Obama to step up military support of Syrian rebels

[JI7]

i just don't understand this. i think this is a huge mistake. and Kerry supports This ? since when and why ? i know Assad is a problem but the rebels are full of islamic extremists and they are raping women and cutting off the heads of boys .

i don't see how this can work in any way. i know we should try to do something but i just can't see how arming the rebels would do it. is the goal to try to even it out but without the rebels actually winning ?


<President Barack Obama has authorized sending weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time, U.S. officials said Thursday, after the White House disclosed that the United States has conclusive evidence Syrian President Bashar Assad's government has used chemical weapons against opposition forces trying to overthrow him.>

http://www.ocala.com/article/20130613/WIRE/130619840/1402/NEWS?Title=Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-

[MotherPetrie]

1. ITA. HUGE mistake.

[rdharma]

2. BIG MISTAKE!

[Dawson Leery]

3. Assad is pure compared to the islamic terrorists within the rebels ranks.

For all we know, islamic terrorists are the force behind this war.

[Tx4obama]

4. That article is WRONG. McCain mispoke about arming the rebels and took his words back.

John McCain Jumps The Gun By Announcing That Obama Will Arm The Syrian Rebels

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/john-mccain-jumps-the-gun-by-announcing-that-obama-will-arm?utm_source=feedly

There is NOTHING in the WH statement about giving guns to the rebels...

Full statement by Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Benjamin J. Rhodes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012831

[JI7]

5. i hope so, can you make this an OP

[Tx4obama]

6. Making it an OP probably wouldn't do any good now, because...

... now HuffPo has a huge headline on their front page that says: QUAGMIRE: U.S. ARMS TO SYRIA

[karynnj]

7. Other than the AP saying Kerry was for that decision with no backup,

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 03:37 AM - Edit history (4)

there is the photo with the UK Foreign Minister where Kerry's comments on Syria when they had that press conference on Tuesday were for a political solution. It seems weird that in an article with many quotes from McCain - There are none from Kerry or any on record Obama administration member. There is a quote from Ben Rhodes, but it is on what we will NOT do.

A NYT article covered the meeting with Hague a couple of days ago. It is clear that Britain and France want to help the rebels, but here is the ONLY quote from Kerry:

“What we have been pushing for, all of us involved in this effort, is a political solution that ends the violence, saves Syria, stops the killing and destruction of an entire nation,” Mr. Kerry said. “So it’s not a question to me whether or not the opposition can, quote, ‘win.’ It’s a question of whether or not we can get to this political solution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/world/middleeast/syrian-forces-seen-stepping-up-air-attacks-on-rebels.html?ref=middleeast

The Guardian covered the same press conference with slightly more content, but the same position - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/us-syria-policy-john-kerry

Kerry, more than anyone, has been working to try to get a political solution -- and Obama is meeting next week with Putin at the G8 meeting. (In fact, he has been called naive and worse for trying to do so.) Given that he and the Russian minister did agree to try to get a peace conference - that the opposition did not accept, it is odd that he would be a strong voice for getting more involved.

I would caution that the WH quotes don't match the McCain quotes and the article goes with the McCain ones. This could be from the anonymous officers and could be accurate, but it is strange that they use the Kerry photo, when this is - if true - an Obama decision.

The WP article has a more nuanced account - and Kerry is not mentioned nor any other administration person. In that article, it seems that they are going to send some weapons - what is not clear. It also is clear that the US is lagging the allies in making this determination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-concludes-syrian-forces-used-chemical-weapons/2013/06/13/59b03c66-d46d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html It also mentions that Obama still prefers a political solution:

"Rhodes said the administration would continue to push for a negotiated political settlement of the conflict, including a proposed conference between opposition leaders and government representatives that is on hold. "

I wonder if this announcement and even giving some support - apparently not a no fly zone or anti aircraft weapons might be to balance the loses of the rebels this week in terms of creating more pressure on Syria and Russia to find a political solution.

edited to add the Wall Street Journal link - mostly to show it contradicts the others in terms of what Obama will go. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324188604578543820387158806.html I think this means the media is embroidering around the rather vague WH quotes.

Here is the NYT - which mainly agrees with the WP. It mentions senior state department officials, but not Kerry per se. (Given Clinton's position, I would guess that many who supported her actions then are more likely referred to here as he would be noteworthy.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[JI7]

8. could it also be that Obama already made the comment about doing something if Chemical weapons

were used so he feels he has to do something. or else other things he says may not be taken as seriously ?

this doesn't mean arming them in a way where they could overthrow Assad but just to give something to defend themselves .

[karynnj]

9. Yes = the fact that he said it was a red line is meaningful

The fact is that there were accusations for months. I would suspect that the US send messages when it was first detected to Syria re emphasizing that it was NOT ok - and they have continued to do so - which is awkward.

It seems that somethings that are against international law were used in the city they just won back. I did find one quote that spoke of that. (That's why I came back)

The “choice of weapons that he has engaged in across the board challenge anybody’s values and standards of human behavior. And we’re going to have to make judgments for ourselves about how we can help the opposition to be able to deal with that,” Kerry said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-reiterates-commitment-to-help-syrian-rebels-amid-assads-military-resurgence/2013/06/12/de3c588e-d37d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

[Mass]

10. AP has been stating that Kerry was supporting aggressive action in Syria for at least one year,

before he was in the government. This seems to come from their inability to see things with nuance. SO, I am not surprised that they would write something like that without backup.

This said, while the idea to give support to the Syrian rebels is frightening in its own right, the civil war is threatening the stability of regimes we consider friendly, like Jordan or Turkey. Jordan's second largest city is not a shanty town at the Syrian border where people live in atrocious conditions.

Anyway, I would expect that, with Rice becoming NSA, the US is going to do more than the diplomatic circus Kerry is reduced to do, and that seems to be occupying his time these days. She is reputed to be in favor of some level of intervention.

[politicasista]

11. Not familiar with the crisis

but just wondering what exactly is the SOS's stance on this conflict? He was against arming the rebels, but how did he end up taking a position on air strikes? (isn't that McCain and Menendez's stance?)

You may be right about the US media here, however, it seems as if a stir is being created by saying that the Pentagon, not State is more "in sync" with the President. Hope everyone can hang in there.

Don't know how this all plays out, but it sounds very complicated.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/pentagon-shoots-down-kerry-s-syria-airstrike-plan.html


On edit, if the author or article is RW, will delete it.

[Mass]

12. well, first of all, Goldberg tends to say a lot of things that are not correct.

Who knows what stance he has taken? Goldberg was not there. He could be right, or it may be more complicated than that. What I know is that Kerry has been spending the last few months finding a political solution in Syria, to no avail. This is not the reaction of somebody who wants to go to war.

This said, I doubt them disagreeing would be an issue. Obama is not an absolute king. I would expect he is trying to have different advice. This is how a good president should behave. People will disagree. The president will decide. Nothing surprising at all.

But I would take what Goldberg says with a grain of salt. I am sure that Kerry feels terrible to see civilian population attacked like that, but he is not somebody who goes to war lightly.

Have you see he will name Feingold as a special envoy to Africa. This is great as Feingold has spent a lot of time on these issues when in the Senate.

[politicasista]

13. That makes sense

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

I did see the Feingold story, and was not familiar with his work in Africa. It's a nice choice though wonder if Kerry is going to feel a little pressure to pick people of color for these types of positions and the State Dept.

That said, I wish that the White House and State Department would stop leaking those kind of stories out there. It only throws the Anti-Kerry crew (from both sides) and press bones to chew on.

[karynnj]

14. Google John Kerry Jeffery Goldberg - and it is pretty clear that he is neither accurate or someone

likely to have an inside story. He did not like him in 2004 - and that never changed. I don't think he is RW - he may be neo con but I have never seen a positive JK article.

One example - it is Goldberg who was the one who wrote that Susan Rice as NSA is now Kerry's boss. This in fact is not true - even in the non-hierarchical way. Unless George Bush demoted Condi Rice from NSA to Secretary of State!

Every story he wrote of 2004 shows Kerry in a poor light - often using quotes from people (Biden) who likely would not have agreed.

The closest to a Kerry statement was a short comment answering a question when he turned in an absentee vote in Boston - sorry for the Boston Herald link. All it did was defend Obama and to speak of wanting a negotiated solution - http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/06/john_kerry_in_town_to_vote_for_edward_markey

This was consistent with a Kerry statement in an article where it spoke of him speaking to the Russian foreign minister.

My guess is that this is an attempt to discredit Kerry and harm his ability to work on this issue diplomatically - after he was able to get Geneva 2 talked about again. Consider that the Obama administration did NOT agree to a no fly zone, but after the Murdock paper, the Wall Street Journal, printed that it was repeated by Putin.

I hope Obama (or Kerry and the General) deny the story if it is not true. I certainly hope it is false and it does seem out of character as there is no international backing for that and it would be an act of war.

[politicasista]

15. Will do

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:16 AM - Edit history (2)

After going through that and old posts here, You are likely right about him and Kerry. He also tweeted the WaPo Ayers-Obama story, so he sounds he may be a neocon.

Don't use social media but really wished that that your second paragraph got through to people. They were pretty giddy about that scenario. Why people can't wake up and see that all of these decisions are Obama's call is mind boggling.

IDT that the post 2005/06 Dems (the ones that came aboard after Obama got in the Senate and ran for POTUS) don't seem to be aware of his and other folks' anti-Kerry motives, especially if it relates to Obama.

That said, agree that Obama, Kerry, the General, the White House and State Dept. need to deny this story, if it is not true.


edit for clarity

[karynnj]

16. Trying to figure out Goldberg

He writes for the Atlantic and has written for the New Yorker, both sources I respect. He clearly does not not like JK and will take the worst possible interpretation. Knowing that looking at more things re Kerry would not help, I tried to see what was important to him and who he liked.

The phrase often used to describe him is "pro-Israel".
Clearly, he is NOT happy with anyone in the current administration with regards to Israel - his main concern. (Here's a column on Hagel ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-22/israel-welcomes-hagel-a-friend-bearing-gifts.html ) Note the adjectives used for Hagel.

So, who did he respect on Israel? He appears to like Hillary and in at least 2 articles made the case that she was the most likely person to get Israel/Palestine to a political solution arguing most of her time should be on that - Note this was from June, 2011 - long after Hillary made it clear that this was not an issue she was working on. Yet he says,

FWIW, I do tend to think that Hillary Clinton has been put on earth in order to negotiate this issue to a successful conclusion. She has the will, the intelligence, the understanding and the prestige to make this happen -- if it is going to happen at all. Opportunities are, in fact, presenting themselves at this moment, and it would be a shame to see Hillary's talents go to waste on lesser projects. And, by the way, I don't believe that solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute fixes America's problems in the Middle East, but I do believe that it's an important enough issue in its own right to warrant most of Hillary's attention.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/its-hillary-time/68955/

I don't see how anyone solves Israel/Palestine without creating a Palestinian state - or demanding Israel give full rights to all in a one state solution - which Goldberg would never agree to as it would quickly become minority Jewish.

[politicasista]

17. You are on to something here

I am not familiar with the Israel/Palestine conflict, but what you have said is very informative.

Not surprising that he is one of those hyping up HRC. (He wrote a recent-critical oped of Obama on Syria). The US media is so impatient. Let this year and 2014 play out. Good grief.