“Credibility”
An embarrassing number of people in DC have been saying publicly since Friday that we have to launch cruise missiles against Bashar al-Assad or risk the “credibility” of the United States. John McCain. Mike McCaul. Adam Schiff. Former NSC staffer Barry Pavel.
But this WSJ piece — after describing how central the Saudis were in presenting earlier claims that Assad had used chemical weapons and in the midst of descriptions of how central a role Bandar bin Sultan is playing in drumming up war against Syria — reports that Saudi King Abdullah and others were bitching about US credibility as early as April.
In early April, said U.S. officials, the Saudi king sent a strongly worded message to Mr. Obama: America’s credibility was on the line if it let Mr. Assad and Iran prevail. The king warned of dire consequences of abdicating U.S. leadership and creating a vacuum, said U.S. officials briefed on the message.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, who was the first Saudi official to publicly back arming the rebels, followed with a similar message during a meeting with Mr. Obama later that month, the officials said.
I wonder if we started taking Saudi taunts about our credibility more seriously after Bandar made a show of wooing Vladimir Putin?
In any case, here we go, hastily getting involved in the war in Syria and potentially escalating it across the region as a whole, without proper review much less a plan on how to actually improve the situation in Syria.
Credibility.
Apparently, the only kind of credibility that matters for America’s place in the role anymore is if our Saudi overlords suggest we lack credibility if we fail to do their explicit, and long-planned, bidding.
Credibility.
Meanwhile think of all the things American has squandered its position as unquestioned leader of the world without confronting. Poverty, hunger. The most obvious, of course, is climate change.
How much more “credibility” would the United States have by now if, at the start of his Administration, Obama had launched not just a Manhattan project to dramatically curb American use of fossil fuels, but also invested the goodwill Obama had (back before he expanded the drones) to find an equitable, global approach to climate change.
Credibility.
Apparently, the only thing the Villagers in DC think could or should win us “credibility” is in unquestioningly serving as global enforcer against the brutal dictators our brutal dictator friends the Saudis wants us to punish (though the Saudis are quite selective about which brutal dictators they stake our credibility on).
America could have used its power and leadership to earn real credibility. Instead, we’re trying to suck up to Bandar Bush.
And the Homeland is Bandar Bush’s Bitch. The Homeland Oligarchs need their dirty oil and will do anything bitchy thing to get it. Saudi Arabia continues to train terrorists in their madrassas. The corrupt Homeland gives bags of cash to leaders Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. In return the Homeland gets wars and terror theater. The American people get new enemies to fight in future years.
The psychopaths, such as McCain and Obama are just thrilled to have more blood and death and destruction. Should not there be discussion, before another war? Should we think about the short and long term consequences? Should Congress, you know, vote for or against a war. That is what the Constitution requires.
If Obama and Congress start another blood bath in Syria, they all should be impeached. That is unlikely but the wars are coming home. The war against citizens of the United States by an oppressive Homeland heats up.
Why are we taking the word of the Saudis for anything going on in Syria?
Was Bandar cozying up to Putin or telling him to back off? Or bribing him to back off?
This is one of the most bizarre and troubing “interventions” I’ve ever seen. It goes against all logic, from an American interest standpoint, and even from the ‘Assad used chemical weapons’ standpoint. Also, there’s no other country who could have done this “intervention”? All these militaries in the world and nobody else can do it? Except it looks bad if former colonial powers in the region, UK and France, do it. And the Saudis and Qataris can’t do it overtly, I guess, nor can Israel. I was angry at the Iraq invasion, but still didn’t understand what was going on. I was furious at the Libyan “intervention” and destabilization. I’m beyond livid about this one. Any country with a shred of decency and credibility would be trying to pull the mercenary jihadists out of there and let Syria pull itself together again, then pressure and pressure for elections. Not bombing. And if this CW attack was cooked up and they killed all those people just to justify an attack to cripple the regime so the mercenary jihadist could “win”, whoever did it needs to be on trial at the Hague, ASAP. A more despicable thing, I’ve rarely heard of.
Shortly after the uprising/revolution/civil-war/proxy-war/don’t-ask-me-I-don’t-give-a-damn-war started in Syria there were reports coming out about how the Saudis were basically financing the whole thing, supplying the weapons, and even the troops. But despite all their oil wealth neither they nor the gulf states ever did enough to actually tip the balance only to make the pain go on. Now for the sake of our “credibility” they want us to clean up the mess and take the blame.
This reminds me of two things: (1) In the run-up to the Iraq war, for all the public opposition, Bandar Bush was in the loop and on board before Colin Powell; (2) Some of the more interesting leaked diplomatic cables on Wikileaks showed that despite their public statements of revulsion many of the gulf “leaders” were happy, even thankful, for Guantanamo Bay because it let us take their problems away.
Neither Iraq nor Guantanamo has been good for us and one even reduced our access to oil. Why oh why should we take the blame again?
+- 600 people located in a small, contiguous area are said to have died of gas poisoning.
who dropped the gas, if gas was dropped?
– assad boys
– anti-assad boys
– israeli boys
– saudi boys
– american boys
– russian boys
– hezbollah boys
– al-q boys
– beach boys?
I wonder if we started talking Saudi taunts about our credibility more seriously after Bandar made a show of wooing Vladimir Putin?
Speaking of … have you seen Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s latest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
?
@orionATL:
i forgot to include:
– cia boys
– proxys for cia boys
whatever, this event has a distinctive “gulf of tonkin” feel about it.
or, to put it differently,
why, if assad’s side is slowly predominating in a war of attrition, as has recently been reported, would assad risk the one activity that would encourage greater “other nation” involvement?
doing so does not make sense.
@orionATL:
I saw one comment where they were talking about people ‘writhing in pain’ after having had sarin used on them. I don’t believe it works that way…
it’s just a rerun of the same type of story about saddam and weapons of mass destruction… anything to make it look more publicly acceptable to make war on syria.. it is bad enough everyone is quite happy to supply both sides with all the ammo.. what a messed up world..
Nobody bitched when we gave Saddam the intelligence and targeting data he used to gas the Iranians. Now it is our credibility, we are arming Al-Qaeda in Syria, and itching to go to war with Assad over gas.
How could we tell that we have not elected neocons and are on a mission to fulfill PNAC’s goals?
Maybe the Repubs are right and it is time to impeach.
The Saudi’s (British protectorate House of Sa’ud) are the origin for the gas attack story
http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-gas-attack-chemical-propaganda-796/
Cred would be number 3 of Ian Brownlie’s conclusions on Kosovo which hold as true for Syria fifteen years later …
XIV. CONCLUSIONS
@P J Evans:
No one knows what chemicals might have been used (for example, a ‘cocktail’ of non lethal incapacitating agents and small amounts of nerve agents such as sarin has been proposed).
What seems almost beyond dispute is that a very large number of people were killed by chemical means, and the reluctance of the Syrian regime to allow UN inspectors to visit the site promptly is suspicious.
@Phil Perspective:
Here’s the article which he cites:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/08/saudi-russia-putin-bandar-meeting-syria-egypt.html#ixzz2d5UVLSNv
The discussion about Saudi control of Chechen terrorist actions, if true, is more than usually cynical.
@P J Evans: Very good question. Probably also taking the word of the Israelis.
That’s why we needed to have a public accounting of where our dodgy intell leading up to the Iraq war came from. So it would be more difficult to trust their word now.
@Phil Perspective: Ha, I thought he’d be over there bribing Putin. Why do the Saudis want this so badly?
Via b at Moon of Alabama:
Alexei Pushkov [chair of the Russian Federation State Duma’s international affairs committee]
@harpie:
ooops. Too many links. [See below]
@harpie:
See this MoA post for links to:
[Past is future?]
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran; Foreign Policy: 8/26/13
[And, remember how Obama gave Yemen a waiver from the child-soldier law?:]
As Syrian rebels’ losses mount, teenagers begin filling ranks; WaPo; 8/24/13
Tweet:
Debating Chambers is powwow
And speaking of CREDIBILITY, Josua Foust NSA war pimp, discusses the revelations of the Church Committee. They discovered the US taxpayer supported spies were “meddling” in domestic affairs during the 60’s and 70’s. Actually the spies were neutralizing anti-war groups and civil rights groups and any progressive movement. They, the Intelligence Community, were very successful and destroyed many lives.
And see the funny joke that Foust makes. When the spies violate the rules, they make a good faith effort to conceal it the best they can.
The whole thing is absolutely insane.
Fuck the Saudis and the horse they rode in on. “Credibility” is meaningless if used in other wasted, military action that does nothing but squander US resources and lives.
@harpie: OK, so this guy is “only a Russkie”. But that’s one helluva statement from one whose title at least suggests both knowledge and some degree of circumspection. Anyone in the US replying to it as if it was possibly worthy of a response, or does it just get dumped in the “against us” bin?
The script sounds like the one the Bush II propagandists wrote up when “doing” Iraq.
The word to consider, then, might be crudability, not credibility, as some surmise.
Is this Bread and Circuses as a diversion from the military NSA scandal and economic woes?
Hope this isn’t in EPU land, and it’s sort of on topic
But, there’s this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/israel-awards-first-license-to-drill-on-golan-heights-to-genie.html
And this
and this
Genie Energy press release
They just won’t stop until all the oil has been consumed and all the profits have been booked. The U.S. presidency is just as much of a puppet, for-camera position now as it was under Reagan or GWB…
The U.S. did stand aside mute while the Saudis rolled into Bahrain to crack down on unarmed protestors, so I guess that would make the Saudis quite qualified to discuss American “credibility.”
/can’tmakethisshitup
This could be explosive (metaphorically speaking)
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2013/01/24/britam-defence-hacked-confidential-documents-leaked-site-offline/
More
David Goulding, Business Development Director, to someone named Phil
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/reports/a-look-into-the-britam-defence-data-leak-files/
In our funding and supplying of weapons, training, intellegence, combined with the seemingly endless supply of war-mongering drummers, we have contributed to the death toll in Syria. If it was true, that we cared about civilian deaths, all of that nonsense should have stopped before it began. And to act as if outside “intervention” will stem the rising death toll, to make such hay over a still-disputed amount of dead (even if it were the upper end, it would be a fraction of the accumulative deaths to date) when in reality, foreign intervention will increase the number of casualties exponentially – I just don’t even know what to call it. I almost can’t even follow this story, it is such a disaster.
The collapse of the anti-war left is pitiful, yet instructive. Where are the thousands upon thousands (10s of? 100s of? I don’t want to be guilty of inflating numbers to support my position.) who physically protested the Iraq war? (The comparison of pending wars is not exact, but the current threat is still immoral.) The only conclusion I can reach is that those who opposed the war when Bush was president were doing so for partisan reasons, wittingly or not, which frankly is more disturbing than one who genuinely and transparently supports a war on it’s own (purported) merits. (Which I’m certainly not endorsing. The latter is very disturbing.)
I vacillate between which is more destructive to the prospective of peace: a republican as president, who is (perhaps) more likely to go to war but will hesitate due to a vocal opposition from the left, or a democrat as president, who (perhaps) is less likely to go to war but faces nearly ZERO opposition from all sides. I lean more towards the latter.
It is disheartening and discouraging. And, in light of how pernicious is the state’s spying apparatus, the chilling-effect has worked it’s magic, if only in my more paranoid moments.
I’m grateful, at least, to have a few like-minded people out in the interwebs, who will read and/or politely tolerate my venting – without getting “USA USA USA” as the counter arguement.
(That was quite long. Apparently I need to vent more often, for the sake of brevity. :))
No one succumbs to propaganda about their alleged low level of testosterone faster than the Democrats. Since at least little Harry Truman, it’s worked like a charm for hard right wingers: the McCarthy era excesses were fully bipartisan, just as the “anti-terrorism” excesses are today. Mr. Obama seems especially malleable; he seems as incapable of fighting such propaganda as he is unable to negotiate without giving away the store.
@orionATL: Good question. I haven’t read answers to them. If chemical weapons were used, who used them, who made them, who supplied them, who trained the Syrians in their use?
@JohnT:
That’s – interesting. In a horrifying way. It would set up a false-flag gas attack, as an excuse to get involved.
Can we send these guys to the Hague, before they start another damned war?
@P J Evans: PJ, I hope you find this comment.
Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis has had some verrrry interesting posts and comments, including: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/08/drinking-more-koolaid.html