Obama: I will not go into a long-term conflict in Syria, as happened in Iraq

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

 

The United States of America was attacked and her Patriots murdered when Benghazi was struck

by radical islamist terror forces we are at war with.

 

If hobummer did not consider THAT event worthy of retaliation, he has NO justification to attack Syria.

 

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  EOS.

Edited August 31, 2013 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[Bunk]

  Asked while golfing , President Obama gave this look when asked about the seriousness of the situation in Syria ...

[zigmeister]

Thanks much for the update Yota !!!! Grabs forehead, I'm not at all liking the direction this is seemingly headed.... not even remotely.... 

 

There is a lot of ... I'm not sure how to characterize it.... but there is a lot of it.... misconstrued, perhaps misunderstood, or at best mistakenly communicated information floating about several topics this evening as to how decisions are made about military strategic movement. Certainly military folk who served in uniform get it, but its perhaps not all that clear to those who have not, or who are related to military members. For whatever reason, some folks in some of the threads are suggesting that because the POTUS is the commander in chief, that he is somehow the actual person running the war room. That's not the case. He will of course make the final decision, and it will be based upon the information he gets (how ever messed up, wrong, misdirected or agenda driven it is, .... in the end, it will be the information upon which he will rest the ultimate decision). 

However, he is not the one running the war room.... that would be like saying Meg whats her name, was running the bidding on Ebay.... For those interested in the structure.... here is a brief structure:

 

 

Directions for military operations emanate from the National Command Authority, a term used to collectively describe the President and the Secretary of Defense.  The President, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is the ultimate authority. The Office of the Secretary of Defense carries out the Secretary’s policies by tasking the military departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified commands.

• The military departments train and equip the military forces.

• The Chairman plans and coordinates military deployments and operations.

• The unified commands conduct the military operations.

 

 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense helps the Secretary plan, advise, and carry out the nation’s security policies as directed by both the Secretary of Defense and the President.

Four key advisers work with the Secretary of Defense in critical areas of policy, finance, force readiness, and purchasing.

Basically, they manage ideas, money, people, and material.

 

 

An all-service, or “joint” service office supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his capacity as the principal military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense.

Its “board of directors” consists of the Chairman, his deputy, the Vice Chairman, and the four-star heads of the four military services.

The Chairman plans and coordinates military operations involving U.S. forces and as such is responsible for the operation of the National Military Command Center, commonly referred to as the “war room,” from where all U.S. military operations are directed.  He meets regularly with the four Service chiefs to resolve issues and coordinate joint service activities.

 

 

The unified commanders are the direct link from the military forces to the President and the Secretary of Defense.

• Five commanders have geographical responsibilities.

• Four commanders have worldwide responsibilities.

The Secretary of Defense exercises his authority over how the military is trained and equipped through the Service secretaries; but uses a totally different method to exercise his authority to deploy troops and exercise military power.  This latter authority is directed, with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the nine unified commands.

 

Central Command oversees the balance of the Mid-East, parts of Africa and west Asia, and part of the Indian Ocean.

 

Special Operations Command provides counter-paramilitary, counter-narcotics, guerilla, psychological warfare, civil education, and insurgency capabilities in support of U.S. national and international interests. Special Operations Command is responsible for special military support.

 

 

And this is the very top level of commands.... You can only imagine with so many players at higher  levels trickling down the structure of command levels to the ground, the exponential possibility for error... 

 

Personally, I am not liking the tone of the stuff you posted Yota... not even a tiny teeny bit..... 

My guess is there are more than a few of us who are likely shifting priorities .... or taking a close look at them,  this fine Labor Day Holiday.... 

 

Have a great holiday if you can everyone !!!! 

 

Blessings ~~

Thanks Rayzor excellent post!  I think the US will chill for now and wait for further investigation.  I can hardly believe they would move without their age old ally GB.   Putin made a good debate to the US.  In many ways this rush to judgement by Pres. Obama is out of character to me.

[bahamamama]

The good ol US of A needs to stay out of this dance. The old girl needs a much-needed break.

[Rayzur]

Thanks Rayzor excellent post!  I think the US will chill for now and wait for further investigation.  I can hardly believe they would move without their age old ally GB.   Putin made a good debate to the US.  In many ways this rush to judgement by Pres. Obama is out of character to me.

 

Ziggy, 

Its definitely interesting that France has jumped aboard on this one and the UK is out. When I don't have availability of information via briefings, or am not in a place to share that, I try to go to sites that sponsor people who are recognized as journalists (versus reporters) in effort to get some degree of objectivity absent the need for over stated sensationalism. Honestly, there are times I think the sensationalistic people drive some of the mess we find ourselves in... In any event, I found this article very interesting:

 

 

Iraq Caught Many Off-Guard. Don't go into that same dazed unconscious fugue this time. This time, there should be no confusion as to the process leading up to this probable strike against Syria. What remains however confusing, is that many American people are not recognizing that the very same template for attack is being used as was used by former administrations, absent very little notable change in the game plan. At what point do the American people gather the voice to be heard saying "enough!".

 

 

Attack Syria First, Get Facts Later

 

Secretary of State Kerry’s move to shut down or preempt a UN probe of alleged chemical weapons attacks inside Syria suggests that the US doesn’t want facts to undermine its case for launching a retaliatory strike, an attitude reminiscent of George W. Bush’s behavior on Iraq, Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service.

 

 

 

After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its investigation.

 

The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the UN, was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Monday and was effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.

 

In his press appearance on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the UN investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.

 

The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the UN investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the UN as hindering its plans for an attack.

 

Kerry asserted that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-UN deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.

 

After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely. The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”

 

But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle,” the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.

 

The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”

 

The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.

 

That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post on Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.

 

“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”

 

Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence.”

 

Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay,” the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York on Tuesday.

 

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.

 

UN spokesman Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident. “Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.

 

Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.

 

Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.

 

“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed. Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.

 

Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.” Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.

 

Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.

 

But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.

 

The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.

 

The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.

 

In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.

 

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the US war in Afghanistan. [This article was originally published by Inter Press Service.]

[zigmeister]

Ziggy, 

Its definitely interesting that France has jumped aboard on this one and the UK is out. When I don't have availability of information via briefings, or am not in a place to share that, I try to go to sites that sponsor people who are recognized as journalists (versus reporters) in effort to get some degree of objectivity absent the need for over stated sensationalism. Honestly, there are times I think the sensationalistic people drive some of the mess we find ourselves in... In any event, I found this article very interesting:

 

 

Iraq Caught Many Off-Guard. Don't go into that same dazed unconscious fugue this time. This time, there should be no confusion as to the process leading up to this probable strike against Syria. What remains however confusing, is that many American people are not recognizing that the very same template for attack is being used as was used by former administrations, absent very little notable change in the game plan. At what point do the American people gather the voice to be heard saying "enough!".

 

 

Attack Syria First, Get Facts Later

 

Secretary of State Kerry’s move to shut down or preempt a UN probe of alleged chemical weapons attacks inside Syria suggests that the US doesn’t want facts to undermine its case for launching a retaliatory strike, an attitude reminiscent of George W. Bush’s behavior on Iraq, Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service.

 

 

 

After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its investigation.

 

The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the UN, was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Monday and was effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.

 

In his press appearance on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the UN investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.

 

The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the UN investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the UN as hindering its plans for an attack.

 

Kerry asserted that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-UN deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.

 

After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely. The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”

 

But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle,” the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.

 

The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”

 

The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.

 

That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post on Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.

 

“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”

 

Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence.”

 

Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay,” the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York on Tuesday.

 

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.

 

UN spokesman Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident. “Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.

 

Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.

 

Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.

 

“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed. Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.

 

Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.” Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.

 

Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.

 

But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.

 

The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.

 

The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.

 

In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.

 

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the US war in Afghanistan. [This article was originally published by Inter Press Service.]

Thanks Rayzor, this is an interesting article and much appreciated find for a solid reporter.  His article leaves many questions in this devastating event.  My stomach lurched, "The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack."  The question begs to be asked, if the US knows it is not nerve gas, then what it is it and who really is responsible?   Unfortunately I am not surprised if this indeed becomes a fact.  

 

What surprises me, (and please anyone who wants to get into a political debate on their dislike of President Obama, I won't respond.  Intelligent debate is one thing, the tirade of he is the devil not worth my time.)  What surprises me is President Obama's change in approach to war like behavior.   He did get the Nobel Peace Prize, and he disdained the approach to Iraq by the Bush administration.  

[Rayzur]

 

 

What surprises me, (and please anyone who wants to get into a political debate on their dislike of President Obama, I won't respond.  Intelligent debate is one thing, the tirade of he is the devil not worth my time.)  What surprises me is President Obama's change in approach to war like behavior.   He did get the Nobel Peace Prize, and he disdained the approach to Iraq by the Bush administration.  

 

There have been a couple of interesting reversals. I remember before he was first elected him saying he was going to get us out of Afghanistan immediately. And I remember thinking... oops, wait until he gets that briefing. And sure enough, ( I think it was literally the day after his election), he went into all the briefings (with information believe it or not, that he had not been privy to as a candidate), and upon exit from that briefing, he never said that again. Of course I understood why, and to some it probably looked like he was simply changing his course (versus he got the 411 and thereafter understood why that could not happen). 

And like you, I have no interest in political bashing debate. I can't think of much that would be a greater waste of time. For those not clear, I am not a loyalist to either of the two parties (or their off shoots) and instead have sworn loyalty to protect the Constitution. Apart from that, I don't care what bozo is in office versus the other bozo that could be there. Mine is about protecting the core against breach. That said, here is what I think might be happening:

 

Certain countries of the ME have been doing everything but handstands trying to get the US into that particular part of the ME. There was a ton of baiting before the last election, in hopes we would step in. O has been fairly clear that he has no interest in going in, and the amount of incredibly bogus info that was put out prior to the last election to get him/US involved was like stunning. It was like jaw dropping... Like, are you (ME country) really really going to say that?!!! Anyway, it didn't work and the US stayed out of it. 

There are/were nonetheless continued attempts to entice, or incite or provoke the US into going into that area of the ME. O is doing the tap dance around very dicey stuff to keep US out. Anyone with a molecule over a moron, knows we don't need to be stepping in there and there are some who know why we don't need to be stepping in there. 

So he continues to do a very dicey tap dance around all this provocative stuff challenging him, and is able to steer clear for over a year. I was off grid, or elsewhere preoccupied and don't factually know what events led up to his being backed into a corner, from which he emerged by saying something along the lines of "we'll go in if they use chemical weapons" or something to that effect. 

I'm not going to second guess the command of anyone... it pizzes me off when that's done to me absent all the facts.... so I am not going to do it now to another. That said however, in hindsight, I would suggest that he gave those with an agenda of US presence in that area, everything they needed to know in order to provoke us into deployment. He said it out loud, in public, as the POTUS.... And as the POTUS, he is not in such a great spot as the leader of a super power to easily back down from those words. 

Assad is many things... but he is not stupid. He doesn't want US military presence in his country. I do not see anything in his behavior, command, nature or historical strategy that suggests he would order the use of chemical weapons in meeting the challenge of another executive leader, so as to invoke their military presence. That's just my opinion and analysis. 

 

Up to this point, objectively speaking as to the process leading up to this, I get it. I get it totally and it makes sense as a process given the underlying events framing it.  What I don't get is what's been going on the past few weeks. 

I don't yet have information or clarity as to why this was not spun differently. Meaning, intelligence is kind of like statistics or the Bible, you can make it say anything you want to in support of a particular position. Especially so in an event of so many unknowns. But what I don't know is why wasn't this spun as a factional rebel attack (maybe that's why the US didn't want the Un in there). Why was the probable event of a strike known before the UN even stepped onto Syrian soil. In short, why were not the events of the past weeks spun so as to continue to avoid US military action on Syrian soil? Why are they being portrayed instead to seemingly all point to an inevitable strike? There is so much that has been done and can continue being done to present factors that suggest we stay out of military action in Syria. Why is that now being discontinued? (I'm also curious as to why we're not hearing much from the Secretary of Defense)? 

 

It seems something changed or more likely spun out of the ability of probable control. Something is not connecting at this point, especially so in face of going toe to toe with Russia (who now seems to be gently and every so quietly softly backing away from the hard line laid a few days ago). I guess my bottom line question is why was this not spun differently, and in a way that would result in the US backing down and away. 

 

Remember when you were a kid playing the game telephone and you'd whisper the British are Coming into the ear of the guy next to you and by the time it made it all the way around the room, it was repeated as Corning Ware is made in Briton? Someone needs to whisper with greater articulation into the ear of the executive leader sitting next to him..... 

[Maggie123]

Thank You for the great conversation and good questions Ziggie and Rayzur. Appreciate you both.

 

Rayzur those were some very good articles that you posted!    Thanks Again.

[zigmeister]

There have been a couple of interesting reversals. I remember before he was first elected him saying he was going to get us out of Afghanistan immediately. And I remember thinking... oops, wait until he gets that briefing. And sure enough, ( I think it was literally the day after his election), he went into all the briefings (with information believe it or not, that he had not been privy to as a candidate), and upon exit from that briefing, he never said that again. Of course I understood why, and to some it probably looked like he was simply changing his course (versus he got the 411 and thereafter understood why that could not happen). 

And like you, I have no interest in political bashing debate. I can't think of much that would be a greater waste of time. For those not clear, I am not a loyalist to either of the two parties (or their off shoots) and instead have sworn loyalty to protect the Constitution. Apart from that, I don't care what bozo is in office versus the other bozo that could be there. Mine is about protecting the core against breach. That said, here is what I think might be happening:

 

Certain countries of the ME have been doing everything but handstands trying to get the US into that particular part of the ME. There was a ton of baiting before the last election, in hopes we would step in. O has been fairly clear that he has no interest in going in, and the amount of incredibly bogus info that was put out prior to the last election to get him/US involved was like stunning. It was like jaw dropping... Like, are you (ME country) really really going to say that?!!! Anyway, it didn't work and the US stayed out of it. 

There are/were nonetheless continued attempts to entice, or incite or provoke the US into going into that area of the ME. O is doing the tap dance around very dicey stuff to keep US out. Anyone with a molecule over a moron, knows we don't need to be stepping in there and there are some who know why we don't need to be stepping in there. 

So he continues to do a very dicey tap dance around all this provocative stuff challenging him, and is able to steer clear for over a year. I was off grid, or elsewhere preoccupied and don't factually know what events led up to his being backed into a corner, from which he emerged by saying something along the lines of "we'll go in if they use chemical weapons" or something to that effect. 

I'm not going to second guess the command of anyone... it pizzes me off when that's done to me absent all the facts.... so I am not going to do it now to another. That said however, in hindsight, I would suggest that he gave those with an agenda of US presence in that area, everything they needed to know in order to provoke us into deployment. He said it out loud, in public, as the POTUS.... And as the POTUS, he is not in such a great spot as the leader of a super power to easily back down from those words. 

Assad is many things... but he is not stupid. He doesn't want US military presence in his country. I do not see anything in his behavior, command, nature or historical strategy that suggests he would order the use of chemical weapons in meeting the challenge of another executive leader, so as to invoke their military presence. That's just my opinion and analysis. 

 

Up to this point, objectively speaking as to the process leading up to this, I get it. I get it totally and it makes sense as a process given the underlying events framing it.  What I don't get is what's been going on the past few weeks. 

I don't yet have information or clarity as to why this was not spun differently. Meaning, intelligence is kind of like statistics or the Bible, you can make it say anything you want to in support of a particular position. Especially so in an event of so many unknowns. But what I don't know is why wasn't this spun as a factional rebel attack (maybe that's why the US didn't want the Un in there). Why was the probable event of a strike known before the UN even stepped onto Syrian soil. In short, why were not the events of the past weeks spun so as to continue to avoid US military action on Syrian soil? Why are they being portrayed instead to seemingly all point to an inevitable strike? There is so much that has been done and can continue being done to present factors that suggest we stay out of military action in Syria. Why is that now being discontinued? (I'm also curious as to why we're not hearing much from the Secretary of Defense)? 

 

It seems something changed or more likely spun out of the ability of probable control. Something is not connecting at this point, especially so in face of going toe to toe with Russia (who now seems to be gently and every so quietly softly backing away from the hard line laid a few days ago). I guess my bottom line question is why was this not spun differently, and in a way that would result in the US backing down and away. 

 

Remember when you were a kid playing the game telephone and you'd whisper the British are Coming into the ear of the guy next to you and by the time it made it all the way around the room, it was repeated as Corning Ware is made in Briton? Someone needs to whisper with greater articulation into the ear of the executive leader sitting next to him..... 

Excellent thoughts, so appreciate of you Rayzor!  I worked on a response for a half hour and screwed it up....lost it all.  Then out to dinner....will respond tomorrow.  You make me think of scenario's I would like to run by you.  Too tired now.

Thank You for the great conversation and good questions Ziggie and Rayzur. Appreciate you both.

 

Rayzur those were some very good articles that you posted!    Thanks Again.

Thank you Maggie...you are a sweet and kind soul.

[zigmeister]

There have been a couple of interesting reversals. I remember before he was first elected him saying he was going to get us out of Afghanistan immediately. And I remember thinking... oops, wait until he gets that briefing. And sure enough, ( I think it was literally the day after his election), he went into all the briefings (with information believe it or not, that he had not been privy to as a candidate), and upon exit from that briefing, he never said that again. Of course I understood why, and to some it probably looked like he was simply changing his course (versus he got the 411 and thereafter understood why that could not happen). 

And like you, I have no interest in political bashing debate. I can't think of much that would be a greater waste of time. For those not clear, I am not a loyalist to either of the two parties (or their off shoots) and instead have sworn loyalty to protect the Constitution. Apart from that, I don't care what bozo is in office versus the other bozo that could be there. Mine is about protecting the core against breach. That said, here is what I think might be happening:

 

Certain countries of the ME have been doing everything but handstands trying to get the US into that particular part of the ME. There was a ton of baiting before the last election, in hopes we would step in. O has been fairly clear that he has no interest in going in, and the amount of incredibly bogus info that was put out prior to the last election to get him/US involved was like stunning. It was like jaw dropping... Like, are you (ME country) really really going to say that?!!! Anyway, it didn't work and the US stayed out of it. 

There are/were nonetheless continued attempts to entice, or incite or provoke the US into going into that area of the ME. O is doing the tap dance around very dicey stuff to keep US out. Anyone with a molecule over a moron, knows we don't need to be stepping in there and there are some who know why we don't need to be stepping in there. 

So he continues to do a very dicey tap dance around all this provocative stuff challenging him, and is able to steer clear for over a year. I was off grid, or elsewhere preoccupied and don't factually know what events led up to his being backed into a corner, from which he emerged by saying something along the lines of "we'll go in if they use chemical weapons" or something to that effect. 

I'm not going to second guess the command of anyone... it pizzes me off when that's done to me absent all the facts.... so I am not going to do it now to another. That said however, in hindsight, I would suggest that he gave those with an agenda of US presence in that area, everything they needed to know in order to provoke us into deployment. He said it out loud, in public, as the POTUS.... And as the POTUS, he is not in such a great spot as the leader of a super power to easily back down from those words. 

Assad is many things... but he is not stupid. He doesn't want US military presence in his country. I do not see anything in his behavior, command, nature or historical strategy that suggests he would order the use of chemical weapons in meeting the challenge of another executive leader, so as to invoke their military presence. That's just my opinion and analysis. 

 

Up to this point, objectively speaking as to the process leading up to this, I get it. I get it totally and it makes sense as a process given the underlying events framing it.  What I don't get is what's been going on the past few weeks. 

I don't yet have information or clarity as to why this was not spun differently. Meaning, intelligence is kind of like statistics or the Bible, you can make it say anything you want to in support of a particular position. Especially so in an event of so many unknowns. But what I don't know is why wasn't this spun as a factional rebel attack (maybe that's why the US didn't want the Un in there). Why was the probable event of a strike known before the UN even stepped onto Syrian soil. In short, why were not the events of the past weeks spun so as to continue to avoid US military action on Syrian soil? Why are they being portrayed instead to seemingly all point to an inevitable strike? There is so much that has been done and can continue being done to present factors that suggest we stay out of military action in Syria. Why is that now being discontinued? (I'm also curious as to why we're not hearing much from the Secretary of Defense)? 

 

It seems something changed or more likely spun out of the ability of probable control. Something is not connecting at this point, especially so in face of going toe to toe with Russia (who now seems to be gently and every so quietly softly backing away from the hard line laid a few days ago). I guess my bottom line question is why was this not spun differently, and in a way that would result in the US backing down and away. 

 

Remember when you were a kid playing the game telephone and you'd whisper the British are Coming into the ear of the guy next to you and by the time it made it all the way around the room, it was repeated as Corning Ware is made in Briton? Someone needs to whisper with greater articulation into the ear of the executive leader sitting next to him..... 

Great analysis Rayzor!  As Sherlock Homes stated, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."  We don't have all the factors, nor evidence obviously, we are left with what we read and the rest is conjecture.  It will be interesting to see what the UN comes up with, of course the US says they have hair and blood samples from past attacks in Syria, by their own investigative sources.  Their findings were sarin gas was used on the Syrian a few months or so back.   Well we have heard that dance before, and had things gone differently we would not be pondering the RV in an obsessive hysterical way today.  The US can't be so stupid as to make up evidence so they can invade yet another ME country.  Not only would we look like a pair of brown shoes in a world of tuxedo's, we would be the boy who called "wolf" one too many times, and all respect we might have left from the last time would be lost.  We better be right about our evidence this time.

 

A good detective puts the evidence on the table along with the usual suspects and asks, "Who benefits most to get in a war with Syria?  It would not be the US, it would not be Iran, it would not be Israel, it would not be good for Hezbollah.  Who would benefit?  Saudi Arabia, Qatar, they want to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf through Syria and into Europe.  Money is usually the catalyst in most crimes, oil money even more so.  So why would the US be the one forced into a fight they have no business in, nor even want?

 

Syria, Assad, and Basher, the other suspects.  From my research Assad, from family members was deemed as the weaker of the two.  Assad is hesitant in decisions made.  In the beginning of Assads office he promised the people reform, and there was movement towards reform, but suddenly it stopped.   A source stated, "I actually think Assad wants reform, but Basher will have none of it."  If anyone would not blink and eye in killing their own people Basher would probably be that guy.  He had the means, he has the access and mobility.   The bombing of Ghouta came from the area controlled by Basher.   Assad would not necessarily have to know, but it would be a large breakdown in command if this were so.  Now you have to ask what would be the motive?  After Obama's statement, "We will only go in if they start using chemical weapons on the people."  As they say "famous last words", it happened.  So there definitely is a strong motive to pull the US in.  What would Bashers motive be?  What is in it for him?  This is a kind of out there theory, some media source or journalist mentioned it could have been an assassination attempt on Assad, by the rebels.  Could it actually have been Basher in attempt to take over the leadership and position himself as leader.  Could he and those he is involved with love to see a war with the super powers at each others throat?  History tells us brothers will kill the other for power, so not improbable but is it a motive?

 

Then you have the conspiracy theory, the Cabal or someone like them that has been working it up for years to the ultimate clash between Super Powers and blowing it in to World War 3?  Thereby bringing the populations down to a manageable count world wide and capturing more power over nations and peoples.

 

Another quote from Sherlock Holmes, "How often have I said to you that when ever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

 

We wait for the evidence to come in, and of course keeping in mind evidence can become contaminated, and in this case highly probable. 

[Bull Dog]

The problem with Obama is he just plane scared. He has no military back round, not born in this country, name change, and can't wipe his a.... without Michele helping him. He doesn't have the guts to go to war because he doesn't want to tarnish his presidency with a war while tour. He not is not our commander in chief, he can't lead by example because he has no example to lead by. Now the world is looking at him in the same light. Heard the Israeli Ambassador to UN today and he expressed the same thing. First the man says yes and then he says no. Now he wants to dump on the Congress so they can take the blame and try to take it off his shoulders. I am sorry but it doesn't work that way. I think he has dug himself in a hole that he may not get out of lightly.

[imgesing]

I'm always encouraged by such strong convictions which I would assume means  you will be among the first to suit up and put your boots on that sand? Like you and many others, I'm a proud American and have personally spent my fair share of time in the sand along with a jungle or two throughout my life as have many on this site. Having been there and done that, I likely have a bit of a different perspective in some ways. 

This is no longer the 50's, nor is it some glorified black and white movie wherein the good guys always wear white hats and the bad guys wear black. People don't fall over dead in some gentle faint to the ground, absent death gurgle, or lots of blood splattered all over the ground and their colleagues. There's a lot of tears and fear and true gut defining mettle, a lot of messy blood, human flesh ripped apart and far too many dreams peppered with body bags in some cases wrapped in the flag,  awaiting pick up once the killing has died down and its safe to come in and get them....and all of it midst the battle cries of old men insisting we remain a strong, bold decisive force in battle....  I will forever carry respect in my depths for the guys on the ground who live this scene day in and out as their part of this battle mission... 

We are too geopolitically interdependent to hold on to the belief we can or will exist as an independent isolated island. Yet in my mind, this does mean we have the inherent responsibility to continue to take care of the world and fight every one of its battles. There are so many different conflicts with people being slaughtered all over this planet.... (e.g., genocide in Africa between tribes, Tibet and its Holy people in the past, in our own country with the Native peoples,  etc etc), yet there was never once a cry to defend or protect these innocent ones. Instead we seem to find ourselves in areas of conflict that contain huge and necessary resources. Not saying that is bad... or good... yet it does remain a fairly consistent defining variable as to where we are willing to rip open the flesh  young American kids in proving we are a strong force. And yet with all that being said, I'd likewise have to be among the first to admit that I  willingly served, and commanded, and would proudly do it all again..... Day'um it's just not  as simple as I wish it was... Slogan driven sentiments can only get us so far... and at some point, someone has to take a step back and ask what in the name of God are we doing? 

 

This might be a really good time to take that step back. Its no longer as simple as deciding if there is the belly to engage a second full-time theatre of warfare.  Be advised that the rebels (and more importantly those behind them... ) absolutely have the ability in every sense of the word to deploy chemical weapons. Understand that there has been concerted well orchestrated efforts with a specific agenda to get the US involved in this specific region for at least the last 7 years if not longer. Know that these efforts have involved such convoluted deception, that getting factual information as to what actually factually happened/is happening is mind boggling to the point some would consider it impossible. And even if one were able to successfully navigate these waters.... be very clear the game has changed. Russia is now openly stating their opposition/support of the opposing position. Two of the super powers are now positioning their toes on a thin though clear line of opposition. 

Without question, this is clearly not the time to cowboy up and start posturing with anything that would even remotely suggest the game is on with the ball in active play. Without question we can easily kill each other into oblivion. There will always be time for bullets. However, its my prayer that before we reach that conclusion, we take this time to take a step back, and do everything we can to negotiate a successful drawn down of both sides, such that we're able to discuss a resolution that won't exponentially increase the death count of two super power countries fighting on behalf of this small nation. In my opinion barring that, all the slogan driven sentiment in the world won't ever be able to put all the feathers back in that pillow...

And Trinity, I'm with ya.... and if ever there was a time in our lives, this would be it for prayer 

With all due respect I fully agree with you. I just don't know how Obama is going to save face or our national Interest as a super power doing what it said it would. I am not as gun hoe on war as someone may think. I just feel worried that our country is in a bad place in terms of how we have drawn a line. Obama said that was the one thing we won't stand idle on and here we are. They (whoever it is) used the chemicals.

I certainly don't have the answer but I will say we need to have a MUCH stronger U.N. the USA in its efforts to control special interests as well as doing some good has made us look bad. Yes, our troops are working hard and as you know they aren't always sure as to why they are even there. There is a trust in our government and in its objectives or goals. I also agree that this trust is often blind. In fact a close friend of mine was a commander in the gulf war. I respect the work our troops do for what I hope is to unite and spread democracy or freedom.

I believe that the UK not standing behind any attack, aside from Russia and China is very bad. We really are walking on some big egg shells. I feel that you also can't trust the Arab factions. Just from my personal encounters. They have a different way of looking at life.

So aside from stepping back, what do you suggest? The world stand by and watch? I am not sure if that is right either..? Scary and important but what next? By the way your reply was well written... Respectfully and Peace.

[imgesing]

It's going to get much tougher to find out what is really going on than it is now. All the alphebet channels are blatently gov. propaganda tv. Feinsteins bill will criminalize journalism that is not affiliated with the MSM... gotta get paid, and work for a big company like cnn, and new york times. Everyone else can be criminally targeted.

Now we have the Gov. openly declaring that it is going to turn the cia propaganda machine on American citizens. Alex Jones, and Anthony Gucciardi from story leak were saying that the gov. is going to spend big bucks to pay bloggers, and alternative media types to spread disinformation so no one will know what is legit, and what isn't.

This major assault on the first amendment is a declaration of war against the citizens of the United States, and by the militarization of dhs, and the police it is obvious that is exactly what they are preparing for.

I respect your take and yes it is scary that we are unsure of what to believe... Yet, don't get all paranoid either. The conspiracy theories run wild. We need to stay educated and I believe people in the USA are slowly waking up. Our government isn't so squeaky clean and it is very over due for a clean up. Yet, until someone tells me how this will be done I am at a loss for what to say. Also, I don't trust the bias we get from any news source. Some people don't believe the evil things which happened during WW2. The truth is we are all being biased by what we are exposed to daily. In the end one has to derive a conclusion which may not be accurate.

Sucks! Especially when all you want is to have an honest reply to honest information...peace and hope we see this RV.