U.S. Attacks Syrian Government Forces - It Now Has To Make Its Choice
Addendum added below
---
The Syrian army is on the way to liberate the ISIS besieged city of some 100,000 and garrison of Deir Ezzor in the east of the country. The U.S. has trained a few thousand "New Syrian Army" insurgents in Jordan and is reportedly prepared to march these and its own forces from Jordan through the east-Syrian desert all the way up to Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. About a year ago it occupied the al-Tanf (al-Tanaf) border station which consists of only a few buildings in the mid of the desert. The station between Syria and Iraq near the Jordan border triangle was previously held by a small ISIS group.
A U.S. move from the south up towards the Euphrates would cut off the Syrian government from the whole south-east of the country and from its people in Deir Ezzor. While that area is sparsely populated it also has medium size oil and gas fields and is the land connection to the Syrian allies in Iraq.
With the western part of the country relatively quiet, the Syrian government and its allies decided to finally retake the south-eastern provinces from ISIS. They want to lift the ISIS siege on Deir Ezzor and close the border between Syria and Iraq with its own forces. The move will also block any potential U.S. invasion from the south by retaking the road to al-Tanf and the Syrian-Iraqi border (red arrows). The sovereign Syrian state will not give up half of the country to an illegal occupation by ISIS or the U.S. At the same time as the eastern operations are running consolidation and clearing operations against ISIS in the middle and west of the countries will take place (green arrows).
Map by OZ_Analysis (modified by MoA) - bigger
Yesterday a small battalion size force (~2-300 men) of the regular Syrian army, Syrian National Defense Organization volunteers and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU of the Kata'ib al-Imam Ali) marched on the road from the west towards al-Tanf. They were about 23 kilometers away from the border station when they were attack by U.S. aircraft coming in low from Jordan. The U.S. jets directly fired at the convoy, allegedly after earlier giving some "warning shots". At least one Syrian tank and several other vehicles were destroyed. Six Syrian government forces were reported killed and more were wounded.
The U.S. command claimed that this was a "defensive" move to "protect" its soldiers at the al-Tanf station. There are U.S. and British special forces stationed near the station who lead and train the NSA contingent - all together a few 100 men.
The U.S. attack was clearly a willful, illegal attack on Syrian ground against legitimate forces of the sovereign Syrian government. (The Iraqi PMU contingent in Syria is a legitimate allied force under control of the Iraqi prime minister.) There is no clause in international law, no UNSC resolution or anything similar, that could justify such an attack. The U.S. military has no right at all to be at al-Tanf or anywhere else in Syria. There is nothing to "defend" for it. If it dislikes regular Syrian and Iraqi forces moving in their own countries towards their own border station and retaking it from Jihadi "rebels", it can and should move out and go home. Moreover - the U.S. claims it is "fighting ISIS" in Syria. Why then is it attacking the Syrian government forces while these launch a large operation against the very same enemy?
The coalition led by the U.S. military claimed it asked Russia to intervene and that Russia tried to deter the Syrian force to move towards al-Tanf. I am told that this claim is incorrect. Russia supports the Syrian move to the east and the retaking of the border. The move will be reinforced and continue. The revamped Syrian air defense will actively protect it. Russia will support it with its own forces if needed.
The illegitimate occupation forces, the U.S. and British forces and their proxies, will have to move out of al-Tanf or they will have to directly fight the Syrian government forces and all its allies. They have no right to be there at all. The Iraqi PMU in Syria, some of which were hurt in yesterday's U.S. attack, are an active part of the coalition against ISIS in Iraq. If the U.S. fights it in Syria it will also have to fight it in Iraq (and elsewhere). Russia is able and willing to reinforce its own contingent in Syria to help the government to regain the Syrian east.
The U.S. has no legitimate aim in Syria. It is somewhat tolerated in the north-east where it helps Syrian-Kurdish forces to fight ISIS and to liberate Raqqa. That does not give it ANY right to occupy Syria's east or to attack Syrian government forces. When Raqqa is done all U.S. forces in the north-east will have to again move out.
Together with its many subordinate NATO and Gulf allies the U.S. has the military and economic power to destroy the Syrian military. It can eliminate the Syrian government under President Assad and occupy the whole country. That would be a large war which would probably escalate into a global fight against Russia, Iran and other countries. It would necessitate a several decades long follow-up occupation for "nation building" while constantly fighting against a large al-Qaeda aligned Takfiri insurgency in Syria and all its neighboring countries (especially in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey where U.S. friendly governments would fall). The war would cost several trillion U.S. dollars, a large number of casualties and cause decades long chaos in a geo-politically sensitive region.
The U.S. has a simple choice: Either go in with full force and bear the above consequences, or concede to the sovereign Syrian government and its allies and coordinate with them to retake the country from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This will have to be done as they, not the U.S., see it proper to do. To believe that the U.S. can take the east and convert into some peaceful vassal statelet is pure fantasy. Way too many regional forces and interests are strung against that. There is little grey between these black and white alternatives.
The only tactically thinking U.S. military and intelligence services will try to avoid to choose between these. They will use their Jihadist proxy forces in west-Syria to break their current ceasefire with the Syrian government side and launch a diversion for their moves into the Syrian east. The Syrian government would then probably have to delay its larger operations in the east.
But that would not change the strategic situation. The choice the U.S. people and their government have to make will still be the same. The point in time to finally accept it may move out a few month while the fighting escalates and causes more damage on all sides. The choice would still be the same. It is all-in or out. The best time to take it is now.
Addendum (6:00am):
There are some maps flowing around which assert that Iran is seeking a military land communication route via Iraq into Syria and beyond. They show some fantasy route up north through Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish territory as the "current route" and the roads between Damascus and Baghdad as "future route". The claim is that military equipment moves along these roads.
It is nonsense. Iran did not and does not need such land routes for military exchanges with its allies in Syria and Lebanon. Where was that Iranian land route in 2006 when the U.S. occupied Iraq while Israel attacked Lebanon? Where was that land route when ISIS occupied half of Iraq and Syria? There was no such route and Iranian support still reached Hizbullah in 2006 and later Syria. It came by air, by ship and, most important, by other means.
By holding up such fantasy maps certain interests want to insinuate that the area is "strategically important" for the U.S. and that the U.S. must therefore occupy south-east Syria. It is true that the road network between Syria and Iraq has some economical importance. Like all roads these are used for local commerce. But history demonstrates that they are not militarily strategic asset in the sense of an essential, overarching need.
Posted by b on May 19, 2017 at 8:02 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageRegarding Trump, Comey and so-called 'Obstruction of Justice' - I haven't seen this discussed so I'll posit it here.
If there was no 'there there' with any collusion between the Trump campaign & Russia then Justice in this case would demand that Trump is fully cleared of all suspicion.
That being the case, wouldn't Comey be engaging in 'Obstruction of Justice' himself, against Trump, by dragging his feet and needlessly prolonging this investigation into nothing??
Wouldn't that 'Obstruction of Justice' by Comey be more than enough justification for Trump to fire Comey using exactly the justification he indeed did use?
reply to Curtis 83:
""CNN's article included this:
"... its Arab proxies under assault from pro-Syrian militias... Iranian proxies in Syria.""
"Arab proxies? Not Syrian? Not "opposition" fighters?"
You found it; the moment in time when the US announced they have changed the rules of the game. The new labeling, the huge arms sale to SA, Trump's trip to SA,Israel and the Gulf Monarchies (GM), it all fits. I believe they are creating a Middle Eastern NATO using SA money to buy the arms, Israel to provide the tech, the GM to provide additional cash and more troops from the usual sources.
IMO a war, a really big war is about to be fought by "ME NATO" troops against Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Russia simultaneously and they will attack Iran directly. The war will be given media cover by use of the new "proxies" labels.
This will end very, very badly.
Posted by: frances | May 20 2017 3:24 utc | 103
@101 says
OK, I don't intend to engage further with someone who isYou have
You are
My, my, aren't you
Clearly, this person is talking with himself
(says he doesn't want to do something, then immediately he starts to do that something and ratlles off)
embarressing
Posted by: From The Hague | May 20 2017 3:26 utc | 104
I meant to write "...a thought which I find disturbing on several levels..."
And I probably shouldn't jump in here, but what the hell...
The UN 'international laws' (authorizations/prohibitions) exist in their own little rarefied world at the UN. Are they technically laws or just treaties/agreements? Jeeze... that's about a three-pitcher-of-beer discussion. If you take the blue UN pill, then they can legislate - kind of. If you take the red sovereignty pill, then they can't - kind of.
Both of you seem(?) to agree that 2249 is not what normally passes as a full UN authorization of force against another country. It wasn't meant to be. It was a half-authorization whose SOLE purpose was to prevent potential UN charges against and prosecution of UN members violating Syria's sovereignty, even though that's PRECISELY what is happening. 2249 says the UN rules don't apply to the coalition in Syria's case because 'We want to ignore them this time'. It's permission (in that UN fantasy world) to ignore Chapter VII and all the normal protocol for authorizing (in that UN fantasy world) force.
The U.S. didn't give a damn about UN 'permission', but France and the UK were reluctant to join the invasion scheme. If the UN kind of said the (UN) laws don't apply here, then France and the UK would have an easier time justifying to their people that they should join the Coalition of Terror. As a practical matter, the UN would never charge the U.S. (or any coalition members) with violating 'international laws' anyway. Ever. Even so, 2249's ambiguity was basically a weasel-worded promise that they wouldn't charge anybody who invaded Syria because they kind of encouraged them to do so.
It was the final nail in the coffin for any shred of supposed legitimacy the UN ever had (in that UN fantasy kind of way).
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 20 2017 4:11 utc | 105
#105
Yeah, Right you are PavewayIV.
You nailed it.
As I wrote (#68) interpreting is the essence of "law".
Posted by: From The Hague | May 20 2017 4:34 utc | 106
So, here's an abc affiliate quoting a CNN story, bringing yet more CIA propaganda to US citizens via the local news. One station in my home town now shortens the weather report so we can get a *terrorist update*.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, told reporters at the Pentagon that negotiations with Moscow were underway and were aimed at allowing US and Russian forces to operate in proximity to one another.
"We had a proposal that we're working on with the Russians right now," Dunford said. "I won't share the details, but my sense is that the Russians are as enthusiastic as we are to de-conflict operations and ensure that we can continue to take the campaign to ISIS and ensure the safety of our personnel,"Dunford said that the talks are focused in part on Deir ez-Zor, a Syrian city along the Euphrates River where ISIS fighters and Russian-backed regime forces are located. US officials have increasingly seen ISIS leadership leave Raqqa for Deir ez-Zor as the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces begin closing in on Raqqa.
So that's Dunford's big offer, keep Assad and the Iranians out, and Russia finally gets a starring role in the Pentagon's new anti Isis buddy/cop flick as the gruff but street wise sidekick. The article doesn't mention the less than pleasant threats that pw mentioned, like unleashing Turkey on Raqqa or Israel on the Golan.
Posted by: wwinsti | May 20 2017 4:43 utc | 107
Not really sure how the above link could get replaced like that. Let me try a different method.
Posted by: wwinsti | May 20 2017 4:50 utc | 108
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/886448884?-34562:23103:0
This loads slowly but seems to work.
Posted by: wwinsti | May 20 2017 4:56 utc | 109
@101 yr
makes sense to me. thanks. some folks labor under idée fix. no hope.
Posted by: jfl | May 20 2017 5:05 utc | 110
Well, there's "Theory"--or, how it ought to be--then there's "Pragmatic"--how it really is. It all depends on whether you're a Rule of Law man, or a Rule of the Gun man. The former is deemed "law abiding;" the latter, "an outlaw."
Does anyone remember why those distinctions were adopted, and do they matter? Which did the Indoctrination and Propaganda Systems inculcate? Why does the Red Pill seem attractive and the Blue Pill hideous?
Oh, and I don't mean these to merely be rhetorical questions.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 20 2017 5:33 utc | 111
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 19, 2017 8:55:40 PM | 95
The problem with Psyops is that they create a feedback loop to decision makers where people who oversee the process can no longer distinguish propaganda from fact.
Posted by: somebody | May 20 2017 6:00 utc | 112
@105 "And I probably shouldn't jump in here, but what the hell..."
Heck, go fer' it, PIV.
"The UN 'international laws' (authorizations/prohibitions)"....
Ugh, not a good start. It is the UN Charter that contains the authorizations and prohibitions, precisely because that Charter *is* an international treaty in a way that UNSC resolutions *aren't*.
..." exist in their own little rarefied world at the UN."
I'll point out in passing that you contradict yourself later when you stress the "real-world" importance of UNSCR 2249.
Hold. That. Thought.
..."Are they technically laws or just treaties/agreements?".
Okaaaaay. Hands up everyone else who thinks that a "treaty" isn't an "international law", but is "just" something else?
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
"Both of you seem(?) to agree that 2249 is not what normally passes as a full UN authorization of force against another country."
For my part I say "yes, I agree".
"It wasn't meant to be."
Again, I agree.
"It was a half-authorization whose SOLE purpose was to prevent potential UN charges against and prosecution of UN members violating Syria's sovereignty, even though that's PRECISELY what is happening."
I am curious as to how you see "UN charges and prosecutions" being laid against the USA, UK, France (or, China or Russia) had UNSCR 2249 not been adopted.
All are veto-wielding permanent member states, which makes them immune from any "UN prosecution". That is a feature of the system, and always has been. UNSCR 2249 can not and has not changed that simple fact.
"2249 says the UN rules don't apply to the coalition in Syria's case because 'We want to ignore them this time'. "
I'm going to hazard that you haven't actually read UNSCR 2249, because if you had you could not possibly have failed to see this:
..."in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,"...
Apparently this UNSC Resolutions says that those rules CAN'T be ignored, even as you insist otherwise.
"It's permission (in that UN fantasy world) to ignore Chapter VII and all the normal protocol for authorizing (in that UN fantasy world) force. "
Well, I'm certainly seeing some fantasy stuff being spun, but not from the UN Security Council.
"The U.S. didn't give a damn about UN 'permission', but France and the UK were reluctant to join the invasion scheme. If the UN kind of said the (UN) laws don't apply here, then France and the UK would have an easier time justifying to their people that they should join the Coalition of Terror."
Finally, a nugget of truth! Well Done!
UNSCR 2249 exists to ease the DOMESTIC POLITICAL PROBLEMS faced by Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May.
The UN is a POLITICAL institution, and the Security Council is the UN's POLITICAL permanent sub-committee that carries out international diplomacy on matters related to World Peace.
So I have not the slightest problem agreeing with the notion that UNSCR 2249 is a POLITICAL STATEMENT from the council that is intended to ease the DOMESTIC POLITICAL MACHINATIONS of certain yellow-bellied member states, namely, France and the UK.
That is most of what "diplomacy" is, and what the UNSC indulges in is diplomacy par excellence.
But is such a resolution "international law"? I say "no".
Can such a resolution alter "international law"? Again, my take is "no".
Can such a resolution absolve member states for violations of "international law"? Once more, "no".
But can such a resolution have an impact on the DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION facing certain member countries?
Oh, yeah, sure. That is the entire point of UNSCR 2249, and on that point I quite agree with you.
"Even so, 2249's ambiguity was basically a weasel-worded promise that they wouldn't charge anybody who invaded Syria because they kind of encouraged them to do so."
Back to the very beginning, a very good place to start..... the UN can't "prosecute" anyone who wields a veto. Never has, never will.
And, once more, yet again: the UN Charter does not grant the UN Security Council the authority to rewrite international law.
If it had given the Council that authority then I can confidently say that the total membership of the "United Nations" would have comprised exactly these five states - USA, UK, France, Russia, China - and to this very day its membership would stand at five.
Nobody else would have joined, not in a million years.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 20 2017 6:28 utc | 113
I once had a very close friend who had done some sort of "special operations" from within the Marine Corps (I would never have guessed such a thing could happen, but whatever). One day we were out and about in the countryside that surrounded our community, and he took out a twenty dollar bill and just burned it, not because he was rich or anything, but only to make a point. The point is that there is no such thing as law". It's just a head game that people play, but it's not real. Sure "they" can enforce it sometimes by using rituals involving made-up constructs like "police" and "courts" and so forth. But it only works to the extent that you can maintain the groupthink delusion that these things are somehow real.
For instance baseball. Why not start by running to third base, then second base, then first? Why not. It's just a "pattern" that has been programmed into people's heads all their lives, nothing more. Just like the "Big Dipper" -- people can't help seeing it because of their programming but it's not really there -- but any other random pattern could be just as "real". Maybe some of the stars in the "dipper" could be part of the "Great Possum". Why not?
Posted by: blues | May 20 2017 7:11 utc | 114
Well, maybe I'm the one confused here...
"...And, once more, yet again: the UN Charter does not grant the UN Security Council the authority to rewrite international law..."
Are you saying the U.S. is NOT violating any international law right now by invading/attacking Syria? Or that the U.S. is, but that 2249 has absolutely no effect on that either way?
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 20 2017 7:22 utc | 115
===>> PavewayIV | May 20, 2017 3:22:09 AM | 115
This has been held the be the fundamental international law -- you can't attack another country unless they attacked you first.
But the US is "exceptional", so that makes it OK. Of course, this could start WWIII, but "our leaders" are psychopaths, so it's OK.
I had this crazy idea that I should go on places like Zero Hedge and advocate "preemptive war with Russia". That would force a lot of people to really consider the ramifications. But that's going too far I guess, even for me.
Posted by: blues | May 20 2017 7:33 utc | 116
Illegality legality is irrelevant in a world where about a kazillion amerikan illegalities go un-noticed/continue uninterrupted/perps remain unprosecuted.
The most the dipsomaniac diplomats of UNWorld® can hope for out of these amerikan 'indiscretions' is a little reciprocity.
That is, what should really be our (our = normal human beings who don't get off economically or emotionally on the wanton murder rape & disfigurement of fellow human beings for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time) focus of attention, if Russia and maybe even the current Syrian adminsitration don't make much of this atrocity why not? What undiscussed (by us humans likely to care about syrians) shonky are Lavrov and his mob extracting in return?
Sad to say Russia has a history of siding or at least turning a blind eye towards amerika when a ruction in Persia is going down.
It was the stupidity of the Russian leaders of the Soviet Union which created the first Islamist state, Iran.
amerika insisted the USSR give no comfort or support to the leftist revolutionaries whose numbers were much greater than the Islamists and who were the crew that actually unseated the Shah, because both amerika & the USSR believed an islamist government would turn out to be a 'flash in the pan'; that order would soon be restored and that USSR should honour the Stalin/Roosevelt deal whereby amerika got Iran as payment for the boatloads of war material sent to the USSR to bolster the eastern front of WW2.
We have never acknowledged that tens of thousands of socialists were butchered by Kohemani's gangs while the USSR sat on its hands.
Why? Because Russia would sell 57 Syrias down the river in order to retain her last few central asian colonies. Without the energy sales it gets from the few left, the Russian economy would be dog tucker, and unfortunately for Iran, there is a strong perception in Russia that it is Iran's brand of clerical administration that is seen as the one most likely to appeal to their subjugated inmates of empire.
There are obvious reasons why any deal between Russia and amerika will have to be a slow dance. Firstly amerika cannot be trusted to keep its word.
Secondly the trumpet's position appears more tenuous as each day passes and Pence would run away from any deal that casts him as possibly 'being in the thrall of Russia'.
That means if Lavrov and amerika have decided to do a deal on Iran there will be much toing & froing between the parties as the sides attempt to establish trust.
If Russia pulls some stunt that would normally get an amerikan prez foaming from all orifices yet no such thing occurs, that will be an indication that 'multipolar' has again taken a backseat to good old unipolar monopoly.
There will never be a whitehouse presser to celebrate the rapprochment but that will not make it any less real.
Posted by: Debsisdead | May 20 2017 7:36 utc | 117
@114 blues
the 'rule of law' is an allusion to the acceptance of a code of laws by those ruled by law. yeah, anyone can declare that they no longer abide by the rule of law ... general prayuth chan-ocha, barack obama, whomever ... and that may open up a hole in the rule, as it has, in both those cases. it remains to be seen whether that rift is closed in either case.
laws are conventions. they aren't 'really' there. they are superimposed by the community as the common, conventional rule under which they live.
dictators rule by decree, there is no community support for their laws, they truly are arbitrary, and their laws often expire along with them.
i imagine marines ... anyone who's murdered in wartime ... are acutely aware of the alternative to the rule of law, and acutely aware of the 'reality' of that alternative. i imagine that they realized that, yeah, law is just a convention that once broken ... has very 'real' consequences.
@115 pw, 'Are you saying the U.S. is NOT violating any international law right now by invading/attacking Syria? Or that the U.S. is, but that 2249 has absolutely no effect on that either way?'
the second alternative ... if i understand his argument. i agree. the un is a social club. it's agreements are "gentlemen's agreements" ... to be honored as long as convenient. or used as an excuse for a 'duel'.
the un should be more than that. it has steadily been in decline, rapid decline since the beginning of the new american century ... which all of europe swung to join, after they got over their initial 'horror' ... and is now hailed as a bogus source of legitimacy ... the rule of the mighty ... an alternative to the rule of law.
Posted by: jfl | May 20 2017 7:55 utc | 118
Russia Syrian Government needs to press for a decisive victory over terrorist and all that support terrorism. Their allies must either support them fully or leave them to use the means necessary to deliver this. Unfortunately once Syria is taken over by terrorist....THEY WILL BE NEXT.
Posted by: Obj | May 20 2017 8:19 utc | 119
==>> jfl | May 20, 2017 3:55:22 AM | 118
I agree that laws are often useful. I was just highlighting the fact that they are mental constructs often leads to very strange philosophical arguments. That's why they have lawyers, I guess. (To explain the inexplicable to the believers.) Ha ha ha.
Posted by: blues | May 20 2017 8:37 utc | 120
Totally agree about the fixation re landline iran lebanon. Just nonesense.
What it is imo: keeping north iraq and east syria under "shia" control is strategically vital for iran to remain its current and growing influence to what it should naturally be.
A healthy balance of power in the me would be the solution for all the problems. Just accept the shia power.
Resisting it destroys the whole region.
Posted by: Slekkus | May 20 2017 9:51 utc | 121
/Resisting it destroys the whole region/.
Will not save you, even the most powerful powers of the universe, because your end will inevitably come from the north-east gate.
Posted by: ALAN | May 20 2017 10:00 utc | 122
another one of those one-off attacks, eh?
yes, grasshoppers, a single roiling whitecap on a vast expanse of wind-swept ocean.
Posted by: john | May 20 2017 11:34 utc | 123
@115 "Are you saying the U.S. is NOT violating any international law right now by invading/attacking Syria?"....
No, I am not.
..."Or that the U.S. is, but that 2249 has absolutely no effect on that either way?"
Yes, I am.
The UN Security Council is not a legislature, and so it does not possess the authority to alter international law merely by passing a resolution.
So if the USAF attacks on Syrian forces were a violation of international law prior to the passage of UNSCR 2249 (and they were) then they were just as much a violation of international law after the passage of that resolution.
Or, put another way: the passage of that resolution has important POLITICAL ramifications, but do not alter the LEGAL situation one tiny bit.
Or, put yet another way: UNSCR 2249 can be used to argue the "legitimacy" of USAF strikes on forces loyal to Bashir Assad, but can not be used to argue the "legality" of those strikes.
They remain as they always were - illegal - no matter how much the apologists insist that we should all look the other way and pretend otherwise because, well, because.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 20 2017 12:09 utc | 124
Ghostship
"Why? Does ISIS have an air force beyond a few quadricopter drones? The Syrians are better off without air defenses"
Here are the options for the Syrian military:
A) send air defenses and air support to capture Al Tanf
OR
B) watch the "coalition" air forces bomb and kill your troops.
B is pretty much going to happen unless the Russian Air Force is present but it might not happen if the Syrian gov's air defenses are credible and demonstrated. I'll add that you over estimate the neocons. They are disgusting cowards who will only back down after a show of force.
Posted by: Alaric | May 20 2017 13:56 utc | 125
Yeah, Right@124 - Yes. Thanks for explaining.
"...Okaaaaay. Hands up everyone else who thinks that a "treaty" isn't an "international law", but is "just" something else? Anyone? Anyone at all?..."
Yeah, that would be me, but I'm 'little people'. If I see an otherwise naked emperor wearing nothing but socks and gloves, I'm likely to unthinkingly blurt out something about him being naked. I would not be surprised to find somebody behind me (usually CNN or a suburban mother) screaming,
"But he's not NAKED - he's wearing clothes. You're wrong and you know it so you're intentionally LYING. Why should anyone listen to a LIER like YOU? Who are YOU to decide what 'naked' means?? People DIED for that emperor, you God damn TRAITOR! Go live in another empire if you think you're so smart!
So you can see where I get my very flawed ideas of what words mean.
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 20 2017 15:36 utc | 126
from the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS" department. The Atlantic covered Trump's visit & speech to the Saudis.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/islam-speech-trump/527307/
But the elephants in the room will not be discussed. ISIS? Blame goes to civil wars and US nation building schemes. Israel? Nope. US work to topple regimes and destroy countries and covert work with groups to accomplish this? Nope. Saudi-Qatari work with their clerics to fund and support jihadi proxies? Nope. No US President can use a message to get clerics to pull back. Everyone knows it. The visit is a PR sham (pun intended). Maybe plan for next domino to fall, Iran? I dunno. But there will not be any push to cement a peace between Sunni and Shia or to promote stability while fending off outside influences.
Posted by: Curtis | May 20 2017 15:51 utc | 127
Re: Posted by: blues | May 20, 2017 3:11:16 AM | 114
Sure, why doesn't everyone just do whatever they want whenever they want to!
Great idea blues, but admit would that means. It means you can forget about living in any sort of civilisation. We'd still be swinging from branch to branch with that attitude.
The reason people adhere to laws that seemingly might not provide any immediate benefit to oneself is because it pays to get along with those around you rather than try and disrupt and destroy the rules by which the great bulk of society decides to live by.
Be a maverick if you want, but don't expect that to be appreciated by most people.
UNSC 2249 attempts to deal with the failure of a state (Syria) to maintain order within its own borders. But of course this is a sham. ISIS exists because certain states want it to exist. International law has been circumvented via the use of proxy forces.
For a good analysis of UNSC see: The Constructive Ambiguity of the Security Council's ISIS Resolution
My understanding is this: the use of force IS authorized but it is limited/constrained.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 20 2017 16:05 utc | 129
thanks for going over that.. it is complicated........
Posted by: james | May 20 2017 16:32 utc | 130
==>> Julian | May 20, 2017 11:52:35 AM | 128
You say:
/~~~~~~~~~~
The reason people adhere to laws that seemingly might not provide any immediate benefit to oneself is because it pays to get along with those around you rather than try and disrupt and destroy the rules by which the great bulk of society decides to live by.
Be a maverick if you want, but don't expect that to be appreciated by most people.
\~~~~~~~~~~
All my life I've had to cope with this consequence of my awful habit of knocking over sacred cows. No matter where one does this, there are likely to be some folks who become "shocked and dismayed". One time on one of the "super-radical" Indymedia sites I proclaimed that "free will" was nothing more than a non-measurable religious belief that resembles the proclamation of some cult (which it kinda does). And then everybody on the blog exploded and some of them became quite indignant -- a result I was not expecting or prepared for. Oddly, when I presented the same proposition on a conservative blog, the people there also became "shocked and dismayed", and I was again surprised.
I did say (later) that "laws" could be useful, even though they are not actually real. But they are two-edged swords that can cause both benefit or harm. So people should know that they can be very useful, but they also should know that they are just mental constructs. Otherwise we could end up somewhere other than Kansas. For example the Big Dipper constellation is quite useful since two stars on the "dipper end" point to the North Star, which the earth's axis points to, and you can use it to determine true north to within about an order of magnitude of greater accuracy than with a magnetic compass. But still those same stars could be part of a "Great Possum" instead. I say people should know these things so they don't get caught up in strange arguments.
Posted by: blues | May 20 2017 17:32 utc | 131
==>> james | May 20, 2017 12:32:45 PM | 130
It just occurred to me that maybe it's not so complicated. Maybe just about anything at all that the UN Security Council passes regarding the Middle East will automatically be interpreted by the US as a justification for war.
Posted by: blues | May 20 2017 17:38 utc | 132
It is again interesting to study the material presented here and compare and contrast it with general American public perception. The emperor is truly naked except for socks and gloves. The UN lends fake legitimacy to the genocide of brown people. Not a new thing, but terrible and disgusting as it always has been. We're Christians so we're blessed and exceptional. /S The little kids in the MENA, not so blessed.
Posted by: fastfreddy | May 20 2017 17:40 utc | 133
@ blues | 132
Its even less complicated, whenever US wants war, they'll start it (directly or indirectly) - regardless of anything. They began plenty of wars without any resolution whatsoever.
Posted by: Harry | May 20 2017 17:54 utc | 134
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 20 2017 18:05 utc | 135
@132 blues and @134 harry.. well - yeah - that is the obvious conclusion one takes away from all usa actions and of course it has been this way for a very long time.. i guess the un, mandates and etc, are just meant to either justify 'we can do this' or 'obfuscate' with this.. io chose the later, lol.. bottom line - same result - the war party continues to do all of what it does and any rubber stamp propaganda tool will be used for the same purposes that we continue to witness..
Posted by: james | May 20 2017 19:28 utc | 136
elijah j. m. latest from today.. Has Russia asked Hezbollah to leave Syria?
Posted by: james | May 20 2017 19:38 utc | 137
But still those same stars could be part of a "Great Possum" instead. I say people should know these things so they don't get caught up in strange arguments.
Posted by: blues | May 20, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 131
Now we have to argue about the impossumable vs. the unbearable -- that which should not be vs. that which is unfortunately inevitable.
The Saudis sure know how to throw a party, huh? Heard there was even sword dancing. Any conjecture about how Hillary's reception would have gone had she not lost?
I'll buy the next pitcher.
Posted by: stumpy | May 20 2017 20:00 utc | 138
@138 And there's Melania, a few steps behind but with no headscarf!!! The BBC will be all over that.
Posted by: dh | May 20 2017 20:36 utc | 139
talking of donations
what a hoot
trumped and the kush chabad nerd deal with the royal house od saud solomon
or is it salman.
when is a khan,qatari or a saud not a cohen.
donmeh jews fake arab acts.
what of yammmamama the biggest arms deal of the empire of the city of london
trumped by israels man trumped.
all tribute medievel evil times.
100s of billions from salman 100s billions from afghan opium.
money to burn the goy
operation gladio nato joins tel aviv oded yinon.
will putin bend to the rabbi now
like he bended to th wailing wall years ago.
what a hoolyweird show.
i here alex jones says the arabs own hollywood and blackmail washington.
poor innocent jews of those 2 towns who will protect them from the rampaging pantomime villians in beards and dress.
ohh what fun a jewish actor has playing arab for problem reaction solution.
the old buildings the ancient of mecca and medina have been bulldozed and destroyed by british appointed donmeh pirates of jewish persuasion.
satanist want a year zero for a new bbc show simon scharma history of the jewish middle east the billions signed today mean the chabad are going in like flynn for syriana balkan
Posted by: tony romantika | May 20 2017 21:00 utc | 140
reports of Norwegian troops crossing in to Syriana
how sad norway blackmailed
sovreign wealth fund in the hands of tel aviv and the city of london.
how many jeffrey epstein islands do the cia,mi6 mossad run capturing so many on an industrial level.
these video audio and jpeg informational clips must be sick and twisted indeed.
anders brevik he or she or computer sim on an island and blowing up a town 2 places at once
what was that about final capture or just tavistock trauma.
everyone in positions of power captured owned.
norway joins the the rabbi and the temple masonics of temple london bringing jerusalem and a rothschild central bank to the syriana
Posted by: tony romantika | May 20 2017 21:14 utc | 141
@Paveway 95
Thanks for the info - I was generally aware of the situation, but not in such detail.
If I understand you correctly, you presume that SOF will leave if the SAA keeps up the pressure, since they don't want to die for a desert outpost which wouldn't be of any (supply line) use anyway if the Syrians are around?
Giving PsyOps a boner, lol...maybe. In any case I find it fascinating how relative 'reality' is in this war. On the ground is a completely different world from what's presented on the media; alliances are completely different, some campaigns and attacks are far more important, others far less...
Posted by: smuks | May 20 2017 22:50 utc | 142
Rudaw: Jonathan Cohen, a US State Department official, didn't mince words about the nature of the United States' partnership with the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) when he declared that it is: “temporary, transactional and tactical.”
“We have not promised the YPG anything,” Cohen said at a May 17 Middle East Institute panel. “They are in this fight because they want to be in this fight.”
“We have the YPG because they were the only force on the ground ready to act in the short term. That is where it stops,” he stated, quite unequivocally.
======
Cohen is a Princeton educated carrier official in DoS, but in defense of Princeton, he could suffer brain damage while he "spent 1985-1986 at Hebrew University in Jerusalem on an Israeli Government Grant, although that grant points to a pre-existing condition.
And this is not his brain damage but the long standing American policy that assures that all putative American puppets loath their short term masters.
======
Concerning the topic at hand, you cannot change "facts on the ground" purely with air power, short of expensive (in monetary and political terms) sustained waves of attacks and hunting down individual vehicles after they dispersed. Syrians slowed down, but not much, and I guess, the same holds for Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq. I think that pretty soon there would be enough anti-jihadi forces on both sides of Tanf to remove the obstruction and re-open Damascus-Baghdad highway. The sustained manhunting bombardment would require Jordanian air bases, and Jordan has to live with Iraqis and Syrian in the future, so I suspect that they will be kvetching against it.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 20 2017 23:01 utc | 143
@143 "I think that pretty soon there would be enough anti-jihadi forces on both sides of Tanf to remove the obstruction and re-open Damascus-Baghdad highway."
Yes indeed. Once they remove the jihadis (and their sponsors) they may even come up with a whole new Damascus/Baghdad agenda.
Posted by: dh | May 20 2017 23:26 utc | 144
@143 piotr b, '... but in defense of Princeton ...'
i think you're out on a limb defending princeton, pb.
Posted by: jfl | May 20 2017 23:29 utc | 145
@144 dh, 'they may even come up with a whole new Damascus/Baghdad agenda'
the rump is doing his bit to focus their attention with his $110 - 350 - 390+ deal for arms for the saudis ...
... it bolsters the Kingdom’s ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on US military forces,” the US Department of State said in a statement on Saturday.
... they meant 'contributing to terrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on US military forces' ... but they still have white hats perched absurdly on their heads ... like white helmets.
well, if you have to have an enemy, one with too-much money, too-many arms, not enough warriors, with an assessment of their own ability a factor of ten too high is probably the best kind to have.
someone wrote an article on ...
... the Dunning-Kruger Effect ... defined as “a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability to recognize their [own] ineptitude.” It’s internal, and it’s physical, so in a sense, it’s a case of one’s mental circuitry going haywire.
... the latest attack on the rump. he's 'crazy'. sure, the rump's a poster boy for 'the Dunning-Kruger Effect' ... but so is all of ac/dc ... and so are the saudi royals.
it's actually a desirable characteristic in an aggressive enemy ...
Posted by: jfl | May 20 2017 23:49 utc | 146
@146 Yes the Saudis are the problem. They are totally locked into Washington and London. Probably Tel Aviv too.
As regards the Damascus/Baghdad agenda.....I think there are some tentative discussions going on. But I doubt if it will be a resurrection of the UAR or even the Baath Party. We can't be sure but I doubt if they will sit around discussing the meaning of words. That's a first-world pastime.
Posted by: dh | May 20 2017 23:54 utc | 147
The radio news report that I heard of this action by the US said that the US was preventing the Syrian Army from entering a "nonconflict zone". Are we back to the "safe havens" argument then?
Posted by: Penelope | May 21 2017 0:10 utc | 148
@148 penelope... it all depends on what bullshit argument the usa wants to offer. they are all bogus regardless...
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 0:16 utc | 149
and over closer to the iraq - syria border..
""The Seyed al-Shohada brigades were cleansing al-Shahmeh region in Syrian territories, some 40km away from the Iraqi borders, in a bid to block the pathway of the terrorists who intend to cross the border into Iraq to help their comrades in Mosul, but they came under attack by the US fighter jets," Faleh al-Khazali said on Saturday.
He underlined that the US airstrike was aimed at supporting the terrorists, and further expressed concern about the American soldiers' presence in Iraq once Mosul is liberated."
seems plain enough for anyone following this.. warmonger nation and friends continue their support for isis, while claiming otherwise...
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 0:22 utc | 150
>>>> Alaric | May 20, 2017 9:56:45 AM | 125
An ERPGM can travel at least 60kms sideways before hitting its target, so the USAF can hit the Syrian ground forces from Jordanian airspace and air-to-surface missiles can have a far greater range as does the M-270 MLRS, which is why air defence is pointless unless Syria wants to give the US an excuse to invade Syria. If only ISIS could be persuaded to launch a swarm of SVBIEDs against Al Tanf......
Posted by: Ghostship | May 21 2017 0:38 utc | 151
smuks@142 - "...If I understand you correctly, you presume that SOF will leave if the SAA keeps up the pressure, since they don't want to die for a desert outpost which wouldn't be of any (supply line) use anyway if the Syrians are around?"
Yes, but just to be clear - the SOF guys will obey orders to do whatever. It will be their CENTCOM masters that would have to throw in the towel - or not - if they see that there is no more Jordan-based ISIS supply line to protect and the latest fake NSyA incarnation becomes cut off from their Jordan/al Tanf logistics. There are a handful of other reasons that al Tanf has some importance to the U.S., but if it becomes surrounded/isolated by the SAA, then it's increasingly pointless to try and hold it. The U.S. can always just retreat to Jordan and invade again at their leisure sometime in the future.
That said, CENTCOM leaders are treasonous Israeli-firster, Saudi-firster psychopaths. Trump supposedly gave them a long leash (vs. Obama's micro-managing). I could possibly see them going to extraordinary lengths to 'hold' al Tanf just because they're sore losers. And you just know they have plenty of troops ready to invade Syria (invade 'more', I guess...) if the SAA had the audacity to defend themselves against a coalition air attack and actually took out a jet or two. CENTCOM seems perfectly willing to start WW III over Syria/Iran despite their hollow claims otherwise.
Still, I don't think they would tell the SF guys to hang around al Tanf to get beat up if lots of SAA & pals showed up to make them leave. The SF guys there are no (or at least were not) prepared for any kind of crazy siege warfare. The bases are not that well fortified and the SF guys are equipped for training the fake NSyA mobile infantry. They don't have any kind of heavy armor or artillery to speak of, nor do they have the numbers to defend these little bases. It would take a massive air campaign to defend them, and even that would have its limitations (sandstorms, etc.).
It's really a toss-up. You're not dealing with rational people, and not dealing with a military that is in any way, shape or form defending the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens or my 'freedom'. How far is CENTCOM willing to go to obey their Israeli/Saudi masters? Never underestimate a psychopath.
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 21 2017 0:43 utc | 152
Hello. I'm not sure who to believe now. According to a Southfront report on May 18, there was only one bomber and it was a Jordanian aircraft. There were no U.S. aircraft involved. Somehow, I tend to believe Southfront, since I think they have reporters on the ground in Syria, but not sure. Where does Moon of Alabama get its information saying there were more than one aircraft and they were U.S.?
Posted by: Karl Pomeroy | May 21 2017 0:54 utc | 153
>>>> smuks | May 19, 2017 5:55:51 PM | 86
Whoever controls a transport corridor holds a knife to the (economic) throat of those who depend on it.
Does anybody actually controlling the Straits of Gibraltar at the moment. There are a number of parties that could but that would have a political cost attached to it if it involved Iran which could seriously disrupt traffic through the Straits of Hormuz.
The Iranians could also route supplies to Syria through the Caspian Sea/Volga/Don to Russia where they could be transferred to Russian flagged ships for onward transit to Syria. Are the Americans prepared for the political costs of intercepting Russian-flagged ships?
>>>> smuks | May 19, 2017 8:37:30 PM | 92
A 'land bridge' is cheap and secure,
It might be cheap but it's not necessarily secure. You are aware of the Burma Road?
Posted by: Ghostship | May 21 2017 1:08 utc | 154
Hello again. I checked out Moon of Alabama's link to rt.com regarding how many and whose aircraft conducted the strike. While rt.com IMPLIED it was two U.S. aircraft by posting a photo of such, this is not true. Rt.com gave the following reference link for their information:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/details-us-attack-syrian-military-southern-syria/
According to this link, there was only one aircraft. Putting that together with the SouthFront report of May 18, I think it was a Jordanian warplane, not a U.S. jet. See also https://quemadoinstitute/syria/ and scroll to second article from SouthFront.
No, folks, this is not as bad as Russian media (Sputnik and rt.com) are making it sound. Note also that there were Hezbollah forces accompanying the Syrian Army convoy, and US forces were just across the border in Iraq. No wonder U.S. forces felt threatened. Rt.com put that fact in sarcastic quotes. Sad. I usually believe the Russian media, but not in this instance.
Posted by: Karl Pomeroy | May 21 2017 1:09 utc | 155
@153/5 karl pomeroy... cbc is saying the same thing.. cbc - canadian broadcast corp... from the link - "A U.S. airstrike struck pro-Syrian government forces for the first time, hitting a convoy in the desert near the border with Jordan, U.S. officials and Syrian activists said Thursday. (Rodi Said/Reuters)" .. i don't know about 2 strikes, unless you alo count the one i mentioned @150 as well..
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 1:26 utc | 156
@ Jackrabbit
I had a look at the article you linked and must clarify. The reference to “international law” is underemphasised in the article. International law requires a state to get permission from or be invited by the other state (Syria) to conduct any type of military operation in that state. (Unless there is a direct attack on a neighbour state from Syrian soil – that is a different situation.)
The situation is therefore simple: The US/UK/Turkey/Russia/Whomever are required to get permission from Syria before they are entitled to set foot on Syrian soil.
The drafters (Ru, I think) were meticulous and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The Resolution specifically does NOT authorise armed action without Syrian permission.
In layman’s terms: Please, guys, ask Syria if they need help and then co-operate with them against ISIS.
Posted by: E | May 21 2017 2:30 utc | 157
E @157
The reason for the "constructive ambiguity" of UNSC 2249 is that ISIS attacks on other states could be construed as an act of war. Why should any state that is attacked accept the "excuse" that Syria/Iraq don't have control over large parts of their country?
If the prescribed authorization of force under UNSC 2249 is not legal, then States that have been attacked by ISIS could invoke their right of self-defense and attack the Syrian and/or Iraqi State.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 4:44 utc | 158
@159: "If the prescribed authorization of force under UNSC 2249 is not legal, then States that have been attacked by ISIS could invoke their right of self-defense and attack the Syrian and/or Iraqi State."
Well, close....
States that have been attacked by ISIS could invoke their right of self-defense to attack ISIS forces in the territory of the Syrian and/or Iraqi state.
That still does not give the USAF the right to attack SYRIAN army forces operating inside the territory of the Syrian state.
Which brings us back to this recent USAF attack on an SAA armoured column that was approaching a Syrian border crossing......
Q: Is that attack "legal" under the Jackrabbit-principle?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: That armoured column doesn't belong to ISIS, so the USA can't claim that it is "self-defense" to attack it.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 21 2017 8:51 utc | 160
About analyzing the international law in this context: the oldest rule is "vae victis". In less cynical terms, the West can claim that they were enforcing de-escalation agreement, which does not explain the bombing of PMU in Iraq, thus it was explained that those were "units controlled by Iran". Which is as logical as burning a woman as a witch on the account of having red hair.
A Jordanian plane or American? Official NATO/USA claims are about a "coalition aircraft". The description in Al Masdar News claims that the attacking plane approached at low altitude, was forced to fly high by the anti-aircraft cannons (typical weapon of the desert warfare, good against armored vehicles etc., can be mounted on a pickup truck) and retreated because it came into the range of Syrian SS-200's. I would guess that modern NATO aircraft would have countermeasures against missiles of SS-200 generation, so that would point to Jordan. Moreover, the minor scale of the attack points in the same direction -- compare with the attack waged on SAA in Der-ez-Zor in winter. Jordan is not particularly enthusiastic about helping jihadists: they have their own troubles with radical Islamists, and they do not want to top them off with refugees that are trained in weapons and explosive, plus frustrated by a defeat. But they depend on subsidies from KSA and the west etc.
Personally, I did not expect this particular action: coordinated and fast approach from both sides of the border to re-open Damascus-Baghdad highway. Yet, it is more of the matter of when than if. First, political + symbolic value for both of governments that are involved. Second, jihadi supplies from the south, Jordan and KSA, will be hindered. Iraq needs to control Anbar -- persistent gateway for jihadi encroachment and insurrections, Syria will get a good shot for controlling the desert between Raqqa and Jordanian border.
The "Western coalition" did not give up on the idea of "Sunnistan" in the east Syria, and collapse of ISIS could make it happen. But "Eastern coalition" uniformly abhors the idea. The question is how much resolve does the Western coalition have. There is a proven strategy from Libya: ragtag forces of "pro-Western" locals that operate under an umbrella of intensive air attacks on their opponents. But the West does not have domestic support for the repetition, "another such victory and we will be undone", to quote King Pyrrhos.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 21 2017 9:21 utc | 161
Granted it's one random, unconfirmed tweet, but...
#Russian Special Forces arrive in southern #Syria for the military operation to retake Tanaf border crossing.
https://twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/status/866200005731909632
The 'agreement' McGurk was blabbering about with the Russians was probably something like, "Get the hell out of al Tanf, CENTCOM... and quite supplying ISIS."
So the U.S. now gets to decide if they are willing to kill Russian soldiers to hold al Tanf or if they're just going to scurry back to the U.S. bases in Jordan and stage ops from there.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: PavewayIV | May 21 2017 9:36 utc | 162
Russian forces arrive in southern Syria
"Russian paratroopers and special forces arrived in the Al-Sweida Governorate of southern Syria this week, following the U.S. attack on a pro-government convoy near the Iraqi border-crossing, a military source told Al-Masdar News last night."
Hezbollah, Iraqi forces poised to help Syrian Army capture Baghdad-Damascus Highway
"Over the course of ten days, hundreds of Hezbollah and Iraqi paramilitary fighters have poured into the southeastern countryside of Damascus, taking up positions alongside the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and their allies.
Posted by: sandra_m | May 21 2017 10:03 utc | 163
@ PavewayIV | May 21, 2017 5:36:58 AM | 162
Probably the five most worrisome words in the modern lexicon:
>>What could possibly go wrong?<<
or should be!
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | May 21 2017 11:49 utc | 164
I didn't say that attacking Syrian forces was legal.
IMO 2249 authorizes the use of force against ISIS.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 12:24 utc | 165
All 5 veto wielding powers are above International Law for all time, see my comment and link @40.Nicaragua thought differently when they took the US to the World court [ICJ], they won their case and were awarded reparations. The US simply ignored the ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States . How's that for impunity?
Posted by: harrylaw | May 21 2017 13:53 utc | 166
@PavewayIV, 162
"...So the U.S. now gets to decide if they are willing to kill Russian soldiers........"
Can Russia or other nations if they can decide to kill US soldiers?
Sorrie to add further (hate me if yo wanna).... I hate to attend local Town hall or City council meetings - first, refused to stand up removes my cap and pledge allegiances to the fucking flag, sometime even say pray to their freaking god! . Wanna no part in any barbarism since 2001, when GW bush decided to invade Iraq.
Posted by: OJS | May 21 2017 14:26 utc | 167
blues@131:
"...For example the Big Dipper constellation is quite useful since two stars on the "dipper end" point to the North Star, which the earth's axis points to, and you can use it to determine true north to within about an order of magnitude of greater accuracy than with a magnetic compass. But still those same stars could be part of a "Great Possum" instead. I say people should know these things so they don't get caught up in strange arguments..."
Good example, blues. You hit the lodestone with this one. It doesn't matter what you call it, the point is that true north is true north. And that's the case with any true statement about where north is, as it is about any true law that is a just law.
It has to align. And it's lovely that in my 'Great Possum' Orthodox alignment today is the final Easter Sunday when the story of the blind man written by the evangelist John is read, coinciding this year with the actual feast of Saint John himself - a perfect example for you of a 'Great Possum' alignment that still points due north - the blind man says to his interrogators - "I don't have the least idea who that man was who healed me - all I know is now I can see!"
I love that story. It absolutely contradicts all those who say you must believe this or you must believe that - there's no 'must' to it at all, just 'Does it point true north?" Yes, it does!
Happy Easter, everyone!
Posted by: juliania | May 21 2017 14:34 utc | 168
Has Russia asked Hezbollah to leave Syria?
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/has-russia-asked-hezbollah-to-leave-syria/
There is a new piece by Elijah J M today on Hezbollah in Syria... maybe Russia is willing to engage the invaders - US, Brit and Norway?
Its about time Putin put his foot down and tell the invaders you wanna war? So be it!
Posted by: OJS | May 21 2017 14:45 utc | 169
It hurt me more than you saying thing I shouldn't..... What so happy about easter, while the god loving soldiers murders innocent children in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghan and......?
Keep yo freaking easter to yoself please.
Posted by: OJS | May 21 2017 14:58 utc | 170
Just to add to my comment at 166 and to illustrate my opint on International law, "U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Service members Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American OR CITIZEN OF AN -ALLIED COUNTRY being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands". https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law
Posted by: harrylaw | May 21 2017 15:08 utc | 171
Jackrabbit @ 158
Syria itself has the right to act in regard to the insurgents. I think we all agree on this. I also think we all agree on the legality of Syria requesting help from Russia and Iran and even Hezbollah. They can go to town.
The issue is the legality of the actions by the “International Community.” The Resolution does NOT authorise them to use force as it is not a Chapter 7 Resolution.
Except in terms of a Chapter 7 Resolution, a state may only use force in self-defence (Arts 2(4) and 51).
Art 51 does retain the customary (inherent) law right to use force in self-defence or collective self-defence in the case of an armed attack against it. This right is limited in duration as “... (m)easures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The Libya Resolution which was taken in terms of Chapter 7 – Libya’s permission was not needed for force to be used. The Resolution reads: “(6) Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians; ... (7) Authorizes Member States ... to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, ...”.
Here the force (shooting down a plane) was legal – note the permissive language. However, the actions of the “international community” went much farther than was authorised. Bombing was not authorised.
The Resolution under discussion has a completely different ambit. It does not authorise force at all. It reads: “Calls upon Member States ... to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, ... on the territory under the control of ISIL ... in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts ...”
This Resolution is perfectly legal as it “requests” states to fight ISIS “in terms of international law”. The ONLY way that this can be done in Syria, is with the permission of Syria – this is why the phrase is included.
Yeah, Right @ 160
The right to use force against a non-state aggressor (ISIS) in the territory of a different state (Syria) is, arguably, part of the “inherent right to self-defence” in Art 51. You are correct in that the self-defence has to be directed at the aggressor (ISIS) and not the state involved (Syria). The UN Charter has not kept up with the times and does not address terrorism - the “Bush Doctrine” developed as a response.
Even if it can be argued that the Syrian forces were a threat to US forces, they still have to get around the fact that the US is in Syria illegally and that they (Syria) may expel the armed forces of a different state. A State can not act in self-defence if their own actions are that of an aggressor.
In my view, the attack on Syria was indeed an illegal act of aggression – the Crime of Crimes. Thank Goodness, the Syrians did not respond with force – they were perfectly entitled to wipe the US base from the face of the earth.
Piotr Berman @ 161
Vae victis indeed. Let’s hope the right “side” gets to be the vanquished and the other “sides” get, at the very least, a good kick in the ... ahem ... ego.
Harrylaw @ 166
Yes. My students are absolutely flabbergasted when I discuss Nicaragua v US. The image and the reality do not gel.
Posted by: E | May 21 2017 15:12 utc | 172
@170 You may appreciate Trump's Easter message to the Muslim world. It contains something for everyone. A bit of onward Christian soldiers to make 'our troops' feel good. The Saudis and Israelis (both firmly on the side of good) will like the anti-Iran message. Jihadis can expect no mercy.....
"If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39989548
Posted by: dh | May 21 2017 15:16 utc | 173
harrylaw @ 171
It is also called the "Bomb the Hague Act." Acting in terms of this US law, is illegal. Cadit quaestio.
However, I have very little time for the ICC and hope that my government (South Africa) gets it's act together and withdraw from the treaty asap.
Posted by: E | May 21 2017 15:19 utc | 174
Thanks, Piotr Berman@161 for your analysis. I have been wondering about Jordan, that being the state in question for Trump's supposed revelations to Lavrov. Might then the attack have been a message to Trump from the weakening but vicious counter forces to his policies? If so, and if as you say there was a muted effect (though lives indeed were lost and that is anything but muted for those who suffered and are suffering because of this) we can but hope that continuing firm resolve shall win the day.
If there is one thing the Russians, Syrians and their allies have shown so far, it is firm resolve.
Posted by: juliania | May 21 2017 15:22 utc | 175
E @174
UNSC recognized as a threat to world peace.
Given that recognition by the UNSC, along with the protections afforded by 2249, Syria has no practical objection against forces that are intervening to attack ISIS.
No doubt the Assad must go! Coalition would LOVE for Assad to make such an objection. That would be painted as Assad's protecting ISIS. Casus belli. They've already tried to pin the rise of ISIS on Assad - arguing that Assad's ruthlessness led people to turn to extremists as a counterweight.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 16:58 utc | 176
IMO the real problem with 2249 is that UNSC treats the symptoms not the disease.
Why are there no sanctions against countries that provide direct or indirect support for ISIS?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 17:16 utc | 177
Jackrabbit @ 176
Both the Russians and the Syrians have done absolutely sterling legal work at the UNSC. They have dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s and they do it publicly as well. Surprise! Russia, Iran and Syria have lawyers too!
To head off the argument that you raise, the Resolution contains the “co-operation to fight ISIS” bit. You will have noticed that Russia placed it on record that they are not there to assist Assad, but to fight ISIS.
The law is clear and the Resolution is clear. Want to operate in Syria against ISIS? Co-operate with Assad. Note Assad’s public declarations that Syria is ready to co-operate. Note the US & Co’s refusal to even talk and the previous attempts to get parliamentary approval to go to war against Assad.
Want to encroach on Syrian sovereignty? Do so at your own peril. Wait for the MASSIVE claim by Syria in the ICJ as their protests are on record and in the public.
Then there are other bits of evidence. Kerry’s off the record (but taped and leaked) admission that the US did NOT tackle ISIS as they wanted ISIS to pressure Assad to go, being a gem amongst gems.
The “Assad must go” crowd dug nice little legal traps for themselves.
Again, an argument is an argument. Whether it is a good argument that can stand in the face of overwhelming evidence, is a different matter.
The idea of a casus belli is outdated. There are no legal reasons for war. The only justification for force is self-defence and/or a Chapter 7 Resolution. Furthermore, even if Assad is the “cause” of ISIS, it still does not justify force without an SC Resolution. The rule is that states must approach the SC. Period.
These people have painted themselves into a legal corner. I do acknowledge that all the legal niceties may count for nothing in the face of absolute impunity backed up by military and financial capabilities outstripping the ability to think properly.
"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. ... If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care." -- Nelson Mandela referring to George W. Bush.
Posted by: E | May 21 2017 17:52 utc | 178
Why are there no sanctions against countries that support ISIS? Sorry, friend. That is a naive question.
Posted by: E | May 21 2017 17:54 utc | 179
@ Jackrabbit | 177
Why are there no sanctions against countries that provide direct or indirect support for ISIS?
The question is legit, but US says Syria is responsible for ISIS and its already sanctioned, or for good measure, they'll say Iran is responsible for ISIS too and should be sanctioned as well. Thats ridiculous, but thats the way US acts.
The funniest (or saddest) part is, I'm not even joking, like US court declared Iran is responsible for 9/11 (and Saudis are innocent), and stole billions from its frozen accounts. Or most recent event with US bombing Syrias forces IN Syria and claiming self-defense :) Thats just stupid, but thats the way it works.
Posted by: Harry | May 21 2017 17:59 utc | 180
@172 E.. you summed it up right there : "A State can not act in self-defence if their own actions are that of an aggressor."
@176 jr quote "Syria has no practical objection against forces that are intervening to attack ISIS.
No doubt the Assad must go! Coalition would LOVE for Assad to make such an objection. That would be painted as Assad's protecting ISIS."
however, intervening to attack syrian army is a different matter.. the usa/uk coalition have shown themselves to do this numerous times here..
@177 jr.. i think it is a good question... i think it goes back to what the usa/uk define as terrorists... as obama was known to have said - something to this effect "isis is helping us to get rid of assad'... the usa is okay with terrorism if it fulfills it's subservience to israel/saudi arabia.. that is your answer.. not a very good one, but those lobbyists work hard for their money, as do the usa/uk politicians on the receiving end..
@178 e.. quote "Note the US & Co’s refusal to even talk (with assad/syrian gov't) and the previous attempts to get parliamentary approval to go to war against Assad." yes, indeed... that is how hypocrites and propagandists work..
good quote from mandela... it can apply to the usa/uk at present as well, especially with regard to their actions in syria..
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 18:06 utc | 181
@180 harry... last paragraph.. yeah, but that isn't funny and no one is laughing... one would have to be brain dead to not see how everything is being processed in the usa on a legal basis here... lies, lies and more lies... just make it legal, lol... reminds me of yoo and all those assholes under cheney who would say or do whatever they needed to, in order to murder and torture others with a different colour of skin then them.. they still haven't been held accountable.. obama wanted to move on, lol... sure, and i am an idiot...
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 18:09 utc | 182
New gem: Trump just declared all the countries in the World have to isolate Iran because its responsible for terror, death and destruction in ME. Any questions? :)
Posted by: Harry | May 21 2017 18:10 utc | 183
@183 harry... foreign policy spokesperson for israel/saudi has spoken...
Posted by: james | May 21 2017 18:21 utc | 185
America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks—from the atrocities of September 11th to the devastation of the Boston Bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando.
The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India, Russia, China and Australia have been victims.
But, in sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations. They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.
Some estimates hold that more than 95 percent of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.
With the facts about what the USA, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia have done to recruit and deploy the very terrorism Trump is condemning, together with the investment of trillions of dollars for regime change operations to take over the entire Levant by mainly using Al Quade, ISIS and other terrorist organizations for their proxy wars, can anyone actually believe any of these megalomaniac oil-coveting nations will change? Is it now more likely that this speech is a prelude for a full scale assault by US, British, Israeli and Saudi troops into Syria to occupy as much turf as they can of that nation, using the very terrorist organizations they have recruited, trained, supplied, and deployed as a pretext for such an invasion?
Trump continues to use the worn out lie that 9/11 was an outside “terrorist” deed, and therefore nothing he says in this speech can be trusted.
Posted by: israel 911artsproject | May 21 2017 19:04 utc | 186
@183 Yes I have a question. He said extremists are the problem. Good start Donald. How come no mention of wahabbis?
Posted by: dh | May 21 2017 19:23 utc | 187
E
The idea of a casus belli is outdated. ... The only justification for force is self-defence and/or a Chapter 7 Resolution.If other nations believed that Syria was harboring ISIS, then they could invoke their right of self-defense (hence, "casus belli").
FOR THE RECORD: Its a catch-22. Syria could object but that would result in a far worse outcome. "Constructive ambiguity" describes the resolution well.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 19:33 utc | 188
E: Sorry, friend. That is a naive question.
It's a rhetorical question that highlights this fundamentally preposterous resolution which purports to deal with terrorists that are actually a proxy army.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 21 2017 19:43 utc | 189
@165 "I didn't say that attacking Syrian forces was legal."
@158: "If the prescribed authorization of force under UNSC 2249 is not legal, then States that have been attacked by ISIS could invoke their right of self-defense and attack the Syrian and/or Iraqi State."
I certainly reads like you were since, obviously, "Syrian forces" are the forces of the "Syrian State".
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 21 2017 21:49 utc | 190
@172: "Even if it can be argued that the Syrian forces were a threat to US forces, they still have to get around the fact that the US is in Syria illegally and that they (Syria) may expel the armed forces of a different state."
Hmmmm. The USA can argue that its forces are "in Syria legally" if they argue that those forces are there strictly to fight ISIS since (again, arguably) they can claim that the USA is in an armed conflict with ISIS.
But what the USA can't argue is that the presence of their forces inside Syria gives it the right to attack Syrian forces because - without question - Syria has never launched an armed attack on the USA and (again, this is not in dispute) Syria is also engaged in an armed conflict with ISIS.
So to my mind the "threat" of a Syrian army column heading towards a US-occupied border crossing can be resolved legally in only one way: those US forces pack their bags and cross back over the border into Jordan before those Syrian forces reach that town.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 21 2017 22:01 utc | 191
@Ghostship
"Does anybody actually controlling the Straits of Gibraltar at the moment."
I think I heard of a little 'colony' down there which the UK is very reluctant to give up...;-)
Look at the major maritime choke points, and look who has naval bases in the vicinity.
Burma Road was under very difficult wartime conditions, and still they managed to use it for supplies, even if it wasn't really secure. Try that via sea...
Posted by: smuks | May 21 2017 22:44 utc | 192
The USA is weak. They can no longer fight because they have no soldiers to fight in Syria. Just some mercenaries, special forces and that is it. Proof me wrong McMaster! I call your bluff!
http://www.viewzone.com/wardeaths.html
There are so many reasons why the USA has a WEAK army right now. To much for me to sum up. They are weak!
Posted by: Thucydides | May 21 2017 23:06 utc | 193
Puzzling discussion. US made its choice long ago- right after 911 when it covertly and overtly declared war on Syria. final decision came in 2011 when it invaded Syria using jihadist death squads posing as 'protesters' for regime change. Why do media keep pretending that this wasnt a done deal for DECADES already?
Posted by: Sayanim | May 23 2017 10:44 utc | 194
Can't attest to their authenticity, but Russian insider claims to have photos of Russian mastas and a tos-1 launcher moving towards al tanf:
Posted by: wwinsti | May 23 2017 16:40 utc | 195
The comments to this entry are closed.
@100 OK, I don't intend to engage further with someone who is so ignorant of a topic that he doesn't even know that he doesn't know anything.
You have - apparently, it's hard to tell from your glib gibberish - now conceded your claim that UNSC resolution are "international law".
You are now - again, apparently - reduced to claiming that the main importance of UNSC resolutions is that they are "boners" for American PYSOP operations.
My, my, aren't you been moving your goal-posts.
"Applied to that UNSCR:".... followed by a link to an article that The Hague clearly does not understand, because that article agrees with me and disagrees with him.
The money-shot: "However, in this case, the Council does not authorize “all necessary measures,” nor does it decide that they be taken, but rather “calls upon” states to take such measures. This difference in language itself suggests that though the Council contemplates, and perhaps would even welcome, the use of force by states, it does not authorize such action. This lack of authorization is made clearer from the fact that the resolution calls for all necessary measures, “in compliance with international law, in particular the United Nations Charter”. This wording suggests that measures taken should comply with other rules of international law, including the jus ad bellum rules in the Charter. Thus, the resolution is to be seen as only encouraging states to do what they can already do under other rules of international law. It neither adds to, nor subtracts from, whatever existing authority states already have."
That's what I have been saying, and which The Hague doggedly refuses to understand: absent a DECISION of the Council a UNSC Resolution contains no authority to compel anyone to do anything, and the passage of such a UNSCR does not add to the existing body of international law.
It takes a special sort of ignorance for The Hague to link to an article that proves he does not know what he is talking about.
Apparently that's why he has suddenly lurched towards PSYOPS! PYSOPS! PYSOPS! - a topic on which he seems to know more than he does about the UN, or about international law.
Which figures, I suppose.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 20 2017 3:08 utc | 101