Syria

[kscarbel2]

I like the demeanor of former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford. He doesn't point a finger and slam anyone, but rather he speaks with logic, reason and experience.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]

BBC  /  April 7, 2017

According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances".

The president is required to confer with Congress until US forces are no longer needed.

But the commander-in-chief is also given "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies" in a limited way, according to the Council of Foreign Relations.

Senator Rand Paul said:

"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked.”

“The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution."

“Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different.”

[Vladislav]

Kscarbel, thank you for sharing on here muliple lots of info on the Syrian problem.

It sure takes time to read but sometimes we should do it to form up our own point of view since Syrian problem is much wider than to be concerned Syria only.

I can't get as a truth for now the way chemical wearpons were applied by Assad as Western sources said or by another way as Russian officials state.

The cost of Tomahawk's seems colossus but that is a subject which doesn't seem the most important at the moment.

Taking all the details off-side the events of the last days look too much as a play with fire.

[kscarbel2]

Thank you Vlad.

[TS7]

A line was crossed. Like it or not Trump did something. There is a new Sheriff in town.

[kscarbel2]

21 minutes ago, TS7 said:

A line was crossed. Like it or not Trump did something. There is a new Sheriff in town.

We don't factually know what happened (and we never will).

Syria is a sovereign country on the other side of the world. Which is to say, it's not a town of the United States........Trump has no jurisdiction there.

As Trump said hundreds of times during the campaign, we need to stop being the world's policeman. And as I travel the world, I'm constantly told they'd like the US to stop it.

There are many countries equally as bad, including Somalia, Sudan/South Sudan and Myanmar......but we're not raising a finger there. And we all know our success stories in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Syria......it's not our neighborhood. These people have been fighting each other for two thousand years. Perhaps, we should back away and thus force the leaders of that neighborhood (Arab League/GCC countries) to step up to the plate and take care of their neighborhood for once.

I'll never forget, in (first) Iraq war, the Arab countries had the west do all the dirty work.

[TS7]

I agree with you, let them fight it out. But why are chemical weapons still there?

[kscarbel2]

23 minutes ago, TS7 said:

I agree with you, let them fight it out. But why are chemical weapons still there?

We'll never find out for sure. I believe Assad handed over his chemical weapons as part of a deal brokered by the the US and Russia. If these were in fact chemical weapons in a rebel munitions warehouse, their origin has many possibilities.

After I saw U.S. supported rebels cut the head off of a child on the tailgate of a pickup truck, that had a profound effect on my thought process.

[41chevy]

Kassem Eid survived the 2013 chemical attack in Syria. As someone who has seen the government's horror firsthand, he is one of many Syrians who are overjoyed at the Trump administration's response to the most recent chemical attack. During an interview with CNN's Brooke Baldwin on Friday, he could not contain his gratitude for Trump's aggressive and long overdue response to the Assad regime.

"I cried out of joy. I thanked God. I don't know. I was overwhelmed. We've been asking for protection. We've been asking for consequences for more than six years, for the very first time we see Assad held accountable just for once, held accountable for his crimes against humanity. I was overwhelmed. I felt grateful for President Trump. I felt grateful for the United States."

Baldwin, skeptical of Eid's praise for Trump's foreign policy, pressed her guest for his thoughts on Trump's temporary travel ban on Syrian refugees. Instead, he exposed the hypocrisy of those who are quick to criticize the president, but slow to stand in solidarity with the Syrian people. Where were these verbal warriors, he wondered, when President Obama failed to act after the 2013 attack? His "red line" threat against Assad turned out to be empty.

"With all due respect, with all due respect, I didn't see each and every person who was demonstrating after the travel ban. I didn't see you three days ago when people were gassed to death, when civilians were gassed to death. I didn't see you in 2013 when 1,400 people were gassed to death. I didn't see you raising your voice against President Obama's inaction in Syria that led us refugees, that made us refugees get kicked out of Syria. If you really care about refugees, if you really care about helping us, please, help us stay in our in our country."

Eid again commended Trump for the airstrike and urged him to take more action so that Assad's power can be eclipsed and Syrians can stay in their country.

Before Trump takes any further military action, however, Congress is urging  him to seek an Authorization of the Use of Military Force.

BUT, President Harry Truman broke that precedent. While we call the Korean War a “war” today, Truman never bothered to get a declaration of war from Congress — he just sent US troops to aid American-aligned South Korea against communist North Korea on his own. That set a Cold War precedent. The Johnson administration got congressional approval (via the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution) to escalate the war in Vietnam; the resolution was repealed in 1971 at which point the war it had written a blank check for had killed tens of thousands of American soldiers.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act an attempt to clarify where the executive’s “commander in chief” powers ended and Congress’ “declare war” power began. The War Powers Act required the president to notify Congress when he got the US involved in “hostilities” — and then set a 60- to 90-day clock for Congress to approve that action, by passing an authorization of use of military force, or for the president to withdraw from the conflict. It also allowed Congress to pass a concurrent resolution that would force the executive branch to withdraw from any conflict it hasn’t already approved. But the War Powers Act didn’t resolve the debate. It just shifted it — from what counted as a “war” to what counted as “hostilities.”

The only president to officially file a report that triggered the 60- to 90-day clock, according to the Library of Congress, was Gerald Ford. President Reagan went into Lebanon while telling Congress but without formally reporting on it, and into El Salvador without notifying Congress at all; President Bush argued that he didn’t need congressional approval to go into Kuwait, because the US was acting in support of a United Nations resolution. President Clinton told Congress when he went into Bosnia and Kosovo but never triggered the 60-day countdown

On September 18, 2001 — in the post-9/11 rush to “do something” that also brought America the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security — Congress passed an authorization of military force that allowed the president to:

"use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons"

The 2001 AUMF justified the war in Afghanistan, since al-Qaeda was the organization that had planned the 9/11 attacks and the Afghan Taliban had “harbored” al-Qaeda, it opened the door to other conflicts as well — and didn’t set a time limit for how long the authorization would stand. So the executive branch has just kept using it. By May 2016, the current authorization had been used to justify unclassified military action 37 times in 14 countries since 2001 — 18 times by President George W. Bush, and 19 times by President Barack Obama.

 

 

[kscarbel2]

I read that as well Paul. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/04/08/syria-survivor-praises-trumps-airstrike-on-cnn-asks-critics-where-they-were-duri-n2310853

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/7/15217832/aumf-trump-syria-congress

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(NBC News / April 9, 2017) South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's decision to launch warplanes from Shayrat Airfield just hours after it was bombed by U.S. cruise missiles was a "huge mistake."

"Here's what I think Assad's telling Trump by flying from this space: 'F you,'" Graham said on "Meet The Press." "And I think he's making a huge mistake because if you don't worry about what Trump may do on any given day, then you're crazy."

"I'm glad Trump did this..............There's a new sheriff in town," Graham said.

Graham seems arrogantly out of touch. A country from the other side of the world attacked a sovereign country. I'm sure Assad is miffed, to say the least. If another country attacked an Air Force Base in the sovereign United States, many Americans would be saying 'F you' as well, and we'd of course retaliate militarily. But then there's that double standard. Every country has its own unique issues. If you don't like it, then don't go there.

Graham clearly is under the misunderstanding that the entire world is under United States administration, and our "Sheriff" has the right to ride into any town do as they see fit.

 

 

[41chevy]

Mean while on the liberal conspiracy theory fringe side. . .

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” anchor Lawrence O’Donnell stated that “if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for.” O’Donnell then floated a theory that Putin told Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to launch a small chemical attack that was big enough to attract media attention and prompt President Trump into launching a missile strike, which would then change the subject from Russian influence.

O’Donnell said, “[W]ouldn’t it be nice if it was just completely, totally, absolutely impossible to suspect that Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week so that his friend in the White House could have a big night, with missiles, and all of the praise he’s picked up over the last 24 hours? Wouldn’t it be so nice if you couldn’t even in your wildest dreams imagine a scenario like that?”

He added, “I don’t know what it is. Is it a 2% chance? Is it a 50% chance? Is — I don’t know. But what — I don’t think it’s a 0% chance, and it used to be, with every other president prior to Donald Trump.”

O’Donnell further stated, “Well, when Bill Clinton fired missiles during his presidency, Republicans questioned that. They questioned whether that was to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and that was a legitimate question.”

O’Donnell later added, “It’s perfect, just perfect. I wish it wasn’t. If Vladimir Putin, if, if, if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for. Vladimir Putin was essentially the man in charge of making sure that Syria got rid of all of its chemical weapons under a deal with the Obama administration. And so it makes perfect sense to question whether President Bashar al-Assad would have checked with his most important patron, Vladimir Putin, before using chemical weapons that Vladimir Putin was supposed to have helped get rid of. It would be terribly embarrassing to Vladimir Putin if President Assad had exposed Vladimir Putin as having completely failed to get rid of those chemical weapons. You wouldn’t want to be Bashar al-Assad in a conversation with Vladimir Putin after that, unless you had a conversation with him before that. Unless Vladimir Putin said, ‘I have an idea. go ahead, do a small chemical attack, nothing like the big ones you’ve done in the past, just big enough to attract media attention. So that my friend in the White House will see it on TV. And then, Donald Trump can fire some missiles at Syria, that’ll do no real damage, and then the American news media will change the subject from Russian influence in the Trump campaign and the Trump transition and the Trump White House.’ It’s perfect.

 

 

[DailyDiesel]

Well I'm glad Trump and his Republican friends finally saw the light of day on the Syria issue. I guess they should have allowed Obama to take action all those years ago, perhaps some lives would have been spared. I suppose Syrians and their poor babies are no longer, as Trump said, "a great Trojan Horse". I'm glad Paul Ryan no longer views the choice of action as "feckless show of force".

I wonder what changed their minds? Did their hearts really grow three sizes that day or was it simply the initial after the name (R) that made all the difference? At the very least Raytheon stock went up and we stopped talking about Russia for a few days. I guess all the time on the golf course really helped to clear Trump's mind. 

[kscarbel2]

In the Middle East, truth has always been an elusive commodity. We hear guesses and theories. Probably, few know the truth here, but certainly there are many groups in play who would produce/use chemical weapons, including the U.S.-supported rebels who cut the heads off of children.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

Tim Kaine: U.S. strikes on Syrian forces ‘completely illegal’

Olivier Knox, Chief Washington Correspondent  /  Yahoo News  /  June 22, 2017

WASHINGTON — Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., on Wednesday sharply condemned U.S. strikes on Syrian regime forces — like the shoot-down of a military jet over the weekend — as “completely illegal.”

“I think the military action that is being taken against Syrian government assets is completely illegal,” Kaine said.

There have been four known instances of U.S. forces firing on Syrian government targets in recent weeks, including the early April cruise missile strike in retaliation for the government’s use of chemical weapons.

Over the weekend, a U.S. Navy fighter shot down a Syrian warplane.

The Pentagon says it has legal authority to act under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed after the 9/11 attacks, which effectively permitted the invasion of Afghanistan and global efforts to stamp out al-Qaida. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama cited that legislation as the legal justification for the global war on terrorism.

Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bluntly disagreed with the Trump administration’s position.

“The 2001 authorization said we can take action against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Nobody claims that Syria was a perpetrator. Nobody claims that they are connected to al-Qaida. In fact, they’re battling against al-Qaida in Syria,” Kaine countered. “So I think this is a completely unlawful use of power.”

Kaine also blamed “political cowardice” as a factor in congressional resistance to debating and voting to authorize the nearly three-year war on the so-called Islamic State, also known as ISIS, in places like Syria.

“Part of this is, in my view, political cowardice — not wanting to be on the record on a war vote,” Kaine said.

Previous attempts to push Congress to debate and authorize the escalating but undeclared war on the terrorist army in Syria and Iraq have fallen short, in large part due to politics. Clinton’s fate in the 2008 Democratic primaries, when her vote in favor of the 2002 AUMF against Iraq became one of Barack Obama’s most potent weapons, haunts Democrats. And Republicans preferred to criticize Obama’s handling of the conflict from the sidelines without taking any steps that might make them co-owners of the strategy.

Kaine and Sen. Jeff Flake, R.-Ariz., have written a new AUMF to cover ISIS and other extremist groups.

Kaine, who has tried since mid-2014 to get Congress to debate and vote on a new AUMF, said he thinks the political moment might be right to get lawmakers to act.

“This has been enormously frustrating,” Kaine acknowledged. But President Trump’s November victory has revived interest in the discussion.

“Any change in administration is kind of an opportunity to look anew at the strategy,” he said.

But lawmakers are “starting to get nervous” about Trump’s use of military force, Kaine said.

“We haven’t heard the strategy about ISIS. We don’t have a strategy about Afghanistan. We’ve now taken action against the government of Syria and their military without a strategy about that,” Kaine said. “So we’re starting to worry about the 2001 authority just being used carte blanche all over the place by this administration, and I think that provides some additional impetus to get this right.

Flake and Kaine’s measure, which repeals both the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF allowing Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, would explicitly authorize making war on ISIS, al-Qaida and the Taliban, as well as “associated forces,” to be defined by the administration and Congress. The legislation would expire after five years.

[kscarbel2]

Turkey leaks secret locations of US, French troops in Syria

France 24  /  July 20, 2017

Turkey’s state news agency on Tuesday published the locations of secret US military bases in Syria as well as details on the numbers of US and French troops stationed there, sparking the ire of fellow NATO member states.

In the latest display of tensions between Turkey and other NATO member nations, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency earlier this week published a detailed report of the secret locations of US military bases, operational posts and military posts inside Syria. The 620-word news report also included the numbers of US soldiers and French special forces stationed at these locations.

The unprecedented leaking of sensitive battlefield information by the state-run news agency obviously had official Turkish backing, according to Jasper Mortimer, FRANCE 24’s Turkey correspondent.

“It certainly was intentional. Anadolu agency is the hand-servant of the [Turkish] government. It would not have published this report without the green light from the top of government,” explained Mortimer, reporting from Ankara, adding that the revelation of troop numbers was particularly serious. “War correspondents do not give the number of troops in the unit to which they are attached. That is seen as giving information to the enemy. But here, Anadolu agency appears to have done exactly that.”

‘Advertising’ battlefield secrets

The report, “US increases military posts supporting PKK/PYD in Syria,” lists US positions in Kurdish administered area of northern Syria and is the latest display of Ankara’s ire over Washington’s support for the PYD (Democratic Union Party), which Turkey views as the Syrian affiliate of the proscribed Turkish PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party).

The PYD is the political umbrella of the YPG (People’s Protection Units) which part of the US-led military operations against the Islamic State (IS) group in the region.

“Turkey sees the YPG as an affiliate of the PKK and Turkey has long called on Washington to withdraw support for them. But there’s a difference between calling on America to withdraw support and actually advertising the details of that support,” said Mortimer.

The US denies working with Kurdish separatists and maintains the YPG is part of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), which includes a large component of Arab troops.

French special forces on the ground

The leaked details of US positions inside Syria include three US military posts in the northern Syrian province of Raqqa, home to the IS group’s de facto capital.

The report mentions the presence of US and French special forces stationed in a military post located on a hill south of Kurdish-administered town of Kobani. At a military base in Ayn Issah, a town in northern Raqqa, troops included “200 US soldiers and 75 French special forces units,” the report added.

Operational capacities of the locations, including bases that are large enough for military helicopters and cargo planes are also detailed, as well as weapons arsenal that include artillery batteries, rocket launchers and armored vehicles.

Lives at risk, says Pentagon

The report sparked strong condemnations from the US Defense and State Departments on Wednesday, with the Pentagon warning that the leaks could put lives at risk.

"The release of sensitive military information exposes coalition forces to unnecessary risk and has the potential to disrupt ongoing operations to defeat ISIS," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told reporters on Wednesday, using another acronym for the IS group.

French officials have not yet responded to the Turkish news report. When contacted by FRANCE 24, a French foreign ministry press officer said an official statement was not expected on Thursday.

The latest Anadolu report marks another step in the deterioration of US-Turkey relations, with Ankara accusing Washington of failing to expedite the extradition of Pennsylvania-based Turkish cleric, Fethullah Gulen. Ankara blames Gulen for masterminding the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, a charge Gulen denies.

Tensions have also been simmering between Turkish military and NATO officials based in Brussels. Turkey is NATO’s only Muslim-majority member with the alliance’s second-largest standing army. In December 2016, NATO’s top commander, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti warned of a “degradation” of the alliance’s command operations following Turkey’s dismissal of “talented, capable” senior Turkish military officials in massive purges after the July 2016 coup attempt.

[kscarbel2]

Trump to end CIA support for ‘moderate’ anti-Assad forces in Syria

RT  /  July 20, 2017

The White House and CIA have reportedly decided to end a covert operation to arm the so-called moderate Syrian rebels. The US has allegedly pumped some $1 billion into train-and-equip efforts with questionable outcomes.

On Wednesday, US officials told the Washington Post (WP) and Reuters that Trump has decided to put an end to the covert CIA plan which began arming and training the so-called moderate Syrian rebels in 2013.

Authorized by President Barack Obama, the secret Timber Sycamore weapons supply and training initiative has served as the backbone of Washington’s strategy to topple the Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Two US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity with Reuters, said the covert CIA scheme has produced little results.

The Washington Post meanwhile claimed, based on their sources, that Trump’s reported intention to stop arming the rebels is the American president’s way of finding common ground with Russia on Syria.

Moscow has always warned against arming the so-called moderate rebel groups in Syria, pointing out that weapons supplied to them often fall into the hands of jihadist groups such as Jabhat al Nusra and Islamic State.

Trump’s decision to end the CIA program was reportedly taken in consultation with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of his meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg earlier this month. During that meeting, on the sidelines of the G20 summit, Trump and Putin reached a ceasefire agreement for southwest Syria.

The scrapping of the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program was not a precondition for the ceasefire negotiations, the US officials insisted.

Without sharing the details of the program’s demise, the unnamed US officials claimed that Timber Sycamore would be phased out over a period of months. The WP report also said the decision to end the operation is being supported by the Jordanians, where some of the CIA training has been taken place.

Varied US arms and training strategies to bolster rebel groups in Syria under the Obama administration have been notoriously underwhelming. In 2015, General Lloyd Austin, CENTCOM commander at the time, told Congress that only four or five of US-trained fighters have gone to Syria of the 5,000 the Pentagon envisaged.

Earlier that year, the then Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee Carter that less than 1 percent of the pool of 7,000 Syrian volunteers for the US-funded train-and-equip program had made it through the vetting process.

“As of July 3, [2015] we are currently training about 60 fighters,” Carter said. “I can look out at your faces and you have the same reaction I do, which is that that's an awfully small number.”

The Reuters report notes that the US will continue to support select Syrian rebel groups with airstrikes and guidance as part of a separate effort.

In February, Reuters reported that the US had frozen the CIA-run program after rebels in northwest Syria came under major attack by Islamists. The alleged suspension of the program, which included salaries, training, ammunition, had nothing to do with Trump replacing Barack Obama as president, two US officials familiar with the CIA program told Reuters at the time.