Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Count 10]

The moral outrage is all over this debate. As the West prepares to launch airstrikes against the Syrian regime in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons, lines of global leaders and their cheering commentators are using a superior sense of morality to justify it. Last year, Obama talked of chemical weapons use being a "red line" in Syria - and now that it has been crossed, we are told that we must act.

US Secretary of State John Kerry set the tone when he described the attacks as "morally obscene" and demanding of a military response. British Prime Minister David Cameron, has said that the world cannot "stand idly by" in the face of the Syrian regime's "morally indefensible" use of chemical weapons.

Ludicrously painting President Barack Obama - he of the drones hit list ­- as a "reluctant warrior", the London Daily Telegraph chief foreign correspondent describes the US as a superpower whose credibility is necessary to prevent "terrible things" from taking place across the globe. In the London Times, political columnist Daniel Finkelstein urges that we must do something "even if it is just for show" - because the West cannot do nothing in the face of such appalling tyranny. And right on cue, the great moral crusader and Middle East peace envoy, Tony Blair, has urged us to stop "wringing our hands" and launch an attack in Syria  - repeating the fraudulent assertion that the only alternative to airstrikes is impotent inaction.

And so the frames of debate have been set. Anyone who saw those horrible pictures of dead children, apparently killed by chemical attack, that poured out of Syria last week, wants an end to such devastation and tragedy. Thus we are reeled into support for a potentially catastrophic military strike using the chemical horror as trigger, because it works: The moral red line is reeled out precisely because interventionists swallow it wholesale.


Remember the moral mission over Iraq, or the invasion impetus to "liberate" women in Afghanistan? Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the invasion of 2003 - and the bloodshed continues, partly as a crossover from the Syrian conflict: 1,000 people were killed in Iraq this July alone. That should make interventionists think twice about moral justifications - but it seems this hook is just too seductive, too perfectly attuned to a western enlightened sense of self.

Why should military action be necessitated by outrage over chemical attacks? Was there a red line on chemical weapons when the US used depleted-uranium ammunition in Fallujah, Iraq? Was there a red line when Israel deployed white phosphorous in Gaza in 2008? Or when Saddam Hussein, then a western ally, gassed the Iranians and then his own people during the 1980s? This arbitrary and self-serving declaration of what's acceptable is precisely what makes the US so lacking in credibility when it comes to preaching codes of warfare to the Middle East.



It should be clear that these planned western alliance airstrikes aren't about Syrian lives - not the unimaginable death tolls in excess of 100,000, nor the agonising lines of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries.

If these heads of state cared about Bashar al-Assad butchering and dropping bombs on the Syrian people, they would have "done something" constructive much sooner - not, as the so-called liberals suggest, stormed in with counterproductive airstrikes. Rather, they would have exerted the necessary pressure on rebel allies and conducted the necessary diplomacy with Assad backers, to quickly get the regime and its opponents to a negotiating table. And it is not too late to do any of that now.

If these proposed strikes were about Syrian lives, and not a proxy war to destabilise the "Shia axis" of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the West wouldn't snub Assad's allies - Russia, China and Iran - by proposing to bypass the UN. Nor would it blatantly discredit the currently working weapons inspectors whom Russia used its pressure to persuade Assad to allow into Syria in the first place.



If the goal were to help the Syrian people, how could this diplomatically rude unilateralism count as a sensible move?


If the US were remotely serious about a morally correct international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons it would, as the former British government security advisor, Admiral Lord West, suggested on Wednesday, share any evidence it claims to possess with Russia and China. Antagonising Russia also makes it much harder to coordinate the humanitarian effort desperately needed not just in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, but within Syria itself.

Most of all, it should be clear that the strikes are about saving face, not saving lives, because of the warnings of disastrous consequences. First, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike" - we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes against Syria. But more broadly, a military intervention will make the situation much worse because the terrible war within Syria is also a cynical, neo-Cold War. In this context, and given Assad's loyal allies, it is likely that a western military move will spark retaliation, not just against the Syrian population but across the region, too.

Yet because of the current, accelerated impetus to strike, there is little thought given to consequences, no planning for the day after - no political plan at all. And even as the region buckles under the strain of this brutal, spreading battle, crucial warnings are seemingly brushed aside in the overwhelming need to prove that the West is the good side.

Perhaps if we stopped believing that the Middle East needs the West's moral posturing, we might start to think differently about its role and responsibilities in that region. Leaders will always seek to justify military interventions using democratic values and lovely human rights slogans when it suits particular agendas of the time. But we don't have to lap it up so willingly - or give them a green light to go ahead.


Taken from Al Jazeera

[seafoid]

40000 syrian kurds have been ethnically cleansed from northern Syria by jihadis fighting the government.

[Count 10]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/syria-west-military-action

Syria is warning of "grave consequences" if US-led military action goes ahead to punish President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons.

Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria's ambassador to the UN, told reporters outside the security council in New York on Wednesday that the effect could be felt across the Middle East. "We should keep in mind what happened in Iraq and Libya", the envoy said, adding that the toppling of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi by Nato-backed rebels in 2011 had "spread terrorists all over Africa".

Damascus broadcast similar messages, clearly seeking to exploit US and western worries about the prominence of jihadi elements in the opposition to Assad – one of the main reasons for disarray in international responses to the Syrian crisis.

The US, Britain and France had helped "terrorists" use chemical weapons in Syria, Faisal Miqdad, the deputy foreign minister, told reporters in the capital. The same groups, he predicted, would soon use them against Europe. Miqdad told the Guardian this spring that British and French plans to arm the anti-Assad rebels meant in effect supporting al-Qaida.

Wael al-Halqi, the prime minister, pledged that Syria would become a "graveyard" for any invader and would not be terrorised by "colonialist threats". US, western and Israeli use of "lies and false pretences like the use of chemical weapons" were a reaction to what he called "the victories of the Syrian army over terrorism" – standard terminology for the rebels. The world remembered the lies used by these countries to "mislead international public opinion before invading Iraq," he said.

Halqi said that the countries "that are beating the drums of war against Syria are the same ones who committed massacres in Iraq, Lebanon and other countries, exploited the resources of the Arab people and have committed massacres against the Palestinian people since 1948."

The al-Nusra Front and other terrorist groups were "pawns of Washington and Israel" he told MPs from Raqqa, Aleppo and Hasaka, according to the official Sana state news agency.

Jaafari urged the US, UK and France, leading the push for intervention, to back off and allow UN weapons inspectors to complete their investigation into last week's chemical attack outside Damascus. The sole purpose of the threat of airstrikes was "undermining the inspection team." Jaafari added: "We are not war mongers, we are a peaceful nation seeking stability in the area. The Syrian government is against the use of chemical weapons by all means – this is a moral obscenity."

Responding to reports that Israeli intelligence had intercepted "panicked" phone calls between an official of the Syrian defence ministry and the commander of an army chemical weapons unit, the envoy accused the Israelis of leading the drive for Washington to attack his country. "The only party that benefits from this instability is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories," he said.

Asked whether Syria or its allies would attack Israel in the wake of western intervention, Jaafari replied: "We have the right to self-defence. Those who commit a crime against one of the founding members of the United Nations should accept the consequences of their actions."

Miqdad said he had presented the UN inspectors with evidence that "armed terrorist groups" had used sarin gas at all the sites of alleged attacks. "We repeat that the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and this has to stop," he said. "This means these chemical weapons will soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe."

[seafoid]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.544177

multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.

[All of a Sludden]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

[johnneycool]

What are America's interests in Syria??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

[seafoid]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Did the Unionists vote with the Tories ?

[Cold tea]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

No. http://www.u.tv/News/NI-MPs-vote-against-Cameron-over-Syria/baf83eaa-3238-4301-9bba-dc65e16df2a7
Did the Unionists vote with the Tories ?

[seafoid]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

No. http://www.u.tv/News/NI-MPs-vote-against-Cameron-over-Syria/baf83eaa-3238-4301-9bba-dc65e16df2a7
Did the Unionists vote with the Tories ?

That's interesting

BTW you'd think the Shinners would vote for something like this.

[LeoMc]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

No. http://www.u.tv/News/NI-MPs-vote-against-Cameron-over-Syria/baf83eaa-3238-4301-9bba-dc65e16df2a7
Did the Unionists vote with the Tories ?

That's interesting

BTW you'd think the Shinners would vote for something like this.

OK I'll bite. Why?

[CiKe]

What are America's interests in Syria??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

I've not read too much on what has been going on, but I can't help but focus on these headlines and spokespeople blatantly saying they will act "in US national interest". There is no longer even any pretence about helping the poor Syrians (and I'm talking both sides, because let's not kid ourselves that only one side is suffering) or doing what is morally correct.

I'm not so naive as to think that it is a trivial matter to determine the morality of things like this objectively, but when you go out making statements referenced in those terms it starts to sound awfully like war-mongering to me.

[seafoid]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

No. http://www.u.tv/News/NI-MPs-vote-against-Cameron-over-Syria/baf83eaa-3238-4301-9bba-dc65e16df2a7
Did the Unionists vote with the Tories ?

That's interesting

BTW you'd think the Shinners would vote for something like this.

OK I'll bite. Why?

Because it could have saved the war. And the Shinners are anti war.
They could abstain the rest of the time.

[theskull1]

What are America's interests in Syria??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

I've not read too much on what has been going on, but I can't help but focus on these headlines and spokespeople blatantly saying they will act "in US national interest". There is no longer even any pretence about helping the poor Syrians (and I'm talking both sides, because let's not kid ourselves that only one side is suffering) or doing what is morally correct.

I'm not so naive as to think that it is a trivial matter to determine the morality of things like this objectively, but when you go out making statements referenced in those terms it starts to sound awfully like war-mongering to me.

+1

unreal how arguments and subsequent decisions are not interested in evidence. Think this is just one stage of the slow turn of public opinion toward military action by the west in this region

[Count 10]

What are America's interests in Syria??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

I've not read too much on what has been going on, but I can't help but focus on these headlines and spokespeople blatantly saying they will act "in US national interest". There is no longer even any pretence about helping the poor Syrians (and I'm talking both sides, because let's not kid ourselves that only one side is suffering) or doing what is morally correct.

I'm not so naive as to think that it is a trivial matter to determine the morality of things like this objectively, but when you go out making statements referenced in those terms it starts to sound awfully like war-mongering to me.

+1

unreal how arguments and subsequent decisions are not interested in evidence. Think this is just one stage of the slow turn of public opinion toward military action by the west in this region

Never bothered them before....it's a case of the Israeli's saying jump and the yanks saying how high. Taking the high moral ground after watching over 100,000 Syrians killed...don't make me boke!

[grounded]

But Mr Kerry said the US already had the facts, and nothing that the UN weapons inspectors found could tell the world anything new.

After listening to his press conference you can be sure as sh#t that there will be US strikes.