The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding a hearing on Syria featuring Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. Kerry just finished his opening remarks, in which he reiterated his very flawed argument that we know with absolute certainty that the Assad regime was behind the gas attacks. I keep asking them to do better, but they don’t seem to be able to do better. It was with some substantial bitterness that I listened to Kerry say that history does not look kindly on Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks or his enablers, without mentioning that we were among his enablers.
In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
We are not constrained by the moral errors of the past, but to see history revised this way is sickening. The world is not as forgetful as we would like.
The US argument is not “very flawed” at all. It is extremely strong with the only objection to it being that there is a world-wide conspiracy to cover up a hoax caused by rebels gassing themselves.
No intel service from any nation has offered one iota of evidence to teh contrary. Even the Russian case amounts to nothing more than saying “why would Assad do such a thing?” They have spy satellites and agents on the ground too. Yet they do not offer even an unclassified summary of reasons as does the US and our allies.
Not to mention the preposterous nothing that the rebel groups would gas their own families in order to stage a hoax. These groups tend to fight in their home neighborhoods protecting their lifelong friends and their extended families. Suddenly these peope gass their own mothers and children?
And not one of these groups report unknown actors infiltrating their home neighborhoods with strange canisters?
Which they got from the chem weapon stockpiles Saudi Arabia never manufactured?
But we do have reports now of non-US intel services backing up the US version. And we have a story of a Syrian defector arriving with evidence of earlier Assad use of chem weapons.
The only “very flawed argument” here is the claim that someone other than the obvious culprits did it.
And we have a story of a Syrian defector arriving with evidence of earlier Assad use of chem weapons.
Proof? I’ve seen other reports saying he was kidnapped.
This is in its early stages and I would not call it proven yet. But it is yet one more snippet falling in a way consistent with Assad = responsible.
Did you follow the link?
Did you listen to Kerry’s opening statement?
Why don’t you care compare the two, and you’ll quickly see why our version of events is so wanting.
I’m totally open to the idea that we’re completely correct and have the evidence to prove it, but we aren’t providing any of that evidence. We’re merely asserting the same things over and over as if they will magically become more convincing.
I haven’t been arguing that we’re lying. I’ve been arguing that the evidence we’ve been willing to share that goes beyond mere assertion is not enough.
Nevertheless he is speaking to the Senate, not an audience known for its appreciation for truthfulness.
Regardless of how you restate your objections, the US case does not amount to a very flawed argument. Slightly flawed I will accept. But characterizing it as very flawed is to say it is less than even money the US is wrong about its conclusion that the Assad people did the deed. And that is simply not true. The odds the Assad team did not do this in well under one tenth of one percent.
Less than 1 in 1000 wow that is very convincing.
I am amazed how accurate you can calculate those odds.
And how sure you can be about something you have no direct knowledge about.
Stalin allowed his son to die in a German prison camp rather than trade a Lieutenant for a Field Marshall. Everyone is expendable to a fanatic. And how do you know that they were gassing their own families? The rebels that did it (IF they did) would most likely come from a different region or tribe.
Which defecting regular Syrian army troops brought with them. Whole units have defected en masse. Generals and Cabinet Ministers have defected. Anything Assad’s loyalists have, the rebels could very well have too, including Soviet manufactured Sarin gas warheads.
And Abraham killed his own son, or something.
As much as I agree with your conclusions I would have to admit that unfortunately the evidence so far cited by the administration, while circumstantially persuasive, is premature or cites material not presented. Not good enough to unilaterally embark on a military response, in other words. The UN inspection has not completed the analysis of samples, for example.
We’re not doubting that Sarin was used, right? We’re just doubting that the sigint from the Syrian command to the field commander asking what the hell was going on.
Meanwhile, the Germans – who won’t be bombing anyone this time around – concur:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-g
as-attack-a-920123.html
Schindler also presented an additional clue, one that has not thus far been made public. He said that the BND listened in on a conversation between a high-ranking member of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which supports Assad and provides his regime with military assistance, and the Iranian Embassy. The Hezbollah functionary, Schindler reported, seems to have admitted that poison gas was used. He said that Assad lost his nerves and made a big mistake by ordering the chemical weapons attack.
Yeah, seems credible. But not entered as evidence and for obvious reasons.
Every decision made by the government will at some level cite information not directly presented to the audience. And that argument can be extended infinitely. We still hear to this day arguments the Bush administration caused 9/11 to happen. No amount of evidence satisfies those arguments. There will be people who forever will insist this gassing was a rebel hoax.
I want to be clear I do not point that particular characterization at our BooMan here. But you know in your bones you will hear that asserted so long as you venture onto political internet boards.
Not a single Senator in this hearing, for example, disputed the basic fact that the Assad team did this deed. Not even that idiot Rand Paul. The early era of reasonable doubt is over. I think we can move past this and debate what if anything should be done about the chemical attacks the Assad regime has launched.
Yes, with the exception of the UN inspection. That’s a sticking point with me as an old school “collective security” believer. And I want to see Putin dragged through the diplomatic mud before this is all over.
As for Booman, it took long, long days to get him turned around. He had this basically pinned on an unnamed Western intelligence agency for days on the slender argument that he couldn’t imagine a motive for Assad. And there is no more evidence now than then at the level of proof on which he was stubbornly and repeatedly insisting. I wouldn’t let him off the hook so easily.
The whole Left blogosphere has really screwed the pooch on this incident; it is shameful.
I’m still not convinced, primarily because John Kerry said so many risible and outrageous and logically fallacious things today that he should be flogged for incompetence if he is telling the truth.
That’s a common reaction. I can’t bear to watch him longer than 10 seconds. He might put on that pompous “I’m so serious, I’ve got gravitas” face and tone again.
But I haven’t let my visceral reaction to Kerry get in my way of casting about for data. He is not the only source. I’ve know Kerry is a militaristic clown for a long time.
Yeah, I didn’t watch but haven’t been impressed at all with the presentation of arguments and evidence to the public so far. Its almost like they are begging the House to vote against them.
How’s your French?
Thanks for providing that document. I was able to get through most of it with the little I know (With a little translator help on the more technical bits.)
.
Kerry is supposed to be our point man of US diplomacy in the world community. I could only listen to the hearing for a minute or two and tried to turn the satellite to another station without the hearing. Was not easy, the hearing had great coverage, so I’ll wait for the aftershocks. His argument … if we don’t act we may lose our allies in the region. WTF the US has lost the global community on the Syrian issue and only a handful of supporters left [I wouldn’t call them allies]. Egypt and Iraq are opposed. Kerry would refer to Turkey (sultan Erdogan and an anti-semitic), Saudi Arabia (Prince of Darkness Bandar), Jordan (reluctantly), Israel (Netanyahu demanding strikes, loves red lines too), UAE (military mercenary Gen. McChrystal) and Qatar (Muslim Brothers). I prefer to listen to what UNSG Ban Ki-moon had to say on the Syrian issue and an update about the inspectors of the Ghouta gas attack.
Turns out we were mistaken about functions of Secretary of State: he is point man of diplomacy in the Senate, carefully protecting Senator Graham’s feelings by not mentioning where Saddam got his WMDs.
Still could be it’s all theater, masking real diplomacy with Iran. I know it’s unlikely, but I believe in the observer’s paradox for politics: somebody has to see it happening in order for it to come true.
Great to see you! Hang out a while, have a beer, crash on the couch!
Interesting that the CIA plot to install the Shah and the decision to turn a blind eye during the Iran-Iraq war both were revealed at about the time we’re meant to start considering any new offers from recently elected Rouhani.
Putin is singing in a different key today:
So from ‘utter nonsense’ to not excluding support for a UN resolution in forty-eight hours? Something is up.
.
Stock of CW and BW was seen as a poor man’s option for a nuclear deterrent.
○ UK ‘approved nerve gas chemical exports to Syria’
○ Amsterdam Crash: History of EL AL Flight LY1862 with Illegal Chemicals and Plutonium
France has issued a declassified intelligence report.
○ France accuses Syria of 3 chemical attacks, Assad slams Western logic
○ Text of declassified French Intelligence Report
.
Belgian expert Jean-Pascal Zanders finds the French intelligence report not convincing. He is a leading expert on verification of WMD arms control. In a VRT television interview yesterday. Obama and Kerry are not getting NATO allies on board for an air strike on Syria to put the Islamists in power and be part of a new genocide crisis.
The so-called “sarin signature” can be found in any agricutural/rural setting in pesticides. For what reason did John Kerry attempt to halt the UN Inspectors in Damascus by putting pressure on Ban Ki-moon? I’ll await the UN report on the exact composition of chemical agents used in the gas attack in Ghouta.
The strike on Syria is doing Israel’s bidding in the Middle-East – Juan Cole @Informed Comment | Richard Silverstein @Tikun Olam | Mondoweiss.
Zanders didn’t initially believe that sarin was used in the attack, and said so publicly:
He subsequently reversed himself; a bit of an embarrassment for ‘expert’ Jean-Pascal.
I am against intervention ultimately, but then again, I don’t feel good about the idea that that means that I am okay with CW being used by guv’t to kill people.
I understand a numbers of polls have come out saying that a majority of Americans and Brits oppose intervention . I honestly think that most people are war fatigued and don’t really care if chem weapons are used by other countries unless/until they are used on American/British citizens or military. I completely understand the sentiment. But I also think that once that standard is set its set.
I think the debate is good to have, but if the Congress bases on polls and voter fatigue, then they will vote against any strike, as they should. But what I am saying is that is fine but I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a real precedent will be set that the use of chem weapons by a controlling gov’t on it’s own people while not sanction by international community, that it is not gonna be treated as anything serious unless/until a certain number of people are killed or affected by the chem weapons. And if the next time is against American citizens then what say we then???
FYI: I understand the US history w/regards to use of chem weapons and such by Hussein and such during the Reagan years and such but IMHO, just because Reagan era US Foreign Policy was poopy, doesn’t mean that we should be ok with stuff like this going on.
Can there not be sanctions without missile strikes and McCain’s “boots on the ground”? A trade embargo? Seizure of Syrian assets in foreign countries like Switzerland? Why does the world’s cop have to come in with guns blazing like Wyatt Earp? To save AlQueda’s ass? To install into power the very people who attacked us on September 11, 2001?
I supported military action in Libya. That was because Gaddafi owed us blood for Lockerbie. I would not support action to keep him in power if his opponents used poison gas. AlQueda owes us blood. If neccesary, I would support Assad to crush them.
Don’t you understand blood debts? You pro-rebel people would not last a day in Chicago’s inner city.
Sorry, lamh31, for my last paragraph. I forgot I wasn’t addressing Quicklund or joefromlowell. Your post was much more reasonable.
no problem.
You’re a gentleman (or lady as the case may be).
Well presented. I’m uncomfortable with setting that precedent too and am concerned it would undermine other instruments of collective security such as the NPT and the UN.
Caught about 15 minutes of the hearing while at a store. The Senators were dismally incurious. The SoS was just reading his script, and even then had to backtrack once. And some GooPers were mainly focused on hating the Russkies and wondering why Obama is so slow to take Assad down.
Just plain dismal. A huge missed opportunity to get Congressional seriousness.
This is slightly OT, but since we are talking about Senators, I just had to share this.
I swear McCain has a version of Tourette’s Syndrome that causes him to do some good and honorable things. Usually, he comes off as a grumpy old man to me. Here though, good on McCain
McCain Slams Fox News: Muslims Thank Allah Like Christians Thank God (VIDEO)
@SiubhanDuinne:
Well damn here’s some more Tourette’s ticks from McCain. Seems McCain was sorta on a roll this morning, this also happened on the same Fox & Friends interview:
McCain laughs as he mocks Laura Ingraham’s `vast knowledge of military tactics’
ugh, darn cutting and pasting…lol
Got to admit it hadn’t occurred to me that Obama’s decision to go to Congress might be because he’s considering upping the ante on his response rather than seeking legislative cover?:
That’s one way to send a diplomatic message; Obama must have known that would cross Vladimir’s desk in less than a minute.
It would appear that Kerry and Obama are determined to have a nice little war. The Kerry that threw his medals away deeply regrets his rash action and is determined to give Millenials their chance for glory.
It doesn’t matter,Boo, what’s right or wrong as you so clearly anguish over. It doesn’t matter that we are going to pull our enemies’ chestnuts out of the fire as I have been raging about. Our Lords and Masters have decided. I suggest you go off and kiss Cabin Girl and Finn and then get drunk and not worry about what future Emperor will throw Finn into the cauldron for unknown reasons. That’s what I’m about to do. Except I’m kissing Mrs. Voice not Cabin Girl. For booze I suggest cheap under $10 wine or domestic beer. No sense in swilling down the good stuff.
Isn’t Kerry implicitly noting that we were his enablers last time? And that it was a black mark against the US?
but to attack St. Ronnie would be to sink he whole argument.
Exactly. Pick you battles. I’m sure we are not without black marks on this front and I don’t think he was pretending otherwise with such diplomatic language.
Wow Kerry spanked Rand Paul. lol Little brat wouldn’t shut up. Like his dad Paul loves the sound of his own voice.
Its a step forward for the U.S. to even have this debate. We are knee jerk cruise missile culture.
Apparently Sen. Markey asked that Kerry declassify the evidence that definitively showed that the Assad government was behind the attack. Sen. Kerry refused. Not clear or the exchange or whether Kerry offered to declassify for members of Congress. Anyone have more details of this exchange?
Glad that Markey reads my posts here.
And yet you you continue to enable this kind of rewriting…a standard PermaGov/1984 tactic, this is by no means the first time…by your support of our Peace President, Barack “Let Loose The Drones Of War” O’Bomber.
I am sorry, sir, but your indignation doesn’t wash anymore. It worked well when it was aimed at Republicans…you, I and thousands of others were at the popular forefront of opposition to the whole Bush regime that got Obama elected, an early example of social media making a real difference in political action…but now you literally cower in fear of losing what “gains” we think that we might have gotten.
Well…the proof is in. It’s in regarding the massive, technofascist, corporate-owned-and-operated surveillance state, it’s in with the treatment of Mannaing, Assange and Snowden as criminals instead of heroes, in w/the way the media covered the (
s) election process in 2012, and now all the way in with the bullshit war game(s) that have been played regarding Syria for several years now. Yet you continue to act as if Obama’s moral honeymoon is still in effect.It’s not, Booman. The truth is out. Not only is the honeymoon over, but he’s a (
wife)…errrr, ahhh, electorate-beater just like Bush II only smarter. Get wise to it. The same people who fomented mass opposition to Bush II one post at a time are now cowering in front of their keyboards, afraid to speak the truth of the matter.It’s getting late early here, bubba. Turn on the fucking lights and let’s have a real major league game again.
AG
This is the sort of BS that is killing Kerry’s making his case to the public. Countries that won’t go on the record are hardly committed and can come back to carp later.
Here’s your modern GOP, BooMan:
McCain playing poker:
Link
it wasn’t that important, he didn’t need to pay attention
Can’t say that Boehner doesn’t have a one-track mind.
I’ve been catching up on the follow-up to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. It seems that it really is about regime change–although the Administration is denying it–and the Administration is insisting on having flexibility to put boots on the ground.
Once again an American President is pressing Congress for an even bigger blank check to prosecute a war than previous Presidents had. I think that this is not an issue of personalities, but runaway institutions seeking to dodge the Constitutional checks and balances that seek to make going to war difficult.
You’re one of the more thoughtful and informed here, but excuse me, didn’t Obama and several of his senior officials say and repeat that “Assad must go” over the past few years? Sheesh — wtf is anyone to conclude from US participation in supplying and training rebel fighters for the Syrian conflict.
As “HAL” isn’t yet running US federal institutions, excusing the Obama administration for fomented and selling another war as an institutional failure is sad.
My point is about the text of the legislation to authorize the use of military force. After the hearings the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems ready to explicitly permit boots on the the ground while still emphasizing the “limited” nature of involvement. And it is the sense of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the operation should be about regime change.
The President bases his judgement almost exclusively off of US generated intelligence information. Living in the White House bubble creates an institutional bias towards taking that intelligence information as 100% accurate. The President has assembled a foreign policy team that is biased towards intervention and could not likely choose contrary voices without major criticism from the Serious People. Yes, it is an institutional failure. And will persist as a pattern of US action until the institutions are changed.
You don’t need HAL to get groupthink and pressure to conform to conventional wisdom. And what I am commenting on is how the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to be part of the pressure for full boots-on-the-ground intervention, pushing the President into mission creep instead of circumscribing Presidential war powers and reasserting Congress’s power over war and peace.
The idea that we can get out of this mess by just electing a President more committed to peace is mistaken. That is not sufficient.
Because nothing says ‘presidential’ like doubting your own intelligence briefings. Hell, all he would have to do is Google it himself and he could see how questionable and unpersuasive it all was. Pretty much all the time too.
My sense is that what he would see is not the inaccuracy but the way that the intelligence community was driving his decisions in certain ways and not providing evidence that would drive decisions toward a reduction of the national security state and consequentially their budgets.
Well, that’s a good point. But wouldn’t State be advocating diplomacy for similar reasons? Has it not always been thus?
State seems to be more belligerent than Defense now. I’m not sure when State started seeing military power as its first tool of international relations, but beginning with Jimmy Byrnes that has been the trend. So Hillary’s notions of soft power turned out to be use of covert operations and not diplomacy. There is no institution with a counterbalancing narrative to military intervention and forward global positioning of US military assets. The Truman-era architecture seems to be running on autopilot from one disaster to the next.
I meant institutionally, which is what you were arguing about intelligence and national security.
Christiane Amanpour on CNN interviews Amb Ja’afari.
It’s like she’s right out of the WH. I like adversarial reporters, but she’s repeating Kerry’s lines, and almost actively threatening him with missiles. “So what are you going to do when we strike you? Does it make you shit your pants?”
We know Saddam used chemical weapons. We have the receipts for them.
The US goverment is firmed in their decision to attack Syria.
Tom Englehardt: The US still Wants to be the Sole Superpower; but it Can’t
At the end of the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev said that the Soviet Union by its changes of glasnost and perestroika and changed US-Soviet relations was taking away the the United States’s enemy. And then he remarked that that could be very destructive to the United States. Englehardt argues that Gorbachev’s insight might have come true.
It fits the malaise of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.