The U.S. is most likely to pursue real diplomacy if it is jammed up on more war; that's a reason that defeating the war authorization in Congress is crucial.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
> f you think you know for sure, or even with a reasonable degree of
> certainty, who was responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria, you are
> wrong.
>
>
> http://strawberryrevolution.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/if-you-think-you-know-who-used-chemical-weapons-in-syria-you-are-wrong/
>
> short URL: http://bit.ly/1aiYLjW <http://t.co/eYYiTXy6PS>
>
> Full disclosure: I oppose bombing Syria because the US lacks moral
> standing to play global Sheriff. I also oppose the bombing because, if the
> US had moral standing and was acting in good faith, the past record suggest
> our government is not a very good Sheriff.
>
> Although those are the critical points, this post concentrates on the
> excuse of the day, that we know that the Assad regime used chemical
> weapons. According to a recent AP story, working (not retired) intelligence
> sources are not at all sure the the Assad regime was the source of the most
> recent chemical weapons attack<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56>.
> Although buried deep in the AP story it notes that “ Some have even talked
> about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a
> callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That
> suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according
> to the official who described the report.” Some members of Congress who
> have seen the classified summary of the report find it unconvincing. <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligence-doesnt-prove-anything.html>
>
> One of the key arguments the administration makes that Assad is
> responsible for the attack is the claim that the rebels don’t have access
> to chemical weapons. After all, false flag operations are a long standing
> part of the history of warfare, so if they have the capability then
> Assad’s guilt in this regard becomes a lot less certain. (That Assad is a
> bloody butcher remains absolutely certain.) A Washington Blog Post
> includes citations of and links to a number of sources (including the Wall
> Street Journal and the Washington Post) showing that the fall of Libya gave
> a wide variety of groups access to chemical weapons<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons.html>
>
> The same article also shows that on occasion Syrian rebels have captured
> and held for prolonged periods of time areas that stored Assad’s chemical
> weapons. Further, evidence that the rebels are willing use chemical
> warfare includes this Haaretz report of rebel use of chlorine gas<http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/jihadists-not-assad-apparently-behind-reported-chemical-attack-in-syria.premium-1.511680>,
> as well as this Turkish report of rebel smuggling of chemical weapons<http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_adanada-el-kaide-operasyonu-12-gozalti_2094730.html>.
> Here is the Google translate version o<http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zaman.com.tr%2Fgundem_adanada-el-kaide-operasyonu-12-gozalti_2094730.html>f
> the same article.
>
> So do we know that the rebels were responsible for the attack? There are
> many articles out there saying so. For example, the following story from Mint
> Press<http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/> (a
> normally very reliable source). However, there are several problems with
> this article. One of the main sources, Abu Abdel-Moneim, gives his real
> name. In a region where a coffee seller was murdered for saying he would
> not give a free coffee to Mohammed himself. When the source did not ask
> for confidentiality didn’t the reporter offer it? Or at least ask why he
> thought he could survive his name being published. This is not just a
> matter of protection of a source. It also goes to the source’s credibility.
> There should be some explanation in the article as to why the source chose
> not to be anonymous.
>
> There are other stories too, interviews with retired intelligence officers
> and so on. They all have one thing in common. They rely on intelligence
> sources just as the administration’s sources do - either directly or
> indirectly as interviews are done with people who in turn have done
> interviews. And just as the administration has incentives to lie, Russian,
> Iranian and Syrian intelligence have incentives to plant false stories
> blaming the rebels. And neither your nor I are in a position to tell who is
> lying and who is telling the truth. For example, there is a great deal
> made in various stories of a supposed Egyptian intelligence report that the
> attack of the 21st was a false flag operation. The problem is that those
> reporting don’t read Egyptian. Which means they read a translation or had
> the report described to them. They don’t even know for certain that the
> report exists, let alone that its contents have been described to them
> accurately.
>
> If everyone involved were pure rational actors, the rebels are the ones
> with greater incentive for an attack than Assad, since he has plenty of
> other means of mass killing available to him which won’t bring the wrath of
> the US down on him. But past history shows Assad not to be a perfect
> rational actor. A great many mistakes on his part have brought him to the
> point of fighting a civil war. So here is the conclusion. The Assad regime
> may have used chemical weapons. A rogue element within it may have used
> chemical weapons without permission, for which the regime would still bear
> responsibility. Or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in a false
> flag operation. And as of today September 8th 2013, only those responsible
> know for sure. Everyone else is guessing. If you think you know, you are
> wrong
>
> --
> Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow
> Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com
> Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
> Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
>
-- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org