|
|
To Our
Readers:
Syria is still
the big story as the
President pushes
forward on his
crusade to "punish"
Syria's President
Assad with a
ship-to-shore
Tomahawk missile
attack. The
President's
immediate push to
influence the votes
in Congress may be
interrupted by
breaking news.
As the facts
keep interfering
with the rhetoric,
President Obama may
have no choice but
to back off from his
plan to attack
Syria.
BREAKING
NEWS: Syria
Agrees to Puts
Its Chemical
Weapons Under
International
Control
September
9, 2013 by
Ilana
Freedman,
Editor
Today, following a
meeting between the
Russian and Syrian
Foreign Ministries
and their respective
staffs, Russia
announced that Syria
has accepted
Russia's plan to
place Syria's
chemical weapons
stores under
international
control. According
to our sources,
Syria agreed to the
terms in exchange
for increased aid to
strengthen the
Syrian military,
including the
introduction of
Russian Spetznaz
Commandos to aid in
counter-insurgency
against the rebels.
In a separate
statement, Syria's
Foreign Minister
Walid al-Moualem, in
Moscow for the
meeting, spoke on
behalf of Syrian
President Bashar
al-Assad's
government,
welcoming the
Russian proposal as
a means of averting
a US military strike
on Syrian targets.
This is likely to
take the wind out of
the sails of
President Obama's
plan to strike
Syrian targets as
punishment for the
chemical attack on a
suburb of Damascus.
Even as this meeting
was taking place,
the President was
preparing for
multiple television
appearances tonight,
and a major speech
to the American
people tomorrow to
convince them to
support his plan.
Meanwhile, the White
House has admitted
this morning that
they have NO irrefutable
proof that it was
the Assad government
that used chemical
weapons on August
21st. This should
make the President's
campaign to garner
support for his
strike plan even
more difficult, but
so far, his efforts
seem to still be on
schedule.
Even if the
Syrian-Russian
agreement enables a
graceful withdrawal
for Obama, the news
may be far too
little and far too
late. Opponents of
the US plan have
already begun to
mobilize.
In the eastern
Mediterranean, US,
Russian, and Chinese
squadrons have
converged along the
Syrian coast. It is
the largest show of
military power in
the region in forty
years.
Then there are
the terrorist groups
themselves. Jihadis
both inside and
beyond the borders
of Syria have been
empowered by
America's inability
to make a decision
about the attack and
the leaking of
battle plans has
given them the time
to make preparation
for reprisals.
Terrorist attacks on
US assets throughout
the world may be
attacked, whether or
not the US attack
ever takes place.
The terrorists live
by a code of
strength through
power, and President
Obama has shown
himself, in their
perspective, to be a
weak adversary and
worthy of attacks
upon the country he
is supposed to lead.
Read more
below:
It is a war no
one wants. Not our
allies, not the
American people, not
the Syrians. But for
President Barack
Obama a military
strike on Syria is
an imperative. He
has asked for
Congressional
authorization for
military
intervention in
Syria, but he has
made it clear that
if he doesn’t get
the approval from
Congress, he has the
authority to do it
on his own.
This is Obama’s war.
Last week, the
President tried to
win support from
foreign leaders at
the G20 meeting in
Russia, and came
home empty-handed.
He now takes his
message to Congress.
At the moment, his
prospects do not
look good for
approval, with
nearly 80% of the
American people
telling their
Congressmen to vote
“no”. But Obama is
now pulling out all
the stops, putting
pressure on the
leading Senators and
Congressmen in both
parties to support
his plan to strike
Syria.
Many people around
the world are
scratching their
heads, wondering
why, after ignoring
Syria for the past
two years, and with
all the domestic
issues currently
facing Washington,
the President should
suddenly embark on
this controversial
crusade. Since March
2011, over 120,000
people have died in
the violent
free-for-all between
hundreds of
anti-Assad fighting
groups and the
government of
President Bashar
Assad. Yet until
last month, the
President was
silent.
It was only after a
gas attack killed
hundreds of
civilians near
Damascus that he
took any apparent
interest at all.
Suddenly, with only
circumstantial
evidence in hand,
without waiting for
the conclusion of
the UN tests on the
gas that was used in
the attack, and
despite mounting
evidence that a
rebel group and not
Assad had
perpetrated the
attack, he has
unilaterally decided
that Assad gassed
his own people and
deserves to be
punished. He made up
his mind and he is
pushing hard.
Today, the White
House admitted that
they have NO
irrefutable Proof
that Assad used
Chemical Weapons on
August 21st.
Obama says that this
will be a “limited,
proportional
strike”, not a war.
But history and
reality remind us
that it is not the
side that strikes
the first blow who
gets to decide what
happens next, or how
long the
confrontation will
last. Obama does not
have the power to
decide what the
unintended
consequences may be.
It is the recipient
of the first strike
and its allies who
get to decide that.
It is
unreasonable to
assume that the
US can strike
Syria with up to
200 Tomahawk
missiles without
military
consequence. If
Syria, or
Hezbollah, or
Iran, or Russia
decides that a
military
response is
called for, the
resulting war
will proliferate
quickly and last
far longer than
the 48 hours
that the
President
anticipates. The
fallout could be
enormous.
And while the
world waits to see
what happens next,
the US naval task
force in the eastern
Mediterranean waits
for the order to
strike. They have been
joined by two large
Russian navy
squadrons, as well
as one Chinese
squadron, ostensibly
there to observe.
This is in addition
to the Israeli,
Lebanese, and
Egyptian naval
presence, plying
their home waters in
the eastern
Mediterranean. The
Russian force
includes two Russian
Naval Squadrons with
destroyers, tank
landing ships, and
submarines, as well
as the Russian spy
ship Priazovye. It is the
largest
concentration of
military might in
the region since
1973, and it would
take only a small
incident to ignite
the spark of
confrontation.
Russia has taken an
additional step, and
is beginning to
evacuate all
civilian, non
essential diplomatic
personnel, and
dependents from
Syria. All three
vessels have a
combined personnel
of approx 4,000
personnel. The
Russian volunteers
are staying. We take
this as an
indication Russia
expects heavy combat
in the region.
The President has
said that the US has
the ability to
identify the good
guys among the
“opposition”. But
referring to the
“opposition”, as
though it were a
single, cohesive
group, shows an
appalling lack of
understanding of the
reality in Syria
today. The so-called
“opposition” is
actually a deeply
fragmented
collection of
hundreds of fighting
groups with widely
differing agendas.
The only thing that
they all have in
common is their
interest in toppling
the Assad regime.
The next step for
many of them will be
the creation of an
Islamist state in
Syria.
Some of these
groups, like the
fierce al Nusrah,
are allied with al
Qaeda, some with the
Muslim Brotherhood,
and many are smaller
groups, manned by
jihadis who have
filtered into Syria
from Libya, Iraq,
Jordan, Afghanistan,
Egypt, and other
Muslim countries
throughout the
Middle East.
The US has given
open support to the
Free Syrian Army led
by Salim Idris. But
Idris and his
cohorts, who claim
to be fighting for a
democratic Syria,
have been tied to
kidnapping and the
trafficking of arms
and missiles to the
al Qaeda-linked al
Nusrah front.
To add to the
confusion, a second
group uses the same
name. Led by Col
Riad al Asa’ad, it
too claims to be
pro-West and
pro-democracy, but
receives no aid or
support at all from
the West. The great
difficulty that
Washington faces in
deciding who are the
good guys, and whom
we should be
supporting should
give Obama pause as
he prepares to go to
war again.
There is no black
and white in Syria
today. There are
only infinite shades
of gray, the dark,
cold violence of
terrorists fighting
against the people
of Syria, and the
impossibility of
knowing who is who.
The potential
consequences of a US
strike could be
catastrophic,
opening the
floodgates to a
cascade of
international
violence. The first
reaction might come
as the promised
strike against
Israel by Hezbollah
in Syria, using
Iran-supplied
missiles. An even
more powerful
military response
from Israel, an
attack by Turkey on
northern Syria, the
closure by Iran of
the Strait of Hormuz
to oil traffic, and
strikes between Iran
and Israel would
quickly draw the
rest of the world
into a war of
enormous
proportions.
The tiny spark of a
“limited,
proportional strike”
could easily become
a global
confrontation,
ignited by a
President who wants
his own war and
refuses to back
down. But if the
latest news,
reported at the
beginning of this
newsletter, succeeds
in deflating Obama's
campaign, the world
will be a little
safer tomorrow. But
damage has already
been done, and the
reaction already
triggered by the
President's loose
"red line" rhetoric
a year ago and his
campaign for an
attack on Syria will
have its
consequences. A
terrorist attack, in
reprisal for the
threats, may be an
unintended
consequence of
Obama's war.
___________
Ilana
Freedman is a
veteran
intelligence
analyst who
specializes in
terrorism
emanating from
the Middle East.
http://gerarddirect.com/2013/09/09/breaking-news-syria-agrees-to-puts-its-chemical-weapons-under-international-control/
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment