Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Little more than a decade after the U.S. laid its Vietnam syndrome to rest, an Iraq syndrome has replaced it, says a leading analyst.“The question is whether this new sentiment will dominate policy—whether acting for the wrong reasons in Iraq will prevent us from acting for the right reasons in Syria,” the Brookings Institution’s William A. Galston writes for The Wall Street Journal.
[ed notes:galston was once board director of national endowment for democracy..a CIA FRONT!
On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry stated the challenge: “Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.”But why is it this country’s responsibility? asks Galston, a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy:The stark fact is that the U.S. is the only country in the world with the capacity to respond to Assad’s outrageous use of chemical weapons in a way that might deter him from repeating it…..For better or worse (mostly for better, I believe), the United States is the guarantor of the global order, which we took the lead in creating. In that role, we provide global public goods—forms of stability and security, such as freedom of the seas, from which other nations benefit, not just us.“Americans benefit, perhaps more than anyone else, from the leading role the country plays in the world,” he notes. “The task of U.S. leaders is to remind the people that we have a lot to lose if others come to believe that we are no longer willing to bear the burdens of leadership.”
But any U.S. military strike must be more than a shot across the bows, says Galston.
“A purely symbolic act would be worse than useless,” he contends. “Mr. Obama and Congress should weigh the possibility that effective deterrence may require targeting regime assets (such as Assad’s air force) beyond those specifically involved in the poison-gas attack.

His sentiments are echoed by many other analysts, including Michael Eisenstadt, director of military and security studies at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If you want to alter the risk calculus of the regime, you want to inflict casualties among senior personnel who are among the most loyal elements of the military, who are related to the senior civilian leadership of the regime,” he told National Public Radio. “That will shake them up in a way that destroying air defenses or destroying aircraft or destroying artillery pieces will not.”
[[[[[There is a successful recent precedent for such action, he contends: 1998’s Operation Desert Fox against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq:We hit elements of the Special Republican Guard, which were key to the survival of the regime, as well as units that were involved in concealing Saddam’s WMD infrastructure. And that really shook up the regime. But the problem was Operation Desert Fox was a parting shot rather than an opening salvo. It really didn’t have the impact it could have had. But that’s the kind of operation you want to have because, actually if you go in light at the outset, it’s going to telegraph tentativeness.]]]]
[[[[[[A more robust engagement would also allow the U.S. to recoup a strategic advantage across the wider region, says an expert commentator.“Obama never seemed to appreciate that the uprising in Syria provided an opportunity to reduce Iranian power in the Levant,” claims Michael Young, opinion editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper.“Lebanon plays a vital role in Iran’s regional strategy,” he writes for The Wall Street Journal.“It is where the Iranians, acting through Hezbollah, have built a deterrence capability on Israel’s border, allowing Hezbollah to target Israel in the event Israel decides to strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons.]]]]]
[ed notes:some backround on young

Michael Young - The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي ...“Some may speculate that the best way to neutralize Hezbollah and Iran would be to push the Lebanese into a sectarian war that diverts their attention and depletes their resources,” he notes. “But that view is shortsighted. Worsening Sunni-Shiite conflict spreading outward from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon would only exacerbate religious extremism everywhere, engulfing or threatening key American allies, and perhaps America itself.”
Three arguments stand out for granting President Barack Obama’s request for authorized action against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, says University of Virginia professor Philip Zelikow, who served on intelligence advisory boards both for President George HW Bush and for President Barack Obama.
First, get past the annoyance with the way the administration has handled the issue, he writes for The Financial Times.Second, reflect on the historical precedents of Guernica and Halabja, Zelikow suggests:
In April 1937, during the Spanish civil war, an “experimental squadron” of the German Condor Legion aiding the Spanish nationalist side tried out a large-scale aerial bombardment of a city. The resulting slaughter in a centre of Basque history inspired Pablo Picasso’s terrifying masterwork [above]. The democracies stood by, did nothing. ….In 1937 the democracies could tell themselves that there were distasteful extremists on all sides. The victims at Guernica were on the side of the Spanish war dominated by communists and their Soviet allies. Halabja is a story from the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. There occurred the only other instance in history in which nerve gas was used massively against civilians. Then it was the Saddam Hussein regime and its Russian-supplied weapons slaughtering Kurdish civilians. Again, the world’s democracies stood by….Third, focus on feasibility. The operational objective can be limited to this: make it clear that the use of nerve gas against civilians does not confer a net military advantage to the user, because the world will respond in a way that more than cancels out the hoped-for gain. ….The alternative, inaction, is not likely to evade that grim calculus. It may just defer it to another, darker time.
“Europe knows, and this city in particular, about the importance of “red lines,” Roger Cohen reports from Berlin:West Berlin, caught for more than four decades 100 miles within the Soviet occupation zone, survived on the credibility of the U.S. commitment to it, demonstrated by the Allied airlift in response to the Soviet blockade of 1948….It is the credibility of the United States as a European and Asian and Middle Eastern power that underwrites global security.

“Values cannot be all of foreign policy; perhaps they cannot even be a quarter of it; but a U.S. foreign policy stripped entirely of values is no longer American,” he writes for The New York Times:U.S. authority is tied to its moral stature as a state of laws committed to freedom. It is equally tied to the credibility of its word. In Syria the two inextricable strands of U.S. foreign policy — values and realpolitik — have come together
  [ed notes:amazing i know,a war criminal zionist warmonger and architect,arguing for another war for israhell under humanitarian intervention sigh..and mentioning sadams gassing of kurds without mentioning his own cabals endorsement and support for sadam,guess thats not important enough for financial times to mention ;)
there you have it folks,a war criminal who was also instrumental behind the deaths of over 3000 americans in israhell attack on wtc,speaking about need to safeguard civilians in Syria...also see..
Zelikow: 9/11 Master Criminal Appointed By Obama

ZELIKOW (part one _ snowshoefilms series).mp4 - YouTube
► 10:17► 10:17
Jan 31, 2012 - Uploaded by 2012themovement
This zionist and PNAC supporter is an architect of the ... ... on Zelikow and his role in 9/11

No comments: