Stories in multiple publications have begun to emerge insinuating that the gas attack was not perpetrated by the Syrian government. These stories place the blame on the rebels opposing Assad's regime. One piece called the gas release accidental due a lack of competence with this weapon system. The other story said it was a purposeful act to attempt to draw the west into the conflict. One of these stories said Saudi Arabia supplied these munitions through a back room deal with the Intelligence Minister Prince Bandar. The other story said that the weapons were looted from Syrian strategic stockpiles.
Neither piece from my perspective rises to the level of crossing the threshold of credible journalism. Both stories cited unnamed anonymous sources for their reporting. (As an aside, there is nothing I hate more in journalism that unnamed anonymous sources. They can say whatever they wish and not have their credibility examined at close range. Something I think is crucial to understanding the merit with which their 'tale' deserves.) Both stories fail to provide evidence for their claimed assertions otherwise. When the unnamed anonymous sources are removed both pieces fall flat with a lack of any other independent evidence. Also, I am pretty sure that if either of these stories were true, I would be seeing this reporting on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, or in any number of venerable print publications. These assertions made in these stories are the sort all journalists dream of having attached exclusively to their byline or in a story featuring their name somewhere.
All of that being said, my primary assertion in the original story is still valid. I need to know who is responsible for this act. I don't wish in this case to fall victim to propaganda designed to rush the West into the midst of a middle eastern civil war. Innocent lives were snuffed out in an act of unparalleled barbarism. Those responsible need to be held to account. This is a war crime and a violation of international law on a multitude of levels. All indications, at this point, still place the blame on the Assad regime.
Barack announced on Saturday his intent to seek congressional approval to act. He said he wants both houses of congress on the record supporting military action before he proceeds. I was troubled by this announcement on several points. There is no Constitutional power granted to the congress in this regard. It is an outgrowth of the first Bush Administration's Gulf war strategy. I disagreed with it then, and I do now as well. The constitution's grant of power to congress in the foreign policy arena ends largely at the water's edge. The Obama administration also did not gavel the congress into a special session. It is content to wait for congress to return from its Summer recess. And the administration is willing to accept the assurances of congress for speedy consideration of this request.
Anyone who has watched congress over any length of time knows that 'speedy consideration' is a meaningless concept. This will likely get bogged down in partisan bickering. Special interests of every stripe from every sector will see this as a moment to come out and attempt to advance their agenda. Barring strong leadership and deft rules management, the final product could be a bloated Christmas tree bill filled with the vital needs to placate 535 representatives required to garner their support. If this is not a closed rule bill that allows no amendments that precludes grandstanding, blather, and filibustering it should not be taken seriously.
Another troubling development occurred over the weekend. Vladimir Putin emerged from his holiday bunker in Vladivostok and insisted that this matter be handled via the UN Security Council. This is a development that could have been predicted. Putin's government has and continues to not be interested in forgoing the billions of dollars in arms sales this conflict in Syria is putting in Russian coffers. Every attempt in the past to bring this to an up or down vote before the security council has ended poorly. The Syrian people suffering here do not factor into the Russian veto threats.
Any effort before the security council right now is a wasted effort. Russia and China have not signaled any willingness to move off their unilateral myopic interests. Justice for the Syrian people if left to the security council will end in a stillborn abortion of tragic proportions.
If the diplomatic corps uses the time that congressional action gives to make a full court press on Russia and China, the end result might change. The task is herculean to be sure. The changes are slim and the odds are long. If ever there was a time for the billions spent on the state department to be proven a wise investment it is now. Our nation's foreign policy apparatus needs to deliver now. The clock is ticking and innocent civilians are dying.
This is a time for courageous and bold leadership. It is a time for statesmen to emerge and prove their worth to be greater than the sum of their craven ego and reputations. It is a time for our leaders to step forward and be the leader they claimed to be in their campaign tracts.
This is a high stakes moment in which words are simply not enough. Speeches are not enough. This moment requires daring leadership to set risk aside and push all the chips into the pot. It demands that our philosophy become our policy. And not just a set of words on a page. Innocent blood shed by barbarians demands more than that.
If Assad is still in power at the end of this calendar year we will have failed. If those responsible for this gas attack have not been held to account by then, we will have failed. If our values haven't translated into action