SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
US Drums of War Beat Louder in Syria
White House claims Assad used chemical weapons
Jun 13, 2013
In a statement released Thursday evening, the Obama administration is claiming to have proof that Syrian president Bashir al-Assad has been using chemical weapons--crossing Obama's "red line" established to justify U.S. military action.
In the statement, the White House said the President is weighing his options in the coming weeks, which include direct U.S. military support to groups within the Syrian opposition:
"...the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. This effort is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the SMC, and helping to coordinate the provision of assistance by the United States and other partners and allies. Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.
The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. [emphasis added by Common Dreams] We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.
The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: "The president has made a decision about providing more support for the opposition and will be providing further support to the SMC (Supreme Military Council) and that includes providing military support. I can't detail what types of support yet."
He added: "We have not made any decision about a no-fly zone ... The best thing we can do is help the opposition on the ground."
On cue, Senator John McCain beat the drums a little louder.
"I applaud the president's decision and I appreciate it," he stated.
"But the president of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground [or] the balance of power. These people - the Free Syrian Army - need weapons, heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft, they need a no-fly zone..."
According to an "exclusive" report by The Daily Beast last month, the Obama administration has asked the Pentagon to give further review to a series of US military plans that could be used in Syria, including the implementation of a "no fly zone" over the country.
As Common Dreams staff writer Jon Queally wrote at the time, "A famous and innocuous-sounding euphemism in military circles, a 'no fly zone' demands overt military action which would necessitate a massive bombing campaign focused on wiping out anti-aircraft capabilities, radar installations, and the opposition's own air forces. The fact that creating a 'no fly zone' requires such an intense, offensive bombing campaign is often left out of mainstream media reporting in the US."
According to Common Dreams contributor and foreign policy analyst Shamus Cook:
"One country cannot enforce a no fly zone inside another country without first destroying the enemy Air Force, not to mention its surface to air missiles."
"We saw in Libya that a no fly zone quickly evolved into a full scale invasion, which would happen again in Syria," he continued. The main difference, argues Cook, is "that Syria has a more powerful army with more sophisticated weaponry, not to mention powerful allies -- Iran and Russia."
"How many civilians would die in that bombardment," asks Phyllis Bennis, foreign policy expert and senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "given the widespread presence of anti-aircraft facilities across the country, including in populated areas?"
The White House said it was still preparing a "credible, evidentiary case to share with the international community and the public," and provided no solid evidence in its statement.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Jacob Chamberlain
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
In a statement released Thursday evening, the Obama administration is claiming to have proof that Syrian president Bashir al-Assad has been using chemical weapons--crossing Obama's "red line" established to justify U.S. military action.
In the statement, the White House said the President is weighing his options in the coming weeks, which include direct U.S. military support to groups within the Syrian opposition:
"...the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. This effort is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the SMC, and helping to coordinate the provision of assistance by the United States and other partners and allies. Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.
The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. [emphasis added by Common Dreams] We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.
The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: "The president has made a decision about providing more support for the opposition and will be providing further support to the SMC (Supreme Military Council) and that includes providing military support. I can't detail what types of support yet."
He added: "We have not made any decision about a no-fly zone ... The best thing we can do is help the opposition on the ground."
On cue, Senator John McCain beat the drums a little louder.
"I applaud the president's decision and I appreciate it," he stated.
"But the president of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground [or] the balance of power. These people - the Free Syrian Army - need weapons, heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft, they need a no-fly zone..."
According to an "exclusive" report by The Daily Beast last month, the Obama administration has asked the Pentagon to give further review to a series of US military plans that could be used in Syria, including the implementation of a "no fly zone" over the country.
As Common Dreams staff writer Jon Queally wrote at the time, "A famous and innocuous-sounding euphemism in military circles, a 'no fly zone' demands overt military action which would necessitate a massive bombing campaign focused on wiping out anti-aircraft capabilities, radar installations, and the opposition's own air forces. The fact that creating a 'no fly zone' requires such an intense, offensive bombing campaign is often left out of mainstream media reporting in the US."
According to Common Dreams contributor and foreign policy analyst Shamus Cook:
"One country cannot enforce a no fly zone inside another country without first destroying the enemy Air Force, not to mention its surface to air missiles."
"We saw in Libya that a no fly zone quickly evolved into a full scale invasion, which would happen again in Syria," he continued. The main difference, argues Cook, is "that Syria has a more powerful army with more sophisticated weaponry, not to mention powerful allies -- Iran and Russia."
"How many civilians would die in that bombardment," asks Phyllis Bennis, foreign policy expert and senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "given the widespread presence of anti-aircraft facilities across the country, including in populated areas?"
The White House said it was still preparing a "credible, evidentiary case to share with the international community and the public," and provided no solid evidence in its statement.
_____________________
Jacob Chamberlain
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
In a statement released Thursday evening, the Obama administration is claiming to have proof that Syrian president Bashir al-Assad has been using chemical weapons--crossing Obama's "red line" established to justify U.S. military action.
In the statement, the White House said the President is weighing his options in the coming weeks, which include direct U.S. military support to groups within the Syrian opposition:
"...the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. This effort is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the SMC, and helping to coordinate the provision of assistance by the United States and other partners and allies. Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.
The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. [emphasis added by Common Dreams] We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.
The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: "The president has made a decision about providing more support for the opposition and will be providing further support to the SMC (Supreme Military Council) and that includes providing military support. I can't detail what types of support yet."
He added: "We have not made any decision about a no-fly zone ... The best thing we can do is help the opposition on the ground."
On cue, Senator John McCain beat the drums a little louder.
"I applaud the president's decision and I appreciate it," he stated.
"But the president of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground [or] the balance of power. These people - the Free Syrian Army - need weapons, heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft, they need a no-fly zone..."
According to an "exclusive" report by The Daily Beast last month, the Obama administration has asked the Pentagon to give further review to a series of US military plans that could be used in Syria, including the implementation of a "no fly zone" over the country.
As Common Dreams staff writer Jon Queally wrote at the time, "A famous and innocuous-sounding euphemism in military circles, a 'no fly zone' demands overt military action which would necessitate a massive bombing campaign focused on wiping out anti-aircraft capabilities, radar installations, and the opposition's own air forces. The fact that creating a 'no fly zone' requires such an intense, offensive bombing campaign is often left out of mainstream media reporting in the US."
According to Common Dreams contributor and foreign policy analyst Shamus Cook:
"One country cannot enforce a no fly zone inside another country without first destroying the enemy Air Force, not to mention its surface to air missiles."
"We saw in Libya that a no fly zone quickly evolved into a full scale invasion, which would happen again in Syria," he continued. The main difference, argues Cook, is "that Syria has a more powerful army with more sophisticated weaponry, not to mention powerful allies -- Iran and Russia."
"How many civilians would die in that bombardment," asks Phyllis Bennis, foreign policy expert and senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "given the widespread presence of anti-aircraft facilities across the country, including in populated areas?"
The White House said it was still preparing a "credible, evidentiary case to share with the international community and the public," and provided no solid evidence in its statement.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.