Obama’s Road to Damascus: The War for Regime Change in Syria


Dominic Tierney.THE ATLANTI.Sep 6 2013

The more Obama lobbies Congress, the greater the danger for mission creep.

RTX1372I.jpg

Obama pauses while speaking about Syria during a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the Prime Minister’s office in Stockholm. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

A war that begins to punish Assad for using chemical weapons is likely to turn into a grander campaign to overthrow the Syrian tyrant. Obama is about to walk the road to Damascus: the president who sought to end Middle Eastern conflict will convert to the goal of violent regime change.
When the White House first outlined the use of force in Syria, the aims were described as limited, controlled, and proportionate. Missile strikes would chastise Assad, degrade his military forces, and deter the further use of chemical weapons–a quick punitive expedition. Washington has long hoped for Assad’s departure as part of a new transitional regime in Syria, but this was not the immediate objective. “I want to make clear,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney: “the options that we are considering are not about regime change.”
But if it isn’t a war for regime change already, it may well be soon.
First of all, Assad could retaliate against U.S. military installations in the region or against Israel–essentially forcing the president’s hand. If Assad’s forces kill Americans or Israelis, then Washington will go for the jugular.
But even if the Syrian regime absorbs a U.S. strike, Obama could still walk the road to Damascus. The president may face domestic pressure to escalate the goals. For sure, the American public is weary of fighting in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq. But precisely because people are so sick of war, the administration may try to sell the campaign by describing Assad as uniquely evil. How then can we let this devil remain in power?
And for Americans, overthrowing a demonic tyrant is at least a comprehensible goal. By contrast, a quick shot across the bows makes little sense to anyone. If Assad quits using chemical weapons and goes back to slaughtering his people with conventional arms–you call that a victory?
The more effort Obama invests in winning congressional backing, the more he’ll be tempted to raise the stakes. Is he really going to spend all this political capital–all this wooing and arm-twisting–just to dump some ordinance into Syria and go home?
The mission creep is already happening. Obama has toughened his line in a bid to win the backing of hawks like John McCain. The use of force, Obama said: “fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required–so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region.”
After the rockets’ red glare streaks across the Levant, the United States will own the conflict. We will leave the audience and join the actors on stage. Suddenly, Washington will be expected to respond to every major event in Syria. If the rebels commit atrocities, or Assad’s forces capture a city, all eyes will turn to Obama: what now, Mr. President? Rather than face a neverending story of intractable conflict, the White House will seek resolution through regime change.
Both military success and failure could spur the United States to escalate its goals. If U.S. missile strikes go more smoothly than expected and Assad’s support crumbles, we may naturally heighten our ambitions.
More surprisingly, if Washington faces battlefield failure, Obama will also be tempted to go after Assad. Like a gambler on a losing streak, the White House may double down in a bid to win it all back. At this point, we’ve planted the flag and cannot allow the rebels to lose.
Are we ready for regime change? There’s no coherent Syrian opposition and jihadist groups are running rampant. Trying to patch together a new government could suck all the oxygen out of Obama’s second term.
After his revelation on the road to Damascus, Paul was blinded for three days. Let’s hope Obama can see the path ahead with greater clarity

Advertisements

How Obama Decides Your Fate If He Thinks You’re a Terrorist


 

By Daniel Byman & Benjamin Wittes.THE ATLANTIC.03,JAN 2013

 

A look inside the “disposition matrix” that determines when — or if — the administration will pursue a suspected militant

RTR7OO7-615.jpgJohn Walker Lindh, an American captured by U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan, is led away by a Northern Alliance soldier in 2001. (Reuters)

    Over the past two years, the Obama administration has begun to formalize a so-called “disposition matrix” for suspected terrorists abroad: a continuously    evolving database that spells out the intelligence on targets and various strategies, including contingencies, for handling them. Although the government    has not spelled out the steps involved in deciding how to treat various terrorists, a look at U.S. actions in the past makes evident a rough decision tree.

    Understanding these procedures is particularly important for one of the most vexing, and potentially most dangerous, categories of terrorists: U.S.    citizens. Over the years, U.S. authorities have responded with astonishing variety to American nationals suspected of terrorism, from ignoring their    activities to conducting lethal drone strikes. All U.S. terrorists are not created equal. And the U.S. response depends heavily on the role of allies, the    degree of threat the suspect poses, and the imminence of that threat — along with other factors.

    What follows is a flow chart (click here, or the image below, for the full interactive feature) that takes us through the criteria and decision points that can lead to a suspect terrorist’s being ignored as a minor    nuisance, being prosecuted in federal court, being held in a Pakistani prison, or being met with the business end of a Hellfire missile.

Screen Shot 2013-01-02 at 1.19.01 PM-615.png

1. Territorial Jurisdiction

    If a suspected terrorist is in the United States, the answer is easy: The only way to deal with him is to arrest and prosecute him in the civilian criminal    justice system. So first, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies will monitor him to learn about the full extent of his activities and gather evidence    to determine whether he has in fact committed a crime. And if so, they will arrest him. The Bush administration tried it for citizens caught domestically    only once, in the case of Jose Padilla, and eventually gave up and tried Padilla in civilian court. The Obama administration has stated that it will use    the civilian justice system exclusively both for domestic captures in general and for citizens, wherever our forces get them.

    Though it remains controversial, the domestic criminal justice system is actually one of the workhorses of American counterterrorism. Since 9/11, the    United States has handled more Americans suspected than all other options combined — both using charges of terrorism itself and using more inchoate    charges like conspiracy and material support for terrorism. In addition, a significant number of Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism have been    convicted of lesser, sometimes unrelated, offenses charges.

    If the suspect is overseas, however, the complications begin. The remainder of this flowchart conveys the steps and decision points that the administration    takes, explicitly or implicitly, when deciding the fate of a suspected American terrorist.

2. Return to the United States

    Some suspects may be outside of the United States and have plans to return — concrete, specific plans the government knows about. Abu Zubaydah, a jihadist    logistician, had reportedly told interrogators that he knew of individuals planning to conduct a radiological attack on the United States. Based on this    and other intelligence, the name of Jose Padilla came to the attention of U.S. officials and, after Padilla applied for a replacement passport in Pakistan,    U.S. officials learned he was traveling home to the United States. The FBI tailed him when his plane went through Zurich, and then he was quickly arrested    after arrival in Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Padilla was initially held in military custody. Today, however, that would not happen. A suspect the government    knew was on his way home would, like the suspect already here, be detained and enter the criminal justice system directly.

    Most terrorists camped out overseas, however, are not rushing back, and even when they are, trusting that a suspected American terrorism suspect will    return home to be arrested is risky. Locals may tip him off that the United States is seeking him (yes, it is usually a him), or he may decide for his own    reasons to delay or cancel his return. In addition, allowing a suspected terrorist on a plane — even if thoroughly searched — is nail-biting for    officials involved.

    So, not surprisingly, it is rare that an individual will be both known to be returning and also allowed to do so. Most of the time, officials cannot simply    assume that a suspect will come back into their laps.

3. Is there a Reliable Ally to Handle the Problem?

    If the suspect is abroad and not headed home, the question of which country he is in becomes important. Is he in a country whose government will reliably    keep an eye on him — and arrest him, if need be? Is that government functional enough to pull off an arrest, or does it lack control over significant    parts of its territory? Is it a country that will grossly mistreat the suspect in a fashion that might prejudice his ability to get a fair trial? Is it a    country with an extradition relationship with the United States?

    The answers to these questions vary a great deal among the many countries in which U.S. nationals suspected of terrorism have taken refuge. If an American    is living in Britain, for example, a country with strong legal institutions and a cooperative working relationship with the United States, the issue looks    very different from when an American suspect is in the tribal areas of Pakistan — or the ungoverned areas of Yemen, a country with a history of failure to    prevent al Qaeda jail breaks. Americans in Somalia, a country with no functioning government at all, are a different story still. And then there’s Saudi    Arabia — a highly effective police state that has had no trouble arresting American jihadists, but whose treatment of them afterward has required careful    monitoring to make sure that statements given were not elicited through torture.

4. When an Ally Will Transfer

    When an ally is willing to arrest and transfer a suspect to U.S. custody, suspects inevitably wind up back in criminal-justice land. This is in some ways    the ideal solution, as it requires only law enforcement and intelligence cooperation with allies, not a capture operation involving U.S. forces or a kill    order. But it does sometimes end up requiring delicate litigation over the suspect’s treatment abroad. For example, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali — a young man from    Virginia — was arrested in Saudi Arabia for involvement with an al Qaeda cell. He was transferred some time later to U.S. custody to face trial for    conspiring to, among other things, kill President George W. Bush. The major issue in his case was whether the highly incriminating statements he made in    Saudi custody were voluntary or not. Deciding this question required, remarkably, testimony by Saudi intelligence officials who interrogated Abu Ali. Abu    Ali was ultimately convicted and given a lengthy prison term.

5. When an Ally Won’t Transfer

    At times, an ally will not transfer a suspect to U.S. jurisdiction, instead preferring to try him on its own. In December 2009, Pakistan arrested five    American Muslims from the Washington, D.C. area who had traveled abroad for training and to fight U.S. soldiers by joining up with the Taliban. The United    States sought their extradition, but Pakistan refused. In 2010, a Pakistani court found them guilty and sentenced them to 10 years in prison for conspiring    against the Pakistani state.

    An ally may wish to try Americans on its own for several reasons. They may be breaking local laws and could pose a real threat to the ally in question —    the ostensible reasons for trying them locally rather than extraditing them. Often more importantly, the trial allows the local government to claim    politically that it is defending its own people and is doing so by going after unpopular foreigners rather than, in Pakistan’s case, taking on dangerous    indigenous criminals who enjoy more legitimacy and who have powerful allies in the country. In addition, refusing an extradition request is a way of    standing up to the United States and gaining, or at least not losing, nationalist credibility.

    From a U.S. point of view, it may be easier to let the ally do the work. From a counterterrorism point of view, these potentially dangerous individuals are    off the street for a decade, while a trial in the U.S. might result in a more lenient sentence or perhaps the individuals going free. Although the United    States went through the motions to get the D.C.-five extradited, a lawyer for the men’s families, Nina Ginsburg, was “very disturbed by the lack of    involvement by the U.S. government to protect the rights” of those in Pakistani custody.

6. Do We Care?

    At times, authorities may suspect an individual overseas of involvement in terrorism yet not deem him dangerous enough to warrant any extensive    intervention.

    The United States may choose not go after a suspected terrorist because officials believe he poses at most a minor threat to the United States. If he    returned home, they would arrest him, but they’re not going to make a significant effort to push allies to nab him or to deploy U.S. overseas assets to do    so. In practice, many such individuals primarily pose threats to an ally rather than to U.S. citizens or institutions. For example, Daniel Maldonado    traveled to Somalia in 2005 to wage jihad on behalf of al Shabaab, a Somali jihadist group. When Kenya invaded Somalia in 2007, Maldonado was    turned over to the United States, but the Bush administration had not actively pursued him before Kenya captured him. Maldonado was helping a noxious    Somali group, but he was simply one soldier among thousands, and at the time al Shabaab was less tied to al Qaeda than it is today.

    Sometimes, the United States will simply indict a low-priority individual but then do little else. Adam Gadahn — a senior al Qaeda spokesman and advisor    to Ayman Al-Zawahiri — is perhaps the best example of this today. The Justice Department indicted him in 2005 for “providing material support” for al    Qaeda, a broad charge regularly used in terrorism cases. In 2006, Gadahn was charged with treason, the first American so-charged in over 50 years. Yet    these seemingly strong actions belie an obvious limit: Gadahn is outside U.S. and allied control, and his arrest does not appear to be an operational    priority, though officials would certainly welcome it should it occur.

7. The Plausibility of Capture

    If the suspect is someone officials care about enough to take action against, they face another question: can they catch him? Capture operations are    difficult and dangerous, and like targeting operations, they require knowing exactly where the suspect will be at the right time. Authorities might not    tolerate Gadahn, for example, if they were able to locate him in a place where they could conduct a capture operation with tolerable risks to U.S. military    or covert forces.

    We know of no post-9/11 case in which authorities have launched an overseas capture operation against a U.S. national, though there have been several cases    — for example, John Walker Lindh and Yasser Hamdi — in which U.S. nationals have been swept up along with other captured enemy forces. Still, Attorney    General Eric Holder specifically included the question of whether capture was “implausible” as a deciding factor in a speech addressing the appropriate    times to use lethal force on U.S. nationals overseas. Following Holder’s rubric, any person captured would necessarily be routed into the domestic criminal    justice system.

8. The Operations Question

    U.S. officials draw a sharp distinction between propagandists like Gadahn and people like Padilla or even the DC-Five, who planned or were potentially    directly involved in operations. In theory, it is operators who matter: words do not kill, or at least not directly, while someone willing to pick up a gun    or plant a bomb leaves little doubt about his bloody plans.

    Propagandists, to some degree, are also protected under U.S. law. Glorifying jihad and saying that Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even    living ordinary lives stateside, deserve death, is not in itself a crime. So even Anwar al-Awlaki, who inspired Americans and Western Muslims in general to    take up jihad, was not aggressively targeted until he was linked to attacks on U.S. airlines and aviation targets in the United Kingdom — thus going from    “propagandist” to “operator.”

    In practice — though not in law — this line is questionable. Awlaki’s biggest success was inspiring Nidal Malik Hassan, who is charged with shooting 13    Americans at Fort Hood in 2009 — the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11. Awlaki himself did not play an operational role, but by inspiring    Hassan, his propaganda proved lethal. Even more importantly, al Qaeda itself sees propaganda as at the core of its operations. Osama bin Laden himself told    Mullah Omar, the Afghan Taliban leader, that 90 percent of his battle would be fought in the media.

    Propagandists attract the money and foot soldiers that enable the organization to conduct operations, and Washington’s reluctance to recognize that with    regard to its own citizens is an important advantage for al Qaeda. The result is that non-operational figures abroad — however dangerous — will tend to    be tolerated to the extent they cannot be captured.

9. The Imminent Threat

    Not even all operational figures can be lawfully targeted with lethal force. Holder’s speech only defends as lawful the targeting of a senior operational    figure who cannot be captured when he poses an imminent threat to the United States — though Holder holds open the possibility targeting might    satisfy the law in a broader range of circumstances.

    In practice, the United States has targeted with lethal force only one of its own citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki. Three others, including Awlaki’s teenage son    and propagandist Samir Khan, have been killed in drone strikes, but none of them appears to have been the target of the strike; all were considered    collateral damage. The United States uses the word “imminent” in a looser fashion than its colloquial meaning suggests — not to refer to an inevitable    immediate threat (a bomb going off tomorrow) but to an unfolding chain of events that, left uninterrupted, will produce dead Americans. Even this    understanding of imminence, however, leaves another gap: the operational leader who poses a non-imminent threat. This may be an empty set, but that group    of people would also seem to fall into a zone of de facto tolerance.

What Is The ‘Fiscal Cliff ‘ ?


 

By Ron  Synovitz.RFERL. December 28, 2012

U.S. President Barack Obama has cut short his Christmas vacation to return to Washington and bring together Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders in a last-minute bid to, at least, strike a short-term compromise.

The end of the year is the deadline for Republicans and Democrats to agree on reducing the U.S. budget deficit in order to prevent the United States from going over the so-called fiscal cliff.
What is the “fiscal cliff”?
In a nutshell, the so-called fiscal cliff is a combination of automatic tax increases and U.S. government spending cuts that will take effect on New Year’s Day unless the White House and Congress agree on how to reduce the budget deficit during the next decade.
The tax increases would take effect because temporary tax cuts of the George W. Bush presidency, approved in 2001 and 2003, are due to expire on December 31, 2012.
Meanwhile, $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts during the next decade would be triggered automatically under legislation from 2011.
Why would government spending cuts come into force automatically?
Spending cuts would come into effect automatically under the Budget Control Act, which averted the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011.
It was a compromise between Republicans and Democrats that prevented a default on U.S. government debt in August 2011.
The legislation temporarily raised the limit of debt the U.S. government was allowed to accumulate so that it could repay funds it had borrowed.
But the Budget Control Act also contained a variety of spending cuts aimed at reducing the U.S. budget deficit by $2.1 trillion during the next decade.
It included $917 billion in immediate spending cuts. It also specified that $1.2 trillion in further automatic cuts would be triggered at the start of 2013 unless a bipartisan committee could agree on how to reduce the deficit by another $1.5 trillion.
Those automatic spending cuts would be applied equally across defense programs and nondefense programs.
What do economic experts think the impact on the U.S. and world economy if Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on further deficit reductions and the United States goes over the fiscal cliff?
Christopher Lockwood, U.S. editor of “The Economist,” explained the impact of political deadlock in a video posted online by the magazine earlier this month.
“If the Republicans and the Democrats fail to reach agreement, the U.S. economy will be hit with a devastating fiscal sledgehammer, which could be equivalent in a full year to 5 percent of GDP,” Lockwood says in the video.
“If America does go over the fiscal cliff, businesses could respond by sharply curtailing business investment. That will return America to recession and, perhaps, deepen recession all across the world.”
Most economists agree, saying higher taxes would hit all income earners in the United States — giving them less money to spend and damaging the economy’s growth prospects.
At the same time, the elimination of government spending would mean less money to stimulate growth, and also would probably result in a higher unemployment rate.
Many analysts say there are already signs that the political deadlock in Washington is negatively affecting the U.S. economy by damaging investor confidence and impeding economic recovery.
Why are the parties deadlocked?
President Barack Obama and the Democrats want the wealthiest Americans to pay more in taxes by restoring the tax rates for the richest to the levels where they had been during the 1990s under President Bill Clinton.
They would do that by extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except the highest income earners.
A bill proposed in the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats, calls for tax-rate increases on incomes that are more than $250,000 a year for married couples or individuals.
The Republicans, who control a majority in the House of Representatives, have agreed that tax revenues need to be increased. But the Republicans have opposed an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest — arguing that revenues should be raised by closing tax loopholes instead.
The Republicans also want the Democrats to reduce spending on so-called entitlement programs — such as Medicare and Social Security. But Democratic leaders have made it clear they will not support those kinds of spending cuts.
Obama has cut short his Christmas vacation to return to Washington and bring together Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders in a last-minute bid to, at least, strike a short-term compromise.
But economists say a short-term deal would only delay the problem of a growing deficit crisis instead of solving the problems in the long term.

Obama voices concern to Morsi


By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |POLITICO |December 6, 2012

President Obama called Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on Thursday to voice his “deep concern” about the deaths and injuries of protesters challenging his government.

Obama “emphasized that all political leaders in Egypt should make clear to their supporters that violence is unacceptable,” the White House said in a readout of the call, which came after thousands protested outside Morsi’s Cairo palace. At least six people were killed and close to 700 were injured, The Associated Press reported.

Obama welcomed Morsi’s call for talks with his opposition “but stressed that such a dialogue should occur without preconditions” and said the Obama administration is conveying the same message to the opposition, which has said it would not enter into dialogue with Morsi unless he rescinds decrees that give him nearly unlimited powers.

The United States continues to support the Egyptian people and “their transition to a democracy that respects the rights of all Egyptians,” Obama said, but Egyptian leaders “across the political spectrum to put aside their differences and come together to agree on a path that will move Egypt forward.”