Is it really all about chemical weapons?
by digby
Chris Hayes interviewed John Kerry last night and you should watch it if you missed it. It was really good.
I’m just going to highlight one little exchange:
HAYES: Can you unilaterally declare that you’re not taking responsibility for a civil war when the rebels on the ground are going to see this American intervention as possibly a door opening to further intervention and that is going to affect the way they conduct themselves.
KERRY: We have made it crystal clear to them. We make it crystal clear now in every statement that we have made, this action has nothing to do with engaging directly in Syria’s civil war on one side or the other. It has to do with enforcing a norm of international behavior that has protected people against chemical weapons. And it is one of the things — chemical, biological, nuclear warfare, we have decided as a world we are going to protect people against those weapons.
The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, a move that would greatly expand the CIA training now being done in Jordan, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.
The officials, who declined to be identified, said discussions were continuing and came as the Obama administration prods Congress to authorize limited military strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government in retaliation for a deadly Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people.
The proposal to use the U.S. military to train the rebels would answer the demands of some lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to do more to train and equip the Syrian opposition. President Obama in June decided to provide lethal aid to the rebels, but none of that assistance has arrived.
President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria in response to intelligence suggesting that the government of President Bashar Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to deploy chemical weapons while Congress debates whether to authorize military action.
Obama ordered the expansion beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list. The strikes would be aimed at the military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons and carried out the attacks against Syrian rebels, military officials said.
It occurred to me this morning that despite the resistance of the American people and many in congress, I think virtually everyone accepts this “preserving the international norms” banning chemical weapons rationale (regardless of whether or not they believe it will lead to further escalation.) It’s a testament to the trust people still have in the president that they believe him.
But it must be acknowledged that getting involved in the civil war, for which McCain and the right wing hawks have been lobbying for months, is certainly the neo-con approach (“real men go to Tehran — but Damascus is good too”.) And the realists in both parties have recommended arming the rebels for months. From all reports the president rejected that course and only decided to act as a result of the red line crossing. I have no reason to doubt those motives. But more cynical types might easily wonder if the administration has been looking for an excuse to get more involved and finally found it. At the very least it would appear that there’s some negotiating going on to ensure certain hawkish votes in congress. And that’s a worry.
Update: Also note that Kerry said he and Hagel were against the Iraq war. They both voted for it. C’mon.
.