5 Things: Upcoming War with Syria Edition

Battenfeld: Warren Silent On Syrian War Drums

Joe Battenfeld, in today’s Boston Herald has a story saying Elizabeth Warren, normally outspoken, has been really quiet on the Syrian Question.

Warren, known for her outspoken stances, has turned timid on one of the most important issues a U.S. senator will ever face – whether to put American 
troops in another military conflict.

Asked to say whether she 
approves launching a strike against Syria, Warren’s press 
office – which churns out releases regularly on financial industry abuses – did not get back to the Herald.

This is curious because Warren and other Massachusetts Democrats had been harshly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq. But now it’s different because Barack Obama is president and her former Senate colleague, John Kerry, is secretary of state.

USAF = Al Qaeda’s Airwing?

If we bomb Syria are we allying with Al Qaeda and other Islamists?  Dennis Kucinich, former Representative from Ohio thinks so.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ – that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.

Robert Fisk, in the Independent Newspaper echos this:

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

File under the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” even if they killed thousands of Americans. OH and weren’t we allied with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

Will Obama Get Congressional Approval?

Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly called the British Parliament back from summer recess to get legislative approval for a strike on Syria.  

So far there has been no reports of the U.S. Congress coming back to town to vote on an authorization of force. Now, under the War Powers Act the President can use the military in limited cases without congressional approval, but at some point it is needed under the constitution.  George Bush got congressional approval both for the war on Al Qaeda, and Iraq.  

Dennis Kucinich in the link above thinks an attack without congressional approval would be against the constitution.  Pat Buchanan in his recent column says “Congress should veto Obama’s war.”

“Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities,” said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing remark.

For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support an army, maintain a navy and declare war.

But, then, perhaps Obama’s contempt is justified.

For consider Congress’ broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.

Was it Assad, or the Islamist Rebels that used Chemcial Weapons

The internet has been abuzz with the notion that perhaps it wasn’t actually Assad, but the Sunni Islamic Radicals fighting him that used Chemical Weapons.  Buchanan writes about this in his column as well.

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.

Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assad’s cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.

Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assad’s offer to have U.N. inspectors – already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas – go to the site of the latest incident?

Do we not want to know the truth?

Are we fearful the facts may turn out, as did the facts on the ground in Iraq, to contradict our latest claims about WMDs? Are we afraid that it was rebel elements or rogue Syrian soldiers who fired the gas shells to stampede us into fighting this war?

There’s this video going around that purports to show Syrian Islamic rebels talking about using Sarin Gas.

Will an attack on Syria start World War III?

99 years, one month ago today, World War I started as the grand alliances of the late 19th and early 20th century’s solidified around the murder of a Balkan Archduke.  Will an attack on Syria by Western Allies set a similar domino effect into place?

Iran is already stating that if the Western Powers attack Syria that it will launch a full scale attack on Israel.  

A senior Iranian lawmaker said Israel would be the first casualty of any U.S.-led strike on Syria, according to regional media reports.

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, claimed the United States would not dare attack Syria but said that if it does, “the Zionist regime will be the first victim.”

“No military attack will be waged against Syria,” Sheikholeslam was quoted as saying on Monday by Iran’s state run Fars News Agency.

“Yet, if such an incident takes place, which is impossible, the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria,” Sheikholeslam said in an apparent response to the Obama administration’s increasingly stern rhetoric against Syria.

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno