generalspeaking

Second-Thought Indecision

"In my conversations and briefings over the last few days, one thing has been made clear: No U.S. troops will be committed to fight in Syria. We have ended the war in Iraq and are winding down the war in Afghanistan -- the longest war in our nation's history.
"The cost of human lives and treasure to our country over the last twelve years of war has been overwhelming. If we can do something to discourage Assad and others like him from using chemical weapons without engaging in a war and without making a long-term military commitment of the United States, I'm open to that debate."
U.S. President Barack Obama

Perhaps it's the wrong debate. Perhaps this can be related to one of those sinister conspiracy theories; that the Syrian conflict could have been managed and concluded long ago. But that Syria acceded to a demand for experiment on behalf of the Iranian Republic that he and his Alawite Baathist government stand fast in the face of an incipient rebellion where majority Sunni Syrians requested consideration on their behalf for administrative evenness to benefit them equally as citizens with  the Shiite minority.

To see just how much the effete West looking on anxiously and critically could absorb without flinching and once again embroiling themselves in Islamic affairs. A test run, if you will, for the much greater goal of once again trying the patience and credibility of the West, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency with Iran's nuclear program. Should Bashar al-Assad's weapons of mass destruction agenda successfully manoeuvre the shoals of U.S., French, British and UN demands, it could be seen as a green light for Iran to proceed with its own agenda.

Whether such a theatre of audacious trial was actually discussed, planned and undertaken, it is now the reality of the situation. One that the world appears to far prefer simply ignoring in the futile hope it will go away. And so, the Western powers wax eloquent over their indignation at the unacceptable brutality of a rogue state in league with a much more ambitious rogue state for whom the episode in Syria between the regime and the rebels is an incident in history, nothing more. Iran knows about chemical weapons and it knows it prevailed in its long, merciless war of mutual slaughter with Iraq.




United Nations arms experts arrive to inspect a site suspected of being hit by a deadly chemical weapons attack last week on the northeastern outskirts of Damascus. Photo by Mohamed Abdullah/AFP/Getty Images.

"There's no doubt at all that this debate on whether to act in Syria is hugely impacted and influenced by what has happened in Iraq and, to some extent, in Afghanistan The important point about this, though, is that when people talk about the shadow of Iraq lying over this debate it's not really, in this case, an issue to do with what happened before we took military action in Iraq or in Afghanistan. It's not really a trust issue, because there isn't a dispute here about the use of chemical weapons. It's an issue to do with the difficulty we encountered afterwards, and that is a really, really important lesson."
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair

"The Joint Intelligence Committee concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the Chemical Weapons attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime's precise notification for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.
"We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus.
"Permission to authorize CW has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders, such as (name omitted; presumably brother Maher, commander of the Syrian Republican Guard) but any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorization.
"There is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW.
"We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence.
"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighbourhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred -- including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya and Mu'addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media.
"We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.... The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighbourhoods of opposition elements, including neighbourhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime's frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21."
Joint Intelligence Committee Report: United States, Britain, France

Time, delaying tactics, extensions, promises, all these are devices and ploys of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a past master. The dress rehearsal that the Syrian conflict represents to the Iranian Republic is one of huge interest to it, in the conceivable outcome. Rendering to Iranian intelligence reliable evidence of what they too may anticipate as they continue to go forward with their own nuclear technology plans for the purpose of acquiring nuclear warheads and more powerful ballistic missiles.

Russia, now being feted for its statesmanlike diplomacy, is not too troubled over the kind of threatening Islamism emanating from its long-time allies. It does not equate the danger they represent to the West with the danger that they themselves face from other jihadist sources closer to home, as in Chechnya, for example. The greater value of ongoing weapons sales to its clients assumes greater importance to the Kremlin and President Putin, it appears, under the guise of 'preventing war' against an ally.

 

These are, needless to say, the unsavoury conclusions of a suspicious mind.

Labels: Britain, Chemical Weapons, Conflict, France, Intervention, Iran, Nuclear Technology, Russia, Syria, United States

posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, September 11, 2013