Chemical Attacks in Syria Cause Obama to Draw Red Line in the Sand

[Draggingtree]

:

by Fred DeRuvo

Chemical Attacks in Syria Cause Obama to Draw Red Line in the Sand

Did Syria really use chemical weapons or is it simply being made to look that way?

I read an article today by Doug Hagmann of Canada Free Press. In it, he shares with us information he says he received from one of his “insiders.” The information specifically notes that the recent chemical attacks in Syria were most likely not done by Assad’s forces even though that’s what we’re told to believe. According to the insider, it’s all part of a magic show to delude people and the media plays willingly along.

 

There are some facts related to the Syrian situation that make a strong case for the fact that the chemical attack was not done by Assad’s forces. “The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for a while. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat?”

 

[Draggingtree]

26Aug

On Hill, deep skepticism about Syria entanglement

Politico:

Despite mounting evidence that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on his people, many members of Congress still don’t see a role for the United States military in Syria.

 

A raft of Republican and Democratic lawmakers — including those directly involved in intelligence oversight — think the U.S. would be wise to take a pass on military intervention in the war-torn country.

 

Their line of thinking goes like this: Sending in U.S. troops now is too late, too dangerous, too pricey and not guaranteed to be successful. And a bombing campaign won’t do enough. There’s also the fear that the U.S. does not know who would lead Syria if Assad falls.

 

“Syria is too far gone to pick sides,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who taught at West Point. “The rebels are infiltrated with Al Qaeda. Assad has joined the ranks of history’s most evil despots in what he’s willing to do to stay in power.

 

http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/on-hill-deep-skepticism-about-syria-entanglement/

[Draggingtree]

Syria will require more than cruise missiles

Eliot A. Cohen:

 

In 1994, after directing the U.S. Air Force’s official study of the Persian Gulf War, I concluded, “Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength, in part because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer gratification without commitment.” That observation stands. It explains the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for a massive,drone-led assassination campaign against al-Qaeda terrorists. And it applies with particular force to a prospective, U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government in response to its use ofchemical weapons against a civilian population.

 

President Obama has boxed himself in. He can no longer ignore his own proclamation of a “red line.” The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breach of proper civil-military relations, has publicly telegraphed his skepticism about any use of force in Syria. But the scale, openness and callousness of the Syrian government’s breaking of an important taboo seems likely to compel this president — so proud of his record as a putative war-ender — to launch the warplanes yet again in the Middle East.

 

The temptation here is to follow the Clinton administration’s course — a futile salvo of cruise missiles, followed by self-congratulation and an attempt to change the topic. http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/syria-will-require-more-than-cruise-missiles/

[Draggingtree]

Obama’s third war: The folly of striking Syria

 

Posted by Jammie on Aug 27, 2013 at 6:41 am

 

You might as well try to teach a snake to juggle as hope the Obama administration will think strategically. The “peace president” is about to embark on his third military adventure, this time in Syria, without having learned the lessons of his botched efforts in Afghanistan and Libya. He hasn’t even learned from the Bush administration’s mistakes — which he mocked with such delight.

 

Before launching a single cruise missile toward Syria, Team Obama needs to be sure it has a good answer to the question, “What comes next?”

 

If Obama does a Clinton and churns up some sand with do-nothing cruise-missile strikes, it will only encourage the Assad regime. But if our president hits Assad hard and precipitates regime change, then what?

http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/obamas-third-war-the-folly-of-striking-syria/

[SrWoodchuck]

Is he "drawing his line in the sand" with his peace prize? Right now, Al Nusra, Hezbollah & Assad's troops are killing each other, with lines changing daily. The gas attack came at the same time that US/Jordanian trained troops crossed the line into Syria & started driving back the Assad lines. We want to repeat Libya & lob our expensive Tomahawks into this? Insane.