US moves closer to a "military response"

This is the banner headlines across all western media.

I have just watched JOHN KERRY make a live statement at the State Department. It was dishonest, it was inflammatory, it was firm and it was extremely bellicose. In fact, from my long experience at analyzing USG posturings, it ranks right up there with the rhetoric that was used before the Panamanian, Grenada, Afghanistan and both Iraqi invasions. I'm sure clips of this statement will be posted here shortly.

Peace talks are pending. I do not feel that, from a strategic or tactical standpoint the U.S. has a good power position. The UN is being bypassed. The role/approval of Turkey (a NATO member) is a huge question mark at the moment, as is that of Egypt. Just days before his removal President Morsi had publicly called for the imposition of a No-Fly zone over Syria (in perfect agreement with Barack Obama). His removal shortly after that suggested that the Egyptian military might want no part of an attack on Syria. That is another huge question mark.

That being said, if an attack does take place it will be a US, British, French, Israeli (and much of NATO) operation. Two months or so ago Iran announced that it had sent 4,000 Revolutionary Guards to support Al-Assad in Syria. Iran is irrevocably committed to backing Assad. China is irrevocably committed to backing Iran as is Russia in the event of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. Russia is movingly slowly but steadily towards full support of Assad even while issuing statements that it does not want to go to war over Syria.

Russia will go to war over Iran.

I can only say that if an attack does occur with the purpose of imposing regime change in Syria all bets are off. And it will make very little difference about who was right or not right about whether the intention to attack was serious, or a poker move in advance of peace talks.

Based upon the realities on all other fronts, especially climate collapse and Fukushima, I will perceive an attack on Syria as the pushing of the "Fuck it!" button. If there is an attack to which Russia and Iran do not respond militarily this time then all this will have accomplished is moving closer to an inevitability that there will be.

Developing... -- MCR

U.S. seeks accountability for Syria gas attack, edges closer to military response

Secretary of State John Kerry laid the groundwork on Monday for possible military action against the Syrian government over a suspected chemical weapons attack, implicating President Bashar al-Assad's forces in a "moral obscenity."

Reuters,

26 August, 2013

In the most forceful U.S. reaction yet to last week's suspected gas attack outside Damascus, Kerry said President Barack Obama "believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."

Kerry spoke after U.N. chemical weapons experts interviewed and took blood samples on Monday from victims of the attack in a rebel-held suburb of Syria's capital, after the inspectors themselves survived sniper fire that hit their convoy.

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry told reporters. "Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity."

Kerry's tough language marked an increased effort by the administration not only to point the finger at Assad's government but to prepare the war-weary American public for a potential military response.

He accused the Syrian rulers of acting like they had something to hide by blocking the U.N. inspectors' visit to the scene for days and shelling the area.

"Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up," Kerry said.

Information gathered so far, including videos and accounts from the ground, indicate that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was "undeniable," Kerry said, adding that it was the Syrian government that maintained custody of the weapons and had the rockets capable of delivering them.

A STEP CLOSER TO MILITARY RESPONSE

There were mounting signs that the United States and Western allies were edging closer to a military response over the incident, which took place a year after Obama declared the use of chemical weapons a "red line" that would require strong action.

Obama, who withdrew troops from Iraq and is winding down U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, has been reluctant to intervene in two and a half years of civil war in Syria.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Saturday showed about 60 percent of Americans opposed U.S. military intervention, while only 9 percent thought Obama should act.

However, with his international credibility seen increasingly on the line, Obama could opt for limited measures such as cruise missile strikes to punish Assad and seek to deter further chemical attacks, without dragging Washington deeper into the war. The United States has started a naval buildup in the region to be ready for Obama's decision.

Kerry stopped short of explicitly blaming the Syrian government for the gas attack but strongly implied that no one else could have been behind it and said the United States had "additional information it would provide in the days ahead.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said there was "very little doubt" that the Syrian government was to blame but that Obama had not yet decided how to respond.

The Obama administration has not set a timeline for responding but officials are preparing options for with a sense of urgency, the State Department said.

While senior Republicans are mostly urging Obama to respond forcefully against Assad, House of Representatives' Speaker John Boehner's office called on the president to make his case to the American people and also to engage in "meaningful consultation" with Congress, which he said had not taken place.

"The president has an obligation to the American people to explain the rationale for the course of action he chooses, why it's critical to our national security and what the broader strategy is to achieve stability," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for Boehner, the top Republican in Congress.

A U.S. security source said that as of Monday, Washington and its allies still did not have conclusive scientific evidence that the attack involved chemical weapons, and that such proof could take days or weeks to gather.

But sources said while the evidence may be "circumstantial," U.S. intelligence has "high confidence" that chemical weapons were used by Assad's forces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoPBb3xJPYQ