Left Foot Forward: To appease Iran, Obama gives Assad’s air force a free pass for slaughter

[pampango]

The term appeasement is often overused, but that’s what Obama’s free pass to Assad’s air force in exchange for a hoped-for nuclear deal with Iran is

Along with barrel bombings in towns and cities across Syria, this last week saw a series of attacks by Assad’s air force on civilian targets in the northern town of Raqqa. These regime air attacks were sandwiched between two weekends of airstrikes by the US-led coalition on ISIS targets in Raqqa.

When US and allied air forces first began strikes in Syria, there was speculation that their presence would deter attacks by Assad’s air force against civilians, at least in the US area of operations. This past week’s events demonstrates that any such deterrent effect is fading if not over. The taking of turns in Raqqa’s airspace by Assad’s air force and US-led forces further undermines US claims of concern for the fate of Syrian civilians.

On Sunday 23 November, US warplanes carried out two strikes against an ISIS-occupied building in the city of Raqqa in north-eastern Syria. No civilian casualties were reported.

On Tuesday 25 November, Assad’s air force carried out ten air attacks on Raqqa, reportedly killing as many as 209 people, most if not all civilians. Targets were reported to include a busy marketplace, a bus depot, and a mosque where dozens of people were gathered for prayers.

On Thursday 27 November, Assad’s air force carried out between seven and ten further attacks, including one at the city’s National Hospital, reportedly killing at least seven more people.

On Friday 28 November, Assad’s air force carried out three attacks in Raqqa, killing at least five people including three children.

On Saturday 29 November, Assad’s air force again attacked Raqqa’s National Hospital. LCC Syria named five people killed.

In the evening of Saturday 29 November, US-led coalition aircraft were reported to have carried out at least 15 airstrikes. Later reports said the total had exceeded 30 airstrikes. The activist group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently reported that all the targets of the US-led coalition were ISIS bases, hitting a high number of ISIS fighters.

https://leftfootforward.org/2014/12/raqqa-to-appease-iran-obama-gives-assads-air-force-a-free-pass-for-slaughter/

I'm not sure how the author thinks the US can stop the Syrian barrel bombing of civilians or how it is tied to our negotiations with Iran.

[bananas]

1. Appeasing Iran

APPEASING IRAN

Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to
President Obama, points to two reasons
the Obama Administration does not want
to strike Assad’s air force , both related to
Iran.

[pampango]

3. What two reasons are those? n/t

[okaawhatever]

2. I call b.s. on the article. They are forgetting to mention one very important thing. Obama can't

engage Assad's forces. They represent a sovereign nation and that would be considered an act of war. Obama's authority for what he is doing falls under the dubious claim of "protecting Americans and American interests". It is stretched a bit, but ISIS isn't a recognized state so attacking them isn't committing an act of war.
Sad and pathetic article really. I don't know why you posted it here.

[bananas]

5. Sure he can - he almost did it last year, don't you remember?

Everyone considered it a done deal, until an intrepid reporter asked Kerry if Assad had any way out.
Kerry said yes, if he turned over all his chemical weapons.
Other reporters quickly asked Assad if he would do that, and he said yes, if Kerry was serious.
Reporters asked Kerry if he was serious, he said yes.
Reporters worked them both into a corner.
Otherwise, Obama would have already bombed Assad's forces.

He also did it with Libya:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/09/war_against_isis_in_syria_obama_s_legal_and_political_justifications.html

Obama Can Bomb Pretty Much Anything He Wants To
The real constraint on a president’s war-making powers is political, not legal.
By Eric Posner

<snip>

But this legalistic wrangling is beside the point. Back in 2011, President Obama used military force against Libya. Unable to rely on the 2001 AUMF or the 2003 AUMF against a government that had nothing to do with al-Qaida or Iraq, Obama relied on his constitutional authority. The administration claimed that the War Powers Resolution did not apply because sending planes to drop bombs and fire missiles at enemy troops did not amount to “hostilities” governed by the war powers act.

<snip>

[KoKo]

6. Recommend Read...

[pampango]

7. I found it noteworthy that a left wing blogger could find Assad's actions so terrible that

the blogger somehow found a way to blame Obama for enabling Assad when, as you point out, he "can't engage Assad's forces".

[okaawhatever]

8. Exactly. nt

[Skeowes28]

4. Middle east

The United states can't be the fucking bullet stoppers for the whileMiddle East