Yesterday's statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry on chemical weapons use near Damascus last week left little room for doubt as to whether or not we're about to attack Syria:
In some of the most aggressive language used yet by the administration,
Mr. Kerry accused the Syrian government of the “indiscriminate slaughter
of civilians” and of cynical efforts to cover up its responsibility for
a “cowardly crime.”
Mr. Kerry’s remarks at the State Department reinforced the
administration’s toughening stance on the Syria conflict, which is now
well into its third year, and indicated that the White House was moving
closer to a military response in consultation with America’s allies.
Administration officials said that although President Obama had not made
a final decision on military action, he was likely to order a limited
military operation — cruise missiles launched from American destroyers
in the Mediterranean Sea at military targets in Syria, for example — and
not a sustained air campaign intended to topple Bashar al-Assad, the
Syrian president, or to fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict
on the ground.
But even if no decision has been
made, Carney laid out a deliberate case for war against Syria, which appears
to hinge on the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. "The use of these
weapons is a threat to our national interest and a concern to the entire
world," Carney said. "It is because this international norm exits and because
it has been so clearly violated that we and people around the world have to
address this and seek an appropriate response."
Syria is promising retaliation to any US action and for its part warns it has the backing of both Iran and Russia.
Syria's foreign minister says his country will defend itself using "all means available" in case of a US strike.
Walid al-Moallem says Syria has two choices, either to surrender or fight back, and it will choose the latter.
He declined to elaborate or say to what specific means he was referring.
Iran of course is ignoring the US and threatening Israel instead, vowing a "larger regional conflict".
A senior Syrian official on Monday issued a first direct warning that if
attacked, his country would retaliate against Israel. Khalaf Muftah, a
senior Baath Party official who used to serve as Syria’s assistant
information minister, said in a radio interview that Damascus would
consider Israel “behind the [Western] aggression and [it] will therefore
come under fire.”
And
Russia is just outright concern-trolling at this point, continuing to blame Islamist Syrian rebels for inciting war, because really the al-Assad regime is
filled with nice guys.
A Western military attack on Syria would only create more problems in
the region, lead to more bloodshed and result in the same sort of
“catastrophe” as previous such interventions in Iraq and Libya, Russia’s
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Monday.
“Hysteria is growing, and confrontation is incited,” Lavrov
said in what he portrayed as an emergency news conference. He said the
United States and its European allies have condemned the regime of Bashar al-Assad without any evidence that it actually used chemical weapons in an attack in the Damascus suburbs on Wednesday.
So at this point, who knows.
I've been warning about the consequences of a Syria strike for almost two years now and been predicting US intervention for almost as long. The difference this time is that the
American people are very much against any Syrian intervention.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like
even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention
in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.
Nine percent. That speaks volumes.
60% oppose any intervention outright. Count me in that group. There's no way limited strikes will do anything to Assad's grasp on power and bringing enough fireworks to actually force regime change will all but guarantee Iran and Israel go to war. It's not worth it.
President Obama can still back down. I pray he does. If he decides otherwise, we'll go from there.
But put me as on the record as saying any Syrian military intervention by the US is a bad, bad idea. Syria is not Libya or Egypt, and the results won't be anywhere near as tidy as Qaddafi's ouster.
We're already seeing massive pressure from the media that an attack is inevitable at this point, and I don't buy that.
Trust me on this one, folks. If we pull the trigger, it's going to be something we regret.
Posts
