Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

September 3, 2013 - 11:33 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The question posed in the headline is obviously an explosive one, pardon the pun. And I’m not endorsing a “yes” answer in highlighting Bodansky’s article.

I have wondered about something, though.

On August 20, 2012, President Obama issued his now famous “red line” comment regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons. Use of such weapons, Obama said at the time, would be a “game changer.”

Exactly a year later, Syrian government forces allegedly use chemical weapons — sarin gas — to kill nearly 1,500 Syrian civilians. Now America, we’re told, must respond.

Why would Assad do this? From a strategic point of view, why would he take action that invites — almost demands — Obama to take military action against him when he is in the middle of a violent civil war?

Assad has widely been believed to be winning the war against the rebels. Why take any action that could invite a rain of American Tomahawk missiles and maybe targeted B2 strikes on your forces and positions, and even specifically on you, personally? What did Assad have to gain from this? Why would a dictator who is fighting for his life decide to stick his thumb in America’s eye, in a strategically meaningless attack?

Granted, Assad may be the world’s worst general. He does come to Damascus’ bloody throne from a career as an eye doctor. If he were alive today, Stormin’ Norman would mock Assad’s military credentials.

But idiots don’t survive long as dictators. Someone is always plotting to kill you. You have to stay on your toes 24/7. One mistake and you’re Gaddafi. Bashar Assad has been dictator of Syria for about 13 years now. Iran’s pet he may be, Putin’s pal he may be, but a noob he is not.

Against Assad stands an array of rebel groups. Some are “moderates,” whatever that means in the context of the Middle East. Some are known to be al Qaeda.

Which side benefits more from the violation of Obama’s chemical weapons “red line”?

Assad is always likely to kill people indiscriminately. He has done it for years. How about al Qaeda?

Yeah. Killing people in large numbers is what they do.

9-11

So it’s worth pursuing whether the August 21 chemical attack might have been an al Qaeda operation designed to bring America into the war to harm or even topple Assad. It was worth the risk. If it succeeds, al Qaeda gets at least temporary help from the world’s most powerful military. If it fails, well, al Qaeda is already America’s enemy. What’s one more attack? If the attack succeeds, it would put Obama exactly where he has been in Libya and Egypt — against the stable dictator, and with chaos.

That’s what Bodansky is doing, asking questions and providing evidence. Well, that and implicating the Obama administration itself in orchestrating the attack.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
And why, after decades of mistrust of our intelligence community by the left, do Obama and the democrats suddenly trust their product now? We were supposedly duped by them over the same issue, WMD, in Iraq.

Republican leadership should take a deep breath and consider who they are partnering with on this Syria business. Obama has double crossed them plenty of times. He's just using Republicans as a human shield in case things go haywire.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (22)
All Comments   (22)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Article full of suppositions and guesses. A lot of nonsense. I trust the POTUS and know he will do what is best for true Americans and the world. The election is over, let's move on.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Exactly a year later..."

And one group in particular has a recognized history of celebrating such anniversaries by perpetrating murder.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thing is....Bodansky makes sense.

Assad was and still is winning.

The rebels AKA Al Qaeda are losing.

It is the Iran & Iraq war all over again.

"Why can't they both lose?"

Assad is the lesser of the two evils.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why would Assad use them? For the same reason Hitler broke the Munich Accords -- because he believed his opponent would blovate and back down. He also knows that his key weapons systems are in deep undergrounds that are impervious to the cruise missiles that are unlikely to rain down on him.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
How can you say that Sarin was used August 21, 2013?

The physical evidence argues the other way.

The US Army studied Sarin and the other nerve agents. It was established that it's IMPOSSIBLE for medics, doctors or morticians to touch the Sarin afflicted.

It's NOT A GAS. It persists on the clothing.

So, it's IMPOSSIBLE to perform Islamic burial rites upon such dead.

Yet, all of the agitprop show that such rites WERE performed.

Indeed, unprotected parties are standing right by the graveside.

It just can't be done if Sarin or some other nerve agent was used. They are THAT toxic.

Videos of the kids show nerve damage -- and burns. This is only consistent with thermobaric warheads. They flash burn the skin... and concuss the brain.

The latter effect reaches right down into bunkers; which is why the USAF used such weapons against AQ at Tora Bora.

Unexploded thermobaric warheads release ethylene oxide (or the like) which is known to be wildly toxic. Inhaled EO kills quickly. Such vapors fade rapidly. After which, it's possible to perform Islamic burial rites without further delay.

The debris at the sites evidence the mechanical timers known to be used by thermobaric rockets launched by the 155th Brigade. The proud crews even posted video of their launches up to the Web.

Such warheads are distinctive: since EO is not very dense, the tips of such weapons require expanded diameters: fat heads. Sarin tipped rockets don't. It's so lethal that putting that much chemical in one spot is ruinous overkill, bad military economics.

Fuel air explosives are not banned by Geneva, nor anywhere else. Every first rate military power has them in stock.

That Assad fired on non-military targets... well, that's happened to the USAF, too; the fog of war and all that.

Putin is right, and you are wrong. There is no proof that Sarin was used.

Instead we have a bunch of popinjays babbling around before the chemists can even find facts.

As for: would AQ spike the investigator's samples? Sure, you bet.

What we should be seeing is many, many, Sarin survivors -- who were on the edge of the attack zone. Some must exist -- if Sarin was used. They'd have NO BURNS and yet evidence nerve damage -- as against brain concussions.

Such victims would make for profound agitprop. So where are they?

46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wrong. Sarin is nonpersistent. You are thinking of V-agents and mustard gas.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I thought the administration had a good point in its reluctance to arm Al Qaeda. What happened to that in the mad rush to appear to be Superman rushing to save Lois Lane?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
My problem with this supposition is that it assumes a level of competence in the Obama administration of which I've never seen any evidence. If they'd planned something like this, they'd have found a way to screw it up, or leak it, or something. Frankly, I'm not even sure the Republicans could pull of something like this; I'm dead certain that Obama couldn't.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not too hard to believe, given that the current Director of CIA is a Sunni Muslim.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I seriously doubt if John Brennan is a Sunni Muslim. If you mean Obama, why not say that? Obama doesn't have to be a Muslim to screw up American foreign policy as horribly as he has. He just has to be a Democrat. How's about we stick to what's relevant, rather than dragging red herrings across the analysis.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, he means the CIA director--John Brennan--as he said.

There's a YouTube video in which Brennan implies visiting Mecca, something he could not do if he were not a Muslim.

46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Given that the muslim Brotherhood was seen shooting their own people in Egypt to help gin up support, it would not surprise me to learn that the rebels used gas on their own people (or their allies or those not involved).

Given that Obama lied about the video causing the Benghazi attack and his administration using US government-supported smugglers to send weapons to cartels in Mexico to provide cover for attacking the 2nd amendment it would not surprise me that he/his people knew ahead of time about the gas attack.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've wondered if there is some connection between Benghazi, with rumors that weapons were being smuggled from Libya to Syria, and this sudden urge to aid terrorist organizations in Syria. This is all hypothetical, but I hope someone with better connections follows up.

BTW, the biggest Christian group in Syria opposes our intervention.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
my question exactly who has to gain?????????
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are assuming Assad is rational.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
There's no evidence to the contrary.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thinking that a strike will deter him from using more chemical weapons if he already has done so ALSO assumes he is rational.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or not that irrational or not that stupid.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All