Before I look at that farce, I
remember. Today is 9/11. Not only should it not be forgotten, it
should serve as a warning, a lesson. Even now. Especially
now.
Credit:
Chabad
There is consummate evil in the
world. And there are forces dedicated to taking down Western civilization
-- with all of its humanistic and liberal values. Radical Islam. No
less a threat than naziism was, or communism.
Remember...
~~~~~~~~~~
And the farce? Aiii!
It would be very funny, if it weren't so pathetically sad and
dangerous.
The clown in the White House has
been given a reprieve. And, of all nations, by Russia -- which is in
constant competition with the US for power and influence, and which supports the
bad guys time after time. (Obviously, we cannot count the Russians
themselves amongst the good guys.)
Of course, it wasn't saving Obama
the Russians were concerned with, but rather, preserving the regime of Bashar
Assad. What a strange and sudden turn of events we've seen in the
last three days:
Obama was on a slow, reluctant
path towards a "limited" punitive bombing in Syria as a warning to Assad
and all others of his ilk who would use weapons of mass destruction. Obama
was pushed in this direction because he had spoken about a "red line" with
regard to Assad's use of poison gas, and he couldn't back down without looking
the perfectly impotent, perfect fool.
But how he was planning the
bombing! By announcing first how limited it would be. I wonder if there
has ever been any other instance such as this, in which the nature of
an attack is publicly announced beforehand. Of course, he wasn't trying to
reassure Assad (not as far as I know, anyway), but rather his own people, who
were not really on board.
The farcical nature of this whole
venture comes clear.
Credit:
thesun(uk)
~~~~~~~~~~
Then came the announcement by the
president that even though legally he had the jurisdiction to order the hit
on Assad's military infrastructure, he decided it would be more "democratic" if
he sought the approval of Congress first. Many of us asked, "Say
what?" Because this was being advanced by the most undemocratic of
presidents. A stalling tactic, and an effort to have other parties
sharing the responsibility should things go wrong.
In order to get Congress on board
(it was the House that was looking most reluctant), he pressured AIPAC to get
out there and lobby -- something that he never should have done and which can
only rebound badly on AIPAC and Israel, whose prime minister really wanted to
stay out of this. Not that Obama is concerned about anything rebounding
badly on Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
As those who have been following
my postings understand, I was not opposed in principle to that attack, even
if I mock the way it was being approached. Red lines must be addressed if
there is to be deterrence power -- which is sorely needed, most particularly
with regard to Iran. And use on innocent children of weapons that are
universally forbidden by international humanitarian law should be addressed in a
fashion that very seriously discourages a reprise. The attack should have
been a surprise, delivered with immediacy and ferocious determination born
of genuine conviction.
But how can I not mock? The
secretary of state actually said (I could not make this up!) that the
attack would be "unbelievably small."
The lack of courage and
conviction on the part of the administration cannot be overlooked.
Especially on 9/11. It had become apparent that, with everything
else, there were members of Congress unwilling to support Obama's plan to hit
Syria because it was so ill-conceived, so lacking in genuine planning -- with
specific goals.
~~~~~~~~~~
We know what happened next.
In short order, Kerry referred rather flippantly to Assad turning his weapons of
mass destruction over to the international community so that they might be
destroyed, and the Russians then picked up on this as a serious proposal.
Very quickly thereafter (was this scripted?), Assad indicated interest in
participating.
For about one-and-a-half minutes
it all looked promising. It could have been promising if done
properly. But it quickly became apparent that this was not going to be
pursued properly -- that is, with consummate seriousness.
Britain, France and the US wanted
to turn supervision of the Syrian weapons over to the UN, and moved to bring the
matter to the Security Council. They were seeking a Chapter 7
resolution, which means military enforceability. Russia would have none of
it. In fact, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a statement
about how this will not work if there are threats against Assad -- there have to
be no repercussions staring him down, if he is to cooperate.
~~~~~~~~~~
When I read what Lavrov said
regarding not making threats, in order to secure Assad's cooperation, it seemed
to echo something I had heard before. It didn't take me long to remember
where: For a long time Obama was saying this with regard to Iran. No
military threats, he insisted, or else Iran's leaders won't agree to dialogue.
Remember? We see how far that got the Western world.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama made the point that if not
for the US preparations to hit Syria, this wouldn't be happening. And that's
true enough. But the key now is keeping the heat on Assad, so he feels he might
get hit by those American cruise missiles at any moment. And, in spite of
Obama's lip service in this regard, I have little confidence that the US threat
is real.
Tomorrow Kerry will be meeting
with Lavrov in Geneva, and Obama will be speaking with Putin. The Russians want
to run this show, and insist that, as Assad trusts them, they are the only ones
who can pull it off. There is absolutely no reason to trust the
Russians. But I expect, in spite of this, that Obama will labor mightily
to find a "formula" that will provide a semblance of having dealt with the issue
of Assad's weapons of mass
destruction. As locating these weapons and moving them would be a
gargantuan task, there would be a good stretch of time before it became clear
what had or had not been accomplished.
At present, Obama has tabled a
Congressional vote on the matter. Going back to secure that vote -- and a
positive one, at that, and then acting, some weeks or months down the road,
seems an unlikely scenario. The further in time we are from the
precipitating attack with gas in August, the less urgent it will seem and the
more reluctant members of Congress will become to sanction the launching of
missiles on Syrian installations.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to the Inter-fax news
agency, Moscow says a plan for the chemical disarmament of Syria has already
been turned over to the US. It is this that will be discussed
tomorrow. While Russia is blocking a Chapter 7 resolution, which would
carry severe consequences for failure to comply, it seems almost a forgone
conclusion that there will be some debate on this at the UN. The US and
France are eager for a mechanism to verify Syria's disarmament. To
indicate how wide is the divide, we only need consider this comment by Syrian
Cabinet Minister Ali Haidar:
"There was no talk
about moving and transferring control. There was talk about putting
these weapons under international supervision." (Emphasis
added)
What is more, a Syrian government
official indicates that his country is now prepared to sign the chemical weapons
convention, but not if the move is imposed by foreign
powers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Shoshana Bryen, in "A Metaphor for
UN Action on Syria," examines the lessons to be learned from Iraq, and poses the
questions (at the bottom of her piece) that must be applied to the current
situation. It provides a window on the complexity of the situation.
She asks how it will be known when
all of the stockpiles of weapons have been secured And whether both the
Syrian government and the rebels will give safe passage to those involved with
this work. She wants to know who would centralize the stockpiles of
weapons and who would destroy them.
And lastly, she asks, "How long
will we wait?"
~~~~~~~~~~
Isi Liebler also has a fine piece
on this issue -- "American Isolationism and Its Implications for
Israel."
"In the absence of
effective presidential leadership, the American people have grown weary of
shouldering the burden of policing the world and sending their youngsters to
battle extremists in faraway places. Obama’s policies have dramatically
revived America’s dormant isolationist inclinations." (Emphasis
added)
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, a word about Iran.
The opportunity for Obama to deliver a message of deterrence to Iran,
via strong action in Syria, has been sadly and regrettably lost. It
goes without saying that the Iranians are watching every faltering step.
If they have concluded without question that Obama will never hit them, it would
be difficult to make an alternate case, .
To make matters worse, there are
now reports that the Russians will supply Iran with more advanced military equipment. Elsewhere I've
seen a denial by Putin on this.
What seems to be the case is that
Russia is telling Obama that if he ends up hitting Syria, then they will supply
Iran with the military equipment. Great guys, these Russians -- always
advancing the cause of peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday will mark the 40th
anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War. It is a time for soul
searching here in Israel, with regard to our alertness to what is happening
around us and our preparedness for all eventualities.
At a memorial service at Latrun
today, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said (emphasis added):
"In the fog that is covering the
Middle East, we must realize that we can count only on ourselves and
build an army that will deter any enemy."
Earlier in the day, he had
delivered a message with the same theme:
"We do not know how the free world
will act in response to the massacres in Syria. We are following
the developments with responsibility, level-headedness and the awareness that we
must trust ourselves – our strength and our deterrence capability.
"We live in a reality in which
instability is the only stable thing in the stormy waters of the Middle
East."
Credit: Eli
Mandelbaum
"We must realize that we can count
only on ourselves..." Never were truer words spoken.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment