Declassified CIA Documents Reveal US Helped Saddam Hussein Knowing He Would Use Chemical Weapons
- Tag Archives Syria
-
-
U.S. CRUISE MISSILES PREPARING TO STRIKE SYRIA
The U.S. military is now moving cruise missiles into position for a possible strike against Syrian government forces, reports CBS News Saturday.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says that this will give the President the position to move quickly if he decides to use a cruise missile strike against Syrian government forces. Sec. Hagel goes on to say that this is not an attempt to topple the Syrian government but to send a message to President Bashar al Assad that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Hagel went on to tell reporters that U.S. commanders have prepared a range of “options” for President Obama if he chooses to proceed with military strikes against Damascus.
That statement comes on the heels of the United Nations now investigating claims that chemical weapons were used in several battles between al Assad forces and rebel forces in Syria. Among the chemicals reportedly used, sarin gas. Reuters has reported that the nerve gas attack killed hundreds this week. The Assad regime has placed the blame on al Qaeda fighters who call themselves rebels. At this point, it is unclear who was behind the use of chemical weapons. It is important to note that the “who” and “what” behind these chemical weapons has not been established.
Of course now the big question not being asked by the media, “where is the military authorization for any action against Syria?” Once again we face the serious issue of whether or not the President has the authority to unilaterally declare military action against another nation. The power to declare war does not belong to the President… any President.
At this point, however, it is not even the President who should be called out for attempting to act unilaterally against another nation. It is Congress that is once again standing by and doing nothing more than abdicating its responsibility. The Congress of the United States and the Congress alone who holds the authority to declare war. Once again Congress will say nothing as this action is taken and merely react later.
Full article: http://benswann.com/ … ing-to-strike-syria/
-
Dempsey’s Syria letter raises questions about entire Mideast policy
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. in an August 19 letter obtained by the Associated Press that the Obama administration is opposed to even limited military intervention in Syria because the rebels wouldn’t support American interests even if they won. Dempsey said that the U.S. is capable of destroying President Assad’s air force, but that it would plunge the U.S. into another Mideast war with no strategy for peace.
Sen. John McCain has been critical of Dempsey’s assessment, calling a previous letter by Dempsey to Sen. Carl Levin “disingenuous.” According to the Jerusalem Post, McCain said “No one is seriously talking about striking Assad’s naval forces as part of a limited campaign. And no one seriously thinks that degrading Assad’s air power would require hundreds of American military assets. The whole thing is completely misleading to the Congress and the American people, and it is shameful.”
It’s time to take a serious look at just who has misled the American people. For twelve years, neoconservatives and other war hawks have presented military intervention in the Middle East as the only way to fight terrorism, bring stability to the Middle East and champion democratic values.
Twelve years of active war has failed to achieve any of those goals. Neither has it advanced any U.S. interest in the region, even if that were a justifiable cause for war.
Dempsey’s assessment of intervention in Syria highlights lessons the U.S. should have learned by now.
First, the conflict is not between two sides, one pro-democracy and one dictatorial. It is a many-sided conflict, involving longstanding ethnic and tribal differences, according to Dempsey. No side is pro-U.S.
This is much like Afghanistan, where the U.S. attempted to combine military action with bribes, coalition building and humanitarian efforts to “win hearts and minds.”
In the end, the government it backed has waffled on supporting U.S. interests. The security forces U.S. military personnel are training have taken to killing their trainers from time to time, restrained only by Afghan officers who discourage the practice because of the weapons the U.S. is providing them.
Last month, the Taliban opened an office in Dohar, Qatar to begin negotiating with the U.S. and others to end the war. What that means for stability, democracy or U.S. interests in Afghanistan remains to be seen. The original reason for invading Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban.
This after the U.S. left Iraq a nation in chaos, its infrastructure razed, two million refugees displaced, an ancient Christian community destroyed, and a government with strong ties to Iran.
U.S. intervention in Egypt has had similar results, where a military junta uses arms purchased with U.S. foreign aid to slaughter those who protest the recent overthrow of a democratically-elected government. That government was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, hardly a result the U.S. welcomed in terms of its own interests or those of its allies.
In addition, the Assad regime is a longstanding friend of Russia, which has a naval base in Syria. The Obama and Bush administrations have both unnecessarily strained relations with post-Soviet Russia. Military intervention in Syria could strain them further, with no discernible benefit to the United States.
Idealists look at the twelve year U.S. adventure in the Middle East as a righteous mission to bring democracy to the oppressed peoples under dictatorial or Islamic rule. From that perspective, the U.S. has been played for a sucker by a myriad of tribal factions that have cooperated temporarily and then turned on the U.S. the minute cooperation no longer served their interests. Wherever democratic elections have taken place, Islamic governments have been elected with dubious prospects for supporting the U.S. or Israel.
Cynics see the period as one of quasi-imperial conquest by the U.S. to remake the political landscape to better serve U.S. interests and secure access to oil and other natural resources. The project has been a disaster from that perspective as well, even if true.
Full article: http://communities.w … estions-about-entir/