Op-Ed: Obama to Assad: It's Labor Day Weekend
Mark LangfanThe writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original...
It's really just a cultural thing. We have to respect Syria's cultural diversity.
Syria, likely, doesn't celebrate "Labor" Day as we real Yankees do in Martha's Vineyard. You see, for if Assad and his chemo-genocidal partners-in-chemo-genocidal-war-crimes, Hezbollah and Iran, properly celebrated a "Vineyard" Labor Day, then Obama could have, on Friday August 30, 2013, easily ordered a few Tomahawk missiles to crash into the barracks of the units that the CIA recorded as having murdered hundreds of Sunni women and children with Sarin Gas.
Everybody on the Vineyard starts the Labor Weekend on Thursday. That way, not a single genocidal murderer would have been harmed. They would all be on the beach.
But unfortunately, Syria doesn't observe America's Labor Day, so there might be some chemo-genocidal Iranian soldiers in their Syrian barracks. To be safe, Obama has, seven ways to Sunday, telegraphed the time and places of his possible Labor Day Syrian faux barrage. That way, none of the chemo-genocidal murderers will be harmed. After all, this is "not regime change." This is a "proportional" response to "deter" future mass chemo-genocidal murderers.
Now, let's stop and ask ourselves, what exactly did US Sec State Kerry mean when he said the Sarin attack was a "moral obscenity"? He actually didn't say anything. This Yale graduate knew that "moral obscenity" is an oxymoron. "Moral" and "obscenity" are total opposites, and cancel each other out. It's just a lawyerly way of saying absolutely nothing, and sounding good. Kerry didn't say "Assad's use of Sarin gas use against Sunnis, or any ethic, or religious group is a Geneva war crime," and the United States going to The Hague to prosecute Assad and Khamenei. Kerry said nothing.
But the Tomahawk-for-Sarin attack isn't even a done deal yet. America needs "legal justification" to attack Syria. But if the US needs "legal justification" to attack Assad and the thousands of his Hezbollah and Iranian Syria-based handlers when they have jointly and severally murdered 700 civilians with Sarin gas (let us assume this is proven), then what will be the "legal justification" for attacking Iran over its nuclear program?
Iran's nuclear program is not in legal violation of anything. Read the IAEA's actual motions on Iran. Iran is not in violation of a single IAEA iota. So, if there is "legal justification" needed for reacting to actual Sarin use with hundreds dead, there will be no legal justification for Iran tomorrow, or ever.
Iran has threatened "thousands" of counter-attacking rockets will strike Israel. Has America publicly stated "Israel has nothing to do with Syria/Iran's chemo-genocide of 700 Sunnis"? has the US said "any Syrian/Iranian counter-attack on Israel will be deemed an attack on the continental United States."? No. There's dead silence from Obama.
Has America publicly stated "Israel has nothing to do with Syria/Iran's chemo-genocide of 700 Sunnis"? has the US said "any Syrian/Iranian counter-attack on Israel will be deemed an attack on the continental United States."?
And if the threat of "thousands" of rockets hitting Israel stops a US attack on Syria, how will the US and/ or Israel ever hope to attack Iran in the future? For, if attacking Syria brings "thousands," surely attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will bring "tens of thousands" of rockets to Israel.
Here is where it gets truly ugly. Last September then-Sec Def Panetta stated that the U.S. had lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons. At a Pentagon Press briefing, Sec-Def Panetta stated “There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place. Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.” That means Hezbollah, Syria, and/or Iran could fire chemical weapons at Israel.
That's not the only ugly "legalistic" part. Under the 8 April 2010 Obama "START Treaty" with Russia ratified by the full US Senate, the United States legally obligated itself to the then-existing "nuclear postures" under the preamble of the START treaty which stated:
"Desiring to bring their respective nuclear postures into alignment with this new relationship, and endeavoring to reduce further the role and importance of nuclear weapons," and "Guided by the principle of indivisible security". Page 1.
These START Treaty clauses obligated the US (but not Russia) to abide by the then existing 6 April 2010 US Nuclear Posture "negative assurance" statement that:
"In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response – and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable." Page viii.
And again, on page 16 in the body of the Posture Statement: "In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses CBW against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response—and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable."
That's why Obama had to issue the US Nuclear Posture 2 days before START was to be signed. That way START incorporated by reference the then-existing US Posture promises under the "principle of indivisible security" statement.
This "negative assurance" by the US unilaterally promised Russia (and then was incorporated into an NPT conference) that the US would never, ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries like Syria and/or Iran in response to a chemical or biological attack by Syria and/ or Iran against the US or any ally, or partner.
Obama drafted and promised, and the US Senate ratified, that the US could only use "conventional" weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack. So, Iran could fire a barrage of chemical scuds against Israel, and Obama would sit there twiddling his "conventional" thumbs. Obama wouldn't violate a Nuclear Arms Treaty, not for Israel.
The bottom line is Obama doesn't have Israel's back. Obama has a serrated knife in Israel's back, and might twist it home into its heart.