Category Archives: Middle East

From The Fact That Sarin Was Used In Syria; It Doesn’t Follow That We Know Who Used It

Donald Trump, Middle East, Military, War, WMD

At the end of the war on Iraq, the only document that proved truthful was the one presented by a terrified Saddam Hussein, in which he accounted for his weapons of mass destruction: Hussein had none. At the time, those who killed that country laughed at him, in anticipation of The Kill.

So when a weak leader stands up to the big bullies of the world and says he didn’t do it; it’s worth listening to Bashar-al Assad. (Those of us who hail from the Middle East and know the culture, appreciate how easily Arabs play the idiot superpowers, to get what they want from them.)

In any event, from the fact that Sarin was used in Syria it doesn’t follow that we know who used it: And how do you verify a video? There is certainly no reliable information shared about this attack other than iffy video footage.

Mr Assad accused the West of making up events in Khan Sheikhoun so it had an excuse to carry out missile strikes on the government’s Shayrat airbase, which took place a few days after the alleged attack.

“It’s stage one, the play [they staged] that we saw on social network and TVs, then propaganda and then stage two, the military attack,” he told the AFP, questioning the authenticity of the video footage.

Mr Assad also said the Syrian government had given up its chemical arsenal in 2013, adding “even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them”.

Since 2013, there have been continued allegations that chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia have been used against civilians, by both the Syrian government and rebel groups.

Turkey and the UK say tests show Sarin or a Sarin-like substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, which would be the first time since 2013 that a prohibited chemical had been used on such a scale.

Doctor Sarin:

Not All Politicians Buy The Blame-Assad Bull

America, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Middle East, War

A few independent-minded, mainstream politicians are questioning “whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack on civilians that prompted US missile strikes.” Like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, they actually want evidence other than Nikki Haley waving a picture of a kid and Ivanka weeping.

One is Independent Australian MP Andrew Wilkie, also a former senior intelligence analyst. Wilkie “was ‘skeptical’ about who was responsible for the April 4 attack. ‘I’m actually skeptical about some of these claims,’ he told ABC radio on Tuesday. His comments come after US Defence Secretary James Mattis said ‘there is no doubt’ the Assad regime was responsible for planning and orchestrating the deadly attack.”

Wilkie has a history of showing good sense. Via ABC.Net.Au: He “resigned from the intelligence agency Office of National Assessments in 2003 in protest over Australia’s role in the Iraq War, said the Federal Government should have ‘learned from the past.'”

“I think we should be very cautious in Australia and not be too quick to automatically endorse what the US is saying,” said Wilkie.

You’d think!

Hard to believe that after Iraq, against which I railed in columns for years (“Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture”), starting in September of 2002, American leaders are back to doing the same.

When you quote truth disgorged by a liberal, GOPers pounce. But truth is truth no matter who says it.

Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates captured the US’s appetite for destruction:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids … deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

UPDATE (4/9): What Does President Donald Trump’s 180 Degree Change On Syria Signal?

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, History, Iraq, Middle East, War

I don’t believe President Donald Trump’s 180 degree change on Syria signals a lack of core beliefs. David Frum believes this. He writes:

Some have described this reverse as “hypocritical.” This description is not accurate. A hypocrite says one thing while inwardly believing another. The situation with Donald Trump is much more alarming. On October 26, 2016, he surely meant what he said. It’s just that what he meant and said that day was no guide to what he would mean or say on October 27, 2016—much less April 6, 2017.

I don’t usually psychologize, but I have a strong hunch that Ivanka has been elevated excessively in the president’s home and inappropriately in the White House. President Trump treats his daughter like the First Lady. Melania and her son don’t get the respect due to them. Melania is the European version of a steel magnolia. Ivanka is a spoiled, cloistered, provincial American princess.

Ivanka, liberal know-it-all that she is, has inveigled her way into the People’s House. She pushed her husband along too. Look at Jared Kushner. He’s a weak man, bossed about by this lovely looking woman. No doubt, Ivanka is a charmer. Jared’s past, moreover, suggest he’s driven by the need for respectability. (See “What’s Jared Kushner Up To?”)

When it comes to his daughter Ivanka, Donald Trump can’t say no. Ivanka is a celebrity, a trendy youngster, taken with being a “force for good.” She and Jared won’t gain access to celebrity infested world forums like Davos with Donald’s America First agenda. Time for a change.

So what does President Donald Trump’s 180 degree change on Syria signal? Simply that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets.

TWEETS:

UPDATE (4/9):

My Ivanka assessment above confirmed. Fire the Kushners.:

4/8:

As Bannon goes, so goes the promise of America First.

How stupid are Americans? Ask Da Rebels.

The Kushner brats.

Rebels give Trump an honorific:

Kushner front and center.

Infiltration:

The Sunni powers are pleased with POTUS. Ivanka happy. Hobnobbing opportunities.

Do we miss Saddam? Yes! Will we miss Assad? Yes. Has the US learned anything? No.

Almost forgot: We’ve gained another enemy.

Today, Tomi Lahren would be the one sexing up war:

Secede from politics?

Neocons rejoice:

‘War, War And War Some More’ For Some Time

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, War

Do we have a president “whose words and actions are untethered to principle,” as Andrew J. Bacevich contends?

Consider the range of issues where President Trump has backed away from actions that as a candidate he had vowed to take, more often than not on ‘day one’ of his presidency. The US remains fully committed to the Nato alliance that Trump previously denounced as ‘obsolete’. The ‘One China’ policy of previous administrations remains intact, as does the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by his predecessor. That Trump will abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement appears about as likely as Mexico paying for any ‘wall’ along the American border. The US embassy in Israel has not moved to Jerusalem and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Trump’s ‘secret plan’ to defeat Isis differs little from Obama’s plan, apart from more bombs and a handful of additional US troops. And Trump’s longed-for friendship with Vladimir Putin has yet to bloom. The Trump administration neither acknowledges nor provides any rationale for these shifts. Over the course of a single news cycle, positions once said to represent the President’s considered view simply become inoperative. Without explanation, the gunboat sent to Agadir weighs anchor and goes home, leaving behind bewilderment and relief.
In other circumstances, we might chalk up the disparity between what a president says while a candidate and then does on the job to mere politics. Or see it as evidence of an individual sobered by responsibility and ‘growing’ in office. Yet such explanations do not apply here. …
Like Wilhelm II, Trump is given to bluster and to striking poses. His compulsion to look tough is apparent. So too is his need to command attention and his affinity for military pomp. He loves generals.

We know of Syria, because the offensive there was launched, today, to great fanfare. But, says a Spectator writer, there’s been “War, war and war some more” for some time. This reality has been concealed by the Russia parallel reality created by Fake News media.

It’s often said that the Trump administration is ‘isolationist’. This is not true. In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarisation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced but it is happening, and much of it without consultation with Nato or other key allies, or any debate in Congress or the media.
A few weeks ago, US aircraft carried out over 30 air strikes against Islamic militants in Yemen — almost the same as the number carried out there all last year. In Iraq and Syria there have been many reports of civilian casualties in US raids. As many as 200 are thought to have been killed in air strikes on Mosul, although Iraqi authorities dispute that.
Meanwhile, some 400 US troops are going to Syria to set up an artillery base to retake Raqqa. Another 1,000 may soon be sent to Kuwait as a reserve force. Another 400 have gone to Iraq and some 8,000 will go to Afghanistan.
Quite an active policy, for someone with no interest in it. A closer look at Trump’s senior aides helps to explain — they’re often from the military. The State Department may be downgraded but the military has never had a stronger influence on a president. …