Britain, France, Government, Politics, Syria, United States

Syria: America’s change of political tack…

BARACK OBAMA’S DECISION TO CONSULT CONGRESS ON SYRIA

The parliamentary defeat for the Government in the House of Commons – last week – over Syria, has led many to comment over the long shadow of Iraq, of poor party management by the whip’s office, and, in some quarters, of the perfidious anti-war sentiments of those MPs who rebelled against the Government’s motion. But, with the majority of the British public opposed to military action, the result that so humiliated the prime minister was simply transparent politics and democracy at work: a far cry from that which materialised when Britain joined the U.S. in toppling Saddam Hussein from power in the Iraq war.

As events in Washington over the last few days make plain, the consequences of the British veto are only just beginning to be felt. Over the past week the US had been preparing for retributive air strikes, but the equivocation of the American President was evident enough. It had been left to Secretary of State John Kerry to fulminate against the ‘moral obscenity’ of chemical weapons, while Mr Obama talked in measured terms of a ‘limited and tailored operation’ and a ‘shot across the bow’. London’s embarrassing climb-down for the prime minister could have been met with White House declarations that the US would not be deterred. But whether that bravado would have proved sustainable has now been countered by a President who insists the decision must be ratified by Congress first, even though the President had already made up his mind to take military action.

In the immediate term, America’s change of political tack is significant enough. Mr Obama has been keen to stress that the proposed action (‘limited in duration and scope’ but still enough to ‘hold the Assad regime accountable’) is not time dependant. The president talks now of a ‘surprise’ punitive strike, an answer perhaps that the operational advantages of an early strike has already been lost.

The political and legal climate will not get any easier as time moves on. Russia’s pro-Assad stance, and Moscow’s insistence of a veto-able UN resolution, along with the G20 gathering in St Petersburg this week, is surely testament to the difficulties that lie immediately ahead.

President Obama is far from assured on the support he needs. For one, Congress is not due to reconvene until the 9th of September – with the President having a week to persuade reluctant US lawmakers to support intervention. And, with the American public as equally ‘war weary’ as they are in Britain, and the dynamics of Capitol Hill unfavourable, Barack Obama may find himself in a similar humbling situation to David Cameron.

Regardless of the outcome, the President’s decision to consult Congress has far-reaching implications. As Commander-in-Chief, the President’s powers to commit the US to war will be open to interpretation. Seeking explicit legitimacy from legislators speaks volumes about his concern at the legal basis for action in Syria. A sense of isolation imploded upon by an ambivalent public and a crucial ally lost, means the constitutional balance of the US has changed with Mr Obama choosing to put the matter to a vote. Future presidents may be forced to follow his example as precedent becomes set.

The repercussions go further still. The pro-interventionist French President is also now facing demands to hold a parliamentary vote on Syria. The effects of the British decision in the House of Commons last week are spreading fast and wide.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Intelligence, Middle East, Military, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

U.S. and France prepare to strike Syria over chemical attack that killed 1,429…

SYRIA

U.S missile strikes against Syria could start tomorrow after U.N. weapons inspectors left the war-torn country earlier than expected.

The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today – possibly for neighbouring Lebanon – fuelling speculation of an imminent attack.

It came as the White House delivered an astonishing snub to Britain following Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, with sources saying David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action and that Britain ‘cannot be counted on’.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last night paved the way for war by saying the American intelligence community had ‘high confidence’ that the regime launched a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last week.

Britain has been left sidelined in any U.S military action against Syria following the humiliating Commons defeat – placing strain on the ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.

Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain during his speech and instead lavished praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France – which looks likely to join the U.S in a missile strike.

He paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the U.S in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad. He also praised Australia and even Turkey for their support.

In a passionate speech in Washington, he urged the world to act as he warned ‘history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’.

President Barack Obama yesterday said he is weighing ‘limited and narrow’ action as the administration put the chemical weapons death toll at 1,429 people – far more than previous estimates – including more than 400 children.

Downing Street insisted the U.S special relationship was still intact following a telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Obama.

However, White House sources told The Times newspaper in London that David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action.

Another source with knowledge of how the White House reacted to Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, said: ‘It came as a real shock to them. They now know the Brits, because of their political system, cannot be counted on.’

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, expressed his frustration. He said: ‘I’m disappointed, because we have a very close working relationship with the U.S.

‘It is a difficult time for our Armed Forces – having prepared to go into this action – to then be stood down and have to watch while the U.S acts alone or perhaps acts with France.’

Halfway around the world, U.S. warships were in place in the Mediterranean Sea. They carried cruise missiles, long a first-line weapon of choice for presidents because they can find a target hundreds of miles distant without need of air cover or troops on the ground.

Seeking to reassure Americans weary after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama insisted there would be no ‘boots on the ground.’

Military forces targeting Syrian sites.

Military forces targeting Syrian sites.

 

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said today that it would be ‘utter nonsense’ for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning the war, and urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to attack Syrian forces.

Putin said: ‘That is why I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States.’

Mr Cameron – who spoke to the U.S. President following Thursday’s defeat –acknowledged that ‘politics is difficult’.

But he said he would not have to apologise to Mr Obama for being unable to commit UK military units to any international alliance.

Setting out the approach he would now take to Syria, the Prime Minister said: ‘I think it’s important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do.

‘We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of – whether the EU, or NATO, or the G8 or the G20 – to condemn what’s happened in Syria.

‘It’s important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons…

…But one thing that was proposed, the potential – only after another vote – involvement of the British military in any action, that won’t be happening…

…That won’t be happening because the British Parliament, reflecting the great scepticism of the British people about any involvement in the Middle East, and I understand that, that part of it won’t be going ahead.’

Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with the U.S. President, a Number 10 spokesman said: ‘The PM explained that he wanted to build a consensual approach in Britain for our response and that the Government had accepted the clear view of the House against British military action.

‘President Obama said he fully respected the PM’s approach and that he had not yet taken a decision on the US response.

‘The president stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the Prime Minister and of the strength, durability and depth of the special relationship between our two countries.

‘They agreed that their co-operation on international issues would continue in the future and both reiterated their determination to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict by bringing all sides together.’

After leaving Syria, the international contingent of weapons inspectors are heading to laboratories in Europe with the samples they have collected.

Video said to be taken at the scene shows victims writhing in pain, twitching and exhibiting other symptoms associated with exposure to nerve agents.

The videos distributed by activists to support their claims of a chemical attack were consistent with Associated Press reporting of shelling in the suburbs of Damascus at the time, though it was not known if the victims had died from a poisonous gas attack.

The Syrian government said administration claims were ‘flagrant lies’ akin to faulty Bush administration assertions before the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Syria affected areas.

Syria affected areas.

A Foreign Ministry statement read on state TV said that ‘under the pretext of protecting the Syrian people, they are making a case for an aggression that will kill hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians.’

Residents of Damascus stocked up on food and other necessities in anticipation of strikes, with no evident sign of panic.

Obama met with his national security aides at the White House and then with diplomats from Baltic countries, saying he has not yet made a final decision on a response to the attack.

Mr Kerry said yesterday that the credibility and security of the U.S. and its allies are at stake.

‘Some cite the risk of doing things,’ he said. But we need to ask, “What is the risk of doing nothing?”’

The U.S. intelligence report said that about 3,600 patients ‘displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure’ were seen at Damascus-area hospitals after the attack.

To that, Kerry added that ‘a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact and actually was afraid they would be discovered.’ He added for emphasis: ‘We know this.’

An estimated 100,000 civilians have been killed in more than two years, many of them from attacks by the Syrian government on its own citizens.

Obama has long been wary of U.S. military involvement in the struggle, as he has been with turbulent events elsewhere during the so-called Arab Spring. In this case, reluctance stems in part from recognition that while Assad has ties to Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, the rebels seeking to topple him have connections with al-Qaida terrorist groups.

Still, Obama declared more than a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would amount to a ‘red line’ that Assad should not cross.

And Obama approved the shipment of small weapons and ammunition to the Syrian rebels after an earlier reported chemical weapons attack, although there is little sign that the equipment has arrived.

With memories of the long Iraq war still fresh, the political crosscurrents have been intense both domestically and overseas.

Dozens of lawmakers, most of them Republican, have signed a letter saying Obama should not take military action without congressional approval, and top leaders of both political parties are urging the president to consult more closely with Congress before giving an order to launch hostilities.

Despite the urgings, there has been little or no discussion about calling Congress back into session to debate the issue.

Lawmakers have been on a summer break for nearly a month, and are not due to return to the Capitol until Sept. 9.

Obama has not sought a vote of congressional approval for any military action. Neither Republican nor Democratic congressional leaders have challenged his authority to act or sought to have lawmakers called into session before he does.

Senior White House, State Department, Pentagon and intelligence officials met for an hour and half Friday with more than a dozen senators who serve on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. He described the discussion as ‘open and constructive.’

The White House will brief Republican senators in a conference call today at the request of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a spokesman for the senator, Don Stewart, said.

Obama’s efforts to put together an international coalition to support military action have been more down than up.

Hollande has endorsed punitive strikes, and told the newspaper Le Monde that the ‘chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished.’

American attempts to secure backing at the United Nations have been blocked by Russia, long an ally of Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged a delay in any military action until the inspectors can present their findings to U.N. member states and the Security Council.

‘President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests,’ he said. ‘Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.’

He said the U.S. should also feel confident that it has the backing of a number of other nations, including Turkey, Australia, the Arab League and what he called America’s ‘oldest ally,’ France.

Half of Americans say they oppose taking military action against Syria and nearly 80 per cent believe Obama should seek congressional approval before using any force, according to a new NBC poll.

The administration supplemented Kerry’s remarks Friday with the release of the intelligence report.

‘It’s findings are as clear as they are compelling,’ Kerry said.

The report concludes with ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.

‘Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,’ the report says.

‘We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,’ the report continues. ‘On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.’

The findings also claim that Assad is the ‘ultimate decision maker’ for Syria’s chemical weapons program and that his regime has used the weapons on a smaller scale against citizens several times in the past year.

‘This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin,’ the report says. ‘We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.’ Sarin is a type of nerve gas.

The report further reveals evidence that the regime had been preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the attacks and protected themselves using gas masks.

‘Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21, near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin,’ the report says.

The report also cited evidence that the attacks were launched from regime-controlled areas into opposition territory or contested areas.

Several senior officials related before the release of the report that the intelligence was ‘not a slam dunk’ in terms of tying Assad’s regime to the use of chemical weapons.

The term ‘slam dunk’ is a reference to the then-CIA Director George Tenet’s assurance in 2002 that assessments showing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a ‘slam dunk.’

Kerry assured on Friday that the U.S. will not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war.

‘We are more than mindful of the Iraq experience,’ Kerry said. ‘We will not repeat that moment.’

He later added: ‘Whatever decision [Obama] makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.’

The administration briefed members of Congress on a conference call Thursday evening to explain its conclusion that Bashar Assad’s government was guilty of carrying out a suspected chemical attack on August 21.

Following the call, House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, sided with Republican Speaker John Boehner of Ohio in urging the administration to engage with the full Congress on the matter.

She also said that the administration must provide ‘additional transparency into the decision-making process.’

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSED TO SYRIA INTERVENTION, REVEALS POLL

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande’s insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France’s armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today’s BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital’s daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are ‘hostile’ to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria’s civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

Despite such statistics, BVA analyst Celine Bracq said the mood would change if the French do join the USA in military action.

‘Be careful,’ she said. ‘The French are not for getting into a war, but they will largely get behind the head of state – by patriotic reflex – as soon as the operation is triggered.’

Mr Hollande has said that international action against Syria will ‘strike a body blow’ to Assad’s regime, and could start as early as Wednesday.

He said he was determined to act, despite Britain’s Parliament last week rejecting calls for an attack.

In an interview with this weekend’s Le Monde, Mr Hollande said: ‘Each country retains the sovereign right to participate or not in an operation. That applies to Britain as well as France.’

Putin said: ‘That is why I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,”

U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON THE SOURCE OF SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK

  • U.S. intelligence community has ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack on August 21
  • Members of the Syrian regime were preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the August 21 attack and protected themselves using gas masks
  • At least 1,429 Syrians were killed in the attacks, including 426 children
  • The weapons were launched from government-controlled areas into opposition-held or contested territory
  • The Syrian government has carried out smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks multiple times over the last year
  • U.S. intelligence officials ‘intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence’
  • On the afternoon of August 21, intelligence officials learned that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations
Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today.

Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today.

Standard
Britain, Government, Middle East, Military, Russia, Syria, United States

The military options the West has in smashing Assad’s arsenal…

MILITARY OPTIONS

UK and US military commanders are drawing up a list of targets for precision-guided bombs and missiles to strike at the heart of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. The options are examined:

… What targets would the coalition hit?

THE favoured option among military commanders is for limited Western action using ‘stand-off’ weapons from long distance to disrupt Assad’s ability to carry out chemical attacks and damage his military machinery.

Intelligence on targets would come from pilotless drones patrolling the skies above Syria and Special Forces on the ground.

Military analysts believe an attack could last between 24 and 48 hours and would target key regime installations in punitive strikes.

These would include Syria’s integrated air defence system, command and control bunkers, communications hubs, government buildings, missile sites and Assad’s air force.

The dictator’s use of air power has been a huge advantage for the regime, and eliminating or weakening it would tilt the odds toward the rebels.

Other military options are airstrikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks. Reports last week claimed the chemical weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armoured Division of the Syrian Army.

The division, which has a military base in a mountain range west of Damascus, is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.

… What bases would be used?

US-LED strikes would be launched from warships or submarines patrolling in the eastern Mediterranean or Persian Gulf, or from combat fighter aircraft that can fire missiles from hundreds of miles away.

A US Navy battlegroup including four destroyers is already in the eastern Mediterranean and has moved closer to Syria in preparation for action.

They are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of hitting a target from up to 1,200 miles away. Around 124 of the 18ft-long, £300,000 warheads were fired by US and British forces against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces during the Libyan war.

The US Air Force could also send B-2 stealth bombers to pound Assad’s military installations. Based in Missouri, they can cover the entire world with just one refuelling. The most expensive aircraft ever – at a cost of £600million each – they are almost invisible to radar and can carry 40,000lbs of bomb payload.

As well as having F-16 fighter jets and refuelling aircraft based at airfields in the Middle East, the US also has defensive Patriot missile batteries positioned in Jordon, which neighbours Syria.

… What firepower can Britain offer?

DESPITE multi-billion pound cuts to the defence budget that have seen military chiefs axe fast jets, warships, spy planes and 30,000 troops, the armed forces can still contribute to an assault on Syria.

The Royal Navy could fire Tomahawk missiles from its nuclear-powered Trafalgar-class submarines – one of which is constantly on patrol in the Middle East. The submarines are capable of carrying a giant payload of the super-accurate missiles.

Heavily-armed RAF Tornados could fly from RAF Marham in Norfolk to attack targets in Syria, a 4,200 mile round trip – or be deployed to Cyprus to launch bombing raids from there.

Carrying precision-guided Storm Shadow missiles, the air crews could devastate enemy defences including radar stations, anti-aircraft batteries and supply lines.

The Storm Shadows have a range of more than 150 miles, allowing the aircraft to attack targets deep inside enemy territory without getting too close to anti-air defences.

The 1,300kg missile, which technicians programme with the target details before the mission, then use hi-tech GPS systems and terrain-following equipment to fly low under radar to its destination point.

Despite being fired from as far away as 150 miles, the Storm Shadow is accurate to up to 6ft, reducing collateral damage.

… What are the dangers?

THERE are enormous risks associated with any military action in Syria.

Assad has built-up formidable air defences, supplied by Russia, which are capable of downing a US or UK fighter jet.

There are also the dangers of collateral damage from airstrikes, such as accidentally killing or injuring civilians and handing the regime a propaganda victory.

And if missiles targeted Syrian chemical plants, leaving them without protection, there is a risk of deadly nerve agents and other substances falling into the hands of terrorists – allowing them to launch a potentially catastrophic attack on the West.

… What would happen next?

MILITARY leaders are concerned that a series of ‘stand-off’ strikes will be the first step on a path that leads to full involvement in the Syrian conflict.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned this week that airstrikes ‘would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict’.

His words echoed those of General Sir David Richards, who last month stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff. General Richards said the UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by Assad and stop his chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda militants.

But his remarks fuelled concerns about ‘mission creep’, saying: ‘If you wanted to have the material impact in the Syrian regime’s calculations that some people seek… you have to be able, as we did successfully in Libya, to hit ground targets … You have to establish a ground control zone. You have to take out their air defences. You also have to make sure they can’t manoeuvre, which means you have to take out their tanks and armoured personnel carriers.’

… How will Russia and Iran react?

DESPITE the chemical attack violating one of Barack Obama’s ‘red lines’ he is not gung-ho for military action.

He and David Cameron are keenly aware of the danger of inflaming tensions in the Middle East, where Syria has two powerful allies in Russia and Iran.

Russia has urged Assad to co-operate with a probe by UN inspectors but claims there is growing evidence Syrian rebels were behind the attack.

The Kremlin, which has defiantly blocked any action against Syria by the UN Security Council, has also hit out at ‘unacceptable’ calls for the use of force against the regime in Damascus.

The West is also at pains to not become embroiled in a proxy Cold War over Syria: without a nod from Russia, whether in public or in private, it would be problematic to act against Syria.

Iran has already spoken strongly against any intervention in Syria.

Standard