Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say

[dixiegrrrrl]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?_r=0

---

$%#@!!*&%#

[dkf]

1. Without congressional approval? Since when did he become "the decider"?

[hrmjustin]

4. I am not sure what law it is but doesn't he have 60-90 days before he has to get congressional

approval after the president starts military action.

[former9thward]

10. That's the War Powers Act.

But that applies when the U.S. has been attacked or there is "imminent hostilities" against the U.S. Syria is not attacking the U.S. and we have no national interests there.

[hrmjustin]

12. Thanks. I agree he should go to congress. I wonder what congress would do.

[Xithras]

51. Same thing they did with Libya.

Legally, there's no real question that it's a violation of his powers, and is potentially an impeachable offense. Joe Biden himself took Bush to task over this very same thing when Bush wanted to strike Iran a number of years ago, and they got Bush to back off by pointing out both the illegality of the acts and the potential impact to his presidency.

Of course, Obama has already got away with it once, using the idiotic "it's not really war if we don't have soldiers on the ground" argument with Libya, and Congress ended up doing absolutely nothing about it. I suspect that the same will happen with Syria.

And, I fully expect everyone here to scream bloody murder when the next Republican president uses the precedent to arbitrarily start bombing countries THEY don't like without congressional approval. And we'll scream even louder when Congress doesn't do anything about it then either. And we'll all thank Obama for setting the precedent in the first place.

[iamthebandfanman]

59. Hoping someone can find the answer for me...

did Clinton get congressional approval for the strikes he had on Iraq in 1993 for the attempted assassination of poppy bush?

they loosely called it a punishment strike..
Which is all that anyone is calling for in Syria.. a strike against a couple of key targets that will hurt the regime as punishment for the use of chemical weapons..

I mean, unless you've seen documents from the Obama white house I haven't that say we are going to invade and occupy like the chimp

[Xithras]

80. Legal for two reasons.

First, the WPA permits the president to take military action without approval in response to attack on the country or its armed forces. An attack on a former president, and the military escorts who were protecting him on that trip, would have qualified. It's important to remember that while the attack failed, the Iraqi government still carried out an attack against the United States.

Second, military action in Iraq had already been approved under congressional acts authorizing Operation Provide Comfort, which enforced the no fly zones and allowed the US military to take actions to protect civilians and degrade the Iraqi governments warmaking capabilities. That alone would have provided the legal cover for the strikes

The Repub's really wanted Clinton out of office. If they could have nailed him for this, instead of embarrassing the nation over a cigar, they would have done so.

[iamthebandfanman]

82. Thank you!

everyone else was just running themselves around in circles with silly notions!

what you said makes complete sense and I thank you for posting!

[24601]

121. Legally I don't believe it has even been decided by the courts whether the WPA is constitutional or

not. Hasn't every administration held it an impermissible infringement on the President's Article II authorities? The Legislative branch has one view while the Executive branch holds the opposite. Each position has equivalent validity until the court(s) break the tie.

.believe that the USSC would refuse to decide the question as a political question and say that the Congress has ample tools, appropriations and impeachment, to work it's will.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but not to wage it as that would fall under the President's Commander in Chief authorities

[Xithras]

122. The Constitution gives Congress more power over the military than that.

Section 1, Article 8 gives Congress the power:

- "To declare War"
- "for governing such Part of them (the Militia) as may be employed in the Service of the United States"
- "To make Rules for the...Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
- and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

So, yes, the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate how the military is used. Interestingly, it also reserves for Congress the power:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;".

One could argue that it specifically vests the right to punish war crimes (violations of international law) in the Congress, and not with the President.

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Presidents have believed the law to be unconstitutional or not. Under our system, a law is constitutional and enforceable until the courts rule otherwise. Legally, all laws are "constitutional" until repealed either by Congress or the courts. Even if presidents don't like them.

[awoke_in_2003]

93. Enough of them will do...

exactly what the Carlyle Group wants them to do.

[big_dog]

13. it appears that Putin is now 'the decider'

according to Mossad's unoffical website anyway... http://www.debka.com/article/23230/Obama-says-no-decision-yet-on-strike-on-Syria-DEBKA-He-stalls-for-deal-with-Putin-on-softened-strike

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. He HAS to consider the cost to Russia if he "abandons" Syria

Which puts Putin in the spotlight..he can either look the other way and be seen by his allies as useless,
and most likely lose the rights to the Tartus shipping port that Russia mostly built in Syria, which is Russia's ONLY direct access to the Mediterranean,
plus lose millions of dollars of weapons Syria buys from Russia
or
draw his own red line for Obama to see.

Nose to nose staring contest could develop.

edited to add: oh yeah, and the present and future energy issue, the key for all of this in the first place.

[KittyWampus]

68. I'm going to hate myself for clicking a debka link… but what the heck...

[AsahinaKimi]

40. Having one "Decider in Chief" was enough for one life time

Please, Mr. President reconsider..

[iamthebandfanman]

48. Did clinton get congressional approval

for the strikes on Iraq in 1993?

not being smart, just want to know

[dkf]

50. Wasn't that Bush I? Or are we speaking the of no fly zone?

[iamthebandfanman]

53. was bush president

in june of 1993?? (remember Clinton was elected in 92)

and no, im not talking about the no fly zone.

it was a 'punishment strike' for the attempted assassination of our ex president poppy bush.., which is exactly what we are talking about in Syria thus far ..

[dkf]

62. See below:

Clinton also had the confessions of the two alleged leaders of the 16 suspects arrested by Kuwait when the plot was uncovered. Both are Iraqi nationals. Ra'ad Asadi and Wali Abdelhadi Ghazali told FBI investigators detailed to Kuwait that they met in Basra, Iraq, on April 12 with "individuals they believed to be associated with the Iraqi Intelligence Service," according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

They were given a vehicle loaded with hidden explosives. Ghazali told the FBI he was recruited specifically to kill Bush. Asadi also told the FBI he was to guide the car bomb, driven by his partner, to Kuwait University, where Bush was to be honored by the Emir of Kuwait for his leadership in the gulf war.


"This crime was committed against the United States, and we elected to respond and to exercise our right of self defense" under Article 51 of the U.N. charter, Defense Secretary Les Aspin said. "Tonight's unilateral action in no way diminishes U.S. support for coalition action or for the authority of the United Nations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

This is different.

[iamthebandfanman]

67. Oh , so this is different

but making parallels between this and Iraq and Afghanistan (as some folks are) are completely in bounds eh ?

I saw a defected Syrian commander on arab tv yesterday admitting he was given an order to use chemical weapons.

Guess that's not good enough ?

[dkf]

69. It's not against us. Self defense comes into play in '93 because they tried to kill Bush I.

If you don't understand that difference... Oh well.

[iamthebandfanman]

71. 'self defense'

lmao!
youre right, I don't!

1 ex republican president > hundreds of dead children..

yeah, sleep on that one tonight.

[dkf]

72. We aren't at risk from the Syrians...not unless we go there and put ourselves in danger.

[iamthebandfanman]

73. Riiiight

because setting a precedent that using chemical weapons is an okay thing and not our business wont come back to haunt us at all

btw, just to clarify, one assassination attempt on any American citizen equals retaliation ? or do they have to famous, rich, or an ex member of government specifically to make it okay?

[wildbilln864]

92. so was it?

"hundreds of dead children"? Or did you make that up?

[24601]

124. The party affiliation of a former President isn't relevant. That it was a former President isn't

relevant. What matters is that it was a US citizen - doesn't matter if it's a former President or a death row inmate.

[philosslayer]

2. This won't be popular among many...

But I voted for my President twice because he's the smartest man in the room, and I trust his judgement. And he's done nothing to make me change that position. I may not like it, but I trust him and will continue to support him.

[Beer Swiller]

29. "I trust my President. And I think we all should."

...or words to that effect.

--Brittany Spears, talking about President George W. Bush, 2003 during the leadup to the Iraq War

You're in fine company.

[Vinnie From Indy]

33. Hey! There are other intellectual giants that agree with you!

Cheers!

[Beer Swiller]

78. Thank you!

Well, I misrememebered(forgive the Bushism) the quote. Gave Britney way too much grammatical credit.

[Carolina]

85. Geez, you

have got to be kidding... blind trust in anyone is ridiculously naive, not to mention dangerous and often foolish

A lot of evil has been perpetrated by smart men. In fact, many sociopaths are smart!

[Skittles]

117. LOL

there's a group here specifically for you!!!

[LibAsHell]

126. So, if you don't like it, and you know why

This should make you question your trust and his judgement. You don't need to be the President or a foreign policy genius here: bombing a country already ravaged by war over incomplete evidence and speculation is not logical and, presumably, we have pretty much the same information Obama does. I assume if he had some definitive proof, he'd have shared it with us.

[babylonsister]

3. Three things:

he's waiting for the inspectors to do their thing, he's going to go to Congress, and a final decision hasn't been made.

Thanks!

[magical thyme]

5. the UN is leaving a day earlier than they originally planned

and they won't have time to inspect the 3 sites where the chemical poisoning allegedly took place.

While I believe Doctors without Borders, the UN inspectors will be unable to examine what (if any) chemical was used, the quality or grade of that chemical, or collect any evidence pointing to the perpetrators.

I read an article a short time ago in which President Obama was quoted as saying he hadn't made a decision, yet a couple paragraphs later Pentagon officials said unequivocally that there will be a strike.

This has been handled terribly. I consider this an absolute betrayal of everything I believe in. Unlike Bush and Co., who invented evidence, he appears not bothering to even wait for evidence. That is an absolute outrage.

[babylonsister]

8. He hasn't done anything yet, so hold your horses. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. As I posted elsewhere, Wikileaks reported Syria attack was being planned in 2012.

It is one of the 5 countries that the Neo-cons has listed in the Plans for a New American Century
(PNAC)
Iran,Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen. I think were the original list.

And, as a DU post from 2007 shows:
Few people on this site realize Brezezinski's The Grand Chessboard, ...

Edited on Mon Sep-24-07 12:03 PM by CRH
1997, was used as cliff notes for the PNAC aspirations. There was not one original thought in the PNAC documents, their plans were in total a rip-off of Brezezinski's 'geostrategic imperatives'. From thoughts of domination through economic and military hegemony, to managing Eurasia (like it was our lone superpower right), the arrogance that is solely attributed to Bush and the neo cons first found forum in "The Grand Chessboard".

From page 40 a quote that says it all ...

~~In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasing institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep the tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. ~~


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3003510

[magical thyme]

19. Afghanistan was also on the original PNAC list.

It was second on the list, with Iraq first. 9/11 gave them their excuse, they just changed the order of the 1st two on the list.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. ahhh..thank you.

I have been too lazy to dig up my pdf copy of PNAC.

[KittyWampus]

75. they inspected the largest site and the previous sites. The 3 in question are the most recent Assad

claims.

[magical thyme]

112. iow, the 3 in question are the ones on which the pending attack are based.

[KittyWampus]

113. No, the 3 in question happened after Assad's forces used chemical weapons on civilians near Damascus

[Beer Swiller]

81. He's not waiting at all.

Read the New York Times link the OP provided, why don't you? Yes, his people said a final decision had NOT been made, and so did he on Sunday, but the fact that Obama is even considering a unilateral military intervention is very disturbing.

Even Bush didn't do THAT. Remember the "coalition of the willing" and all that nonsense?

Sometimes, you have to look beyond the party label.

[KamaAina]

6. "The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack"

So we're going to war, as The Coalition of One , because some Syrian colonel resorted to firing off some chemical rounds in the heat of battle?

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. No.

we're going to war, as The Coalition of One , because Syria's leader is being blamed for a chemical attack,
despite lack of definite proof
who fired chemicals and what kind they were.

( and doesn't THAT sound familiar?)


Not sure if proof of chemical use has been provided????

[jessie04]

7. And he should.

Every idiot tin-horn dictator will now use chemical weapons since no one will stop them.

I pity the victims of future chemical weapons war crimes.

[former9thward]

14. Pity the victims of chemical warfare by the U.S.

Agent Orange in Vietnam and the chemical Napalm which we used to burn people alive in Vietnam.

[grntuscarora]

17. +1.

n/t

[magical thyme]

21. Don't forget the white phosphorus and depleted uranium we dumped on Iraq

And the sarin gas we provided Iraq with to use in their war with Iran.

But, of course, we're not some tin-pot dictator. So we can use chemicals when and where we want.

[former9thward]

25. Yes, hypocrisy thou name is legion.

[KamaAina]

32. And our great ally Saddam Hussein using CW against Iran

[jessie04]

52. True...so i guess that makes it ok.

I guess now the new normal warfare is chemical weapons. No need to worry.

if chemical weapons don't reach the level of concern, would Biological weapons make you think any different ?

Since the USA used a nuclear bomb , then I guess we shouldn't worry if NK or Iran uses one?

[another_liberal]

83. We actually gave Saddam nerve gas munitions. Some were found in occupied Iraq.

It was only on the news for a few days, but we did find some of the nerve gas shells we supplied Saddam with during the Iran/Iraq war. They were near an old battlefield of that war, buried in a collapsed bunker under a highway that was being rebuilt in southern Iraq. This was in 2005 or 2006, if I remember correctly.

Some Republican Congressman tried briefly to make a big deal out of how we had found Saddam's WMD, but he was shut-up really quickly. The problem was that the gas shells had U. S. manufacturer's markings on them.

[KamaAina]

96. That's how we knew he had WMD.

We had the receipt.

[another_liberal]

97. I'm sure.

Rummy just wasn't sure where the left-overs had been deposited.

[magical thyme]

9. unnamed Pentagon officials insist strike within days

"Pentagon officials insist strikes are likely “within days” and that the U.S. was “past the point of no return” on the issue -- suggesting Washington was prepared to act unilaterally."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/29/20241897-british-parliament-votes-against-possible-military-action-in-syria?lite

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

[moonlady0623]

20. but of course they do

how can they justify their existence and enormous budget if they don't have a war?

[damnedifIknow]

11. What is this?

"White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested before the British vote that the United States might be willing to act on its own.

"When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response ... and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we'll produce one on our own," Earnest said."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/syria-crisis-idINDEE97S0CM20130829

[moonlady0623]

22. Statements like that

make me want to get on the IMPEACHMENT bandwagon. It's bloody 2013, can we EVOLVE?

[wildbilln864]

46. +1 n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

61. What law has President Obama broken here?

How do we get from a leak from the Whitehouse - to impeach him?

[moonlady0623]

74. I'm tired of preemptive war

I'm tired of war period, it never really solved a damn thing, we have "contractors" salivating at the "opportunity" to milk more of our hard earned money - those of us who still have jobs that is - to bomb some country to pieces then "rebuild" it, I voted for hope and change and got screwed on so many levels.

After a deep breath (sigh) I will concede that impeachment would probably solve nothing since the POTUS position has become Head Puppet for the "men behind the curtain" who are hell bent on that One world order thing.

In my heart I KNOW human beings can live together in peace. We are pawns in some giant game that sounds like a bad science fiction novel. I find myself wishing Superman would come take out Lex Luthor and his band of asswipes.

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. BEFORE the British vote, eh?

Guess the play is written...looks like we are in Act 3 or 4 of imperial aggression.

[arewenotdemo]

125. Jesus Christ. I hadn't seen that yet.

"....we'll produce one on our own," Earnest said."

They act like they don't even fucking care whether they are credible or not.

One more nail in the coffin for me. I didn't vote for that kind of imperialistic rhetoric or action.

Simply beyond arrogant. Obama has no fucking clue what kind of shit-storm he's brewing up.

[Brigid]

15. *GROAN*

[dixiegrrrrl]

47. Speaking of impeachment

It would seem natural, would it not, that if the subject WERE to be raised, it would be the Repubs who raised it, yes?

Yet, what are the Repubs saying, now, about attacking Syria?

Obama's surprising ally on Syria: Republicans
http://theweek.com/article/index/248783/obamas-surprising-ally-on-syria-republicans

US Republican Hawks Line Up in Support of Syria Strikes
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130827/DEFREG02/308270011/US-Republican-Hawks-Line-Up-Support-Syria-Strikes

Far cry from Repubs reaction to Libya.

[Hydra]

56. The Repubs are quietly there to support the President when he needs it

Amash/Conyers Amendment for instance. They have a field day whenever they know he has enough support to do it though- they get the benefit of getting what they want AND someone to blame for it.

It's a crazy sort of arrangement, but it's working well for the people doing it.

[Xithras]

64. They could, of course, be setting him up.

By getting him to start a second war in violation of the WPA, they're setting him up for a huge fall. Obama's defense of the Libyan intervention was that it "wasn't really war" because there were no boots on the ground and no soldiers in danger. Assad is much better armed that Gaddafi was, and the moment the Syrian military kills a U.S. soldier, the entire argument that it's "not really war" goes up in smoke. If the president places our military into active combat without congressional approval and in violation of the guidelines of the War Powers Act, I'd expect to see an impeachment proposal raised within minutes. While I think the "not really war" argument is idiotic, it may be legally defensible enough to work. Once a single soldier dies in combat, the entire argument ceases to be legally viable, and Obama will be left holding the bag for starting an open war without congressional approval, outside of the legal boundaries he's afforded by the WPA.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but the Republican's aren't stupid. They have to know that this situation is win/win/win/win for them. If Obama does nothing, they get to attack him for looking weak. If he starts a fight and gets soldiers killed, he's handed them grounds for impeachment. If Syria strikes Israel and sparks off a wider war, they get to attack him for destabilizing the region and putting our allies at risk. If we unseat Assad and the rebels take over, they get to attack him for supporting Al Qaeda.

Of course the republicans are going to encourage him to stick his neck out...doing so only helps THEM.

[jakeXT]

106. He got lucky in Libya, imagine the captured F15 pilots on SyrianTV

How an MV-22 Osprey rescued a downed US pilot in Libya

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0322/How-an-MV-22-Osprey-rescued-a-downed-US-pilot-in-Libya

Downed airmen tell their tale

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/17/exclusive-downed-pilots-tell-their-tale/

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. **** that.

No way. Just no way.

[David__77]

26. That would be a war crime, and an impeachable offense.

I certainly hope that this is disinformation.

[red dog 1]

116. This would give Congressional Repubs a reason for impeachment, something they now lack.

Also, because of the British Parliament's vote yesterday, the British will not be joining in any strike against Syria.

"After British Vote, Unusual Isolation For US on Syria"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/after-british-vote-unusual-isolation-for-us-on-syria.html/

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I don't support cowboying our way through....

If it is about justice and international law, it must be done with International support.

[Auggie]

28. NO!!!!

[KamaAina]

30. An Army Of One

[leveymg]

34. The same anonymous WH officials who have been pushing this since March '11

and for at least 15 years going back to release in 1997 of a neocon manifesto, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm written for the newly installed conservative Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu. It is a remarkably candid and concise document that accurately predicts U.S. and Israeli policy and actions in the region, particularly events in Syria and the western response during the last couple weeks.

The document extracted below explicitly states that Syria's WMD will serve as a pretext for western intervention while at the same time rejecting U.S. and western pressures to accept land for peace. That is exactly what has come to pass in 2013.

As A Clean Break makes clear, serial regime change in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and then Iran has long been the goal of a core group of Washington power players in both parties going back to that era. Here's the plan to transform the Mideast (and the U.S.) so as to expand Israel's hegemony, along with Turkey and Jordan, with Saudi Arabia, the silent partner of the Rightwing parties in Israel, the US, and the UK. This plan of serial regime change was later euphemistically termed, "The Arab Spring", when conditions were deemed ripe for overthrow of a string of governments of state surrounding Israel.

The "Clean Break" document was submitted to then PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It is remarkably prescient, and has come to pass through the wars and covert operations waged by the past two U.S. Administrations, with a few bumps in the road, almost exactly as planned 15 year ago.

Ironically, as alluded to below (and developed at greater length in later sections not excerpted below,) make clear, the ultimate point of neocon regime change is to invert the relationship of Israel with the US, and to make the former autonomous of the constraints imposed by the latter. The U.S. is the ultimate target of Right-wing regime change planned in Israel by the Neocons for Netanyahu's Likud Party: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and < . . .>

[red dog 1]

114. + 1

Good work leveymg!

Apparently President Obama doesn't care if many Democrats in Congress oppose this unilateral intervention against Assad; and they include people like Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) who is as far from being a DINO as you can get.

I wonder if President Obama has read "A Clean Break"?

[leveymg]

118. His political education wouldn't be complete if he hasn't read it. It is the single most important

statement of the necon plan for the Mideast that has ever been released - maybe, even more significant and influential than the September 2000 document written by Kagan and Schmidt for PNAC, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which contained the notorious "New Pearl Harbour" reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[14]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as journalist Mark Danner,[39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

[red dog 1]

119. Maybe he needs to re-read it!

[leveymg]

120. I'm sure some of his staff are intimately familiar with the details, and he's a good

delegator. The Obama Administration has done little to change the core foreign policy agenda he inherited and much to further the same goals.

[red dog 1]

123. I agree 100 percent.

[darkangel218]

36. Whats PNAC?

[wildbilln864]

55. The Project for a New American Century.....

Here's their website.
I'd recommend reading their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" posted in their Publications & Reports pages.

[darkangel218]

60. Wtf..theyre nuts!!

They want US to spend even more money on "defense"??

And "control" the world?? What the hell??

Thanks for the link though

[wildbilln864]

91. Yes and....

particularly interesting was their 1st paragraph on page 63 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses". A way to get the public behind such an endeavor. Then came 911 in 2001. And look at the signatories of their documents.

[Plucketeer]

37. Simply NUCKING FUTS!

And THIS is the sort of presidenting we'll get from Ms. Clinton too!


WARREN - WARREN - WARREN FOR 2016!

[red dog 1]

38. Why doesn't President Obama put pressure on both sides to sit down & talk in Geneva?

Pending the report from the U.N. inspectors, can't he at least TRY to avoid a unilateral attack on Assad?

President Obama is sounding more and more like George W. Bush before he invaded Iraq.

[another_liberal]

45. One problem is that there are not just two sides to this civil war.

There are at least four or five. I am not being facetious about that either.

[Beer Swiller]

94. You are correct.

There are many sides in this Syrian civil war. I don't claim to know them all, much less to understand them all.

Whatever. It's the Syrians' problem. It should not be ours. IMHO, of course.

[mike_c]

41. is it war mongering yet...?

Sheesh.

[jsr]

43. Eh, the resolute Obama.

[another_liberal]

44. Go George W. Bush one better!

No, I can not believe he would do that. It would be madness, simply inconceivable.

[iamthebandfanman]

57. ill ask you since the folks above havent answered...

Did Clinton get congressional approval for his strikes on Iraq in 1993 for the attempted assassination of poppy bush?
it was loosely called a 'punishment strike'..

which is the only thing they are wanting in Syria ... unless you've seen more than I have that indicates Obama wants to invade and occupy Syria..

[another_liberal]

65. What President Obama wants to do and what he finds he has to do . . .

If he orders airstrikes on Syrian targets, what President Obama wants to do and what he finds he has to do may be very different things.

As for President Clinton's Iraq strikes, it was a very different situation. Saddam had not been backed against the wall by a civil war. Assad has little to lose and, perhaps, much to gain by creating a far wider war.

[iamthebandfanman]

70. Its always not the same

if whats said/done doesn't fit your thoughts or motives eh ?

pretty convenient for u I guess!

No, he hadn't been backed into a corner by a civil war.. just a gulf war against us and the sanctions that followed that cut him off from the majority of the world.... naaaah he wasn't under pressure at all!

[another_liberal]

77. The fact remains, Saddam did not use that occasion to launch retaliatory attacks.

I'm not at all certain Assad will show the same degree of restraint. Miscalculating how a given leader will respond to that kind of thing is exactly how great big, awful wars begin.

[David__77]

86. Why are you citing something from decades ago?

A lot has happened in those decades.

[Alamuti Lotus]

102. No, and he was wrong then too

he launched millions of dollars of missiles and killed, if I remember correctly, six innocent civilians. Allegedly it was in response to the attempted assassination of a mass murderer; in reality, it was just a brief demonstration of "who's your daddy?" that American presidents feel the need to perform every few months just to remind the world what they're dealing with.

[kimbutgar]

49. If he does this the republicans will have grounds to impeach him

We have money to start a war but not fix our infrastructure? Oh hell no Obama!

You do this and you will be obomba and ensure republicans to take back the senate in 14 and the whitehouse in 16.

[polichick]

63. Yes - they won't return his "looking forward" favor.

[ozone_man]

66. He's vying for another Nobel peace prize.

This is how Peace works. It takes some 12 dimensional chess of course.

[DCBob]

76. Somehow I doubt this report.

I would be surprised if Obama decided to go it alone. It doesn't make sense. Im usually in agreement with the President but in this case I would be against it.

[fletchthedubs]

87. So is the idea that Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people at this point in time.

[Beer Swiller]

88. There is no conclusive evidence that he did.

We don't even know if chemical weapons were used, much less who used them. Nerve gas is relatively easy to manufacture. For all we know, it could have been Al-Qaeda with Saudi money. Osama bin Laden WAS Saudi, you know.

[ladjf]

79. Dumb idea. nt

[Carolina]

84. Gee, I guess

that contradicts all the BHO apologists who say the POTUS can't do anything by himself, eh!

He can do what he wants and he is showing his true colors... no pun intended!

Totally disgusting

[Beer Swiller]

89. Amen! nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

90. BIG, BIG MISTAKE!!! Listen to me!!!

[DeSwiss]

95. NO.

- Not in my name.

K&R

[OnyxCollie]

98. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Pterodactyl]

99. But, but, but..... he has a Nobel Peace Prize! Surely he would never unilaterally use force!!!

[adirondacker]

101. I think there should be a Multinational Appeasement Prize. MAP for short. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

100. This constitutional law professor says it's unconstitutional.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat

[darkangel218]

103. I scored straight As on CL in junior college

[quadrature]

104. this is about saving face

Obama has to do something.

[Celefin]

109. Yes. A true statesman would back off.

You don't take your county into war to save face just because you said something that wasn't particularly well thought through. You just don't! And the 'everybody else does it' bullshit is just that. He should be above that.

He wouldn't seem weak. Quite the contrary - he'd appear able to reflect and to adapt policies to a changing reality. Like a leader should.
What a terrible shame if he truly goes ahead with this monumental stupidity; just to save face.

[pettypace]

105. Deja vu

[blkmusclmachine]

107. War hawk.

No change.

[blkmusclmachine]

108. Give back your ill-gotten "Peace Prize," BHO.

You don't deserve it.

[Sand Wind]

110. What is BHO ?

[Skittles]

111. President Obama's initials

[Sand Wind]

115. Oh, ok, Barrack Hussein Obama...nt