industrial US lobby? What about other countries’ lobbies, except Israeli (and Saudi in this article)?

LikeLike

Reply
1. Stringer Bell
  
  September 1, 2013
  
  All the time. There’s the auto lobby, the gun lobby, tobacco lobby, etc. that are routinely bashed (or celebrated depending on the network’s political stance).
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
el

September 1, 2013

I mean you can’t honestly rate Israeli lobby’s influence, without checking other lobbies (probably) working for the same goal(s) and other factors, unconnected to lobbies too, like Obama – his advisers – Congress opinions.

LikeLike

Reply
bloggerclarissa

September 1, 2013

I find the existence of a powerful Israel lobby hard to believe because I can’t find any logic to the idea. A lobby needs to be able to exercise pressure or offer something to have influence. Israel has nothing: no natural resources, no important allies, no capacity even to survive without the US and the constant stream of money flowing from North America. What arguments can it offer to exercise pressure? “We will stop hassling Arabs if you don’t help us”? That will surely be hugely believable.

LikeLike

Reply

September 1, 2013

I Google translated from Hebrew news site:

———-
How to tie a vote on Capitol Hill in Israel?
Israel is perhaps holds a trump card President Obama. Even in the larger political disputes, overwhelming support for Israel is perhaps one of the few things that unites Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill in Washington. Tonight Obama formally submitted the draft resolution on the Syrian military assault for Congress endorsement. Draft, if approved, authorize Obama to use U.S. military forces to attack Syria to prevent additional cases of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

The draft says the military operation is intended to maintain national security of U.S. and U.S. allies from danger of chemical weapons. The White House said punishing Assad and reducing his power are important for the security of Israel from the threat of chemical weapons, which might fall into the hands of terrorist organizations.
—————

Israel may want the attack. But the real reason for it is Obama’s and others’ desires. Israel and other countries are mentioned / used as a tool for Obama’s goals.

I have also found an interesting article:

————
Although [Obama] insisted the action would be limited “in duration and scope”, the stated goal to “prevent or deter” chemical weapons is unlikely to simply include airstrikes. That’s what his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said in a letter outlining his independent evaluation to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on the use of military force in Syria on July 19.

The option of controlling chemical weapons in Syria would be done, Dempsey explained, by destroying “portions of Syria’s massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components.” To achieve that, the minimum requirement would necessitate a no-fly zone “as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers.”

But that’s not all. Dempsey added that “thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites.” A price tag was also included: An average cost of more than one billion dollars a month.
———–

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101001802

LikeLike

Stringer Bell

September 1, 2013

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/

It’s come to this point where a satire site has better analysis of the situation than the so called middle east experts in the media and the administration calling for war.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

September 1, 2013

It is scary how this satire is completely correct in every word of its analysis. But Obama seems too far gone to see the obvious.

I can’t believe how duped we have all been by him.

LikeLike

Reply

Stringer Bell

September 2, 2013

Interesting article on all that hand-wringing going on about chemical weapons.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/kerry-s-chem-speech-old-school-empire/4449cc409f85fc997286a3c897e69d51697c6c11/

“That’s where the “chemical weapons” aspect of the El Ghouta attack comes in. The SAA has been killing Sunni civilians in huge numbers, to the absolute best of its ability, for more than two years. And that hasn’t really bothered anyone except other Sunni Muslims, other members of the same extended family.

The reason we were all fine with those deaths is that they were carried out with the kind of weapons we like and trust: Aircraft and missiles. One constant for war news across my whole life is that nobody minds what you do as long as you do it from a fighter jet. Those jets are very, very expensive—not just to buy but to maintain, because they’re as fragile as racehorses. So only the big boys, the powers we consider legit, can use them.”

LikeLike

Clarissa's Blog