American protesting the decision of U.S. President Barack Obama's military strike against Syria

U.S. source reveals (range Press) "undeclared secrets in Obama's position"

Author:
Editor: BS, NF
09/13/2013 12:49
Number of readings: 1692

Range Press / Washington

Source told senior U.S. (long-Presse), the interpretations and interpretations which are published on the position of President Barack Obama from the Syrian crisis, does not reflect the real position of the White House, including, and paradoxes in his remarks may be intended to camouflage the decisions that it intends to take in the end.

The source, who asked not to be named, explained that "an important aspect of American contacts with Washington's allies in the region have not yet revealed, and announced a deferred, has been keen circles the White House and State Department and Pentagon to cover it, waiting for the right moment."

The source pointed out the U.S. in an interview to the (long-Presse), that "a careful reading and cool to Obama's ideas, as can touch it at every meeting of his meetings with six successive conducted recently with major television networks in the U.S. show that he did not back down from his core, with evidence that repeated justificatory arguments for limited military strike, and these propositions are the following:

- Chemical weapons non-discriminatory.

- The prohibition of such weapons constitutes a protection for U.S. forces and U.S. national security.

- The ability of the Syrian regime to harm America almost non-existent.

- The Russian offer - Syrian develop the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles under international supervision, was the result of the credibility threatened with a military strike.

In addition, note the number of U.S. analysts that the questions posed to him by journalists who conducted these interviews, prompted Obama to mention or hint or reveal new facts, notably:

1 time-limited air operations

Obama made it clear from the outset that he will not use ground forces, but in his interview with "CBS" also pointed out that the air campaign would not last long.

2 - plan is designed in a way that allows the military to avoid reprisals from Iran and Hezbollah.

Obama told (CBS): "I think that our intelligence was clear that they will not come up against us if the strike was limited," has alluded to in his speech (PBS), "Iran and Russia were pressing Syria to avoid strike the U.S.."

3 - There is no strike ES U.S.

Obama told (NBC): "For me I do not want to put a former president who acts without consensus in the development there will be no direct and inevitable dangers threatening the homeland and our interests in the world."

4 - is unlikely to reach the support of the majority

He said Obama's (PBS): "I'm not sure that we will get, after a decade of war, and after being in Iraq, the support of the majority of Americans, any military action, especially in the Middle East, has no meaning in the absence of any risk or direct attack on us. "

5 - public opinion is ahead of national interests

I asked him (ABC), you hit Syria without the consent of Congress person by saying: "strike will be less effective if it did not get the support of Congress, and did not understand public opinion for what we do, so I have not decided yet ĘŐăíăí final of what will be my steps ahead."

And he said in an interview, "NBC": "I've made my decision as I think it is better for U.S. interests, but I also think that in such a decision is important for me to be seconded attaches great importance to the Congress and the people are saying."

In the opinion of well-known American commentator William Slatan that "the words of Obama's clear recognition that he gives priority to public opinion, not national interests."

6 - Russian approach - if it is serious - more effective than the U.S. strike

In his interview with "PBS" Obama warned that "if Assad halt the use of chemical weapons, the radical opposition and the most dangerous may be used by you or by passing it to the terrorists.

And when he told him and Wolf Blitzer (CNN), that "the United Nations proposal to control these weapons and destroy them better than deter Assad for their use, he replied:" Certainly. "

In other words, Obama does not acknowledge that the non-use of violence leads to the deaths of a smaller number of people, but also acknowledges that such a solution is also more effective in avoiding the use of this weapon in the future.

7 - not necessary the transfer of chemical stockpiles of Syria

When asked by Blitzer Obama: "Why should the lion's done to avoid strike the U.S.", he replied: "to ensure that the use of chemical weapons remove it from there, but it can be a minimum, placed under international supervision," words directly explained: "You can maintain the chemical weapon inside Syria. "

8 - Congress and the American public are not the only Pedqan in the diplomatic game.

In three interviews at least, Obama said: "Americans follow up the military pressure on Russia and Syria so receptive to impose tight control over the chemical weapons," and in his speech to (CNN), was more explicit, saying: "If you did not move forward with threat of serious military pressure, you will not actually get the deal I want it. "

In other words, Obama does not want to get support for military action because it is a good idea, but because it helps him to get a better deal.