Thread: Intervention in Syria would be 'tragic mistake', warns Russia Russia said that the We

Intervention in Syria would be 'tragic mistake', warns Russia

Russia said that the West would be making a "tragic mistake" by launching military strikes on its ally Syria as the international community headed for a repeat of the bitter diplomatic showdowns that preceded military action in Iraq and Kosovo.



A Syrian military soldier holds his Ak-47 with a sticker reading 'Syria is fine' Photo: AP


By Philip Sherwell, New York

12:00AM BST 26 Aug 2013

Moscow warned the West not to pre-empt the work of the United Nations inspection team that is due to investigate last week's alleged chemical attack.

The Kremlin is certain to join China to block any attempts by Britain, France and America to secure UN backing for a military response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people.

A Russian foreign ministry spokesman drew parallels with the US-led overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to justify its stance – a comparison rejected by Britain and America.

"We strongly urge those who, by attempting to impose their own results on the UN experts, are raising the possibility of a military operation in Syria to use their common sense and refrain from committing a tragic mistake," said Alexander Lukashevich.

"All this is reminiscent of events from a decade ago, when the United States bypassed the UN and used fallacious information on the presence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to launch an adventure, the consequences of which are known to all."

Related Articles

• Syrian offer to allow UN inspectors in 'too little, too late'
  25 Aug 2013
• Analysis: A Western attempt to mould the future of the Middle East?
  25 Aug 2013
• Syria: 'Don't repeat Iraq war mistakes'
  25 Aug 2013
• Syria allows UN chemical inspectors
  25 Aug 2013
• America ready to take action against Syria
  25 Aug 2013
• John Kerry discusses 'chemical attack' with Syrian foreign minister
  25 Aug 2013

But Western officials rejected those parallels, emphasising that they believed there was overwhelming evidence that Bashar al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons in a deadly attack on a Damascus suburb.



^{Activists and medics manufacture homemade chemical masks in Damascus (Reuters)}

There is also no suggestion of deploying "boots on the ground" in Syria or attempting at this stage to enforce a "no-fly zone".

But President Barack Obama seems increasingly likely to authorise targeted US cruise missile strikes against key Syrian military and command and control facilities.

He convened a rare Saturday meeting of all his top national security officials for three hours at the White House, followed by a 40-minute telephone call with David Cameron, the Prime Minister.

Although a senior Obama aide said that the president had not yet authorised a response, there are strong moves within the Administration to order Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from four US Naval ships now stationed in the eastern Mediterranean. US aircraft flying outside Syrian airspace could also be used to fire airborne rockets.

The US will not only encounter Russian and Chinese opposition. Germany is also resolutely opposed to the use of force in Syria. It regards the Libyan intervention as a failure and fears that the spillover would further destabilise the region.

"I do not see an outside military intervention in this terrible civil war in Syria," said Thomas de Maiziere, German defence minister. "It can only be a political solution. The West should not think they can solve problems by military means in the Middle East."

Iran warned the United States against any intervention in Syria. "America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House," said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces.

Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, meanwhile, called for an "international attempt to take out all the chemical weapons in Syria".

The Obama administration is looking at the 1999 Nato air war in Kosovo as a precedent for launching military strikes without UN backing. On that occasion, despite Russian and Chinese opposition, Western governments cited their responsibility to protect a civilian population as grounds for its bombing campaign.

"The US, Britain and France could well cite the responsibility to protect civilians from an overwhelming humanitarian crisis to justify military strikes," said Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to Nato.

But there is debate within the Obama administration about whether to limit actions to punitive strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons or to support the rebel campaign to overthrow the Assad regime.

Mr Obama, who a year ago said the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line", is reluctant to go beyond punitive strikes.

"For now Obama's concern seems to be to restore his credibility on that 'red line' and establish a deterrence against further chemical weapon attacks," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign affairs expert at the Brookings Institute think-tank. "But that is not an adequate response to what we are witnessing in Syria now."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-Russia.html

Obama Prepares Syria Strike Over War-Weary Americans’ Objections

August 26, 2013 by Ben Bullard

It looks like President Barack Obama is getting ready to retaliate against Syria for crossing his “red line” on the use of weapons of mass destruction – but a new Reuters poll shows that almost nobody wants the U.S. to get involved in yet another inscrutable war in the Middle East.
The poll surveyed Americans’ opinions on whether U.S. should intervene in the Syrian conflict – regardless of whether President Bashar al-Assad violated basic human rights by using chemical weapons against civilians. It found that 60 percent of Americans are opposed to any intervention in Syria, while only 9 percent believe the U.S. should get involved. Even when asked whether it could be proved that chemical weapons have been used against civilians in Syria, only 25 percent of those polled said the U.S. would be justified in intervening.
Many who offered comments along with their poll responses justified their opposition by saying the U.S. can’t effectively police the world and that it’s not a job that President Obama, like his Presidential forebears, should assume.
Ahead of any possible military action against Assad, Obama’s critics are sharpening their knives against the President’s possible capitulation to the same second-term modus operandi of predecessors, who mired the U.S. in Middle Eastern conflict on the pretense of righting moral atrocities.
“In many ways, President Barack Obama has rehabilitated the presidency of George W. Bush in ways which the conservative president’s supporters never could,” writes Mediaite’s Noah Rothman. “This is especially true in relation to the conduct of the global war on terror; an area of public policy in which Obama arguably had the broadest public mandate to govern in ways radically dissimilar to his predecessor.”
In other words, President Obama has come full circle from his promise of “change,” and will stand amongst the Bushes when history remembers his role in extending America’s enforcement ambitions in the Middle East at the run of the 21^st Century.

Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports


http://personalliberty.com/2013/08/2...ns-objections/

BREAKING: "Russia Warns USA Not To Attack Syria"



Syria has agreed to let UN inspectors into the chemical attack site, but Obama says it is too late

http://patriotaction.net/video/break...o-attack-syria