Heads You Win... Tails I lose

So Syria has used Chemical weapons in its civil war… now what?

U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence all seem to be stating that the Syrian Government of Bashir al-Assad has used Sarin gas against rebels (and civilians) in its on-going civil war.

According to Israeli Military Intelligence:

“To the best of our understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons,” said Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of the Research and Analysis Division at the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun said further that based on the pictures of the victims — the size of their pupils, “and the foam coming out of their mouths” — the army believed that Assad’s troops had used the lethal nerve gas Sarin as a weapon.

 

The British have also reached this conclusion:

Britain's Foreign Office said on Thursday it had information showing chemical weapon use in Syria, and called on Assad to cooperate with international bodies to prove he had not sanctioned their use

"We have limited but persuasive information from various sources showing chemical weapon use in Syria, including Sarin. This is extremely concerning. Use of chemical weapons is a war crime," a Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement. 

And an un-named Israeli source had this to say:

A second senior Israeli military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said on Tuesday that chemical weapons appear to have been used in five cases. He said “dozens” of people were killed in the attacks when a “Sarin-type” chemical was dispersed.

So now Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have weighed in with the following commentary:

US intelligence has concluded "with some degree of varying confidence," that the Syrian government has used Sarin gas as a weapon in its two-year-old civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck

Both the U.S. and Britain are now doing assessments to see if indeed the intelligence matches with actual events, though for this to come out so definitively means that both the U.S. and the British are inclined to believe the Israeli report.

 But all this said… What next? 

Syrian resistance calls on the U.S. to act decisively here and actively enter the fray to take out the Assad dictatorship. Now certainly this dictatorship ranks amongst the worst in human rights violators on the planet (though strangely enough human rights groups are remarkably silent about this). Estimates have the placed over 70,000 deaths in the course of the two year civil war.

This information seems to create a fairly compelling case for U.S. involvement to help end the misery that the Syrian people suffer at the hands of the murderous Assad dictatorship. After all, how could we “sit on our hands” while watching the Syrian government use Chemical weapons on its’ own populace.

But, the decision in this case is not that easy due to the fact that the Syrian resistance is littered with and to a large degree influenced by Salafist and al-Qaeda elements. Active U.S. and Western European involvement in this conflict on the part of the rebels could in fact cause a worse set of outcomes.

How?

1. Should the U.S. and Europe get involved there is no doubt that this would change the course of fighting in Syria, and that the regime in Damascus would be seeing its last days. But what of the government afterwards? Right now rebel groups are split amongst themselves as far as “end results”, the majority of them certainly want nothing to do with the West and an alliance with us. There is a strong Salafist presence in these groups and what would they do once they won? It is my opinion that we could be looking at the recreation of a second Taliban like government in Syria.

Remember, these groups are heavily supported and funded by Conservative / Reactionary Wahabite regimes. In this case our involvement would be creating a more problematic regime than the brutal Assad dictatorship. Given the presence of al-Qaeda in the ranks of the rebels, I am not sure that this would be any kind of improvement over the current situation.

2. Should the rebels win, they have promised to spread their “Jihad” to U.S. ally (and one of the last remaining nations at peace with Israel) Jordan. Though some rebel elements are training in Jordan (supposedly with the help of U.S. Special Forces and the CIA), parts of the Jihadist elements of the rebel forces have threatened to take the fight to Jordan in an effort to create a Muslim Brotherhood sponsored “wall” (for lack of a better term) around what they like to call the “Zionist Entity” (Israel to you and I).

The Jordanian regime is not that powerful that they can fight off a sustained and asymetrical jihadist effort, particularly one backed by a State government, without radically changing their political orientation (away from the West and certainly OUT of their Peace treaty with Israel). They are already facing hardships from inside their own polity. So, as we can see…. a rebel victory could put a Salafist, Neo-Jihadi government in place of a reliable Western ally.

3. With respect to Israel, a rebel win means that on the Northern border Israel would face Lebanon / Hizbollah (Iran’s last and strongest client in the area), and an unstable Islamist Syria. Should the rebels win there would be strong regional pressure on Jordan (or see above total collapse) to abrogate its peace agreement with Israel, a move that would certainly de-stabilize the Central Front. And in the South of course there is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government that while sticking to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty (they would lose all that needed aid from the U.S. if they didn’t) certainly could change that at any time.

4. The Assad regime is a last stronghold of Russian influence in the Middle East, not too mention an outpost for the Iranian theocracy. While Iran couldn’t step into the war in any effective manner (the Revolutionary Guard already is on the ground there) against Western Military forces, Russian military involvement (through advisors not ground troops) could complicate matters. The Russians have provided the Assad regime with cover in the U.N. but if the Russians saw their interests in the Mediterranean threatened I would not be surprised to see their military advisors begin to get involved.

5. Finally, should the rebels win, there are two places that these chemical weapons can end up. The first is in the hands of the rebel military, basically this would mean that al-Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood factions in Syria would end up with a stockpile of Chemical Weapons. OR the weapons would end up in the hands of Hizbollah as the Syrian government would reward their allies with some choice military technology. Either way, that is incredibly bad news for both the U.S. and Israel.

Basically, what I am saying is that a rebel win in Syria could very easily destabilize the entire region and cause a much larger than regional problem.

BUT at the same time… the Assad regime is using Chemical Weapons on his own people. How can anyone sit back and watch that when they have the power to change it? In reality, how can our consciences rest at ease watching the slaughter of men, women, and children at the hands of a brutal dictatorship? Given our history, how can we as Jews do anything but stand against this kind of horrific behavior of a government against its own citizens?

Honestly, there are no good answers here. On one hand the Assad regime cannot be allowed to stay in power given their heinous use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they have indeed done this, there is really no way that they can be allowed to stay in power. At the same time as amply showed above, any active move to take them out doesn’t necessarily improve the situation for anyone, including the Syrian people.

Personally, I can’t think of any good solutions, just solutions that are less bad and none of them involve “sitting on hands”. If we do nothing we are faced with either a victory by Iran, Hizbollah and one of the worlds worst offenders of Human Rights, the Assad regime…. OR we are faced with the likely creation of an al-Qaeda / Jihadi client state.

It’s head’s You win or tails.. I Lose.

Chuck Hagel and Fringe Disappointment

Yesterday after much Republican grandstanding, chest thumping and generally wasting everyone's time, Former Senator Chuck Hagel was voted through the Senate as Secretary of Defense. Immediately the fringe blogosphere went nuts.

We saw commentary from the fringe right like this:

And now, due to American Jewish progressive-left ideological blindness, we have the first openly anti-Semitic Secretary of Defense in modern times; a man who favors Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah over the Jews in the Middle East.

or like this:

Hagel is a whore for sale to the highest Arab and Persian bidder. Always has been. He's a narcissist who'd rather be hated than ignored. And of course he's that perfect mix of stupid leftist progressive and right wing Pat Buchanan racist.

and from the Fringe Left we get this:

Hagel now stands in the place of George Marshall, except that where Truman’s Secretary of State warned of fanaticism, now fanaticism has become internal to the US government as well as spreading over the Middle Eastern zones of the empire. Obama, freed from Truman’s burden of facing election, is also free to settle scores, including with his nemesis, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who was dumb enough to have blatantly favored Mitt Romney for President—or was he rewarding the Republican for reaching new depths of servility when Romney pledged that on any matter involving Israel, he would phone Netanyahu and do whatever the PM told him to?

Now, personally I am not a big fan of Chuck Hagel, in this article, I explained that in my opinion Chuck Hagel won't really affect anything with regards to Israel or the Jewish People. My objection to Hagel comes from the fact that the President felt he needed to push a Conservative Republican into a fairly high level post when there were plenty of liberal Democrats (Joe Sestak, Jim Webb, Bob Kerrey, Wesley Clark, Michele Flournoy, to name a few) that were well qualified. As a Democrat, I didn't vote to see a person who had complained about the "Jewish Lobby" or who had made very problematic statements regarding the LGBT community, or who had an overall extremely conservative voting record, placed into high office in a Democratic Presidency.

The fact of the matter (to be blunt) is that the fringes on both sides will be very disappointed. For the lunatic Left, Hagel is not going to commence the bombing of Israel today, tomorrow, or any other day. U.S. policy towards Israel is what it is, and this President has committed us in both words and action to higher levels of security coordination with Israel than ever before. Whether he wants to or not, (and frankly I don't think he cares), Hagel is not going to, and doesn't have the power to change that. That is a policy decision made by the President. The Secretary of Defense doesn't get to make that policy. All he (or she) would get to do is carry out the orders of the President.

If one looks at Hagels record with regards to voting on issues concerning Israel, Hagel's record is certainly not indicative that he will be either the masked avenger on the Jews that the Hard Left wants, or that he will be ready to start shipping arms to Hamas next week like the Lunatic Right Fringe wants. In fact Hagel's voting record on Israel is pretty much standard fare for most American politicians.

Here are the actual facts regarding Sen. Hagels voting record  Some of which include:

• As a United States Senator, Chuck Hagel voted time and time again to provide $37.8 billion dollars of military and security assistance for Israel.
• Hagel cosponsored resolutions with Sen. Dianne Feinstein including "commitment[s] to a true and lasting solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of two states, living side by side in peace and security and with recognized borders" and calls on "Hamas... to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist."
• Chuck Hagel voted in favor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998⁴, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000⁵, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006⁶. He is skeptical of unilateral sanctions, but supports multilateral sanctions which we have seen, in concert with allies, put tremendeous pressure on Iran

But... that doesn't really matter. The overriding fact is that the Secretary of Defense simply does not make policy regarding our alliances or support for foreign nations or groups. That is the White House in conjunction with State. Hagel as Sec. Def. has to do what Pres. Obama tells him to do, and any policy decisions have to clear the White House. Simple fact.

Frankly, (and again I don't particularly support the choice of Hagel not that it matters now but....) is that Hagel was brought in to do two things and two things only. The first is to stand up for U.S. veterans and their rights. Hagel has done a good job of that throughout his career. The second is that the Pentagon is going to be and frankly needs to be cut to help with budget concerns. Hagel is a reasonable choice for that job. Hagel is not the Secretary of Defense for Israel, nor is he the Sec. Def. for only the Jewish People. Some people really need to understand that.Hagel IS  the Sec. Def. of all American People and as such he is responsible to the entire nation, not just one part of it.

OH and is Hagel the "worstest, most ebilz, Sec. of State ever for Israel, I think not.

How about Harry S. Truman's Sec. Def. James Forrestal who urged President to Truman to reject Partition in 1947 because it might "infuriate" the Arabs and then saying that Jews were too influential in pressing the American Gov't. Remind me again how that stopped the U.S. from voting for Partition.

Or what about Casper Weinberger of President Reagan's admin. You know, the REPUBLICAN administration where the President actually went to present honors on German SS unit graves, that administration. Here is a little something about Weinberger:

In contrast to other members of the Reagan cabinet known for their sympathy toward the Jewish state, including Secretary of State George Shultz and the president himself, Weinberger developed a reputation not only for opposing Israel’s interests directly but for seeking to prevent any action, including counter-terrorist operations, that might upset Arab allies of the United States (vb1 emphasis).  Until the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986, Weinberger was perhaps best known for orchestrating the sale of AWACS jets – the highly advanced airborne surveillance, command, and control system built by Boeing – to Saudi Arabia. Opposed by Israel and much of the American Jewish community, the Saudi AWACS deal generated enormous controversy.

So, I am not sure how we can really take the fringe seriously on either side as to their objections regarding Hagel. 

Either way, he was not my pick but now that he is in office, I say we judge him by what he actually does, NOT by what we think he may or may not do. Either way, the fanatics are going to be bummed out because their shrill cries (in support of or against) that he will be bombing Israel or sending gift baskets to open up our friendship with Hamas and Hizbollah simply won't come true and really have no basis in fact. As I said previously, Hagel's job is to watch over the U.S. Military in time when we will be paring it down and have a great deal of soldiers coming home from war.

How he does that will tell us what kind of American Secretary of Defense he will be.

TED CRUZ: THE NEWEST VILLAGE IDIOT

Over at the Maddow Blog we have reports from the newest Village Idiot (even by Congressional Standards) Ted Cruz (R-Secessionist Republic of Texas).

Here let's let the idiocy speak for itself:

In this clip, at around the 0:44 mark, Cruz notes that the Senate has "two pending nominations, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel." Describing the nominees, Cruz added, "Both of whom are very prominently..." 

After pausing for a few moments, the event's moderator said, "Anti-us?" Cruz responded that Kerry and Hagel are "less than ardent fans of the U.S. military."

Perhaps Ted Cruz would benefit from a reminder about the men he's attacking. John Kerry is a decorated war hero who was awarded combat medals including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Chuck Hagel is a decorated war hero who was awarded combat medals including the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, two Purple Hearts, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

Cruz, meanwhile, who apparently considers himself an "ardent fan of the U.S. military," has never worn a uniform, except maybe on Halloween.

But then watch some more... Cruz goes on to solidify his claims to the title by saying that Ronald Reagan should have won the Nobel Peace Prize because he "caused the downfall of the Soviet Union and won the Cold War".

Anyway, the sheer stupidity / ignorance of saying that two decorated War Heroes (no matter what else one may feel about either man), don't love "us" (he did not say "the U.S." he said "us") are "anti-the U.S. military" is mind boggling in it's wrongness. To say that both men only favor judicious use of the military or are anti-militarism would be far more accurate. BUT for someone who has never served in any military role to accuse two decorated war heroes, in leadership positions in the U.S. Government as being anti-U.S. military is mindblowingly dumb.

OH yeah, AND in the case of Chuck Hagel. These morons at the National Review Institute Summit should remember that not too long ago their guy Hagel was racking up scores from the American Conservative Union of over 95 on his voting record.

Oh well just another day in wingnuttia.

Musings on Chuck: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I write this diary because even though I in general oppose the Hagel nomination I think it is one of those things that will ultimately end up being about as significant as a "fart in a blizzard" (for lack of a better term).

So here are my thoughts... there are good and bad things about this nomination. In general I still oppose it because I think there are other politicians out there who are Democrats who would be more in line with Democratic Politics. Four names I can think of off the top of my head are General Wesley Clark, Admiral Joe Sestak, Admiral James Webb, and Former Senator Bob Kerrey.

There is also longtime Pentagon official and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy who would be a historic choice given that she would be the FIRST female Defense Secretary. From everything I have read about Flournoy (and (here is an interesting article), she would be a good choice. So there are four names that I think are well qualified, and who could do a fine job AND are also Democrats.

Aside from some what I consider bigoted remarks regarding Jewish Americans and LGBT Americans the irksome thing for me in this nomination is that President Obama felt it was necessary to choose a Republican for this post. I didn't vote for, support or donate to the guy to put Republicans into the highest positions in our government. I really didn't. I voted for President Obama because I don't think the Republican Party is particularly good for our nation (and hasn't been for a long time) and having Republicans in high office is not positive. Chuck Hagel... is a Republican, and yes, though he bucks the establishment of the Party on a few issues, he is still a Republican through and through.

BUT.... again, the Sec. Def. doesn't have the power of the Sec. State and though the position has a guiding voice in government, it doesn't set our foreign policy agenda so really... there is not much there that I think will make any bit of difference one way or the other.

Anyhow, in the past few days I have been inundated with Chuck Hagel news.... Hagel this, and Hagel that. BUT, what is the reality of a Hagel appointment. Well on the Far Right we hear the screechings of the batshit racists who are pissed because they are certain that Hagel will help Iran get nukes, thinks that Hizbollah and Hamas should be our best buddies, wants to drop Israel into the ocean and wants eventually to enslave America to "Teh Ebilz Mooslim Empire" (Ok, that's an exaggeration but really not much of one - check out the bullshit that flows from the Hard Right).

At the same time we have the drooling bigots on the Hard Left who are absolutely positive that a Hagel nomination is the bestest thing in the world since the invention of indoor plumbing AND sliced bread. They are positive that Hagel at Defense means the absolute end of "Teh Ebilz JOOOO / IZRAILEE lobby111!!!!11" and that "Teh Ebilz IZREEL" is finally going to get theirs. Oh yeah and Iran will next become our "bestest friend in TEH WHOLE WORLD"... Just read some of those blogs.

Of course neither the batshit fringers on the hard right or the drooling bigots on the hard left are right. Most likely, none of those things will come to pass should Hagel clear confirmation. We will still be friends with Israel, there will continue to be military cooperation with the IDF. Yes, there will be friction with Israel due to the ascendency of the Hard Right, but and at the same time there will be friction with the Palestinians due to the rising popularity of Hamas and the Religious Islamists within the Palestinian Polity (not too mention friction with Egypt and the future rulers of Syria over that same issue).

The Middle East will come into hard focus in the coming years as the threat of Iranian Hegemony will need to be faced, and the U.S. will be angling towards building a regional coalition against the Iranians. SO, I think that there will be a focus on Israel and the West Bank in regards to the Occupation but, I think that was coming anyway, no matter who the Sec. Def. happens to be. Official U.S. policy stands diametrically opposed to the directions of both the Israeli AND Palestinian polity. Anyway, enough on that.

Although there is one funny aside with regards to the droolers on the Hard Left (particularly where they meet with the batshit Paulbots on the Hard Right). All these fools are absolutely convinced that AIPAC and TEH JOOZ (though they use Zionists and Israelis as cover terms) run the nation and our government. Just read hate sites like Stormfront, davidduke.com and MondoFront - you can see it there. YET, if this is the case, then how in the world did (snark coming) Superhero and all around scourge of the "Jewish Lobby" (Hagel's comment) Chuck Hagel even get the nomination? I mean if AIPAC runs things... that could never have... ROH 'ROH....

All this said and outside of the silly meta regarding the intertoobz, there are some good things about Hagel's nomination as well (at least in my opinion). The guy was a combat vet and was an enlisted man (rather than an officer). He led people in tough situations, made life and death decisions and apparently made them well (according to what I have read). I think he has a distinct understanding of the results of war policy. I can respect that. Though I am not not well versed in his politics as some, it seems that he is a strong advocate for veterans rights and did buck the Reagan administration (actually resigning from his post of Deputy Head of the VA) when they wanted to cut funding over benefits for Vietnam Vets.

SO for that, I think in his post (should he win confirmation) he will be a good addition. I am all in favor of our nation taking care of those who we ask to give everything. I have no issue when it comes to spending my tax dollars on support of veterans and veteran care. Given how crucial that is now, with our soldiers dealing with not one but TWO crappy situations (because Iraq is still really not yet over), I think it important that we have someone in the Sec. Def. post that understands veterans issues in personal terms.

I also support his position on extending rights of habeas corpus to AMERICAN prisoners at Guantanamo (though he voted AGAINST that for all prisoners). And his stand on ending the camp and it's practices there. I also support his stances on NOT capping America's foreign aid budget and support for funding regarding AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

Also, though I think his positions are over-hyped by his supporters (and over-stated by the lunatic fringe), I generally agree that engagement is preferable to "gunboat diplomacy" and ever increasing hyperbolic rantings as people on the right try to resurrect that wonderful time known as The Crusades (/snark). Just because you talk to someone doesn't mean you agree with them or will do what they want. That said, there also comes a time when you can talk as much as you want, but, it is not going to change anything. I think given Hagel's background and voting record on these things, he seems to understand that.

But through all that.. remember that Hagel voted FOR the Patriot Act and its re-authorization. Remember, he also voted to support FISA and EXPAND on Federal Wiretapping. So....

HOWEVER, as I said before in general I oppose Hagel's nomination and think the President is making a mistake here. I can see WHY he is doing it, but, as I also mentioned before, I think there are others that are just as if not better qualified for the position and who are Democrats.

I also oppose the Hagel nomination on a number of other points. One is that, though he did apologize for his vindictive remarks towards Ambassador Hormel (offering only a tepid apology which did not seem particularly heartfelt), he does seem to have an issue with the rights of the LGBT community. From the New Yorker:

When Hagel served in the United States Senate, as a Republican from Nebraska, he consistently voted against gay rights—his record earned him a zero-per-cent rating (three times) from the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay-rights lobby. Among other things, Hagel voted against extending basic employment nondiscrimination protections and the federal hate-crimes law to cover gay Americans.

As a Jewish American - I also have issues with this nomination. Hagels commentary on the "Jewish Lobby" is frankly DISGUSTING. I don't know where he really stands on Israel as I don't trust the screeching racist dingbats on the Right on anything they say and I understand that he said in 2008 that he felt Israel's character as a "Jewish Nation" was not negotiable. But, that is honestly not that much of an issue to me as the Sec. Def. really doesn't have shit to do with our policy towards Israel and as Peter Beinart commented on "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" today, (Paraphrasing) "Hagel is certainly NOT the most Anti-Israel Sec. Def. we have ever had... George Marshall and Casper Weinberger were far harder line there".

Finally, I have to say I have issues with this: Hagel has a rating of 84 (reaching into the high 90's during the Bush Admin.) with the American Conservative Union and he received constant high grades from the American Taxpayers Union - I mean... COME ON! That is NOT what I voted for when I voted for President Obama. Someone who is that high on these lists is certainly no one that I could support.
I have to say, that this nomination SHOULD be opposed by liberals and progressives. Why in the world President Obama would nominate ANYONE who has been a staunch conservative is beyond me. I didn't vote for the man to put Republicans/Conservatives anywhere near the White House and inviting them into his cabinet just doesn't sit right here. There are others that would do a great job and who could and should have been considered. And though I do in the end feel that this won't amount to anything, I think the President is making a mistake here and I do think it is important to let him know that it is not necessary or acceptable for him to promote conservatives.