War in Syria: To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

The Obama administration has been trying to make a case for war against the Assad regime since news came out about chemical weapons being used on civilians.  Secretary of State Kerry and others say this is proof of Obama’s “red line” being crossed and validation of his desire to send our military to aid the rebels in toppling Assad.

We don’t have to dig hard find out that the rebels, which our government have been supporting, have strong ties to terrorist organizations such as the al Nusra Front, and have publically pledged their allegiance to Al Qaida.  Also, many of these “freedom fighters” are pouring in from nations around the world. These are not merely Syrian people fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime. More of these groups are terrorists, who are becoming better organized, and many have been fighting against our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Kerry said the use of chemical weapons in an attack against opposition strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus is now “undeniable.”  But are they?

Videos and statements by witnesses and relief organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have proven a chemical attack happened, no one is denying that, but the question which no one in Washington seems to bother considering is which side used them?

Some sources claim that the rebels used the chemicals and blamed the Assad regime. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the claims were “nonsense”  and said, “Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions. In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron had told British lawmakers that there is “100 percent certainty about who is responsible”.  The CBS report said the vast majority of the evidence of Assad regime culpability presented by Cameron, the Obama administration and their allies, is circumstantial and that No tangible evidence has been offered by either the U.S. or Britain to demonstrate what lead to the conclusion that Assad’s forces must have been behind the previous suspected chemical attacks.

Even the liberal left, NPR, is wondering where evidence shows that the Assad regime and not the rebels were the ones who used chemicals. NPR asks, “Is it possible that it was the rebels, or another group within Syria, that launched the attack near Damascus that reportedly left hundreds dead and thousands more injured?”

Walid Shoebat’s site asks the question, who is most desperate right now, the Assad regime or the rebels? The article has video links allegedly showing rebels using chemical weapons.  They say that a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad’s regime did. A Washington Times article from back in May claimed, Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, which used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said.

On August 24th, a video was uploaded onto facebook, and Shoebat’s article said it “purports to show Syrian rebels loading what very well may be a rocket armed with some sort of chemical agent. The tip of the rocket is armed with a light blue tank or canister that very well contains a nerve agent.

This article, which came out at the end of last month, has had virtually no mention in the mainstream news.  It claims that Syrians In Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

Reporter Yahya Ababneh, one of the authors of the article was the correspondent on the ground in Ghouta and spoke directly with the rebels, family members, victims of the attacks and other locals. Ababneh said the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit and that the U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

From interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, many believe that some rebels received chemical weapons from Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, were responsible the attack and that they were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the Syrian civil war. Many people believe Bandar, who has close ties to Washington, has been pushing for war by the U.S. against Assad.

An article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleges that Bandar offered Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for “dumping” Assad. Bandar has been working towards achieving Saudi Arabia’s top goal of bringing Assad down, which would ultimately bring down Iran and Hezbollah as well.

So, what will happen if the US goes to war?

“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress,” Obama declared.  He also insisted that “the U.S. “would not put boots on the ground.” Yet boots were on the ground in Jordan’s northern territory, which borders Syria.

A concrete case has not been made that Assad was behind this attack.  Both sides have been accused of atrocities. We are a nation tired of war. We are a nation who is still at war, and we cannot afford the cost- in money or in lives to fight against another regime that some in the west, and some Sunni allies want toppled.  Even officers in our military have strong reservations about a possibility of war in Syria.

Getting drawn into another war, military leaders fear, could also distract the exit efforts from Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers are still dying at an alarming rate.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”  He also said that a war could cost over 1 Billion dollars a month.

According to the Washington Post, Gen. James Mattis, former head of U.S. Central Command, said at a security conference back in July that “this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war” if the U.S. becomes involved.

The GOP suggested that Obama had a burden of proof to overcome about protecting U.S. national-security interests, and Obama said lawmakers now bear responsibility for upholding international rules against wartime atrocities. Yet it seems that no one can still be certain of who committed the atrocities.

Meanwhile with all his talk and no action, Obama is making the US look incompetent and giving the enemies, whether they are the rebels or the Assad regime time to work out their own plans of counter attacks or strategies.

The longer the US stalls, the more strengthened the Iran-Syrian-Hizballah alliance becomes. Meanwhile, Tehran is free to continue to develop a nuclear bomb without fear of resolute US interference.

Obama confirmed that a US military attack on Syria would be “limited” and “narrow” and not open-ended which only makes the US appear weak to terrorist groups in the Middle East and north Africa and there is no guarantee that Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles won’t  remain intact. Tomahawks which are the choice Obama seems to be committed to, can damage surface structures, but not penetrate their underground storage sites and they can’t shut down Syrian Air Force bases other than damaging runways which could be repaired quickly. And most assuredly, Assad will still have his chemical weapons arsenal.

Obama’s waffling has basically gave Assad time to store most of the Syrian military air force bombers and helicopters away in fortified hangars and missiles that can be outfitted with chemical warheads have also been hidden in underground bunkers.

Obama’s planned attack, if it goes through, will leave Assad with most of his military resources intact and leaves a chance wide open for a heavier retaliation later by Assad or possibly by Russia and/or Iran as well. Previous lessons have shown that not only would attacks be directed at US military stationed or operating nearby, but also against Israel. A report by Debkafile on August 30^th went into greater detail of how a US attack could have heavy ramifications for Israel.

They claim that Iran’s Khamenei, Assad and Hezbollah’s Nasrallah will be “buoyed up by America’s loss of allied support and more likely than not make good on their threats, heard repeatedly, to destroy Israel once and for all. It won’t be enough to keep on intoning solemnly that Israel is not involved in the Syrian conflict – which no one believes anyway. Netanyahu will have to start looking squarely at the perils just around the corner and move proactively.”

A report out by the Jerusalem post a week earlier also said that US action could put “Israel in the firing line.” They said that a US military response will “challenge the belligerent axis that stands behind Syria, made up of Iran, which is sending weapons and military advisers to Syria, and Hezbollah, which sent thousands of highly trained, heavily armed fighters to help keep the Assad regime alive.”

The BBC has come out with an article of how the world’s main nations are lining up behind Syria or the West, and what it could mean if we go to war.  Those aligning themselves with the US are France, which was the first western country to support the opposition.  Turkey is backing the US, along with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which are all Sunni states. Israel has not been outspoken about support because they know that any Western action against Syria risks a repeat of events in the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraq attacked Tel Aviv with Scud missiles.

Britain’s David Cameron failed to acquire parliament’s backing, and Germany also has not given a clear support either.

Russia and China are behind Assad, as is Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iraq, fearing escalation will also increase sectarian attacks in their own country as Al Qaida and other jihadists have been gaining support along the Syrian/Iraqi border for months from local tribes, would not want to be involved in any support for attacks against the regime.

Foolishness and Hypocrisy

Obama is trying to convince Americans and the world about the need for action in Syria, and Secretary of State Kerry and others are echoing that seemingly desperate need.   Some on the right, specifically the dynamic duo of photo ops, Senator’s McCain and Graham seem to be on board with the Obama administration’s plans. It seems as if Speaker John Boehner is as well.

As of now, Congress is split on a decision to back Obama. Will Congress vote for action in Syria?

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, said the U.S. simply can’t afford to get involved in Syria.  “We’re in a position right now where we don’t have the assets to get involved in another intervention,” he said on CNN’s “The Lead” last week.

McCain proved himself to be completely incompetent when it was recently reported that he claimed that it’s “Islamophobic” to point out terrorists yelling “Allahu Akhbar” before missiles strike, going so far as to compare the euphoric chant of islamists to Christians saying “Thank you God.” As if Christians thank God when terrorists cause destruction and death!

John Kerry dismissed the argument that the past decade of war that has left the country tired and our military over extended, saying August 30th, “Fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.”

For someone who spoke vehemently against US action in Vietnam, even to the point of speaking in front of a congressional panel while the war was still going on, he seems now to be completely fine with US involvement in another nation’s civil war.  He is speaking in highly negative terms lately of Assad, yet it wasn’t that long ago, Kerry claimed Assad was “a good friend.”

Kerry blocked efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria in 2003.  He served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. Bashar Assad told him at the time, that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

Kerry agreed, condemning Bush. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” Kerry said.

Kerry has enjoyed social time with Assad and his wife in the past as well as seen in a recently surfaced photo of the Kerrys dining with the Assads.

Now that he’s Secretary of State under a democrat administration, all of a sudden Assad is the bad guy who needs to be removed?

And then there was this from MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell who according to Media Research Council’s Bias Alert, tried to “ease” concerns of democrats in congress by saying:

“Barack Obama, as you know better than I do, was one of the leading Democratic politicians against the Iraq War. So if he says that this is different, that the evidence is there, that no one’s disputing that chemicals were used, and that they have the evidence linking it to the Assad regime, does that persuade you since he has always come at this from a very cautious  anti-war perspective?”

That’s interesting. Back when GW Bush was trying to gain congressional support for going into Iraq, she reported, “Congress is serving notice on the President–don’t try to go to war without a formal declaration from us. It is fast becoming a constitutional showdown with the President.”

I don’t hear her speaking about the Obama administration’s earlier stance that the administration could order strikes without congressional approval.

Obama said he was “confident” in the case for action his government has made even without a corroborating report from United Nations inspectors and “comfortable” going forward without the approval of the U.N. Security Council.  It certainly seems like Obama, the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is itching to go to war.

I have to point out the incredible hypocrisy here of many on the left whom if this was George W Bush pushing so hard, every Code Pink type would be screaming for his head on a platter, and so would many in Washington and the majority of the alphabet news outlets.  I have to ask again, where are all the “Bush lied, people died” chanters now?

Why is it that all of a sudden, the left finds it acceptable to wage war on Syria? Could it be that this would be a diversion from the 1^st Anniversary of the Benghazi attacks coming up on September 11?  Could it be that no action has been taken to uncover the truth of everything the administration did and didn’t do, which led to the deaths of 4 Americans?  Or could it be to take the attention away from a potentially explosive story that a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) report stated that the US had trained resources on hand to assist and defend Americans under attack in Benghazi, evidence of the White House stonewalling CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson and that the Obama White House “let them die”?