Thread: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force

The Guardian
Paul Lewis and Spencer Ackerman in Washington
Thursday 29 August 2013

Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force


A spokeswoman for Obama's national security council said the US would consider its options in the light of the vote. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

White House forced to consider unilateral strikes against Assad after British PM unexpectedly loses key motion on intervention.

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action.

The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for Obama's national security council, indicated the administration would consider acting unliaterally. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government – one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

The US appears to have taken British support for granted. Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike.

Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us."

The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government, was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side.

Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading.

The officials said there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week, Reuters reported. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee.

The 90-minute briefing was conducted by secretary of state John Kerry, secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, among others.

After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.

"Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

The UN has said more time should be given to diplomacy, and France, which earlier this week declared its support for taking action against Syria, is now calling for more time so UN inspections can be completed. A session of the United Nations security council in New York, called by Russia, broke up without agreement.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule. Ban also announced that the team would report to him immediately on departure, raising the possibility that the UN could issue an interim report on the 21 August chemical attacks that left hundreds of people dead.

The inspectors had not been due to deliver their findings for a week at least. The demand for a rushed early assessment reflects the fraught atmosphere at the UN triggered by US threats to launch punitive air strikes within days.

Shortly before Britain's parliamentary vote, the New York Times quoted senior administration officials saying the US administration was prepared to launch strikes on Syria without a UN security council mandate or the support of allies such as Britain.

Earlier on Thursday, Joshua Earnest, the White House deputy spokesman, seemed to confirm that was a possibility when he was asked whether the US would "go it alone". He repeatedly said it was in US "core national security interests" to enforce international chemical weapons norms. "The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America," he said. Any strikes would be "discreet and limited", he said.

However, Earnest also stressed the broad international support for the US position – backing that now appears to be dissipating. The Arab League has blamed Syria for the chemical attack, but stopped short of advocating punitive strikes by the US.

In recent days, Obama has spoken personally with leaders of France, Australia, Canada and Germany. But none were as important as Britain, a traditional ally during US military actions which has been lobbying behind the scenes for months for a tougher action on Syria.

Ken Pollack, a fellow from the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, said that with continuing uncertainty over the intelligence picture, and no obvious legal mandate for military action, the US will be desperate to secure more international backing to argue that intervention is "legitimate".
"If the administration can't even count of the full-throated support of our closest ally, the country that stuck by us even during the worst days of Iraq, that legitimacy is going to be called into question," he said.

Now that the UK parliament has rejected an attack on Syria, Washington's space for planning one is likely to be constrained, particularly as the Obama administration prepares to release its intelligence tying Assad to the 21 August gas attack. An unclassified report is due to be published on Friday.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst and Georgetown professor, said the loss of British support would lead to more "intense" scrutiny of the US case for action against Syria. "The UK is, in many important respects, the most important ally of the United States," said Pillar. "This action by parliament is unquestionably significant in that regard."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...a-britain-vote

New York Times
By MARK LANDLER, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 29, 2013

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No


Mohamed Abdullah/Reuters

A United Nations team on Thursday with a sample from one of the sites in the Damascus area where a chemical weapons attack is suspected. World leaders reacted to the heightened expectation of an attack, and Ban Ki-moon urged restraint.

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America’s stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

But administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike. Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.

Even before the parliamentary vote, White House officials said, Mr. Obama decided there was no way he could overcome objections by Russia, Syria’s longtime backer, to any resolution in the Security Council.

Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.

The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.

In a conference call with Republicans and Democrats, top officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence agencies asserted that the evidence was clear that Mr. Assad’s forces had carried out the attack, according to officials who were briefed.

While the intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, these officials said, the administration said the United States had both the evidence and legal justification to carry out a strike aimed at deterring the Syrian leader from using such weapons again.

A critical piece of the intelligence, officials said, is an intercepted telephone call between Syrian military officials, one of whom seems to suggest that the chemical weapons attack was more devastating than was intended. “It sounds like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one intelligence official said.

But Republican lawmakers said White House officials dismissed suggestions that the scale of the attack was a miscalculation, indicating that the officials believe Syria intended to inflict the widespread damage.

“I’m comfortable that the things the president told Assad not to do he did,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who took part with seven other Republican senators in a separate briefing by the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough.

Among the officials on the conference call were Secretary of State John Kerry; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr.; and the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice. It was unclassified, which means the administration gave lawmakers only limited details about the intelligence they assert bolsters the case for a military strike.

Before the call, however, some prominent lawmakers expressed anger that the White House was planning a strike without significant consultations with Congress. “When we take what is a very difficult decision, you have to have buy-in by members and buy-in by the public,” Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Thursday on MSNBC. “I think both of those are critically important and, right now, none of that has happened.”

Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said after the telephone briefing that administration officials “had no doubt that chemical weapons were used by Assad and his people.”

Mr. Engel said that among the evidence described to members of Congress was an intercepted communication “from a high-level Syrian official” discussing the attack. “There is more than enough evidence if the president chooses to act,” Mr. Engel said.

After the 90-minute conference call, some senior lawmakers were not persuaded that the Obama administration had made its case for military action in Syria. Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama needed to make a forceful case to persuade both Congress and a “war weary” country.

“If he doesn’t, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public,” he said. “He’s got a big sell.”

Several officials said that the intelligence dossier about the attack also includes evidence of Syrian military units moving chemical munitions into place before the attack was carried out.

Mr. Obama, officials said, is basing his case for action both on safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons and on the threat to America’s national interest.

That threat, they said, is both to allies in the region, like Turkey, Jordan and Israel, and to the United States itself, if Syria’s weapons were to fall into the wrong hands or if other leaders were to take American inaction as an invitation to use unconventional weapons.

Mr. Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. The Obama administration says that case differs sharply from its objectives in Syria.

In Iraq Mr. Bush was explicitly seeking regime change. In this case, White House officials argue, Mr. Obama is trying to enforce an international ban on chemical weapons and seeking to prevent their use in Syria, or against American allies.

“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”

The decision to proceed without Britain is remarkable, however. Even in the Iraq war, Mr. Bush relied on what he called a “coalition of the willing,” led by Britain. Mr. Obama has made clear that this initiative would come from the United States, and that while he welcomed international participation, he was not depending on foreign forces for what would essentially be an operation conducted largely by the United States, from naval vessels off the Syrian coast.

Mr. Rhodes and other aides rejected comparisons between this case and that of Mr. Bush in 2003, and noted that Mr. Obama was still actively seeking allied participation. “There is no direct parallel with 2003, given that the United States at that time had to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a country where we were going to do a military intervention aimed at regime change,” Mr. Rhodes said.

Mr. Obama has referred, somewhat vaguely, to reinforcing “international norms,” or standards, against the use of chemical weapons, which are categorized as “weapons of mass destruction” even though they are far less powerful than nuclear or biological weapons.

In addition to the importance of upholding standards of international behavior, Mr. Obama this week has also highlighted America’s inherent right to self-defense. But some scholars warn that may be a difficult case for the United States to make.

“Under this principle, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Iraq or Lebanon could respond directly to Syrian belligerent acts, as could their allies, such as NATO and the U.S.,” said Phillip Carter, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security in Washington. He cautioned that despite the spillover from the violence, there still was no just cause for war with Syria by its neighbors.

The United States has conducted unilateral bombing campaigns without seeking international endorsement before. But it made a direct case for self-defense.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered an airstrike on Tripoli after concluding that Libya was behind the bombing of a Berlin disco that killed two American military personnel. In 1998, after deadly bombings of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton authorized cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan.

Mark Mazzetti and Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington, and Ana Facio-Krajcer from Santa Clarita, Calif.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us...a.html?hp&_r=0

Iraq war ghosts end UK plans to take part in Syria action

By Andrew Osborn and Guy Faulconbridge

Commentators said it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since 1782, when parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony's rebellion.Cameron's defeat calls into question Britain's traditional role as the United States' most reliable military ally, a role that Cameron worked hard to cement.

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister David C
ameron's plans to join a potential military strike on Syria were thwarted on Thursday night when Britain's parliament narrowly voted against a government motion to authorize such action in principle.

In a humiliating defeat for the British leader likely to damage Cameron's hopes of being re-elected in 2015 and set back traditionally strong U.S.-UK relations, parliament defied Cameron by 285 to 272 votes.

Commentators said it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since 1782, when parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony's rebellion.

Speaking immediately after the vote, Cameron told lawmakers he would not seek to go against parliament's will.

"It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action - I get that and the government will act accordingly," he said.

British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond later said he thought the United States, a key ally, would be disappointed that the UK "will not be involved.

He added: "I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action." But, he told BBC TV, "It's certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship," referring to ties with Washington.

U.S. officials suggested President Barack Obama might be willing to proceed with limited action against Syria even without allied support, but that no final decision had been reached.

Veto-holding members of the United Nations have held inconclusive debates on a draft Security Council resolution that would authorize "all necessary force" in response to the alleged gas attack by Syria's government.

Cameron's defeat calls into question Britain's traditional role as the United States' most reliable military ally, a role that Cameron worked hard to cement.

"There will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system," finance minister George Osborne, one of Cameron's closest allies, told the BBC.

When asked whether the parliamentary defeat would damage Britain's alliance with the United States, Osborne said: "There's a bit of hyperbole on this in the last twenty four hours. The relationship with the United States is a very old one, very deep and operates on many layers."
GREAT BRITAIN?

Cameron's defeat also underscores how bitter the legacy of Britain's involvement in the 2003 Iraq war remains a decade later. On that occasion, Britain, under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, helped the United States invade Iraq after asserting - wrongly, it later turned out - that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Already embroiled in Afghanistan, Britain was then sucked into a second quagmire in Iraq, losing 179 soldiers in eight years after the 2003 U.S.-British invasion that toppled Saddam.

Speaking during an at times impassioned debate on Thursday that preceded the vote, Cameron acknowledged that painful legacy. "I am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts, and in particular the deep concerns in the country caused by what went wrong with the Iraq conflict in 2003," he said.

"One thing is indisputable: The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode and we need to understand the public skepticism."

Cameron previously implored the world not to stand idly by over Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons but ran into trouble from skeptical lawmakers within his own party and from the opposition Labour party who demanded to see more evidence before voting in favor of military action.
Although some commentators hailed his defeat as proof that British parliamentary democracy was alive and well, others said he had put his credibility on the line and lost.

Earlier on Thursday, Cameron's government published legal advice it said showed it was legally entitled to take military action against Syria even if the United Nations Security Council did not approve such action.

It also published intelligence material on the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria's civil war, saying there was no doubt that it had occurred and that it was "highly likely" Syrian government forces were responsible. The nerve gas attack killed hundreds of civilians in an embattled suburb of Damascus.

The defeat was all the more galling for Cameron since he had cut his summer holiday short, recalled parliament for an emergency debate and held an extraordinary meeting of Britain's National Security Council as well as making numerous calls to Obama and other allies.
POISONOUS IRAQ LEGACY

Obama has set out the case for a limited military strike on Syria, but some U.S. lawmakers say they have not been properly consulted.
Speaking after the vote, the White House said Obama would decide on a response to chemical weapons use in Syria based on U.S. interests, but that Washington would continue to consult with Britain.

UK opposition Labour leader Ed Miliband, a man critics often impugn as being a lightweight political foe to the more statesman-like Cameron, played a big role in the prime minister's defeat.

He had unexpectedly announced on Wednesday night that he wanted important amendments to the government motion before he could back it.
Addressing parliament, Miliband struggled to find his composure but advised lawmakers not to rush to judgment "on a political timetable set elsewhere," a thinly disguised reference to the United States.

Domestically, Cameron's authority looks dented. Part of his problem is that he governs as part of a two-party coalition because his Conservatives lack an absolute majority in parliament, exposing him to such impromptu revolts.

Cameron's critics are already circling. Their main allegations: He is not a conviction politician and fails to prepare the ground properly for his policies.
But public opinion was never on his side.

A YouGov poll published on Thursday showed that 51 percent of the British public opposed a missile strike, with just 22 percent in favor of it.
(Additional reporting by William James, Belinda Goldsmith, Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Costas Pitas in London and Michele Kambas in Cyprus; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Cynthia Osterman)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97R1BD20130830

This is HUGE. Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack - Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Dictatorial Power Abuse - The Last Nail In The Republic

Ron Paul

Ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution

Wage war at will

The Last Nail The last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic.

Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies and irrational good intentions.

The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems. Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic?

Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and political leaders of the unitary presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President. Our Presidents can now, on their own:

1. Order assassinations, including American citizens,

2. Operate secret military tribunals,

3. Engage in torture,

4. Enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process,

5. Order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment,

6. Ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution,

7. Continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight,

8. Wage war at will,

9. Treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying.

And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bail-outs. And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through the Congress.

Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), as we should, now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President. Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds.

The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without Congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home. The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and "associated" forces—a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies.

There is no denial that the changes in s.1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without Congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention. Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II beginning with the advent of the Korean War which was fought solely under a UN Resolution. Even today, we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton. The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to:

1. Guarantee free trade and travel among the states.

2. Make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money.

3. Strictly limit the Executive Branch's authority to pursue war without Congressional approval.

But today:

1. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal.

2. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the states.

3. And now the final nail is placed in the coffin of Congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President—a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic.

In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed—unless these recent trends are quickly reversed.

The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

More sadly is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experience with liberty will end.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olNr4Uu ... r_embedded

Syria crisis: 'The British aren't coming' - US media

30 August 2013 Last updated

Despite UK MPs blocking British involvement in Syria, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said that Washington would continue to seek a coalition.

While the Obama administration plays down the result of Thursday night's vote in the Commons, it made the front pages of US newspapers.

The New York Daily News carried "The British aren't coming" as its headline.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23904167