Will we go to war over Syria .... just sorta accidentally ?

In the 1960's there were a number of serious incidents at sea when the naval forces of the Soviet Union and the US just sort of got in each other's way. World leaders, for good reason, were fearful of accidental escalation of armed hostilities.

Those concerns led in the 70's to the signing of the Incidents At Sea Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States. The agreement, was in essence, a series of traffic rules for naval forces of different nations when they operate in proximity to each other.

This week sea lanes in the eastern Mediterranean have become clogged with traffic from elements of the naval forces of the United States, Russia, France and Great Britain responding to the crisis in Syria.

While US ships will have to remain on station longer than expected, Obama doesn’t appear to be fazed .... “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”

But not everyone shares Obama’s confidence.

Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman wrote Obama “has suddenly transformed a rushed call for immediate action into a waiting game where it is not clear what he or the U.S. is waiting for, and where much of the action may come to border on tragicomedy.”

On Tuesday other top Obama administration officials including Secretary of State Kerry after more than 4 hours of testimony on Capitol Hill, could not provide clear and convincing explanations of what Obama's plans and goals were with respect to Syria.

Apparently, even the Department of Defense, who are expected to execute "the plan" haven't been clued in either. When asked by Senator Corker if the resolution for war powers asked for by the Obama Administration would support the strategy of replacing the Syrian government with the "moderate" opposition forces and deter the use of chemical weapons, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said "I can't answer that, what we're seeking.".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-senate-foreign-services-committee-hearing-on-syria/2013/09/03/35ae1048-14ca-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story_4.html

Also on Tuesday, Reuters reports that Israel and the US fired a missile from the Mediterranean, picked up on Russian early warning radar, traveling eastward in the direction of Syria as part of an unannounced test of Israeli defenses. The US denied it had participated but Israel confirmed the test was done with US involvement. Russian diplomats were agitated that the US and Israel conducted the surprise "test" with heightened tensions in the region because of an anticipated "imminent" attack by the US upon Syria. Israel said the test was just routine but supposed that the "timing" might have been less than prudent.

On Wednesday Russia placed on high alert the Central Command Post of the General Staff, the Aerospace Defense command and the country’s intelligence agencies.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov described the region as a “powder keg” and warned hostilities “may spread, not only to neighboring states, but to other regions of the world.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry warned “If a (US or Allied) warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic," adding the region would face the risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium and it would be virtually impossible to account for nuclear material at the facility, its control and safety,” the Russian statement said.

In a separate statement today Russian President Vladimir Putin said that in the same Senate testimony as Dempsey's, Secretary of State, John Kerry, had lied and "knew he lied" when asked about Al Qaeda operating in Syria even among the so-called "moderate" opposition, supported by the US, against Assad.

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-congress-idUSBRE9830N620130904

Amid all this, the eastern Mediterranean sea lanes are filling up with large, dangerous vessels. It's fast becoming a very crowded place as far as maneuvering warships are concerned.

The US has already on station there 5 missile cruisers, presumably at least 1 attack submarine, a Marine troop carrier, and at least 2 other aircraft carrier groups further out in the Mediterranean for backup support. The Russians previously sent 5 ships last week and now according to reports in the Hindu Times today has another 6 warships en route which includes a guided missile cruiser. The French Navy has 1 submarine, 2 destroyers already there and an aircraft carrier ready for dispatch. The British, 2 frigates and a Helicopter carrier.

Navies are watching each other, watching the news, and watching each other watch each other....

And anxiety is building that some "incident at sea" will accidentally escalate into a shooting war beyond Syria's borders.

Gee! Imagine that .....

Putin isn't known for his warm fuzzy nature .... Obama the Amateur

Russian President, Vladimir Putin isn't known for his warm, fuzzy nature nor conciliatory manner; yet he was all of that when speaking today as reported by USA Today about the prospect of working things out with Barack Obama over the crisis in Syria and what he hopes will be time for the 2 to discuss other "serious issues" when Obama arrives in St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit.

Putin, an experienced negotiator, senses an opportunity to disadvantage an adversary and all the while promote his own interests and public image as well.

Putin said his differences with President Obama aren't personal, or permanent -

"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia, And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either."
 
"We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems."
 
He also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting strikes if it can be proved that Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against its people. 

"Putin said he felt sorry that President Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. He expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/04/obama-putin-russia-g-20/276136

This benevolence isn't characteristic behavior from Putin.

In other words, if it is genuine, then Putin wants something from Obama that means more to Putin than does Russia's client state, Syria and it's relationship with Assad. And he will have it.

What that is exactly remains to be revealed.


But in terms of their previous meetings and negotiations Putin has shown himself to be the "master of an empty stage". And Obama; not even rank amateur.
 
But for the moment imagine what Putin's support for a military strike against Syria would mean to Obama at home and around the world after the roundhouse rejection of Obama's ill advised Syrian military adventure by Great Britain, 60 % of the American public, Obama's own party and the US Congress. Putin understands how to push the Obama buttons and promote himself at the same time.
 
And at what cost to US interests - how far would Obama go to soothe his bruised ego and mitigate his own embarrassment ?
 
How very sad then the state of affairs that Obama leaves as a legacy from his incompetence in leadership, that America's president would need the support of a rival foreign power to actualize US foreign policy.

 

OR .... was the entire Syrian crisis a provocation courtesy of Putin to promote Russian influence throughout the Middle East by supplanting or at least seriously compromising US influence there ?

There is speculation among informed observers that the chemical weapons stockpiles under Assad's control were originally the "missing" Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) from Hussein's Iraq. And even, that their origins, if not technical assistance in their manufacture, came from Russia.

The 2 most influential foreign powers "at work" in Syria are both Iran and Russia.

Not widely reported is the dismay and condemnation expressed by the Iranian government over Assad's use of chemical weapons. Former Iranian president Rafsanjani condemned the attack and openly named the Assad government as the perpetrator. Current Iranian president Rouhani called on “the international community to use all its might to prevent the use of these weapons anywhere in the world, especially in Syria”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE97N06P20130824 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSBRE98007R20130901 

Putin on the other hand has not condemned Syria but has however offered a defense saying it's unproven that Assad used the weapons. Calling US claims to the contrary, "Utter nonsense!", though he has later claimed that he's not defending Assad but just the international norms of prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/russia-syria.html 

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-interview-ap-387/

A little known fact about Sarin nerve gas, one of the suspected agents used by Syria, is that it is 26 times more deadly than cyanide and requires some special preparation and handling. It can not be deployed quickly without days of advance preparation. And that implies an orderly process of authorization moving down through the chain of command.

Indeed, days before the Sarin gas laden rockets were launched Israeli intelligence intercepted the communications of those orders and relayed them to the US - that is the secret intelligence the US wants to remain as classified. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk 

The notion that lower echelons of military officers could or would issue such orders suggests that Assad isn't in command. The United States however clearly believes he is or wouldn't be insisting he remain in power in order to effect negotiations through him to end the Syrian civil war.

But could Assad act on his own without the tacit approval of the Russians and Iranians ?

The Iranians have as much acknowledged that they were blindsided by the latest Syrian deployment of chemical agents.

So what could Putin accomplish with a provocation of Obama's red line ultimatum - what is the prize in exchange for the deaths of thousands of Syrians ?

Putin's own "calculus" is that first, Obama has bumbled and fumbled his way along in trying to stay out of Syria with an incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy objective in the region, the second is, that Obama hasn't been serious about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb and his third, that Obama's red lines for both Iran and Syria were nothing but shams to excuse America's inaction.

To Putin, then the next most logical course of action: the red line is targeted through provocation to show that America's threats to stop the Syrians or the Iranians were never serious.

By showing Obama is both unable and unwilling to keep his promises, the leadership void of influence in the Middle East is widened precipitously as a prelude to being filled by Putin. Ironically, "by helping to clear Iran’s path to a bomb, Putin positions himself as Iran’s most powerful ally—while paradoxically gaining greater leverage with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, who would much rather negotiate with Russia than with Iran, their sworn enemy." 

Putin saw something valuable abandoned on the world stage in the process of Obama bugging out of the Middle East, and he has moved to take it....powerful influence in the oil-rich Middle East .... at America's expense. 

Obama Blames the World for Syria and Red Line …. (Surprised ?)

While en route to a G-20 conference in Russia, Obama stopped briefly in Sweden and according to the NY Times, spoke today in Stockholm about the crisis in Syria with Assad's use of gas weapons to attack his own citizens -

“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference. “The world set a red line.”

He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility’s on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.” 

 Oops .... Your Narcissistic Personality Disorder Is Showing (Again) Barack !

Time to call out the resident White House spin doctors to "clarify" your remarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/europe/obama-arrives-in-sweden-before-g-20-summit.html?_r=0

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/09/obama-the-world-set-a-red-line.html 

Narcissists - according to Sam Vaknin, Phd, author on the subject of Narcissistic Personality Disorder -“....project guilt, blame, and responsibility onto others, pass the buck, and hold themselves immune to the consequences of their actions.”

and from author, David Thomas, ''Narcissism: Behind the Mask'' some features of narcissistic behavior can include:

• Focuses on self
• Difficulty in building positive relationships
• Difficulty with empathy
• Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults
• Believes self to be guiltless
  
• Exhibits haughty body language
• Flatters people who admire and affirm them
• Detests those people who do not admire them
  
• Uses other people without considering the cost of doing so
• Brags subtly but persistently and exaggerates their achievements
• Claims to be an "expert" at many things 

Let's see ...hmmm,  my checklist in voting for President of the United States:

1) Character
2) Experience
3) Ability
4) Looks "cool" in a business suit and tie

Did You ????

Hillary Clinton's enduring dream ...... if only

With some more spin, I can, at this point, yet still become Commander-In-Chief, 

if only .....

"What difference, at this point, does it make ?" - Hillary Clinton, Benghazi Hearings

Unlike Clinton, adept at deceit and skilled in lies, for many Americans the truth always has and still does !

Red Line ? .... What Red Line ?

According to the New York Times the purpose of a US reprisal military attack on Assad's Syria for using gas weapons against his own people is to ... "Restore a ‘Red Line’ That Became Blurred."

What ???

How the Hell do you restore something that never existed ?

In the power politics of the Middle East (and elsewhere in the world, for that matter) words and actions are linked; when they're not - there's no credibility.

Commenting on Obama's inaction, Barry Pavel, director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council in Washington said, "He puts the red line out and then a small scale use of chemical weapons happens and he doesn’t do anything, so Assad thinks, ‘Hey, they didn’t do anything.’ So there’s a large scale use. I don’t think Obama could figure a way out of it without acting.”

Do you really need any better example of incompetence in leadership ?