We have all this jockeying for position prior to Geneva II.
Not just Israel/NATO/GCC. Not just Russia. Syria, also.
We had the very, very important battle at Quassi(y)r. The loss of the strategic town by the NATO terrorists and subsequent moves by the SAA have weakened the NATO/Israel/GCC position.
Obama reacted by using the chemical weapon/red line/humanitarian R2P meme as a justification for a possible no fly/buffer zone being enacted in parts of Jordan and possibly Turkey.
The discord in Turkey allows for this to be planned while most are distracted by the ongoing protests. I had suggested this possibility previously. A possibility we needed to be mindful of. The reasons for the protests at this time? Creating a perception of discord for the wider audience? While those in charge get what needs to be done, done.
However, this no fly zone is not going to get a pass at the UN. That has been made abundantly clear by Russia and China. There will be no approval from the international community for the US/Israel/GCC/UK/France to undertake this action using the UN for validation of insane, criminal, imperial actions.
I am afraid this will not stop the NATO/Israeli/CGG war mongering/imperial maniacs.
Who can justify 'international' action via a coalition of the willing killers.
So, will the NATO nations undertake an illegal, immoral attack on Syria?
With a great big sigh emanating from my chest.... I suspect they will.
Highlighting the relevant information and then linking an article which should provide some food for thought to readers. And hopefully help clarify why it is I am suspicious that there will be air strikes on Syria.
The justification to undertake this action:
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed what he said was a "clear US statement". "The international community has made clear that any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international law," Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels.
"Washington is considering a no-fly zone to help Assad's opponents," one diplomat said. He said it would be limited "time-wise and area-wise, possibly near the Jordanian border," without giving details.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the no-fly zone would stretch up to 25 miles into Syria, and would be enforced with aircraft flown from Jordan or from Navy ships in the Mediterranean or Red Sea.
Mediterranean and Red Sea.. Egypt .....and didn't Morsi recently make his Muslim Brotherhood lackey to NATO/GCC/Israel connections known?
The indication that NATO will engage in mass slaughter of civilians to pressure the Assad government:
The area near the Jordanian border contains some of the most densely-populated parts of Syria, including the outskirts of the capital Damascus.
Depending on the necessity, troops could be at the ready:
Washington has moved Patriot surface-to-air missiles, war planes and more than 4,000 troops into Jordan in the past week, officially as part of an annual exercise, but making clear that the forces deployed could stay on when the war games are over.
This "limited" type of action has been undertaken previously. Recall Serbia?
Obama, Syria and the Aspin Doctrine
As President Barack Obama contemplates his many bad options in Syria, he may want to consider the Aspin Doctrine, an argument for intervention abroad made by President Clinton’s first secretary of defense, Les Aspin.Why the change in tactic?
In 1993, the Clinton administration was wrestling with a seemingly insoluble conflict in Bosnia, where Serbian-backed troops were besieging cities and slaughtering civilians.
Aspin’s advice was straightforward: Let’s bomb the Serbs and see what happens.
Critics objected that military action would put the United States on a slippery slope toward deeper intervention, but Aspin rejected that thinking as outmoded.
"If it doesn’t work," he said, the United States could simply "back off." "Take it one step at a time, and see where we end up," he said.
That’s the Aspin Doctrine: Military intervention doesn’t have to be a slippery slope as long as you keep the option of walking away.
At first, Clinton rejected Aspin’s suggestion. But two years later, he changed his mind and launched airstrikes that helped bring the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table — while insisting that he would not send U.S. soldiers into combat there.
Obama’s decision last week to send weapons and ammunition to the rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria carried a distant echo of Clinton’s experience in Bosnia.
Like Clinton, Obama initially rejected proposals for lethal military aid. But he announced Thursday that he has decided to help arm the rebels, beginning with modest measures: a gradual escalation of aid including small arms and ammunition now, and perhaps eventually the antitank and antiaircraft missiles the rebels say they need most.
Probably most important, though, is this: The rebels were in danger of losing. Thousands of fighters from Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah have streamed into Syria over the last three months, and they have helped Assad’s regime regain the upper hand on the battlefield.
Obama’s decision won’t transform the situation on the ground. The rebels may well suffer more reverses in coming weeks. But with similar aid from Britain, France and other countries, the U.S help could speed the process of turning the rebels into a more effective army — one the Assad regime won’t be able to destroy.
Obama was left with two unpalatable options: escalate or accept defeat. Doing nothing might have led to irreversible results, the collapse of the rebels, so he chose to escalate — but only a little and with a vow to put no U.S. boots on the ground.
Some critics will still warn that he has stepped onto a slippery slope that leads to direct military intervention. But that’s where the Aspin Doctrine comes in. There are plenty of examples of the United States aiding one faction in a civil war, only to disengage if our client army failed.
Obama’s gradual escalation doesn’t preclude military intervention later — and could even pave the way for it.
In 1995, Clinton began airstrikes only after the Bosnian army, strengthened by help from neighboring Croatia, had begun to hold its own against the Serbs.
The experience appears to have left Clinton a devotee of the Aspin Doctrine. "Some people say, ‘OK, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!’ I think that’s a big mistake," Clinton said of Syria last week in comments reported by Politico. "Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit."
Increased aid to the rebels, in other words, doesn’t need to be a slippery slope — as long as the president remembers to keep his footing.
Much is at stake here. The success or failure of the Syrian Army can affect this strike plan, possibly.
My thoughts are most definitely with the Syrian people. Who have shown a level of bravery and perseverance, unimaginable to myself. The kind of spirit lacking in so many these days.