Three ISIS Drones Have Been Destroyed in Iraq, Syria

   The latest official report of a drone in the possession of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is tucked in an August 3rd press release from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the overseers of the air campaign in Syria and Iraq against the terrorist organization.
     The reference is included in a list of targets from the previous day near the Iraqi town of Ramadi: "[T]hree airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL motorcycle, an ISIL drone, four ISIL vehicles and an ISIL resupply truck."
     A CENTCOM spokesperson told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the "remotely piloted aircraft 'RPA' was destroyed on the ground," but that the coalition was unable to confirm whether or not the drone had been armed.
     This drone destroyed in Iraq in August was the third ISIL drone targeted to date by Operation Inherent Resolve and the most recent hit since June. The only ISIS drone destroyed so far in Syria was located near Raqqah and was targeted on June 26th. CENTCOM reported that "five airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units, destroying five ISIL excavators, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL remotely piloted aircraft."
    The first instance of an ISIS drone being taken out by Operation Inherent Resolve was reported by the Daily Beast in the spring of 2015 based on a March 18th press release from CENTCOM. The Daily Beast quoted military officials as saying that "they believe the drone in question is one of several owned by ISIS but that fighters only recently started seeing them appear on the frontlines." At the time, it was believed the drone's mission was one of surveillance, not attack, and was described by military officials as "something that could be bought commercially."
     Although the Daily Beast article was entitled "Is ISIS Building a Drone Army?" and noted that experts have said that "ISIS could convert this kind of technology into something deadly," military officials dismissed the idea: "there [is] a big difference between what ISIS could have purchased off of Amazon.com ... and the Reapers and Predators deployed by coalition forces."
     When asked this week if drone use by ISIS was on the rise, a CENTCOM spokesperson told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "[c]urrently, there is no assessment indicating an increased use of RPA's [remotely piloted aircraft] by ISIL."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. Also, The Weekly Standard version of this post was the DrudgeReport's banner headline for about an hour Friday morning:

General: 'We Don’t Truly Understand' Russia's Plans in Syria

     Weekend remarks concerning Russia's current activities in Syria by Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO's supreme allied commander, are far from reassuring. Speaking to reporters after NATO's Military Committee Conference in Istanbul on Saturday, Breedlove acknowledged, "We don’t truly understand yet what it is that Russia is going to do in Syria." (via EuroNews) He went on to say:

We have heard everything from humanitarian operations to combat operations, so it remains to be seen what this will be in the end," Breedlove said. "What we are most concerned about is any operations that would continue to support the Assad regime and its terrible actions against its own people.

     Breedlove's comments follow reports that Russia has plans to establish an air base in the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, which is still under the control of the Assad regime. Russia's path to Syria has also been the cause of some concern and contention involving airspace permission from area countries for Russian aircraft on their way to Syria.
     Gen. Breedlove connected the concerns regarding Syria with Russia's incursions into and occupation of parts of Ukraine. "The issue of a revanchist Russia, which is now changing borders in Europe by force, has sort of brought everybody's attention," he said. However, Breedlove expressed confidence that Russian president Vladimir Putin recognized that violating a NATO border was far different from "crossing those international borders":

Clearly, Mr. Putin has made decisions and they have used force to invade and now occupy Ukraine's Crimea and they have used force to invade and now occupy portions of the Donbas, but I think that crossing those international borders is clearly different than crossing a NATO border.

     Earlier in September, Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration deserves credit for spurring NATO and European nations to take action against Russia in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine:

Were we not leading that effort, it would have been another example in this generation of a transgression that is impermissible without the international community responding, leading to more transgressions.  And if this aggression continues, the costs for Russia will continue to climb.

     So far the actions taken against Russia amount largely to economic sanctions and the beefing up of NATO deployments in central and eastern Europe. It is unclear what additional actions might be taken by the United States and its allies should Russian activities in Syria cross the line, and indeed it is unclear what exactly that line might be.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Admiral: 'Be Prepared' for Kobani, 'Other Towns and Other Cities to Fall' to ISIL

    Rear Admiral John Kirby appeared at a joint press briefing with Spokesperson Jen Psaki at the State Department Thursday and addressed the ongoing airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. As a number of Pentagon officials have done in recent weeks, Admiral Kirby downplayed the impact that airstrikes alone can have on stopping ISIL, with particular emphasis on Kobani, Syria, which borders Turkey:

What makes Kobani significant is the fact that ISIL wants it. And the more they want it, the more forces and resources they apply to it, the more targets that are available for us to hit there. I said it yesterday, keep saying it: Kobani could still fall. Our military participation is from the air and the air only right now, and we’ve all been honest about the fact that air power alone is not going to be able to save any town in particular.

    Kirby said that ISIL is likely to continue to gain territory in spite of the coalition air campaign, and that Kobani is not the only city likely to fall:

I think we’ve been pretty consistent about the fact that we need to all be prepared for other towns and other cities to fall too. This group wants ground. They want territory, they want infrastructure. We all need to be prepared for them to continue to try to grab that, and succeed in taking it.

    The extra emphasis placed on strikes against ISIL forces around Kobani, Kirby said, is not only a matter of strategy, but also simply a matter of weather:

One of the reasons you’ve seen additional strikes in the last couple of days is because we haven’t been able to strike quite as much, quite as aggressively inside Iraq. There’s been terrible weather there, sandstorms this time of year. It’s made it very hard for us to get intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms up over to see what we’re trying to do in Iraq. So we’ve had resources available that we might not have otherwise had available to strike them there in Kobani.

    Under persistent question from reporters at the briefing, Admiral Kirby used some colorful language to further explain what the overall strategy of the air campaign is and what it is not:

Airstrikes are dynamic, they’re exciting, you can count them, you can get great video of them. I understand the drama around airstrikes, but we’ve said (a) airstrikes alone are not going to do this, military power alone is not going to do this, and it’s going to take some time...
So this isn’t – I hate to use this phrase, but it’s not whack-a-mole. We’re not going after this – the idea isn’t to just put a warhead on a forehead every single day. The idea is to try to get at their ability to sustain themselves and to disrupt their strategy.

    On the question of ground troops, the admiral made clear there are no plans for combat roles for U.S. forces in Iraq or Syria:

The commander-in-chief’s been pretty clear there’s not going to be a return to U.S. ground forces in a combat role in this effort. That said, we do have 12 advisor teams that are working with the Iraqi Security Forces at a very high level, brigade or division level, inside Iraq. They are not going out into the field. They are not accompanying Iraqi troops. They are simply offering advice and assistance at a headquarters level – seven in Baghdad and the other five are up near Erbil. I do not foresee any instance in which we would put ground troops inside Syria.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Josh Earnest Versus Ben Rhodes on ISIL in Syria and Iraq

    Josh Earnest appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe Friday in damage-control mode after President Obama's "we don't have a strategy yet" remark during his press conference on Thursday. Almost immediately after the president made the comment in response to a question by Chuck Todd, Earnest took to Twitter to quash the firestorm of criticism that ensued from friend and foe alike:

In his remarks today, POTUS was explicit - as he has been in the past - about the comprehensive strategy we'll use to confront ISIL threat.
— Josh Earnest (@PressSec) August 28, 2014

    Friday, Earnest acknowledged the president's words, but tried to provide additional context to clarify the White House message. CBS's Mark Knoeller tweeted this recap of Earnest's remarks:

On @Morning_Joe, Earnest acknowledges "no plans right now" for ISIL in Syria, but that Pres has "comprehensive plan" for ISIL in Iraq.
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) August 29, 2014

     Rather than tamp down criticism, however, Earnest may have exacerbated the president's problem since his explanation contradicts a statement by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes just a week ago. Rhodes appeared with Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz at a press briefing in Edgartown, Massachusetts during the president's vacation. In response to a question about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey's statement about how to defeat ISIL, Rhodes replied, "[W]e certainly agree that any strategy to deal with the ISIL organization has to deal with both sides of the border, Iraq and Syria." Here is the full exchange:

Q    On Islamic State, yesterday General Dempsey said that Islamic State can only be defeated if the fight is taken to them in Syria.  I wondered, is that -- does the President agree with that?  And if so, how does he intend to undertake it?  And would it mean a significant change in the mission against Islamic State? 

MR. RHODES:  Well, we certainly agree that any strategy to deal with the ISIL organization has to deal with both sides of the border, Iraq and Syria.  The strategy that we are already undertaking does address that in the sense that we are providing training and equipping and assistance to the Iraqi security forces and Kurdish security forces who are fighting them on the ground in Iraq.  We are also providing support and military assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition.  What we would like to see is those efforts squeeze the space where ISIL operates.  

But there are other elements to our strategy.  One is to enlist the support of partners in the region and the international community, because this poses a significant threat not just to the United States and to the Iraqi and Syrian people, but to the entire region.  And there are things that we can do with partners to mobilize communities in places like Iraq to work to expel ISIL.  

Then there’s the question of U.S. military action.  And the President has already authorized U.S. military action on the very specific missions of protecting our people and personnel and our facilities in Baghdad and Erbil.  He’s also authorized military action to deal with the humanitarian crisis on Mount Sinjar.  Again, as we look ahead and look forward, we are going to do what is necessary to protect Americans.  And so if we see plotting against Americans, we see a threat to the United States emanating from anywhere, we stand ready to take action against that threat.  

We’ve made very clear time and again that if you come after Americans, we’re going to come after you wherever you are.  And that’s what’s going to guide our planning in the days to come.

    Earnest has not yet responded to a request to square his remarks this morning with Rhodes's statement from last Friday.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: Terrorists in Syria, Iraq 'Thinking About How They Can Hurt People... in the United States'

    Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows recently with her assertion that the five Taliban commanders transferred to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl are "not a threat to the United States." John Kerry, in remarks Thursday to the U.S. Embassy staff in London, seemed to take issue with Clinton's assessment on the relative danger posed to the United States by terrorists in foreign lands [emphasis added]:

[W]e’re living in an era – a tectonic shift, a moment of extraordinary change. And our interests are at stake everywhere.
That’s what I want to reinforce in you. There’s no us and them, over there, over here, and you’re safe. We’re all connected to what’s going on. Terrorists in Syria today, in Iraq today are thinking about how they can hurt people in London or Paris or Berlin or even in the United States. And they don’t offer anything else to their people. They’re not offering an education plan, they’re not offering – well, actually, it’s do what we tell you. Read one book and that’s it, and you live by it. But they’re not offering a broad-based set of opportunities and education. They don’t talk about building their country, they don’t have healthcare, nothing. That’s what we’re struggling with.

    In an interview at The Hague in 2009, Clinton herself seemed more concerned about the direct threat posed to the United States by the Taliban than her recent remarks would indicate:

QUESTION: President Obama just last week was talking about the Taliban and al-Qaida. He said that they are regenerating and they’re a threat to the United States and to its allies. And just today we had the head of the Pakistan Taliban making a threat against directly the United States, in fact, Washington, D.C. – Baitullah Mehsud saying he’s planning a terrorist attack that would “amaze the world.” What can you tell us about that? Do you know how serious it is and could the Taliban actually mount such a threat? 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, remember that leaders of the Taliban are in a syndicate relationship with al-Qaida. They are allies, they depend upon one another. Al-Qaida provides planning, logistical, financial support. The Taliban provides a safe haven. So it’s a totally interconnected relationship. So what we respond to something like that is to make clear that threats like that will be dealt with. We will be obviously vigilant and prepared. But it illustrates exactly why we’re doing what we’re doing. Anybody who thinks we can walk away from Afghanistan and Pakistan and the border area is forgetting it happened on September 11th, 2001. I was a Senator from New York. I don’t forget. I know what these people are capable of doing. And we’ve kept them at bay and we’re going to dismantle them, disrupt and defeat them.

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

Kerry: 'Not Going To Pin Ourselves Down' on Response If Syria Again Used Chemical Weapons

    In London Thursday for a meeting with the foreign ministers of the nations of the London 11, the Friends of Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “raw data that suggests there may have been” chlorine-based chemical weapons used by the Assad regime in Syria:

Chlorine is not listed on the list of prohibited items by itself freestanding under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But chlorine, when used and mixed in a way that is used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war, is against the chemical weapons treaty. And I have seen evidence, I don’t know how verified it is – it’s not verified yet – it’s hasn’t been confirmed, but I’ve seen the raw data that suggests there may have been, as France has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. And if it has, and if it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to.

    Kerry was then questioned by a reporter about the possible responses if the evidence eventually proves that chemical weapons were indeed used again:

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken? 

SECRETARY KERRY: ...With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

    In an interview on September 10, 2013, the secretary said that proof of Syria's use of chemical weapons was the "straw that broke the camel’s back" that prompted President Obama to order military strikes against Syria:

That’s when the President decided that that was straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak with respect to his usage. And the President decided that it needed a response from the world because chemical weapons were suddenly being used as a tactical weapon in a civil war, and any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. 

That’s why we’re here where we are today. There’s a moral imperative to this, there’s a strategic imperative to this, there’s a practical military imperative in terms of sending him a message that his infrastructure, militarily, and his capacity to wage war could be affected if he continues to use these prohibited, outlawed, and outrageous weapons.

    Two days later at an appearance with Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, Kerry said that the president maintained that "force might be necessary" "should diplomacy fail[.]"  After the Russian-brokered deal with Syria headed off military strikes, Kerry said "Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving."
    Kerry did not mention a renewal of the strike threat when questioned this Thursday about the consequences to Syria if use of chemical weapons is proven again.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry on Syria: "I Don’t Want To Get Into the Definitions" of Genocide

    In a Wednesday interview with Andrea Mitchell, Secretary of State John Kerry resisted Mitchell's assertion that "genocide" was taking place in Syria:

QUESTION: I want to ask you about Syria. For three years, we have watched horrific pictures. You spoke of this when you were a senator. Obviously, now you’ve got the lead role on it. Horrible pictures. I looked at video of a child weeping over his mother’s body after a barrel bomb was dropped on her and other civilians by the regime. Just today, this picture on the wires from Yarmouk, from the refugee camp in southern Damascus. Why isn’t this genocide? 

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Andrea, that gets into all kinds of definitions. What it is is wholesale killing of your own people. And -- 

QUESTION: But it’s killing of one or another ethnic group by a minority leadership. 

SECRETARY KERRY: Again, I don’t want to get into the definitions. What he is doing is outrageous, unconscionable, unacceptable, disgraceful, craven. It’s horrendous. And we all know that; everybody knows that. And President Obama has been deeply committed to trying to make a difference in ways that we have chosen within the law that we believe are appropriate and permissible...

    In 2004, then-presidential candidate Kerry was not as reticent about defining the situation in Darfur as genocide in an address to the NAACP (via Bloomberg):

Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, said the Bush administration should stop ``equivocating'' and formally label as genocide the attacks in Darfur, which have killed up to 80,000 people and displaced more than 1 million. 

``These government sponsored atrocities should be called by their rightful name -- genocide,'' Kerry said in an address to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Philadelphia. ``The government of Sudan and the people of Darfur must understand that America stands prepared to act, in concert with our allies and the UN, to prevent the further loss of innocent lives.''

    Recent estimates of the conflict in Syria place the death toll around 140,000, with another half-million injured, and millions displaced.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry Uses Vietnam War Peace Talks as Reference for Syria Policy

    In an interview on Wednesday, CNN's Jake Tapper questioned Secretary of State John Kerry about some of the thorny issues the nation's top diplomat is facing, among them Iran, the security of the Sochi Olympics, and Syria.  On that latter issue, Tapper asked the secretary point blank if the Obama administration's Syria policy had failed:

TAPPER:  The director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said that Bashar al-Assad in Syria has been strengthened since the chemical weapons deal.  The United Nations says that Assad's regime is torturing children.  He seems to be - Assad seems to be slow-walking the chemical weapons process and those are only the weapons that he's acknowledged he has, not other ones that he might be stockpiling, according to other reports. 

Hasn't the policy in Syria failed?

    While Kerry acknowledged that "it's fair to say that Assad has improved his position a little bit," he asserted that despite the fact that "diplomacy is tough, slogging, slow work and hard work," progress was being made. In making his point about the nature of diplomacy, however, the secretary may wish in retrospect that he'd picked a different example:

[The parties in the Syrian conflict] will come back in a few days to Geneva, resume the conversation, not just, you know, I - I don't want to make any excuse whatsoever.  We want this to move faster.  We want it to do better.
But I remember talks around Vietnam, where it took Henry Kissinger a year to get the size and shape of the table decided.  It took another several years before they even came to some kind of an agreement.

    Efforts to establish peace talks to end the Vietnam war began in 1968 and after many delays, as Kerry said, eventually culminated in the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  But despite the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded in connection with the accords, the terms were widely ignored, and the North Vietnamese overran the south and captured Saigon in 1975.  Kerry, who served in the Vietnam War, was an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in the conflict.
    Wednesday was not the first time Kerry has drawn on the history of Vietnam diplomacy in conjunction with a Mideast conflict.  In early January this year, Kerry referenced his recent trip to Vietnam as a lesson of how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may someday be resolved:

On a personal level, last month I traveled to Vietnam on my first visit there as Secretary of State.  And the transformation in our relationship -- I was a young soldier who fought there -- the transformation in our relationship is proof that as painful as the past can be, through hard work of diplomacy history's adversaries can actually become partners for a new day and history's challenges can become opportunities for a new age.

    Despite Kerry's January assertion that "history's adversaries can actually become partners," the Acting U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council Peter Mulrean had some rather harsh words for Vietnam, ironically on Wednesday, the same day that John Kerry was interviewed by Jake Tapper. Reuters reported Mulrean's statements:

"Vietnam still harasses and detains those who exercise universal rights and freedoms, such as freedoms of expression and association," acting U.S. Ambassador Peter Mulrean said in a debate that was part of the 47-member forum's scrutiny of the record of all U.N. member states every four years. 

The United States was also concerned at restrictions placed on religious freedoms and on forming independent trade unions, the use of child labor and the government's use of compulsory labor, he said. 

Vietnam should "revise vague national security laws that are used to suppress universal rights and unconditionally release all political prisoners", he said. 

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

Playing Chess With Iran

    To hear Obama administration officials tell it, Iran got snookered at the bargaining table in Geneva.  The description of the deal worked out between the P5+1 and the world's largest supporter of terrorism is so one-sided, it's a wonder the foreign minister of Iran will be allowed back into his home country.  Two unnamed senior administration officials held a background conference call with reporters early Sunday morning after Secretary of State Kerry addressed the press about the deal.  Here are a few of their remarks:

• So these are very important concessions and the most significant progress that has been made in halting the progress of the uranium program in a decade...
• Along with those agreements come an unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of the Iranian program...
• This is much more extensive monitoring than we have today, and it is a significant portion of this agreement...
• So, taken together, again, a halt of activities across the Iranian program, a rollback in certain important elements, and extensive and intrusive monitoring...
• First and most importantly, [Iranian sanctions] relief is limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible. It is designed so that the core of our sanctions, the sanctions that have had a tremendous bite -- the oil, banking and financial sanctions -- all remain in place. So in that very important respect, this deal is limited...
• Second, the relief that Iran gets under this agreement is insignificant economically...
• Iran is not back in business and anyone who makes the mistake of thinking so I think will be met with some serious consequences...
• The deal that was struck is very limited in terms of the additional business that Iran can engage in...
• So just looking at oil revenue alone, Iran will actually be worse off at the end of this six-month deal than it is today...

    And all of this while still explicitly acknowledging "Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record[.]"  What is in this deal for Iran?  What motive does the regime that still publicly calls for Israel's destruction have?

The purpose of sanctions were not to just have sanctions in place. They were to change the calculus of the Iranian government. We began to see that with the election of a new President who ran on a mandate to achieve sanctions relief through a more moderate foreign policy towards the West. And we had an opportunity, the best opportunity we've had in five years, to test whether we could get an agreement through diplomacy.

    The situation calls to mind an amateur chess player who has just taken an important piece in a game with a grandmaster. "Did you see that?  I took his rook! He's in trouble now!" Meanwhile, the grandmaster is saying, "Wow... never saw that coming!" but a smile is visible behind his eyes as he envisions the endgame twelve moves in the future.  If Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Egypt are any indication, the Obama administration will once again be shaking its head and saying, "But things were going so well..." This time, however, the endgame could be the worst outcome yet: a nuclear Iran.

White House Grants Partial Waiver to Syria Relative to Trafficking Victims Protection Act

    The White House released a Presidential Memorandum today entitled "Presidential Determination on Traficking [sic] in Persons."  The memo relates to funding provided or denied to foreign governments in accordance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.  According to the memo, the U.S. is required:

not to provide certain funding for those countries' governments ... until such governments comply with the minimum standards or make significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance [with standards in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.]

    However, the details of the president's memo reveal certain waivers or other adjustments that are granted by the discretion of the president if he determines continued funding is in the best interests of the United States.  Syria is such one country that is granted a partial waiver to some of the funding restrictions for fiscal 2014, including those for "educational and cultural exchange programs":

Determine, consistent with section 110(d)(4) of the Act, with respect to Syria and Eritrea, that a partial waiver to allow funding for educational and cultural exchange programs described in section 110(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act would promote the purposes of the Act or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States... 

Determine, consistent with section 110(d)(4) of the Act, with respect to Syria and Equatorial Guinea, that assistance described in section 110(d)(1)(B) of the Act would promote the purposes of the Act or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States;

Section 110(d)(4) reads:

(4) CONTINUATION OF ASSISTANCE IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST.—Notwithstanding the failure of the government of the country to comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and to make significant efforts to bring itself into compliance, the President has determined that the provision to the country of nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance, or the multilateral assistance described in paragraph (1)(B), or both, would promote the purposes of this division or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States.

Section 110(d)(1)(A)(ii) reads:

(ii) in the case of a country whose government received no nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance from the United States during the previous fiscal year, the United States will not provide funding for participation by officials or employees of such governments in educational and cultural exchange programs for the subsequent fiscal year until such government complies with the minimum standards or makes significant efforts to bring itself into compliance[.]

Section 110 (d)(1)(b) reads:

(B) the President will instruct the United States Executive Director of each multilateral development bank and of the International Monetary Fund to vote against, and to use the Executive Director’s best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the funds of the respective institution to that country (other than for humanitarian assistance, for trade-related assistance, or for development assistance which directly addresses basic human needs, is not administered by the government of the sanctioned country, and confers no benefit to that government) for the subsequent fiscal year until such government complies with the minimum standards or makes significant efforts to bring itself into compliance.

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

President Obama: On Syria, We Can Wait

    Since the 2010 elections, President Obama has often expressed impatience with Congress, and at times has said that he would not wait for Congress, did not need Congress, or has simply acted without Congress.  At one point, the White House developed an entire We Can't Wait campaign to emphasize the unilateral action President Obama would take in the face of an uncooperative legislature.

    Now, however, after building the case and presenting evidence via John Kerry that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered a horrific chemical weapons attack against his own people on August 21, President Obama abruptly reversed course to We Can Wait for Congress, even going so far as to say that "our capacity to execute this mission [against Syria] is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now."
    First, President Obama put his plans to confront this murderous dictator on hold until Congress weighed in (the same Congress described by the president just a month ago as "those folks [who] think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency").  Now, he's asked Congress to wait on the use of force authorization while the plan put forth by the Russians has a chance to play out.  So it seems fair to look at what President Obama has said could not wait for Congressional action in the past three years or so:

• February 2012: President Obama: Our Children Can’t Wait for Congress to Fix No Child Left Behind, Announces Flexibility in Exchange for Reform for Ten States
• October 2011: President Obama says that we can’t wait for Congress to take action to grow the economy and create jobs and highlights actions he took to help families refinance their mortgages, put veterans to work, and lower the cost of student loans.
• July 2013 - Remarks by the President on the Economy -- Warrensburg, Missouri - "So where I can act on my own, I’m going to.  I’m not going to wait for Congress."
• November 2011 - Remarks by the President Urging Congress to Pass the Infrastructure Piece of the American Jobs Act - "We can’t wait for Congress to do its job.  If they won’t act, I will.  (Applause.)  And that’s why today, I’m announcing that we are actually going to expedite loans and competitive grants for new projects all across the country..."
• January 2012 - We Can't Wait: The White House Announces Federal and Private Sector Commitments to Provide Employment Opportunities for Nearly 180,000 Youth - "America’s youth can’t wait for Congress to act.  This is an all-hands-on-deck moment."
• December 2011 - We Can’t Wait: Obama Administration Announces $2 Billion in Resources to Support Job-Creating Startups - "Today’s announcement is the latest in a series of executive actions the Obama Administration is taking to strengthen the economy and move the country forward because we can’t wait for Congress to act."
• April 2012 - We Can't Wait: President Signs Memorandum Establishing Policies for Addressing Domestic Violence in the Federal Workplace - "The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and while we wait for Congress to reauthorize this critically needed legislation, the federal government is doing its part."
• July 2012 - Fact Sheet: Creating Pathways to the Middle Class for All Americans - "In addition, recognizing that we can’t wait for Congress to act, President Obama has announced nearly 300,000 summer jobs and other employment opportunities for youth..."
• January 2012 - Regional Roundup: Richard Cordray Will Protect American Consumers [Recess Appointment] - "Millions of Americans can’t afford to wait for Congress to act.   He’s the right man for the job."
• June 2011 - Obama administration: Libya action does not require congressional approval
• July 2013 - Delay of Employer Mandate for Affordable Care Act - "If Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case," Obama said. "But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."
• August 29, 2013 - FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence - "Even as Congress fails to act... the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence."

    But suddenly, we can wait.  But how long?


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

U.S. Embassy in Iraq Warns of 'Threats' Related to Potential Syria Attack

    A few hours before midnight in Iraq as September 11 approached, the US Embassy in Baghdad posted an Emergency Message warning "U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq."  Although the notice referenced the anniversary of 9/11, the main reason for the warning is apparent threats against U.S. interests and workers in Iraq due to the potential U.S. military action against Syria:

Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens 

The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq.  Due to heightened safety and security risks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activities throughout Iraq, the U.S. government remains highly concerned about the danger to U.S. citizens, whether visiting or residing in Iraq, and to U.S. facilities and businesses.  Threats against U.S. interests, U.S. assets, and foreign companies employing U.S. personnel in Iraq have been reported, related to a possible U.S. military strike on Syria. 

On the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Embassy reminds U.S. citizens of the need for caution and awareness of personal security.  U.S. citizens in Iraq should avoid areas where large gatherings may occur.  Even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.  You should avoid areas of demonstrations and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations.

    Just a few days ago, the FBI and Homeland Security reported no credible threats related to the upcoming anniversary, according to Fox News.  Tuesday's embassy warning did not give any further detail of the threats in Iraq.  The latest travel warning on the Iraq page of the main State Department travel website is from September 5 and does not include the reference to Syria.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

NASA Website Hacked: Protesting US Spying in Brazil and Action Against Syria

    NASA's website was hacked Monday night by a group calling itself "#BMPoC".  The page put up by the group was at this url (kepler.nasa.gov/news/managerupdates/) and as of just before midnight on Monday appeared as follows:

    Visitors to the page are first greeted with a pop-up window which reads "DO NOT ATTACK THE SYRIAN" followed by another reading "U.S. SPY STOP THE BRAZIL" before the image above appears.  The complete text of the page is:

NASA HACKED! BY #BMPoC
We are: Cyclone - MMxM - UT0P|4
Greats: Xploiter Hacker - Invectus - DIeG0
Stop spy on us.
The Brazilian population do not support your attitude!
The Illuminati are now visibly acting!
Obama heartless!
Inhumane! you have no family? the point in the entire global population is supporting you. NOBODY!
We do not want war, we want peace!!! 

     The source code references two website with Brazilian suffixes: http://maquinas-sorvetes.com.br/ and www.valor.com.br, but apparently only to reference images used in the screen produced above.
    This is apparently not the first time this hacker has managed to hijack a portion of NASA's website.  In April, the website hackread.com reported on a similar incident.  There are other reports of NASA's site being hacked as well.

Kerry: "No Soldiers Put At Risk" in Attacking Syria

    The New York Times reported on September 5 that the United States is widening plans for proposed strikes on Syria to punish the Assad government for its alleged chemical weapons attacks.  The plans now reportedly include the use of aircraft in addition to cruise missiles:

For the first time, the administration is talking about using American and French aircraft to conduct strikes on specific targets, in addition to ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. There is a renewed push to get other NATO forces involved.

    However, remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday at a press conference in Paris with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius seem to contradict that assertion.  In a very long response to a question from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News about the trouble the administration is having building support for its plans, Kerry repeated his "no boots on the ground" pledge, but went further with an assertion that there would be "no soldiers put at risk" [emphasis added]:

But it’s clear to me as I talk to friends of mine in the Congress that there’s a quick and automatic reaction by people in America – and I understand it – and people here and elsewhere. They hear: Oh my gosh, the President is thinking of a military action against an Arab – a country in the Arab world; here we go again, here’s Iraq, here’s Afghanistan, here we are.
But no, there will be no boots on the ground, no soldiers put at risk, no lengthy action, no long term – this is not Iraq, it is not Afghanistan, it’s not Libya, it’s not Kosovo. It’s nothing remotely like that.

    To argue that no soldiers would be at risk with aircraft flying bombing runs over Syria would be optimistic at best and more likely outright disingenuous.  Kerry's assurance also appears to discount any possible retaliation from Syria.
    Kerry also used some colorful language to describe what underlies the resistance to President Obama's plans to respond to Syria:

And people have an automatic sense of disconnect because it is, as Laurent said, far away and all the reasons. I’m not going to rebuild that. But there is an Iraq hangover. There is just a huge doubt in people’s minds, which I completely understand, because we all got burned by that and we’re still paying the price.

    The president and Secretary Kerry will be conducting a full court press this week, with press interviews, Congressional briefings, a Google hangout, and a presidential address to the nation.


Note: A version of this article first appeared the The Weekly Standard.

Syriaquestration: Governing by Hobson's Choice

    On Wednesday, I posited the following on Twitter:

Asking Congress for Syria authorization seems like foreign policy version of #sequestration. Obama admin can't *Imagine* Congress won't act.
— Jeryl Bier (@SpeakWithAuthor) September 4, 2013

    Thursday, James Taranto, in his Best of the Web column, also reflected on the president's actions regarding Congress and the authorization vote:

If we take Obama and Kerry at their word, then the president did not even consider the possibility that Congress would reject his request. Given the haste in which he made the decision and the desultoriness of his own effort to make the case for the request, that is a plausible reading of what happened. 

Failing to consider this contingency would be a stunning failure of planning... 

The other possibility is that Obama did not regard approval as a sure thing but figured that he'd win either way--that if Republicans balked, he could blame them for inaction in Syria, and if they went along with intervention, they'd share the blame for anything that went wrong...

    Taranto's take, which I excerpted here, is worth reading in full (almost invariably the case,) and I believe it supports my Syriaquestration thweesis (as long as I am coining words, why not two?)  The president and his spokespersons have often said that the sequestration, which the White House has only grudgingly acknowledged the president's role in proposing, was purposely designed to be so bad that no one would allow it to kick in.  As the country learned this spring, the president miscalculated.  Congress did not blink and the sequestration took effect.  The time-release poison pill was apparently not strong enough to kill opposition to the president's taxing and spending priorities.  So far, consequences of the sequester have been mixed, better or worse depending on which party is asked.
    Now the president has thrown down the gauntlet again, apparently not considering the possibility that Congress might pass on picking it up.  Or that Congress would pick it up, depending how you read the president's challenge.  That possibility has quickly almost become a fait accompli with many observers saying the president might not only lose on the Syria authorization vote, but lose "big", according to a Thursday night Politico report.  Whatever the president's reason or reasons for passing the buck to Congress, he may come to regret it.  Even if he was initially hoping Congress would vote down his proposal to get him off the hook for his "red line" remark, he and his subordinates in the last few days have portrayed the consequences of no military response as so dire that anything short of a disaster in Syria after a no vote would seriously damage the credibility of the administration.
    While there are similarities between the sequestration and Syriaquestration, and whatever harm has come from the former, the consequences of the latter are likely to be far worse, whatever the outcome of the current debate in Congress.  The president may learn too late that Hobson's Choice politics is a dangerous game, and the people of Syria, the entire Middle East, and the United States may all end up paying a high price for his ill-advised gamble.

U.N. Secretary General: 'Give Peace a Chance' in Syria

    Even as United Nations personnel are in Syria trying to investigate chemical weapons claims that have further exacerbated that country's bloody civil war, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was incongruously tasked with the celebration of the centennial of the Peace Palace in The Hague.  After praising the 100 year old "magnificent building" that houses the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hague Academy of International Law and the Peace Palace Library, the Secretary-General urged all sides in Syria to "give peace a chance," noting the presence of the weapons inspectors currently in the country.  He also questioned the wisdom of supplying arms to either side in the conflict, asking "what have those arms achieved but more bloodshed?"
    Here are his full remarks on Syria:

Above all, I think about Syria, where a catastrophic civil war has killed more than 100,000 people by now, ignited sectarian tensions and generated instability across the region.
Now we have reached the most serious moment in this conflict.
The latest escalation has caused horrendous casualties.  And through images unlike any we have seen in the 21st century, it has also raised the spectre of chemical warfare.
The use of chemical weapons by anyone, for any reasons, under any circumstances, would be an atrocious violation of international law.
It is essential to establish the facts.  A United Nations investigation team is now on the ground to do just that.
Just days after the attacks, they have collected valuable samples and interviewed victims and witnesses. The team needs time to do its job.
Here in the Peace Palace, let us say: Give peace a chance.  Give diplomacy a chance.  Stop fighting and start talking.
And here in this hall dedicated to the rule of law, I say: let us adhere to the United Nations Charter.
To those providing weapons to either side, we must ask: what have those arms achieved but more bloodshed?
The military logic has given us a country on the verge of total destruction, a region in chaos and a global threat.  Why add more fuel to the fire?
We must pursue all avenues to get the parties to the negotiating table.  The joint envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League continues his efforts.
Most of all, the Security Council of the United Nations must uphold its responsibilities under the Charter - moral and political responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.
Syria is the biggest challenge of war and peace in the world today.  The body entrusted with maintaining international peace and security cannot be missing in action.  The Council must at last find the unity to act.  It must use its authority for peace.

    So far, Russia and China have opposed any action by the UN against Syria.

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

"Red Line" According to the Military? "You Can Get Shot"

    The declaration of a "red line" by President Obama a year ago regarding Syria and chemical weapons has provoked confusion among even the president's supporters, and derision from his detractors.  In a recent State Department press briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki had the unenviable task of trying to make a fuzzy policy seem otherwise:

MS. PSAKI: Well, the redline has been clear. I know there’s been some confusion about this. The redline is the use of CW, the use of chemical weapons. That was crossed a couple of months ago. The President took action, which we talked about at the time. While, as I mentioned, we’re still focused on nailing down the facts – the intel community is focused on that, the Administration is focused on that – if these reports are true, it would be an outrageous and flagrant escalation of use of chemical weapons by the regime. So our focus is on nailing down the facts. The President, of course, has a range of options that we’ve talked about before that he can certainly consider and, of course, discuss with his national security team...

MS. PSAKI: We did take action. We did – we’re not going to outline the inventory of what we did. That remains the same as it was a couple of months ago. But the President acted. We crossed a redline. It did change the calculus, and we took action, and we have the opportunity, or the option, to do more if he chooses to do more...

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to outline the conversations, the private conversations, that are happening. There is broad agreement that any step we would take would be one – the decision would be part of what’s in our national security interests, what helps advance our interests in Syria, and certainly, the crossing of a redline would be part of that calculus and part of that decision. But there’s a range of options that are being discussed as well as a range of step – a range of incoming information that’s being discussed as part of these meetings as well. 

    Since the context of the president's red line declaration is a military conflict, it seems fair to look to the military for a definition.  Fortunately, we do not have to look far.  On July 18 of this year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter addressed the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.  While Carter was not discussing Syria or setting conditions on the conduct of foreign nations, in the course of answering a question, he gave an example of a literal military “red line”.  The contrast to the Obama administration’s red line ("exploring a range of options", "change the calculus") is stark:

And you have to have a system, which I would liken to our longstanding system for handling nuclear weapons.  You know, we have no-alone zones.  We have two-man rule.  You go out to, you know, Barksdale and walk around the Apron, and you'll see a red line.  And it says you cross that red line, you can get shot, because there are areas where you're simply not to be, because proximity to nuclear weapons is too sensitive and momentous a thing to be allowed for individuals.  Because, you know, there's always some aberrant individual somewhere, and you've got to recognize that fact. 

    The guards at Barksdale Air Force Base do not “explore a range of options.”  Crossing the line does not "change the calculus." It's not calculus at all - it's geography.  "You cross that red line, you can get shot."  Bashar al-Assad does not seem to take "getting shot" by the U.S. seriously.
    The State Department's diplomatic personnel might be uncomfortable with the concept of a red line; hence Ms. Psaki's reticence about specifics.  But President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful armed forces in the world.  Guards at Barksdale Air Force Base cannot and would not tolerate someone playing chicken on the red line on the Apron with the security of nuclear weapons.  And President Obama should not have allowed Assad (an "aberrant individual" if ever there was one) to entertain any doubts about the intentions of the U.S. if he flouted the chemical weapons red line.  The consequences should have been clear and unequivocal.
    The president often employs the phrase, "Let me be clear."  As his administration struggles to regain foreign policy credibility and formulate a response to the latest alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, let us hope that this time, the president is indeed clear.  Our national security depends on it.

Does President Obama's Red Line for Syrian Chemical Weapons Only Cover "Civilian Populations"?

    Is President Obama creating some wiggle room on the “red line” for Syria?  Both John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have indicated that the Syrian forces under control of President Assad may have used chemical weapons.  Today, President Obama acknowledged that currently intelligence is being gathered and analyzed to determine if that indeed is the case.  But he framed his remarks and his answers to reporters' questions in such a way that might indicate that the use of chemical weapons would have to violate a yet unstated prohibition in order to be considered crossing the red line.
    The president made an appearance with King Abdullah II of Jordan for bilateral talks, and briefly addressed reporters.

[Y]esterday, some of you saw that I asked my people to brief Congress about the fact that we now have some evidence that chemical weapons have been used on the populations in Syria.  Now, these are preliminary assessments; they’re based on our intelligence gathering.  We have varying degrees of confidence about the actual use, but there are a range of questions around how, when, where these weapons may have been used...

We have to act prudently.  We have to make these assessments deliberately.  But I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations...

...knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used...

    What is unclear is what the president intended by "civilian populations."  Does he mean the line has not been crossed if chemical weapons were used on armed militants?  Otherwise, why would it matter “how they were used”?  Is there a distinction between dropping chemical weapons on a neighborhood of private homes and launching them in a battle directly against an active fighting force?  What actually constitutes a "game chang[ing]" use of chemical weapons?

    The president went on to say:

...for the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues...

     Again, "on its people" could mean civilians, or could be interpreted more broadly to mean any Syrian people whether or not they have taken up arms.  Congress will likely be pressing the administration for answers as the credibility of the United States is at stake, not only in Syria, but in North Korea and Iran as well, where other "red lines" have been drawn.  A world already on edge due to North Korea recent saber-rattling and Iran's nuclear ambitions will be anxiously waiting and watching.

President Obama Discusses "Limitations" of U.S. Military

    The New Republic recently published an interview with President Obama under the title: "Barack Obama is Not Pleased - The president on his enemies, the media, and the future of football."  However, the president's response to the final interview question may contain the most significant glimpse into his thinking on a topic more significant than football, the media, or his political enemies.  One of the interviewers, Chris Hughes, asked the president: "The last question is about Syria. I wonder if you can speak about how you personally, morally, wrestle with the ongoing violence there."  Here in part is his response:

And as I wrestle with those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations. In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?”

    While I would not contend that the situation in Syria (or the Congo or Afghanistan or Libya or Iraq, for that matter) is an easy call, one of the questions the president asks himself in regard to the American military's "limitations" has some disturbing implications: "How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan?" As recently as 2008, the US had more than 185,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, troop levels in Iraq are only a few thousand and the number in Afghanistan is around 68,000.  Has our military been weakened so much in the past five years that the president must consider if an intervention in Syria would degrade efforts to support troops in Afghanistan?

    In 2010, the Obama adminstration's Quadrennial Defense Review report stated:

In the mid- to long term, U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames. This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.

    Technically, the war in Afghanistan is not even against a "nation-state aggressor," but against the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies; still a formidable foe, but not a foe with the backing of an organized national government with all the resources that come with it.  What does it communicate to Iran or North Korea if the president is publicly airing concerns about our military's "limitations" as we (as he often characterizes it) "wind down" the war in Afghanistan, the only significant conflict in which the United States is currently involved?

    The rest of the interview makes it clear that the president is not reticent about projecting a position of strength to overcome his domestic political enemies.  His closing words about the flexibility and readiness of the U.S. military project a rather less confident posture to our enemies abroad.