Skip to comments.UK, Germany, Italy out, France still in on Syria strike (Where's the coalition of the willing?)
Posted on 08/30/2013 7:18:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After the stunning “no” vote in the UK Parliament, President Obama’s “coalition” partners have pretty much dwindled to … France.
The British parliament voted late Thursday against military action in Syria, whittling down the core of the planned coalition to the United States and France. Italy and Germany have said they won’t take part in any military action.
The British ‘no’ vote raised questions about France’s participation and ratcheted up pressure on U.S. President Barack Obama, who is also facing domestic skepticism about military intervention in Syria.
Amid the resistance, the U.S. administration shared intelligence with lawmakers Thursday aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.
Obama appeared undeterred by the difficulties forming an international coalition, and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Of course, the administration has yet to define how hitting Syria “to deter and degrade” does anything to “protect the national security interests of the United States”. In fact, even the most ardent of Obama’s supporters and supporters of the strike are finding it difficult to do that. While the White House spokesman is completely right about the duty of the president, a strike on Syria has no justification under that “duty to protect the national security interests” of the country. Until it can, it has no justification, legal or otherwise, for striking Syria.
As the cite mentions, not only is Britain out, but Germany and Italy have made it clear that they’ll not be participating in any strike on Syria. So America’s oldest ally as well as our predominant NATO allies have opted out.
That leaves France:
France sent a clear signal on Friday that it was preparing strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, with President François Hollande saying the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people cannot go unpunished.
“There are few countries with the capacities to inflict sanctions with the appropriate means,” Mr. Hollande said. “France is among those. It is ready.”
The French President said he would speak about the situation in Syria with U.S. President Barack Obama later Friday.
Hollande doesn’t have to get the French Parliament’s okay to commit France’s armed forces, but by law, he must inform Parliament within 3 days of any such commitment. France has scheduled an emergency meeting for Sept. 4. I assume you can do the simple math necessary to make an educated guess when France might strike. There’s also this to factor in:
Mr. Hollande ruled out conducting strikes against Syria before United Nations inspectors, who were dispatched to Damascus last week, had left the country. The inspectors, who are investigating whether chemical weapons were used, are expected to leave Syria on Saturday.
How would France strike? Probably by air with standoff weapons:
French military analysts say France’s most likely role would be from the air, including use of Scalp cruise missiles that have a range of about 500 kilometers (300 miles), fired from Mirage and Rafale fighter jets. French fighters could likely fly directly from mainland France much as they did at the start of a military campaign against Islamic radicals in Mali earlier this year with support from refueling aircraft. France also has six Rafale jets at Al Dhafra air base, near Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates on the Persian Gulf, and 7 Mirage-2000 jets at an air base in Djibouti, on the Red Sea.
And the goal?
Hollande reiterated that any action is aimed at punishing the regime of Bashar Assad, not toppling him.
“I won’t talk of war but of a sanction for a monstrous violation of the human person. It will have a dissuasive value,” he said.
Apparently the 100,000 already dead didn’t suffer enough of a “monstrous violation of the human person” to attract France or the US’s attention. But note one thing – “punishment” does not equal “national security interests”. And punishment is what this is all about. Punishment for ignoring the warnings of the West about chemical weapons use.
Meanwhile the Obama administration continues to try to build support even while ignoring the Congress and the people:
As President Obama prepares to make his case for a possible military strike against Syria’s government, he faces a formidable obstacle the public.
A new IBD/TIPP Poll of 904 adults, conducted Aug. 24-28, shows Americans have misgivings about military action vs. Bashar Assad’s regime.
Just 13% of those surveyed said they would “strongly” support U.S. military action in Syria. Another 25% said they would “somewhat” support it, for total support of nearly 39%.
In contrast, 52% said they opposed such a move either somewhat or strongly.
Not that it will matter. This is about ego. This is about demagoguery and putting one’s self in a box. What it isn’t about the national security interests of the United States.
Theres no end to lying, shucking & jiving once you've chosen sides.
You know you are screwed when the Germans say “Hell no!”
There you go Barry: the cheese-eating surrender monkeys got your back.
LOL...when France is your only parter, expect to do all of the heavy lifting.
I thought the frogs were all up and about this? Chicken shiites.
With the UK out, I think there is now less and less chance of President Obama ordering a military strike on Syria.
I do not disagree. Show me the interest, though. Incidentally, he's also sworn to uphold, preserve, and protect the Constitution, not dismantle it.
Expect the Paris Yutes to be rioting - just because. Even if the advancement of the MB by Obama’s bombing is a good thing for them.
I can imagine some back benchers talking to Cameron about this.
“The support in the UK for this endeavor is located in the storeroom next to the half dozen or so insulting gifts and insults Obama has made to the Crown government, in person to Her Royal Highness, the UK in general and England in particular.”
Under George W. Bush, 48 countries, all of whom understand the threat Saddam Husseins weapons pose to the world, were publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
On 3 April 2003, the number of Coalition members rose to 49 with the addition of Tonga.
I did not see France on that list.
Now going against Syria ( a Baathist in power similar to Saddam Hussein ), I don’t see ANY of those countries on that list EXCEPT France.
What does this tell us?
Meanwhile, because of the warnings given by Obama to the Syrian military to prepare for a US strike, the Syrian army has wisely:
Retreated from Damascus airport, and partially evacuated the Syrian General Staff and Air Force headquarters. They have also been moving their SCUD and larger missiles.
Their Russian technicians have also likely been testing their Russian built shore anti-ship missile batteries, Russian built advanced surface to air missiles.
The icing on the cake is that because the Saudis threatened Putin, Putin is telling the Saudis that if the west attacks Syria, Russia is going to attack Saudi Arabia.
To speak the obvious for those here unaware, it is because France is overrun with immigrants who favor the Muslim Brotherhood above all else.
Barbarossa: “If you’re going to kill the king, kill the king.”
Socialists Obastard & Hollande: “We just want to cuff him up a little.”
Was Saddam Hussein an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Why is Kerry going to be the one to come out in a couple of hours to make a statement about the intentions of the jerk hiding in the WH? We don’t have a Secretary of Defense? Yeah, I understand we do but he’s as useless as Kerry and everyone else surrounding that pathetic individual residing in the WH.
How about loud mouth Biden making the case to the American people? Can’t get his foot out of his mouth?
Trying to find a way to tell us what happens in Syria really affects our national security? Or are they thinking perhaps they’ve cut our military a little too much and maybe that wasn’t such a hot idea? HA! Fat chance.
talk about a stinkin “coalition of the willing”!!!!!!!!
Truthfully, I am not sure. I suspect not. He was guilty of being in the wrong place at the right time and for misreading the intentions of our government wrt terrorism and 9/11.
Today is a different world than then. Uprisings in Iran, Libya, Egypt, and now, Syria have a Muslim Brotherhood flavor than then IMO.
Following France on ANYTHING makes as much sense as following Ray Charles driving on an LA Freeway.
Curious as to what previous false flags he's referring to. Obumba and his boys are amateurs at everything except playing the race card!