FIND MODERATE PARTNERS IN SYRIA?

“We are going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push back against ISIL,” Obama said, using the government’s acronym for the Islamic State and referring specifically to its sanctuary in Syria. “The moderate coalition there is one that we can work with. We have experience working with many of them. They have been, to some degree, outgunned and outmanned, and that’s why it’s important for us to work with our friends and allies to support them more effectively.”

Who the hell are the moderates in Syria that will be trustworthy allies, Mr President? Good luck with finding them and keeping them as allies.

Oh wait! We can relax now. The CIA is on the case.

There are indications that the hard work to build such a force is already underway, overseen by the CIA, despite remarks by Obama last month disparaging the moderate U.S.-backed Syrian opposition as “doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth.”

Where's an eye-roll emoticon when you need one? 

To intervene in Syria would be escalation on a scale that I would not want to see. We've not been asked. We'd be fighting ISIL, but would that mean Assad suddenly becomes our ally?  Before the rapid territorial advances of ISIL in Syria, we wanted Assad out. In today's speak, we were for Assad before we were against him. Are we once again to be for him? I can't keep up.

If we are going to be in a state of perpetual war, we need to reinstitute the draft, with everyone of suitable age eligible for call to duty, and no exemptions except for those with physical or mental disabilities.

HILLARY CLINTON - ANOINTED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT?

President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion.
....

Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

While there's much to admire about Hillary Clinton, she made several statements in her recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic that worry me.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

I remember my doubts about the suggestion to arm "vetted rebels" in Syria. What could possibly go wrong?

As I see it, Clinton is not wise to so quickly distance herself from President Obama. As you may recall, Al Gore hardly, if ever, mentioned President Clinton during his campaign to succeed him, nor did he allow Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf, even in carefully chosen locations where Clinton was quite popular. Still, the president was always the ghost on the stage of every campaign event. I've always believed that Al Gore would have won by a large and indisputable margin, had he not run such a poor campaign and had he not so obviously run away from Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton ought perhaps to take a lesson.

Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good.

How's that for damning with faint praise?  Au contraire, Madame Secretary, the president is wise to step away from the fantasy of American exceptionalism in which we bear the burden of setting the world to rights, as we see the right.  Also, for a Democratic would-be candidate to criticize the Democratic president in these difficult and tumultuous times seems disloyal.  I realize that she will inevitably differentiate her policies from those of the president, but she seems to be making serious mistakes in her statements in the interview.

If Clinton is the candidate, I believe she could lose the election by taking the anti-Obama track.  She cannot win without an enthusiastic turnout by African-American voters, and Obama still retains a fair amount of support among Democrats of all colors. She appears opportunistic, and, even worse, ruthless in her ambition.

Clinton takes a harder line against Iran than Obama, but negotiations require some wiggle room unless one's position is, "My way or the highway."

HRC: I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out. So, little or no enrichment has always been my position. 

Not much wiggle room there.

Clinton's seemingly unreserved support for the policies of the present Israeli government is worrisome, too.

Much of my conversation with Clinton focused on the Gaza war. She offered a vociferous defense of Israel, and of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well. This is noteworthy because, as secretary of state, she spent a lot of time yelling at Netanyahu on the administration's behalf over Israel’s West Bank settlement policy. Now, she is leaving no daylight at all between the Israelis and herself.

“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she told me. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”

While it's true there is wrong on both sides, Israel's response seems disproportionate, as is indicated by a comparison of the numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed and wounded.  Also, if the Israeli government truly wants peace, perhaps the leaders might consider a bold, unilateral, admittedly risky move to lift the blockade of Gaza, remove the checkpoints which make travel so difficult for the Palestinians, and stop the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.  So long as Israel's neighbors in Gaza live in miserable conditions, Israel will not have peace.

Note: To disagree with the present policies of the Israeli leadership does not make me antisemitic any more than disagreement with the policies of my own government makes me un-American.

If the interview is Clinton's pre-season launch of her candidacy for the presidency, and I think it is, then she's made several missteps, and, I hope she sets herself aright.  I don't think any candidate, except in certain circumstances, a sitting president, is entitled to anointment as the chosen candidate for a political party, but I fear the stage is being set for anointing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate.  I hope other prominent Democrats in the party rise to challenge Clinton, so we have a real contest and open discussions of various policies for moving the country forward and winning the election in 2016.

HUMANITARIAN AID NOT MISSILES TO SYRIA

Syrian President Bashar Assad is a cruel despot, but the US should not involve itself militarily in Syria's civil war. The tangled alliances and relationships in the Middle East change quickly, beyond our abilities to follow or understand, but the civil war is not simply a struggle between the good guys vs. the bad guys.

More than a dozen key Syrian rebel groups said Wednesday that they reject the authority of the Western-backed opposition coalition, as U.N. inspectors returned to the country to continue their probe into chemical weapons attacks.

In a joint statement, 13 rebel groups including a powerful al-Qaida-linked faction but also more mainstream forces slammed the Turkey-based Syrian National Coalition, saying it no longer represents their interests.
....

The rebel groups' statement was titled "Communique No. 1," a term used before in Arab countries following military coups that suggests the creation of a new leadership body.

A video released on the Internet showed Abdel-Aziz Salameh, political chief of the Liwaa al-Tawheed brigade that is particularly strong in the city of Aleppo, reading the statement.
....

The signatories called on all military and civilian forces "to unite under a clear Islamic framework based on Shariah law, which should be the sole source of legislation"— an apparent reference to the al-Qaida faction's aspirations to create an Islamic state in Syria.

Our efforts should be directed toward humanitarian relief of the Syrian people, who are suffering greatly, rather than sending missiles that will surely serve to inflict further suffering.  The plight of the 1 million Syrian refugees who fled to surrounding countries is, in many cases, desperate, and we must focus our attention on giving aid to relieve suffering.  

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

How sad it is when Democrats who elected Barack Obama must remain in constant campaign mode to convince the president that many of us who helped put him in office do not want him to repeat the mistakes of the past. The recent (and barely avoided) mistakes that I have in mind are the launch of another war in the Middle East and the appointment of Larry Summers to a position of authority that has anything whatsoever to do with managing the economy of the United States.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S POLITICAL RESOLUTION IS TO SEND EXPLODING MISSILES TO SYRIA

Yesterday, White House chief-of-staff Denis McDonough made the case for launching missile attacks on Syria on David Gregory's "Press the Meat" show.

But ultimately, the resolution of this, David, there's not a military resolution to this. There is a political resolution.

And the political resolution is to launch missiles that will explode and kill people? Will the president and his top aides continue to argue the case in the pure logic of doublespeak? The people who believe the president is feinting may have a point. The president and his top aides seem to have stopped trying to persuade or make sense.

H/T to Charles Pierce at "The Politics Blog."

TAKING ACTION IN SYRIA - ANDREW BACEVICH

How I wish for President Obama, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and every member of Congress would to watch and listen to Andrew Bacevich's brilliant and articulate commentary on the present decision facing the president and Congress with regard to launching missile attacks in Syria.  How I wish for every citizen in the country to watch.  Even those who disagree with Bacevich, might come away better informed.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I mean, if I could have five minutes of the president's time, I'd say, "Mr. President, the issue really is not Syria. I mean, you're being told that it's Syria. You're being told you have to do something about Syria, that you have to make a decision about Syria. That somehow your credibility is on the line."

But I'd say, "Mr. President, that's not true. The issue really here is whether or not an effort over the course of several decades, dating back to the promulgation of the Carter Doctrine in 1980, an effort that extends over several decades to employ American power, military power, overt, covert military power exercise through proxies, an effort to use military power to somehow stabilize or fix or liberate or transform the greater Middle East hasn't worked.

“And if you think back to 1980, and just sort of tick off the number of military enterprises that we have been engaged in that part of the world, large and small, you know, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and on and on, and ask yourself, 'What have we got done? What have we achieved? Is the region becoming more stable? Is it becoming more Democratic? Are we enhancing America's standing in the eyes of the people of the Islamic world?'

"The answers are, 'No, no, and no.' So why, Mr. President, do you think that initiating yet another war, 'cause if we bomb Syria, it's a war, why do you think that initiating yet another war in this protracted enterprise is going to produce a different outcome? Wouldn't it be perhaps wise to ask ourselves if this militarized approach to the region maybe is a fool’s errand.

"Maybe it's fundamentally misguided. Maybe the questions are not tactical and operational, but strategic and political."

From the transcript.

SENATOR VITTER TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL TO ATTACK SYRIA

U.S. Sen. David Vitter said today that he will oppose the White House resolution that calls for a military strike against Syria.

Vitter, R-La., participated in a briefing Wednesday for Senate Armed Services Committee members. Attending were Charles Hagel, secretary of defense, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“After a lot of careful thought and prayer, I have decided that I will vote no on the Syria war resolution,” he said in a news release today.

Will the Republicans be the ones who save us from war? Vitter will vote against the resolution because he's against anything the president proposes, but I'm not choosy about allies in the effort to stop the madness.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) are still undecided.

My guess is President Obama will order the strikes whether Congress votes in favor of the resolution or not, to what good purpose I cannot see.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday granting President Obama limited authority to launch a military strike on Syria in response to its reported use of chemical weapons against civilians.
....

The Senate committee’s version, released late Tuesday by a bipartisan group of senators, would permit up to 90 days of military action against the Syrian government and bar the deployment of U.S. combat troops in Syria, while allowing a small rescue mission in the event of an emergency. The White House also would be required within 30 days of enactment of the resolution to send lawmakers a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria.

This is not good.  I fervently hope the resolution does not pass in the full Senate.  How absurd of the committee to require of the president a plan for a diplomatic solution to end a civil war in another country.  They ask the impossible.  Our leaders live in an alternative universe where they believe they can impose their will on the leaders and people in other countries, if not by decree, then by force of arms.  Why not a resolution to require the president join with other countries to pressure Assad for assurance that he will not again use chemical weapons against his own people?

The committee later approved a McCain amendment aimed at strengthening the moderate rebel groups fighting Assad.

This is madness.  According to Juan Cole:

As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate.

Sen. Kerry says infiltration into the rebel groups by al-Qaeda is not true.  Whom do you believe?   Considering the BS I heard in the testimony, I'm inclined to believe Juan Cole.  What if it is true?  Our intelligence agencies have been wrong before.  How then will the US prevent aid (weapons) from getting into the wrong rebel hands in the midst of the chaos of a civil war?  What could possibly go wrong?

Dylan Scott at TPM addresses the meaning of McCain's amendments:

McCain introduced new language that would declare it U.S. policy to “change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria.” It passed through the committee on a voice vote, and the committee later approved the resolution 10-7, with one present vote from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

McCain’s addition doesn’t quite say “regime change” — and the White House has said that would not be the purpose of military action — but it sounds a lot like regime change and describes a new government in Syria as the ultimate outcome. And with Congress already appearing uncomfortable voting for war, any language that seems to increase the likelihood of the United States getting entangled in a prolonged intervention is going to be met with skepticism.

Count me in on the thinking that the wording of McCain's amendment "sounds a lot like regime change" and opens the door to many different interpretations which would allow the president to order the military to do whatever he deems necessary if the missile strikes don't accomplish their purpose, which, at best, seems quite unlikely to me.

I listened to as much of the testimony of Secretaries Kerry and Hagel and Gen. Dempsey as I could bear and concluded much of what they said was blatant war propaganda.  The same goes for President Obama's commentary.  No good will come of our military intervention.

Grandpère asked me about the raised hands dyed red.  The protestors were from CODEPINK.

 CODEPINK @codepink

We will not be silenced, and if you attempt to silence us we WILL be seen. Our hands are raised for peace! NO to war on #Syria!

Before I knew the answer, I said, "We will have blood on our hands if we launch missile attacks on Syria."  And we will.  No mistake about that. 

JOHN KERRY MAKES THE CASE FOR MISSILE STRIKES

Slippery slope: "The bottom line, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that the White House believes inaction, after conclusively determining that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, would open the possibility of other countries or groups concluding that they could use such weapons in the future without fear of retribution."

National security: (There is no alternative): “Make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some site the risk of doing things. But we need to ask, ‘What is the risk of doing nothing?’,” Kerry said.

WMD!: “Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,” the government said in the brief.

The plan: The White House is reportedly considering limited air strikes on military targets as retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. Senior administration officials also repeated that the administration is not aiming to achieve a regime change in Syria.

Syria's chemical arsenal is less of a threat to the US than the arsenals of other despots around the world. Saddam gassed the Kurds, but we didn't launch the Iraq war for that reason.

Kerry makes much of the children who were killed by gas, but what of children killed in drone attacks?  We're to weep over pictures of children killed by gas, but we never see the pictures of children blown apart by drone missiles. The airstrikes will almost certainly cause collateral damage (the ultimate euphemism for dead and wounded people!), which will include children and other innocents.   I weep for all the children.

What if Assad continues his defiance after we flex our muscles with the limited airstrikes? What do we do next?

I'm not buying Kerry's argument. I've heard it all before when we have undertaken deadly, misbegotten military adventures.  Obama and Kerry have pretty well boxed themselves in with their chest-thumping and red line on Assad's use of gas, but I hope and pray the president will have the courage and humility to turn away from inflicting more violence on the Syrian people, who are already suffering.  

Quotes above from Talking Points Memo.

TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA: DON'T BOMB SYRIA

The petition reads:

"President Obama:  With civilians being butchered and refugees suffering immensely, it is horrifying to watch the brutal civil war in Syria unfold. But U.S. military intervention is far more likely to make matters worse, not better. The U.S. should not bomb Syria. The best thing we can do is commit to holding war criminals accountable, expand humanitarian aid for refugees, and maintain constant diplomatic pressure for a negotiated end to the conflict."

Sign the petition here.

The administration sees the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a threat to our national security. Certainly, the Syrian people suffer, but I don't understand the threat to the United States. What good purpose would be served by sending missiles that inflict more suffering and death on people who are already suffering and dying?

Instead of sending in missiles that kill and cause more misery, why not spend the money to help refugees, over 1 million of whom are children, many alone without their parents? Help the Syrians who fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt who are in desperate need. The last thing Syria needs is more violence.

Donate to UNICEF here. 

IRAN TO SEND TROOPS TO SYRIA TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT ASSAD

Iran will send 4,000 of its troops to Syria to aid president Bashar al-Assad's forces in its fight against rebels, according to the UK's Independent newspaper.

The "military decision" means that Iran is now "fully committed to preserving Assad's regime," wrote journalist Robert Fisk, citing pro-Iranian sources.

As well as sending Revolutionary Guards, Iran has reportedly proposed to open a "Syrian front" against Israel in the Golan Heights.

The decision was reportedly made before Iran's presidential election, and came as the US approved a move to arm the Syrian opposition.

Did anyone in the White House anticipate Iran's "military decision" before the president announced the plan to send light weapons to the rebels in Syria?  Or is the news from Iran another "Who would ever have expected...?" moment?  Why do we continue to meddle in the affairs of countries in the Middle East despite our miserable series of failures?  Many questions...

THIS IS NOT GOOD

President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize lethal aid to Syrian rebels marks a deepening of U.S. involvement in the two-year civil war. But U.S. officials are still grappling with what type and how much weaponry to send the opposition forces and how to ensure it stays out of the hands of extremists battling for control of Syria.

U.S. officials confirmed Obama’s authorization Thursday after the White House announced it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against opposition forces. Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” suggesting greater American intervention.

Sending lethal weapons to rebels in an already violent country will not help end the civil war in Syria.  Not everyone agrees with the decision to arm the rebels nor with the assessment by the White House on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.  I'm getting flashbacks to the pre-Iraq war period.  Why do we persist in thinking that our weapons and military interventions will benefit the people in the countries in the Middle East?  Look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan post-intervention by the US?  Can we claim success in even one of the countries?

The rebels don't even want our light weapons.

Initial consignments are expected to consist of small arms and ammunition, which the rebel Free Syrian Army said on Friday would be largely “meaningless.” The Syrian Opposition Coalition called for “strategic and decisive” support.

I'd hoped Obama would resist the pressure to intervene in Syria with military aid. No good will come of this.  When will the citizens of the US have a say in our military interventions abroad?

UPDATE: This morning, I wrote to President Obama of my sadness that he had decided to send weapons to Syria and requested a reply.  This afternoon, I received a reply which included the following:

Dear June:

Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans about issues affecting seniors.  Today’s economic climate further intensifies the unique challenges they face, and I appreciate your perspective.
 
My Administration continues to support older Americans encountering unfair treatment, financial hardship, or difficulty obtaining health care.  The historic Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare by not only preserving but also expanding benefits for Americans who depend on Medicare every day.  The law has helped more than five million seniors and people with disabilities save an average of over $600 on prescription drugs in the “donut hole” in Medicare coverage.  Additionally, in 2011, more than 32 million seniors received 1 or more free preventive services, including the new Annual Wellness Visit.  To learn about help available through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, visit www.CMS.gov.
 ....

Thank you, again, for being in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Blah, blah, blah, with nothing about the subject of my message.  Is this the best the White House staff can do?  Better no reply, n'est-ce pas?

UPDATE 2:  You may want to check Andrew Sullivan's post on sending arms to the Syrian rebels.