United States Abdicates Responsibility to Act on Syrian Chemical Weapons

Despite the intense coverage given to United States President Barack Obama making a speech where he insisted that the United States considered Syrian President Bashir Assad’s military stores of chemical weapons to be a serious threat and was being treated as a paramount subject being taken seriously by the United States, follow up after the speech has left doubts. The President stressed that the United States military was monitoring the Syrian WMDs and would act should Bashir Assad use these illegal weapons in his desperation in the Syrian civil war and that such use would be crossing a red line which President Obama stated its crossing would force a strong response from the United States. The President’s comments were made subsequent to and in addition to United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who was quoted responding to the eventuality of Assad’s government being toppled leaving the chemical weapons stores unsecured, “I think the greater concern right now is what steps does the international community take to make sure that when Assad comes down, that there is a process and procedure to make sure we get our hands on securing those sites. That, I think, is the greater challenge right now.” When pressed to clarify if Secretary Panetta responded, “We’re not talking about ground troops. You always have to keep the possibility that, if there is a peaceful transition and international organizations get involved, that they might ask for assistance in that situation. But in a hostile situation, we’re not planning for that.” Panetta insistence that any future U.S. military role in Syria would only come about if a new government asked for assistance hinted at the disconnect between the stated stress over the serious threat posed by the existing chemical weapons and the lack of commitment by the President Obama and his Administration to taking any responsibility for securing these dangerous WMDs except by voluntary invitation, a highly unlikely scenario.

Further comments from President Obama and Secretary Panetta have noted the extreme difficulty in being able to detect whether chemical weapons have been employed and that in order to assure such use would require intense monitoring which is beyond the level that the President is comfortable with allocating. The main concept coming from President Obama appears to be more aligned with finding reasons why the United States cannot be found culpable in any failure to prevent Syrian Dictator Assad from using his stores of chemical weapons. In a further step in that direction, the United States has quietly behind the scenes tasked Turkey and Jordan with the responsibility of determining whether or not Bashir Assad uses his chemical weapons and should the need arise tasking them with stepping in to take responsibility for securing the chemical weapons. Considering that the Syrian arsenal of chemical weapons stores is estimated to be between three-hundred and four-hundred metric tons, it would take more resources than Turkey and Jordan have readily available even if combined. Only the United States, Russia, China, and possibly a few more States would easily be able to assemble the necessary equipment, troops, trained personnel in ABC weapons handling, transport assets, secure storage and the other miscellaneous abilities necessitated to secure and relocate the Syrian stores for subsequent disposal. It is simply irresponsible for the United States to sidestep any responsibility for the securing of these extremely dangerous weapons which if mishandled could cause massive casualties and untold misery destroying all life over a wide area should an accident occur. This is the critical point where President Obama’s position of leading from behind and refusing to ever be up front taking responsibility for any situation no matter how serious the potential for disaster which the United States taking the lead could avoid. This is the result of a world that apparently will be without any assist or influence from the United States going forward. This will show us exactly what a world would be if run by the United Nations.

The initial sign that Bashir Assad may have begun to utilize some of his lesser level chemical weapons has already been detected. The initial theory is that the chemical weapon utilized by President Assad loyalists was a chemical weapon called Agent 15, known also by its NATO code BZ. From what research we have been able to determine that Agent 15 is at the lesser end of the chemical weapons capabilities with the capabilities slightly stronger than CX, a strong form of tear gas. When questions were asked as to the potency of Agent 15, doctors who had treated the affected people attributed five deaths to the use of Agent 15 which makes it far more lethal than tear gas which is a nonfatal class of chemical dispersant utilized for crowd control. Still, despite the reported deaths, the United States has made no comment and despite a leaked communique from the United States Consul General in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner, to State Department in Washington which outlined the results of the consulate investigation into reports from inside Syria indicating chemical weapons had been used in Homs on Dec. 23, 2012. After such a refusal to act or even demand Assad cease use of chemical weapons will be seen by Assad and his military commanders as tacit approval to go forward and use even stronger chemical weapons escalating until he gets a reaction. Should this trend be tested and continue with United States President Obama’s tendency to vacillate and equivocate taking painfully long to reach even the most obvious of decisions, the world had best take the lead and not depend on the United States to act or expect Assad to fully implement the use of his chemical weapons stores as soon as he feels that it is use them or lose everything. The results from Assad taking such desperate measures will rest on all who could have acted without facing impossible retributions and have prevented the thousands of deaths which will result. The worst case scenario would be if the sole country which chose to act to prevent Assad from committing a near genocide against the Syrian people was Israel as should it fall to Israel to stop Assad would very probably initiate an immeasurable conflagration as numerous Arab and Muslim countries would react with the intent of punishing Israel for her aggression against another Arab Muslim ruler. Does anyone think it would be otherwise?

Beyond the Cusp

The Palestinians Newest Game

The reasoning behind the Palestinians gaining the status of nonmember observer state through petitioning the General Assembly of the United Nations is just beginning to play out. They are planning on presenting two faces, one to the World at large through their Consulates and offices in the numerous countries who already exist and whatever others they are able to get permission to place new ones and the other in their dealings which involve Israel and UNRWA. To the world they are preparing stationary, letterheads, stamps, seals and all the trappings of an actual country named Palestine. With Israel, UNRWA and when petitioning for funding from any source willing to be fleeced they will utilize the Palestinian Authority dropping the statehood front in order to access their lifeblood, funding. These two conflicting and mutually exclusive identities each are the driving impetuous behind their separate personae and are necessary each for their own purposes. Let us look at each in turn.

The front they are presenting for Israel, UNRWA and their monetary benefactors throughout the world is simply the same pathetic pleadings and representing the entirety of Palestinians as downtrodden refugees without any means of support whose future is dependent on the generosity of others. They will continue their claims to having had their homeland stolen and all the other propaganda which has served them and played the entire world for fools for over half a century. This side will not change as without the funds they repeatedly and consistently fleeced Europe, the United States, and any other country, agency, or other monetary target they could. Mahmoud Abbas had initially thought and even made a preliminary announcement to declare the areas under Palestinian control to be Palestine and issue passports, visas, identity cards and drivers licenses, and other such issuances any other State or Country issues. Within twenty-four hours the initial statement was withdrawn and has subsequently been left to die being ignored by the world as the mistake the Palestinian leadership quickly had realized it had been. They realized that should they actually declare Palestine as a country they would necessarily need to establish actual borders and their game of defraud the world to finance their kleptocracy would come to a crushing end. They waited almost a week before making the next announcement that they were going to begin using all the papers and other signets and symbols of statehood in their dealings with the world through their foreign offices and consulates while retaining their refugee victim façade at home.

The front of actual statehood will now be acted out on the world stage through their official dealings out of their consulates, “embassies”, offices and other official capacities. They have prepared all the trappings necessary to facilitate their charade. They will likely use this front in an attempt to arrange to upgrade their offices and consulates into fully recognized embassies wherever they find a cooperative country. They will likely then proceed with their plans to drag Israel before every international court, agency, board and institution on as wide and tangled a variety of charges in order to try and get Israel condemned and, if their wildest dreams be realized, sanctioned until Israel will be left friendless and standing isolated from the rest of the world, a complete outcast and friendless. Their charade at the United Nations General Assembly where they pleaded their case for nonmember observer state for the most innocent and purest of intentions was solely committed with the most sinister of intentions. The poor, weak, victimized Palestinians now have their statehood with the love and blessings of the vast majority of the so-called civilized nations of the United Nations General Assembly and they are going to utilize this as their bludgeon with full malice in their mugging of Israel with every intent of driving the Jewish State from the face of the Earth.

The Palestinians have determinedly sought and tracked down through every and any track the title of statehood always with the intent of the destruction of the Jewish State, Israel. There is one hitch which the Palestinians unfortunately figured out before they acted rashly and became hoist on their own petard. The Palestinian leadership will now have to commit to a delicate balance between statehood and refugee status. Their full frontal attack using every possible mechanism the civilized world has to offer in transplanting a Palestine State on the corpse of Israel will have to be kept independent and separate from the Palestinian Authority which is completely dependent upon the generosity of the countries and agencies who fund them to the wildest demands and dreams of the confidence people leading the Palestinian’s dual persona. This dual identity must not be allowed to act in two separate, diametrically opposed and incompatible identities. The Palestinian leadership must be forced to choose which identity they are going to use going forward. They cannot be allowed to act as a state when that suits them and act like an international charity receptacle when that suits them. If the Palestinian people and their leaders decide that they are to be treated as an actual state, then UNRWA can be disbanded and the Palestinian Authority be discarded as a defunct entity and the refugees from the camps can be returned to their country which would presumably exist. If, on the other hand the Palestinian people and leadership wish to continue the refugee status and to collect funds from every possible source and be the beneficiaries of the generosity of UNRWA’s care, then they cannot assume to be a state when representing themselves to the world. Mahmoud Abbas and the rest of the leadership of the Palestinian people must be made to choose which identity will define how the world interacts with them. To allow the Palestinians to utilize a dual identity implementing which ever definition, state or world charity case, they find to be most advantageous in each moment and situation would make a mockery of the benevolent actions taken in the United Nations General Assembly by nations expressing a wish, a wish totally lacking in logic or sanity. To allow this provocation of the sensibilities and stretching of credulity to continue would be to encourage and facilitate the greatest fraud and confidence scheme in all of recorded history and possibly beyond.

Beyond the Cusp

United Nations to Question President Obama’s Conduct of Drone Strikes

Do you have any idea who Ben Emmerson of Great Britain, and Christof Heyns of South Africa happen to be and what they have to do with President Obama, the United States Military, American foreign policies, and forcing the termination of one more tactic used in the “War on Terror”? You will. Ben Emmerson is the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights and Christof Heyns is the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Together, these two will head an investigation under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council into the use by the United States of drones against targets of particular interest as determined by the powers that be in the White House and President Obama’s Administration and the admissibility of the civilian deaths caused by such attacks. What makes this even more troubling is that the White House has instructed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to announce that the White House has not ruled out cooperating with this investigation. Ambassador Rice was quoted saying, “Well, we have questions about the appropriateness of that approach but we will look at it on its merits, and as we do with all the work of the rapporteurs, we’ll judge their work on the substance of their products.” My bet is that this will be a crushing disappointment for President Obama when the United Nations criticizes his actions and demands that he cease using drones to target anyone, even terrorists, because there is the chance and have been in the past deaths of innocent people. We all know from past decisions made by the United Nations Human Rights Council and General Assembly against Israel that terrorists and those who hide them as well as those among whom they live are protected by the many agencies and bodies of the United Nations while the citizens of the nations who are targeted and the people murdered by these same terrorists are legitimate targets not due any protections by the United Nations and its many agencies.

The big question that this situation raises is what is wrong with President Obama that he is willingly placing the United States and the use of military assets to protect innocent people from terrorist attacks through the elimination of their leaders and those who make up the ranks of the known terrorist groups? Is President Obama that ignorant of the ways of the United Nations that he actually expects that they will find his actions of using militarized drones as acceptable? It is highly doubtful that President Obama or any of his advisors have any misgivings about the determination that this special report on civilian deaths caused by the drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries. They are fully aware that the findings will demand that the United States refrain from any further use of drones to assassinate or target terrorists or terror infrastructures if there is any possibility of innocent civilian casualties. Since they have to know the result even well before the investigation has initiated and therefore there must be some ulterior motive for allowing this ruse to go ahead. We all know that the report could be written and turned in by week’s end without even leaving New York and thus save everybody a lot of money, unless the report has already been written and the investigation is simply a Club United Nations trip around the Middle East and North Africa paid in full by, you guessed it, the United States, or at least half of the bill paid by the United States. So, what is their ulterior motive?

I am almost embarrassed to have to pretend that anybody needs to be told what President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, James R. Clapper Jr., General Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and the rest of the usual suspects are hoping to gain from this United Nations fiasco. They are fully expecting to be condemned for their use of drones to kill terrorists and have the United Nations demand that we cease and desist from implementing the tactic of using drones to target terrorists or any other form of strike which holds even the most remote possibility of causing collateral deaths or severe damage. The United States will be accused and found guilty of having a cavalier attitude and lack of concern for innocent citizens and will possibly advise that the United States be ordered to pay compensations to those who have suffered losses due to our illegal use of remote control drones in a careless manner lacking in concern for innocents. In the end, President Obama will be able to make a speech and apologize to all the countries and their citizens who have suffered at the hands of the brutal use of drones by the United States. The decision will further allow President Obama to give millions, or billions, or trillions of dollars to Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and who knows who else as compensation for our arbitrary killing of their innocent citizens. The final thing is that President Obama will also be able to rule out any further use of drones and possibly make the ROE (rules of Engagement) for our military which will place their lives in greater danger and make protecting themselves and those around them even more difficult. President Obama does not need to utilize drone strikes any longer as he has been reelected and will no longer have to face the voters. This too is an area where he has more leeway.

Beyond the Cusp