The United States has ruled out unilateral military action against Syria and is conferring with allies on potential punitive strikes that could last for more than a day, a senior US official said Wednesday.
“Any military action would not be unilateral. It would include international partners,” the senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.
That was yesterday. Now it’s clear that the U.S. will not have British support, the administration seems to have reversed its position on unilateral action. If the President of the United States issues a royal decree, the soldiers under his command will follow their orders — they answer to their commander, America’s king, not its people.
CNN reports: The United States may have to take action against Syria without the support of one of its staunchest allies, U.S. officials said Thursday after British lawmakers voted down a proposal for military action.
Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement issued Thursday evening.
“He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable,” Hayden said.
And a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said unilateral action was “a possibility” after the late-night vote in London.
“We care what they think. We value the process. But we’re going to make the decision we need to make,” the official said.
“He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable:
Time passes and events with their consequences fade. Like smoldering embers similar instances reappear and the whining and finger pointing burst into as the flames of incrimination heat up.
When it comes to accountability when those sacred norms are violated by Pax Americana little or no action of consequence was ever accomplished:
November 9th, 2004 was Fallujah’s 9/11 Tuesday. It marked the peak of three days of indiscriminate bombing of Fallujah by US forces. The weapons used-white phosphorus, ‘depleted uranium’, enriched uranium and tons of weaponized ceramic uranium oxide dust and aerosol all of which were illegal and immoral. Their deployment was indiscriminate. The tactics were indiscriminate.
10 years after the Iraq war innocent new lives are still dying and suffering.
cf:Report of a Fact Finding Mission on congenital birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq in 2013. Human rights Now ,April 2013
The US military commanders and their political superiors, who ordered the atrocities were never held accountable.
Team O seems yet again mesmerized by the role of The American President — which O embraced, it seems, on Nov. 5, 2008 and has played increasingly poorly since.
No one is even bothering to claim that the contemplated ‘military action’ will be effective militarily. One thinks back fondly on the eminently sensible Powell Doctrine (actually, one reads in Wikipedia, due to — WTF? — Caspar Weinberger). It’s worth recalling in its entirety:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
@hquain: That list is *way* too long to read. For all I know, it could have a hundred questions!
Let’s just drop some bombs, strut around chest-thumping, and then call it a day.
It’s in US, and world interest, to discourage states in using chemical weapons. For that reason we should smash up some of Bashir Assad’s command and control centers. We can do the job without losing pilots or needing boots on the ground. Let’s rough him up a bit. There are others with chemicals, such as N. Korea, who are watching to see what are the limits.