NEW WARS / OLD WARS – Are You Feeling Safer Now?

 

Syria Becomes the 7th Predominantly Muslim Country Bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate

Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama—after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.  The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed: Empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason (indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force, and very few people seemed to mind that abject act of lawlessness; constitutional constraints are not for warriors and emperors).

It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative. Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters is that it be at war, always and forever.  More

 

I despised Saddam’s police state, but U.S. wars set the stage for the Islamic State.

I’m mourning not just those who have died over the past decade, but for a country that I haven’t been able to recognize for a very long time… Until 1990, I never heard a mosque call for prayer. I almost never saw a woman covering her hair with a hijab. My mom wore make-up, skirts, blouses with shoulder pads and Bermuda shorts. She never covered her hair… I despised Saddam, but I don’t think an extremist group like the Islamic State would exist under his rule. Even if Saddam had gone crazy and killed a bunch of people, it wouldn’t be anywhere near the number who have died since he was overthrown. I see a civil war coming, and an Iraq divided into states… Sometimes, I watch old YouTube videos that show the way Iraq used to be. But the Iraq I loved and was proud of — the country I lived in before 1990 — doesn’t exist anymore. And I don’t see that changing in my lifetime.  More

How Many Wars is the US Fighting?

The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State… The problem is that our traditional definition of "war" is outdated, and so is our imagination of what war means.  World War II was the last time Congress officially declared war. Since then, the conflicts we've called "wars" — from Vietnam through to the second Iraq War — have actually been congressional "authorizations of military force." And more recently, beginning with the War Powers Act of 1973, presidential war powers have expanded so much that, according to the Congressional Research Service, it's no longer clear whether a president requires congressional authorization at all… So how many wars is the US fighting right now? Somewhere between zero and 134.   More

 

OBAMA'S LATEST WAR BREAKS THE LAW

…the New York Times reported [3] that “senior Obama administration officials said on Tuesday that the airstrikes against the Islamic State – carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government or the United Nations Security Council – were legal because they were done in defense of Iraq.” The same report said that “Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had failed to suppress that threat.” … The right of “self-defense” under international law exists as the single, narrow exception to the [UN] Charter’s overarching prohibition of the threat or use of force… The crises in Iraq and Syria are appropriately addressed not by the United States alone, which, by virtue of its military and intelligence policies, supported the conditions in which ISIS was created and proliferated [7], but by the world community acting through the UN Security Council.   More

 

Syria Vote Isn't Last Word From Congress On War

As far as Congress is concerned, President Barack Obama's Mideast war strategy isn't in the clear yet.

The president got what he wanted this past week when the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved arming and training moderate Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State militants. But the go-ahead is good for less than three months. And many lawmakers want a say over the rest of a plan featuring more than 1,600 U.S. military advisers in Iraq and airstrikes expanding into Syria… A showdown looms when lawmakers return to the Capitol after midterm elections — and no one knows yet how it's going to play out. Permission to prepare vetted Syrian opposition units as a ground force to complement U.S. airstrikes expires Dec. 11, at which point the training effort won't even have begun. American military leaders say the operation needs up to five months to get off the ground. Authorization for the training program is also included in a version of this year's defense policy bill, but its passage is not guaranteed… Conservatives such as Paul and liberal Democrats including Reps. Barbara Lee of Texas and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited the legal case in voting "no" on the Syrian training mission. Foreign policy centrists who supported intervention are joining the push for a broader authorization.  More

 

The audacity of air strikes and secret deals: just making Isis grow stronger?

Members of Congress – and the public – who care about a sustainable peace in the Middle East, the wise use of American tax dollars and the balance of power between our branches of government must not stand by as idle accomplices to President Obama’s increased air strikes and weapons deals in Syria. US-led air strikes make recruiting exponentially easier for the Islamic State (Isis) and other extremist movements without actually making America any safer. And selling weapons to state and non-state actors in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East only aids and abets insurgent movements. Insurgent groups, it seems, have found a reliable source for armaments in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency… But there are other options. The US could avoid repeating its past mistakes in Iraq by deemphasizing its military focus and admitting that air strikes and drone strikes won’t work to effect regional change. A strategy focused on political reconciliation, regional cooperation, arms embargoes and humanitarian aid that finally meets the basic needs of a war-ravaged nation is the only plan that could bring lasting security and political stability.  More

 

Why Americans’ support for bombing ISIS may not last

Trends in opinion on wars in the past half-century suggest that the American public can quite quickly begin to suffer from war fatigue. The Gallup poll has asked a relatively consistent question about wars going back to Korea in 1950. The question, in various forms, asks: “Do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to __ or not?”  In the early stages of each war — Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan — large numbers said troop deployments were not a mistake. But over time, without fail, those numbers reversed with majorities or near-majorities saying each conflict was a mistake… Support for the Iraq war increased six points within days of Saddam Hussein’s capture on Dec. 13, 2003. In those early stages of the war, majorities considered it worth the effort. But within two months of his capture, opinions were split, with 48 percent saying it was worth it and 50 percent saying it wasn’t.  In late March 2004, a convoy of U.S. military contractors was ambushed and killed in Fallujah and their bodies were burned and dragged through the streets. Public opinion went south on the war in Post-ABC polls within months of that attack, never to return to majority support.  More

 

U.S. -- Strikes on Islamic State, Khorasan in Syria first step of a years-long campaign

U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria are likely to last “for years,” a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday, as the United States began to assess the impact of three waves of aerial assaults launched in the early morning hours that targeted both Islamic State installations in eastern Syria and facilities housing a shadowy al Qaida group further west… “You are seeing the beginning of a sustained campaign, and strikes like this in the future can be expected,” said Army Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The operational pace, the tempo of this thing, will be dictated by the facts on the ground and what the targets on the ground mean.” Asked how long the effort to “degrade and eventually destroy” the Islamic State could take, Mayville replied, “I would think of it in terms of years.”  More

 

White House won’t estimate cost of ISIS war

Pressed on that point Monday, press secretary Josh Earnest wouldn't give a ballpark figure for how much the administration expected military operations to cost.  “I don’t have an estimate on that,” Earnest said. “I know that we’re interested in having an open dialogue with Congress to ensure that our military has the resources necessary to carry out the mission that the president has laid out.” So far, the administration has relied on the Overseas Contingency Operations budget to pay for operations against the terrorist group. The White House had previously requested a cut in that pool — from $85 billion to $58.6 billion — for the next fiscal year, but lawmakers decided instead to keep funding at current levels in the temporary budget measure passed last week.   More

The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry

It’s far too soon to tell how the American escalation in the sprawling, complex mess unfolding in Iraq and Syria will play out. But this much is clear: As our military machine hums into a higher gear, it will produce some winners in the defense industry.  New fights mean new stuff, after all. And following the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan—and the belt-tightening at the Pentagon imposed by steep budget cuts—military suppliers are lining up to meet a suddenly restored need for their wares. Presenting his vision for expanding the confrontation with the terrorist group ISIS in a speech to the nation on Wednesday night, President Obama outlined a program of intensified airstrikes designed to keep American troops away from the danger on the ground. So defense analysts are pointing to a pair of sure-bet paydays from the new campaign: for those making and maintaining the aircraft, manned and unmanned, that will swarm the skies over the region, and for those producing the missiles and munitions that will arm them.   More

 

Syrian rebels angry that strikes hit al Qaida but not Assad

Anti-government media activists and rebel commanders gave a mixed assessment of U.S.-led airstrikes in northern Syria on Tuesday…  But the greatest damage, they said, may be to the Free Syrian Army, the moderate rebel faction that enjoyed U.S. support for years. By focusing exclusively on Islamic State insurgents and al Qaida figures associated with the Khorasan unit of the Nusra Front, and bypassing installations associated with the government of President Bashar Assad, the airstrikes infuriated anti-regime Syrians and hurt the standing of moderate rebel groups that are receiving arms and cash as part of a covert CIA operation based in the Turkish border city of Reyhanli.  More

 

Demise of group backing moderate Syria rebels is a warning for U.S.

Two years after the Obama administration granted it a rare license to raise money for Syrian rebels, a Washington-based opposition nonprofit group that tried to help the United States build a moderate fighting force is defunct. The Syrian Support Group quietly shut down last month, another casualty of the murky battleground conditions, lack of resources and infighting that have doomed every U.S.-backed attempt at creating a viable opposition partner… Now, some U.S. officials speak dismissively of the group and seek to disassociate themselves from it. But for years they enjoyed cozy ties with the Syrian-American activists. In 2012, the Treasury Department granted a sought-after license that made it the only U.S. group authorized to collect money for the rebels… The Obama administration’s effort to work with the Free Syrian Army, which in truth is less an army than a loosely affiliated band of militias, was similarly unsuccessful. It didn’t take long for the rebels to complain publicly that promised U.S. assistance wasn’t arriving; they also begged in vain for heavier weapons and Western air support.  Their cause wasn’t helped by Free Syrian Army units being caught repeatedly coordinating with the Nusra Front.   More

 

Bombing Syria

Syria cannot join the anti-ISIS coalition even though Syria has been fighting ISIS for over two years. Obama’s reason is that the Syrian government has “no legitimacy.” But Obama’s “coalition” of Gulf states are composed of totalitarian dictatorships that, in comparison, make Syria look like the bastion of democracy… Obama’s “coalition of the willing” is largely a mirage, since it’s composed of Gulf state monarchies that are completely dependent on U.S. aid, supplying these dictatorships with enough fire power to protect them from their own citizens, who would otherwise topple their “royalty” in minutes… To complicate matters more, there are large sections of support in the Gulf states for groups like ISIS, since these governments give institutional support to religious institutions that hold an extremist interpretation of Islam… The U.S. politicians understand that the intended outcome of funding the Syrian rebels is regime change, while they tell the American public that ISIS is the only target. The real agenda is quite simple: keeping the Middle East under U.S. control by any means necessary.  More

 

Why Syria is the Gordian knot of Obama’s anti-ISIL campaign

The Syrian opposition remains notoriously fragmented and undependable. Obama did not name a militia or organization with which to partner because even after three and a half years of vetting rebel groups, the U.S. has yet to identify a credible ally…    Last year the U.S. tried to unite Western-friendly militias under a supreme military command, but that effort proved a debacle… Fixing the deep-seated political breakdown of which ISIL’s rise is one symptom is beyond Obama’s capability. Ten years of nation-building by more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq failed to create a new stability, and today’s challenge of failing statehood extends way beyond Iraq. Bombing is envisaged as a Band-Aid solution to the region’s problems. But the wounds run deep and wide.  More

 

2-minute Video: 

HOW DOES THIS END? 35 Military Interventions since 1980 and Terrorism Grows

 

U.S. Turns Up the Heat on Turkey Over Islamic State

A North Atlantic Treaty Organization member that is home to a large American air base, Turkey has been conspicuously absent as a U.S.-led military coalition including Gulf Arab countries conducted a series of airstrikes on the radical Sunni group in neighboring Syria this week. At minimum, U.S. officials say, Mr. Obama wants Mr. Erdogan to do more to stop the flow of foreign fighters in and out of Turkey. "We have made a clear declaration of political will against the Islamic State," a senior Turkish official said on Thursday. "We are discussing political and military cooperation, but the question is how we commit."  The official added that Turkey would decide the scope of cooperation based on its own security concerns and not based on international pressure… Next week, Turkey's parliament will debate the renewal of current authorizations to use force in both Syria and Iraq. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has pledged to expand the scope and content of the resolutions, but didn't elaborate on the specifics.  More

 

Deal With Saudis Paved Way for Syrian Airstrikes

Officials on both sides say the partnership could help rebuild trust between longtime allies whose relations have been deeply strained over the U.S.'s response to the Arab Spring uprisings and Mr. Obama's outreach to Saudi rival Iran. It was also a sign the Saudis might take on a greater security role in the region, something the U.S. has long pressed for.  Reaching that agreement, however, took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.  More

 

THE OTHER BEHEADERS

In recent months IS has carried out hundreds, possibly thousands, of executions, mostly by gunfire rather than beheading and typically without a trial of any kind. Saudi Arabia is far less trigger- or sword-happy. Still, in the space of just 18 days during the month of August, the kingdom beheaded some 22 people, according to human-rights advocates… Some Saudi critics fear that the sudden upsurge represents a response by the religious establishment to the challenge from IS. Perhaps it is an attempt to prove to the most conservative Saudis that the kingdom remains a truer “Islamic” state than any other. Others see it as part of a broader policy to assert government control amid signs of growing discontent among the bored Saudi young, including a drift into unbelief.    More

 

What Arab Partners Will Get in Return for Strikes on Syria
Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia can hope to shift attention away from the criticism for their attitude to Islamist extremism. Over the years, they have been charged not only with supporting radical Islamists in Syria, but also with allowing their religious elites to propagate a version of Islam that is open to easy manipulation at the hands of radical jihadist recruiters. Both countries will also hope that weakening the radical Islamists of IS will help moderate elements of the Syrian opposition regain the initiative against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Some among the elites of Riyadh and Doha might even be hoping Washington will realise the threat of IS will never be extinguished while Bashar al-Assad’s regime remains in place – and that Obama will see the job is finished.  More

 

FAREED ZAKARIA: The fight against the Islamic State must include Iran

If President Obama truly wants to degrade and destroy the Islamic State, he must find a way to collaborate with Iran — the one great power in the Middle East with which the United States is still at odds. Engagement with Iran — while hard and complicated — would be a strategic game-changer, with benefits spreading from Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan… The United States has some influence with the Iraqi government, but Iran has far more. The Shiite religious parties that today run the country have been funded by Iran for decades. Their leaders lived in Tehran and Damascus during their long exiles from Saddam Hussein’s regime. When Washington sought to remove the previous prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, Iran provided the push that made it happen. If the goal is to get the Iraqi government to share more power with the Sunnis, Iran’s help would be invaluable, perhaps vital. In Syria, Washington’s strategy is incoherent. It seeks to destroy the Islamic State there and attack Jabhat al-Nusra and the Khorasan group but somehow not strengthen these groups’ principal rival, the Bashar al-Assad regime. This is impossible.  More