Image 01 Image 03

Syria Tag

In an effort to deter the US from attacking Syria, the “International Human Shields” movement is eying to locate civilians to Damascus from across the globe, including Britain and the US, reports the Daily Telegraph. Even as residents are evacuating Syria, hundreds of activists are volunteering to be placed in harm’s way against possible air strikes, despite the dangerous nature of the protest. One such activist is Andrew, a 33 year-old Canadian pianist. “I don’t want to see Syria turn into another Libya,” he told the Daily Telegraph. “If I had a hand big enough to squash the US tanks then I would. Democracy is America’s deadliest export, they use it as an excuse to destroy countries.” Franklin Lamb, a lawyer appointed as the legal adviser for the US-based group, stated in a recent op-ed that he is frequently asked how Obama can ignore the reluctance of American people to become militarily involved in Syria. “What kind of Democracy do you have that your President can ignore the will of the American public?”, he is asked by Syrians. Lamb describes how the goal is to bring “1000 Americans and thousands of others”  to potential bomb sites in Syria during the next ten days, reminding Lamb of "one of the International Solidarity Movement international volunteer’s efforts in Occupied Palestine in order to try to protect homes of Palestinians from Government bulldozing". According to Lamb, an objective of the movement is to ensure a message of solidarity among the international community by sending “ideally at least one representative from every UN Member State.” However, one of the major obstacles to fulfilling this goal will be convincing the Syrian government to allow the activists to enter the country. If allowed in the country, activists are to be sent to sites deemed critical to the survival of the Syrian people which include, “power plants, water treatment facilities, bomb shelters (if they exist), civilian communications sites, food storage sites.” Meanwhile, Syria prepares for US attacks, positioning troops in residential neighborhoods and warning residents to move out, according to the Wall Street Journal. Another group of human shields, called “Over Our Dead Bodies, has already been organized by some Damascenes. Reuters has footage of the group, which has allegedly received support from all over the globe, in the video below.

There are very good arguments against intervention in Syria, even if I disagree with the conclusions reached from those arguments.  I haven't denigrated those who disagree, although I can't say the same is true in reverse. Unfortunately, regardless of how you come out on the issue,...

Having been mostly away from the internet these past two days, I've watched from afar how quickly things have turned on Syria. It's amazing how Obama has gone from being backed into a corner to being on a ledge where his presidency is just a vote...

Speaking from the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia this morning, President Obama addressed the topic of Syria, where he acknowledged that he knew it would be a tough fight to convince Congress and the American public to move forward with a military strike. The president...

Have you noticed another skirmish brewing, not in the Middle East but among Republicans over support for Obama's Syrian debacle? David Axelrod must be twirling his mustache with delight over his latest manipulation of the leaderless Republican party as they provide cover for Obama's latest fail. Of course, Obama's Syrian problem isn't about Congress, it's about his own failures as a leader -- in this case the logical extension of his worldwide apology tour presidency. Enter Axelrod (if he ever was off stage). August 30 Axelrod puts New York Times, et al., on notice of what the talking point will be -- "this is up to Congress": https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/373320824473673729 A gleeful tweet on August 31: https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/373871738032910336 Sept. 2, a thank you to the New York Times for pitching in: https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/374719590124630016 I imagine a phone call from Axelrod to Obama, perhaps sometime Friday night, with Obama pouting about his off-teleprompter "red line" comment. Axelrod has an idea. Foment a little diversion by foisting Obama's Syrian debacle onto hapless Republicans.

After testifying yesterday before the Senate, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey are testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: https://twitter.com/texasbryanp/status/375340994167730176 https://twitter.com/AuthorAnnBaker/status/375341049603821568 https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/375333974337265665 https://twitter.com/mpoindc/status/375330440359317504

This is the big headline today: "I did not set a red line." (added) Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
People are contrasting it with this August 2012 statement: This is too important for gamesmanship:

There are many developments on the Syria front, some in Congress, some on the ground. We will update this throughout the day, and as usual, have the Legal Insurrection and #Syria hashtag Twitter feeds at the bottom of the post. Update are in reverse chronological order, with most recent on top. https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/375098989340680192

President Obama has decided to send the issue of authorizing force against Syria to Congress. What should Congress do? Should Congress give him the authority to act based on the guidelines he's set out? Should Congress change the guidelines? The mishandling of Syria is so complete that whether or not military intervention is warranted, it may now be the worst of the options: Congress should not authorize the use of force in Syria, if at all, until there is a clear objective in mind. https://twitter.com/BorowitzReport/status/373104742991294467 This isn't me simply mocking the President, which would be easy to do. https://twitter.com/OptimisticCon/status/373893087602278400 This is based on the President's own words and actions; some since August 21 but many before. In A Show of Farce, after noting the severity of Assad's actions, James Taranto observes that the administration's stated goals hardly fit the crime.
Indications are that the Obama administration's response will be to drop a few bombs, break some stuff, and maybe kill a few bystanders. That comes nowhere near being a just punishment for the crimes alleged. Nor does it seem likely to prove an effective deterrent. Other dictators will see that they can use chemical weapons without endangering their survival (in both senses of the word). Assad will have tested the resolve of "the world" and found it wanting: Even after using chemical weapons, he will remain in power, with no reason to expect any external response to any further atrocity that doesn't involve chemical weapons.

Edward Snowden and the NSA debate seem to have lost some significant momentum on Twitter in light of the current discussion about what the US will or won't be doing about the situation in Syria. Business Insider noticed that Syria Tensions Have Knocked The NSA Spying...

Not the indecision and delayed decision about the use of force in Syria. The Golf immediately after the Rose Garden statement. Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course. Obama’s motorcade left the White House at...

Now that you have had all of about 6 hours to digest Obama's decision to seek authorization from Congress for use of force in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, let's get some quick reader feedback. The poll is open until...