It CAN be done

Now, how will Syria proceed?

Meanwhile, South Koreans refused to be locked down.

How will US citizens react when Trump declares martial law?  

UPDATE 02:28 pm:

UPDATE 06:06 pm:

More mocking caught on camera

A few weeks ago, it was the European leaders.  Now look who's making fun of Trump...

Respected again.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Who the fuck is he talking to?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tillerson on Syria

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson unveiled an ambitious US strategy for ousting Syrian President Bashar al Assad on Wednesday that relies on an indefinite US military presence in the country, an insurrection within the Assad regime and a groundswell of support from the beleaguered Syrian people.

  Buzzfeed

Christ, did we go back in time about three years, or what?

Tillerson says that “our expectation is that the desire for a return to normal life … will help rally the Syrian people and individuals within the regime to compel Assad to step down.”

That's what we were saying years ago. It hasn't happened. What's changed to make anyone think it will?

The speech [...] marks a departure from language drafted between the US and Russian officials in Vietnam in November.

[...]

A central pillar to Tillerson’s plan, delivered in a speech at Stanford University, is a UN-supervised election that Tillerson predicted would result in new leadership.

Do we now just pipe up dreams and call them plans?

One individual familiar with the decision told BuzzFeed News the stronger language could create the conditions for dismantling Assad’s rule.

Do you think Russia or Iran might have something to say about all this? Or even Assad and the Syrians themselves?

The decision to approve a lasting US military presence in Syria was approved by Trump at a National Security Council meeting on Dec. 21.

The US military currently has about 2,000 troops in Syria working with a local force made up primarily of Syrian Kurds. It was unclear how large a contingent of US military might be required for a longterm commitment.

I don't understand how this can be done. It's like an occupation. The occupied country did not invite us to stick around.

Tillerson said the military presence would be in addition to an unspecified number of US diplomats working on so-called stabilization programs in a country where as many as 6 million people are displaced and where many of the cities have been devastated by more than six years of war.

Should we maybe mention the fact that we don't have any fucking diplomats left because of Tillerson (and Trump)?

On Wednesday, Pentagon officials and spokespeople for Operation Inherent Resolve, the anti-ISIS coalition, would not comment on why the US military was setting up such a force and whether it would require additional US troops. Turkish President Recep Tayyp Erdoğan has vowed to "strangle it before it's even born.”

So. No problems, then.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Anti-Assad Story in 3..2..1..

Israeli jets have reportedly bombed a Syrian government facility in the north-west of the country believed to be associated with Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons programme.

[...]

The strikes follow a series of statements by Israel in recent weeks accusing Iran of seeking to establish itself in Syria and Lebanon and of building a weapons factory as the six-year Syrian civil war has continued to swing in favour of Assad.

  Guardian

I'll be waiting for the reports that Assad gassed his own people.

The air raid on the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre near the town of Masyaf was reported to have taken place overnight. Western intelligence reports have linked the centre to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

[...]

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, along with other sources, identified the target as al-Talai facility, a site that had been subject to US sanctions for its role in the Syrian non-conventional weapons agency.

[...]

Israel’s 10-day military exercise, which began on Tuesday, was described as an exercise in rapid military escalation, requiring forces to defend the country against multiple possible terrorist infiltrations in the north.

"Defend" against "possible" infiltrations by actively bombing a chemical plant.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Marco Rubio Doesn't Think It Was a Coincidence

[I]t's concerning that the secretary of state, 72 hours ago or a week ago, last Friday, said that the future's up to the people in Syria on what happens with Assad. In essence almost nodding to the idea that Assad was gonna get to stay in some capacity," Rubio said on the show "AM Tampa Bay."

"I don't think it's a coincidence that a few days later we see this," Rubio concluded.

[...]

Dozens died in an attack on Tuesday that activists said was committed by Assad's regime. The U.S. has also placed blame on Assad for the attack. Last week in Turkey, Tillerson said, "I think the status and the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

  CNN

Even if it's not a coincidence (and it's not likely that it is), I don't know that we can draw an accurate conclusion on who made sure it happened. It does seem rather curious that the USG couldn't wait until an investigation into the gassing could be made.

And are we now going to get to hear Old Lard Ass make some more snide remarks about "Little Marco"?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Statement from Your Brilliant President on Syria

"I think what Assad did is terrible. I think what happened in Syria is one of the truly egregious crimes. It shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't be allowed to happen," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. "I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity. He's there, and I guess he's running things, so something should happen."

[...]

"I don't want to mention that," Trump said when asked if he told members of Congress he plans to take military action. "But the answer is no, I haven't."

[...]

Defense Secretary James Mattis will lead Trump through his available options [at Mar-A-Lago], including what the potential consequences for military action could be.

The White House official confirmed that in addition to Mattis, three other Cabinet secretaries are currently in Mar-a-Lago, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

  CNN

Again, I ask: Why are we paying extra to guard Mar-A-Lago?  Does it not take extra details to guard the president in a very public place?  What the hell is wrong with the White House?  It doesn't have a Trump restaurant and rooms to let to people who would like to be in proximity to the US president, robbing him of a rich source of income, eh?

The Syrian government says it did not attack with chemical weapons, but that it bombed an IS stronghold that was holding chemical weapons. The difference is nothing to the affected civilians, but if true, it begs the question: Are there other chemical weapons stores being held by IS forces, and if so, could coalition or Russian forces not do the same thing?

Also, it's not like we haven't already been engaged militarily in Syria.  But to read news reports, you'd think we've just been sitting on the sidelines watching. Still, it can get worse. Much worse.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

You Need a Scorecard - Part Infinity

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Are the War Drums Quieter?

With so many people who call themselves liberals and leftists tearing their hair out in dread of a President Donald Trump, it is necessary to point out that the prospects of avoiding nuclear war are much better than they were the day before the election. Hillary Clinton was committed to imposing a “no fly zone” over Syria. [...] You’d think that would have made Clinton anathema to decent people. [...] [But b]ased on [Americans'] political behavior, they [...] support U.S. governments that have slaughtered millions since the end of World War Two. If you voted for Obama and Clinton, you gave your assent to continuing George Bush’s wars, allowing Obama to start two major wars of his own, in Libya and Syria, and to Hillary Clinton’s plans to roll the nuclear dice on the fate of humanity. The whole world knows that Americans are dangerous, to themselves and to others.

[...]

Donald Trump looks and talks like the ugly, racist, bullying American -- and he is exactly that, but he hasn’t killed anybody yet, and his public statements have been of a far more peaceful nature than the woman he beat at the polls. Trump says he wants to cooperate with the Syrians and the Russians to defeat ISIS. Trump also does not make distinctions between the various Islamic jihadist groups in Syria, unlike the Obama administration, which has directly and indirectly armed and funded all of the jihadist groups, and has spent much of the last several months trying to protect the al Nusra Front, the al Qaida affiliate in eastern Aleppo, from Russian bombing.

[...]

Hopefully, the Syrian government and its friends will be on the road to victory before Donald Trump’s presidency is decisively captured by the bipartisan War Party that runs the empire.

[...]

Assad thinks the notion of Trump bucking the War Party is “dubious.” He’s right. Half a million Syrians are dead because most Americans don’t much care who their government kills, as long as they’re not white.

  Glen Ford @ Black Agenda Report

And not even then if they're eastern European or Russian.

Hopefully, this is one thing he'll follow through on. But, I'm not optimistic about it....but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Misdirection

What it looks like is someone put up the wrong picture and link on their Tweet.  But then, The Times replaced that Tweet with this one:


The picture and link are right now, but check the slight change in wording of the Tweet.  Changing "misdirected" to "errant" makes an entirely different meaning, from an act of neglect, carelessness or even volition, to a passive problem that doesn't imply any blame on the part of the attackers.  Errant missiles stray of their own accord.

But, The Times still has this older Tweet up suggesting that "misdirected" was the more accurate descriptor.




Lots of people read only the headlines - we all do it some times - so the change of terms is important.

The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief.

[...]

American pilots thought they were aiming at Islamic State jihadists but instead killed more than 60 Syrian soldiers, according to the Russian military.

[...]

The United States had thought that if a deal to ease hostilities in Syria, struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva nine days ago, fell apart, it would reveal Russia’s duplicity in the war, in which Moscow has supported the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.



  NYT

It's bound to fall apart if we do this kind of shit.

The errant bombing, for which the administration apologized to Mr. Assad, also gave both the Russians and the Syrian government a propaganda bonanza: Russia suggested it was a result of an American reluctance to share intelligence, and the Assad government said, contrary to all other evidence, that the United States was trying to protect the Islamic State.

The Times feels the need to add "contrary to all other evidence." Most Americans didn't need that. On the other hand, it could be well argued that there is SOME evidence, considering the fact that we arm and support "moderate" Islamist fighters.

“The biggest judgment they need to make is to stop Assad from bombing people indiscriminately, which he continues to do,” Mr. Kerry said.

Yes, we didn't bomb Syrian troops indiscriminately. We bombed them "errantly". And we never bomb civilians indiscriminately. Never. We're very discriminating when we do that. Double taps included.

“The humanitarian assistance is supposed to be flowing,” Mr. Kerry said. “The regime once again is blocking it. So Russia’s client, Russia’s supported friend, is the single biggest blockade to the ability to move forward here.”

Well, and errant bombings.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Still Bombing Hospitals

And it's still a war crime. (As if war itself isn't.)

A Syrian hospital backed by Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been destroyed in an airstrike in Aleppo, killing patients and doctors including one of the last paediatricians remaining in the rebel-held part of the city.

[...]

MSF condemned the attack in a series of tweets that said al-Quds hospital was targeted in an airstrike on Wednesday, killing 14 patients and staff members including three doctors, with the toll expected to rise.

[...]

The latest attack is part of a broader pattern of systematic targeting of hospitals by the government of Bashar al-Assad, as the humanitarian situation in the divided commercial capital of Syria grows more desperate under intense combat.

  Guardian

Oh, yes, because western allies never bomb hospitals.

Neither the ICRC nor MSF assigned blame for the attack, but the Syrian and Russian air forces have carried out almost all the aerial strikes on the opposition-controlled east of the city.

Oh! So we don't yet even know who did it. The blame was laid on Assad in the second paragraph of this article. Halfway through - if you've read that far - we find out that's not necessarily the case. The report also claims that hospitals don't give their coordinates to Assad's forces for fear of being bombed intentionally, which could lead one to believe that, even if it was Assad's forces, it might have been accidental, unlike the one in Afghanistan.

I'm increasingly disappointed by the Guardian's reporting. Sad to say, because they were one of the last trustworthy sources.

UPDATE:  Here's your punishment for the war crime of bombing hospitals if your American.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Whhhaaaaaattttt?!

Russia is playing a “constructive” role in Syria's ceasefire, the Pentagon said, having noted “developments” on the ground. It encouraged Moscow to “continue to focus” on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), while persuading Assad to stop the war.

“It is clear that they have focused more of their military attention on ISIL, we think that’s a good thing,” Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook said during a briefing in Washington DC. “They said initially that was their primary goal, was to go after ISIL in Syria and they are doing so now.”

  RT

Have I woken up in an alternate universe?

Propaganda 101

Can't have Assad's troops defeating IS.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

From Libya to Syria

There was a bit in the last debate between Clinton and Sanders where she tired to stick him with having voted for "regime change" in Libya. But, according to this post from Marcy Wheeler, he didn't vote to take Qaddafi out. (Not to mention, she voted for the same thing.)

[The resolution Sanders endorsed] certainly called for Qaddafi to resign and transfer power to a democratic government. It even endorsed the “outreach” — which ultimately involved barely covert support for rebels — as a means to “transition to a legitimate democratic government.” And it called for the UNSC to take further action, which it did weeks later in calling for a no-fly zone. Famously, Russia and China only permitted that resolution to pass because Susan Rice had led them to believe it did not entail regime change (which is why Russia refused to play along with multilateral efforts to do something about Bashar Assad’s massacres).

  Emptywheel

I hadn't seen that bit of information before. Why is it that our government continues to bait and switch, and flat out mislead people it claims to be negotiating with? It has consequences. But of course, in public, in American press, they can claim that the other side - Russia in this (and other) cases - is the bad guy. Oh, didn't we mention that we lied to them on that last deal?

And Speaking of Her Highness Hillary Hawk

If I had watched the Democratic "debate", I'd have heard this about the fabulous plan HHHH keeps proposing of creating a No-Fly Zone in Syria:



The Russians would join us? They may be fighting IS in Syria, along with Assad, but in doing so, they are supporting Assad's planes, not ours.

The only point of an NFZ in Syria would be to thwart the Russians - or create a situation to openly declare war on them. We don't already have enough hot water in Syria?

A no-fly zone over Syria, as all parties understand, is a tacit declaration of war not only against Syria, but also against their longtime ally Russia, whose air force is currently flying over Syria to defend the government of Bashar al-Assad against both ISIL and various rebel groups, some overtly or covertly backed by the United States.

But most Americans don’t know what a no-fly zone is, because the media almost never explains what it would entail. Indeed, one has to look to paragraph 19 of an article in The New York Times from 2013 to get some specifics:

Imposing a no-fly zone, [Gen. Martin E. Dempsey] said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.

That was written before Russia entered the war in September 2015. The total number of U.S. servicemen needed to enforce a no-fly zone is likely now much higher, and the stakes for shooting down a Russian jet, intentionally or not, are much greater than for a Syrian one.

[...]

[Clinton] has lots of company on the other side of aisle, including from GOP establishment favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (with whom she shares a foreign policy consultant, Beacon Strategies), who has repeatedly called for a no-fly zone in similarly vague terms.

[...]

Clinton’s grandstanding may focus-group well and make her look ‘tough,’ but it can only undermine efforts to bring Syria’s devastating civil war to an end.

  alJazeera

Precisely the point, isn't it? Why would a war hawk want to save Syria from devastation - or end war?

Either Clinton is calling for an actual no-fly zone that would involve de facto war against Russia and Syria, or she’s calling for a fantasy one where Russia reverses its entire foreign policy and becomes a client state of the U.S. She’s either being wildly reckless or willfully obtuse.

Yeah. She's being Hillary.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Outrageous

If you ever thought the US was not serious about defeating IS, you've just been validated.

Washington will not share intelligence data on Islamic State positions in Syria and will not accept Moscow’s offer to cooperate on rooting out terrorism until Moscow changes its position on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s future, the Pentagon said

  RT

Russia and France have agreed to bolster efforts to share intelligence relating to the Islamic State jihadist group after the two countries vowed to cooperate militarily on the issue.

"We have agreed to strengthen our exchange of military information, both on the strikes and the location of the different groups (in Syria)," French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said following talks with Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu.

"Our intelligence services will strengthen their already existing ties, which require increased cooperation."

  Pakistan Defence

Do we hate the French again? It's hard to keep track.

The report about the Pentagon's refusal to cooperate with Russia on IS came from a Russian news source. No word about the Pentagon's response. I suppose we should wait and see how they respond. That is, if anyone in the US media asks them.

"We are not going to cooperate with Russia on Syria until they change their strategy of supporting Assad and instead focus on ISIL,” US Defense Department Spokesperson Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza told Sputnik on Friday.

  RT

Maybe they'll fire Ms. Baldanza.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Disillusioned in Syria

Since the start of the regime change operation in Syria Jenan Moussa, who works for the UAE based Al Aan TV, is an ardent fan of the "moderate rebels". Her embedded reports about them were more one sided anti-regime propaganda than journalism. She is quite prominent with over 100,000 followers on Twitter.

But her honeymoon with the FSA seems to be over. She finally recognizes that the FSA is a mere weapon courier service between the CIA and Saudis on one side and al-Qaeda and the Islamic State on the other.

[...]

That is, of course, not new. When the German journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer, who traveled to ISIS-controlled Syria and Iraq last year, was asked about how the FSA is seen by the Jihadis he responded (vid):

They are laughing about the FSA. They don't take them for serious. They say: "The best arms sellers we have are the FSA. If they get a good weapon they sell it to us."

[...]

Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda in Syria, is meanwhile happy with all the attention the Islamic State gets. It helps Nusra to play the "moderates".

[...]

Another long term fan of regime change in Syria and a busy propagandists on Twitter with some 26,000 followers is The 47th. Yesterday he finally had this realization:

The 47th @THE_47th
There isn't a single credible, promising & uniting Syrian oppositions figure that could possibly run against Assad.

  Moon of Alabama

So we can't possibly agree to free elections in Syria.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wasn't That Great?!

We killed Gaddafi.  Yippee!

President Barack Obama stated (atfp.co/1kyBt2i) in a speech to the nation on March 28, 2011, "The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone," adding explicitly, "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

[...]

At the eleven-hour United States House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing yesterday, Sec. Hillary Clinton said something in passing that has received no attention by the committee members or the media. When asked by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) about a video clip that read, “We came, we saw, he died [meaning former Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi]. Is that the Clinton doctrine?” Clinton replied, “No, that was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had achieved its end.”

[...]

[A] committee member could have pressed Clinton to explain why U.S. objectives shifted so markedly from protecting civilians to killing Qaddafi. Or, if regime change was the intended policy objective from the very beginning, why didn’t President Obama say so to the American public?

  Micah Zenko

And honestly, the American public would have been okay with that.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The Pressure Is On

We've obviously bombed the wrong hospital this time. This one wasn't run by natives or Islamic charities like the one we decimated in Falluja.  ("At least four were hit recently in Iraq. U.S. bombs had also struck hospitals in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Iraq in the 1990s. [...] In George W. Bush’s war on Afghanistan, 2001-2002, bombs struck hospitals in Herat, Kabul, and Kandahar; some reports placed the death toll in the hundreds." - May 2003 Source.  Bombing hospitals is a New War tactic also used by Israel and by Assad in Syria. It's also in direct violation of the Geneva conventions, not to mention utterly immoral and reprehensible.)

Dismissal of this latest hospital bombing as "collateral damage" didn't satisfy Doctors Without Borders (MSF).  Nor did "there were terrorists being harbored there" nor "terrorists were firing on US forces from there."  We're down to "it's the Afghan military's fault."

Local Afghan forces asked for air support and American forces were not under direct fire just prior to the U.S. bombardment of an Afghan hospital that killed at least 22 people, the coalition's top commander in Afghanistan said Monday.

The Pentagon had previously said U.S. troops were under direct fire.

"I've ordered a thorough investigation into this tragic incident and the investigation is ongoing," U.S. Army Gen. John Campbell said. "The Afghans ordered the same. If errors were committed we'll acknowledge them. We'll hold those responsible accountable and we will take steps to ensure mistakes are not repeated."

[...]

Military officials told NBC News over the weekend that Afghans cannot call in airstrikes — that they do not have the training. However, they can report to the U.S. and coalition that they are under fire from a location and the U.S. or coalition partners there can call it in. Officials said the U.S. would not strike without target verification first.

[...]

It isn't clear how the Afghans asked for air support, but Campbell seemed to suggest both of those policies were violated.

A preliminary report into the bombing should be ready "in the next couple of days," he added.

  NBC

And the whole world will be waiting.

UPDATE:  12:30pm

The U.S. seems to have picked the wrong group this time to attack from the air.

  Glenn Greenwald

October 05, 2015 "Today the US government has admitted that it was their airstrike that hit our hospital in Kunduz and killed 22 patients and MSF staff. Their description of the attack keeps changing—from collateral damage, to a tragic incident, to now attempting to pass responsibility to the Afghanistan government. The reality is the US dropped those bombs. The US hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and MSF staff. The US military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the US and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical."

—Christopher Stokes, General Director, Médecins Sans Frontières

  Doctors without Borders

Back to the Future?

It's hard sometimes to keep track of the direction.

Apparently all the chaos and destruction in Iraq and Yemen are sufficiently under control that we can now return our media war gaze to Syria.

We tried to garner support for ousting Assad a while back - twice, actually, just about one and two years ago excactly, but they must not have been politically properly timed.  Having learned the lesson of patience from George W, we've covertly and overtly bombed and prodded, and now we're ready to test the waters again.

With help from our British dogs, of course...

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.