More data regarding the Kurdish position should be disseminated, so that everyone who assesses what may need

to be reformulated can draw upon as complete an information-disclosure as is possible. Concomitantly, incremental conclusions can be drawn from hyperlinks accumulated over the weekend for, after the usual suspects have functioned predictably, those harboring open minds can be IDed. Again, critique is invited butunlike prior blastsit is vital that ANY key-oversight be corrected. The first item-of-business is to provide personal perspective regarding whats happening [recalling Santayana], recalling two essays co-written with Guzzardi that focused on Specters exertions to kiss-up to the Assads [Hafez & Bashar] over recent decades. Days before he flipped [from R D], we wrote of Arlen Specter's Nixonian Moment [wherein we suggested that someone should help him do precisely what he did] which recalled an indictment of his rogue-efforts to effect a self-defeating foreign-policy [Specter Threatens American Security and Questions His Own Sanity When Dabbling with Syriaand Successors to Saddam and the Shah]; when we engage in idle-banter [to assuage angst over BHOs antics], we claim credit for having pushed him into crass recognition that he had always been a D [absent principles, always grand-standing]. Thus, this photo [which is making the rounds depicts Kerry channeling Specter:

kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad generous-remember-of-john-kerrys-praise-of-syrian-dictator-assad

The second item-of-business is to channel input from those who are monitoring these blast e-mails to ensure mistakes/oversights are dutifully amended. In this regard, input from gerald a honigman and allyson christy provides corroborative information; the op-ed by the former [henry-machiavelli-von-bismarck-change-that-tune] conveys multiple quality-messages by employing a breezy compositional style. Also, Sherkohs interview has been uploaded [EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Kurdish leader on looming US attack and its consequences] and, although its lengthy, it has been reprinted in this blast; annotations amplify a few points but, otherwise, it dovetails with the published essay. Finally, an essay by Jerry Gordon has also been placed @ the end of this blast which also conveys key-concepts in a well-written, meticulously-documented fashion.

Unidentified Navy Officer Sums It Up

Confronted by three pages of hyperlinks that have materialized only over the weekend, it is now necessary to cite those that provide conceptual overviews; Reason has articulated 8-reasons-not-togo-to-war-in-syria, the title of this essay [President Strangelove: How Obama Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bombs] conveys its impact, Caroline Glick has depicted the damage caused by BHOs procrastination [Bluster, bluff and backstabbing: Obama's bread and circuses], polls-show-weak-publicsupport-for-strike-on-syria as BHO Leads from behind the polls, and Sherkoh confirmed that this photo [does-seeing-president-obamas-foot-on-the-oval-office-desk-make-your-blood-boil?] recalls the insult of shoe-tossing that befell Bush-43. Other points will be aggregated and conveyed in a future blast, inasmuch as this one is already somewhat lengthy [for reasons aforementioned]; the goal will be to demonstrate that one must oppose indiscriminate bombing without worrying Iran/Russia may gloat.

Interview with Mr. Sherkoh Abbas As a US strike on Syria loomsbecause Washington appears determined to punish Syrias President Bashar Al-Assad for the alleged use of chemical weaponsIsrael Today talks to Dr. Sherkoh Abbas, the leader of the Kurdish National Assembly of Syria, currently residing in Washington. Knowing loyalists throughout Syria and harboring connections to the Syrian and American authorities, we take his stance on whether the attack is going to happen and what will happen when and if it does. 1. The US claims of a gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st seem suspicious, especially given the fact that the timing was perfect and also because

everyone still remembers Americans mistake in Iraq. What makes you think that they are right this time? Answer: I believe that the US administration has enough intelligence sources on the ground to assess the situation accurately. As far as Iraq is concerned, it is still disputable. Some say there were no nuclear weapons there; others claim they existed, but in limited amounts. There are assumptions that the US was not quick enough because Iraqs late leader Saddam Hussein managed to move some of his weapons to Syria. {see book by General Sada (Saddams Secrets), which this physician has read, and note his appearance on Comedy Central: General Georges Sada reports that he has seen Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and they were transported to Syria. (7:41)} The Assad regime definitely does possess chemical weapons and they have been used previously although on a smaller scale. Having said that, I understand the claims that the gas attack was suspicious. After all, the government forces were winning and it was suicidal for them to use the weapons at the time that the UN inspectors were touring the country investigating a similar case that took place in March. Assad knew that the use of such weapons would trigger an attack against his government and he wouldnt have wanted to risk his positions. And yet, its important to note that there are different rivalry camps inside Assads government. This means that even if Assad himself didnt order the release of the poisonous gas, it could have been somebody from his own government. Therefore, it doesnt really matter who used this weapons. Whats really important is that it is there and the US has to intervene in order to destroy these arsenals and prevent a situation where these weapons fall into the wrong hands. Its clear that the regime is not capable of controlling these stockpiles. 2. Do you think that the lives of the minorities (including Kurds, Christians, Alawites, Druze and others) would be any better if the regime is changed? Answer: Although I think that the Assad regime has always been bad for minorities, I also believe that what the US is doing right now, that is supporting the Sunni Muslims, is totally wrong. Washington prefers to back such countries as Turkey and Qatar, both of which support the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization deemed as terrorist by many countries. I believe all ethnic groups and minorities in Syria should be given equal rights. Syria should be divided into federal states where every state would have its own constitution. Such a system could prove valuable for the US because those federal states wouldnt be strong enough to oppose Washingtons policy. In other words, if Sunni Muslims are marginalized they wont have enough power and therefore will not be able to stage a war against US interests. In fact, identical views have been expressed by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during his speech at the Ford School earlier this summer. He pointed out to the fact that Syria was created artificially in 1920 in order to facilitate the control of the country by France. He also stressed that because the country consists of so many ethnic groups which are very antagonistic to each other US style elections are not possible in Syria because every group votes for its own people [see article quoting Henry KISSINGER].

3. Why does Washington support these extremists? Didnt they learn the lesson of Afghanistan when armed militants of Al-Qaeeda started fighting Americans after those helped them to get rid of the Russians? Answer: The US is assured that splitting the country into federal states is problematic because they prefer to have one government to talk to, instead of trying to maneuver between the various regional players. But its also about the petro dollars. Lets not forget who Washingtons regional allies are. These are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and other Sunni majority states. They possess a huge amount of dollars and thats why they can dictate how they want Syria to look like. These countries dont want to see the independence of the Kurds or any other minorities and ethnicities. Thats why President Obama is not capable of abandoning this policy of backing political Islam. But this approach is destined to failure because it will only embolden Iran and Syria. 4. Whats going to be President Assads reaction if (or when) Washington attacks? Answer: President Assad cannot really do much. Washington and Moscow have already reached an agreement on the issue. They agreed that the US will carry out a limited strike against Syria because the US has gone too far and cannot afford itself to backtrack. Russia and the Syrian government know which sites are going to be bombed and so they are ready for the hit. The Syrian leader doesnt feel that the attack is going to threaten his rule or overthrow him, thats why he is calm. Having said that, he already started moving [the terrorist group] Hezbollah in Lebanon only because he wants to change the focus and shift international attention away from Syria. 5. Does this mean that the World War III is not on the horizon? Answer: I think that at least this time around WWIII will be avoided. At the same time, it could burst out if the US despite giving assurances to Russia uses this opportunity of a limited strike to topple the government. However, regional wars are still possible, they can involve (partially or wholly) such countries as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Israel. Of course, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are already going towards Syrian style civil war. 6. What about the Kurdish people? Does that mean that the dream of a state remains remote? Answer: One thing is for sure: Syria will never be the same again. Eventually, it is going to turn into another Somalia or Afghanistan. But the Kurdish people will fight that. Currently, the world powers ignore the desire of the Kurdish people to obtain independence but I believe that the international community should reevaluate this situation. The Kurdish people are the engine of democracy in the Middle East and we deserve our own home.

Saturday, 31 August 2013 The Iconoclast: The Consequences of President Obamas Challenge to Assads Syria by Jerry Gordon President Obama sought political cover when he announced Saturday, August 31, 2013, in a televised broadcast from the White House Rose Garden that he was seeking authorization and support from Congress for a limited military assault in Syria to confront the menace posed by Chemical Warfare (CW) attacks on Syrian civilians. From polls taken this weekend the US is virtually divided. Thus, whatever Congressional debate over authorization of President Obamas announced intent to punish the Assad regime will doubtless allow more time for receipt and consideration of the results of the UN inspection team. Watch this You Tube video of President Obama's announcement on August 31, 2013. Separately there were conflicting reports about the realities on the ground in Syria. Abigail Esman in an Investigative Project, guest column, Bombing Into Unintended Consequences in Syria , drew attention to the likely outcome of the proposed bombing, expansion of the Sunni supremacists. Note these comments: True, it is a proud and longstanding facet of the American psyche to intervene in the face of human suffering, to protect the citizens of the world from the abuses of their leaders. But the question Washington needs to consider as well is not just whether we can afford another war with a still-struggling economy and a military exhausted by two others. Nor is it simply whether we should be involving ourselves in a war against a country that has brought no direct threat to the U.S. The bigger question is whether, in Syria, we are ultimately aiding those who seek our destruction. Speaking to reporters for The Hill recently, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich put it in the clearest possible terms: "So what," he asked rhetorically, "we're about to become Al-Qaeda's air force now?" U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has also expressed reservations, based in large part on his own visit to Syria in February. "There were a number of people who came out of Damascus to meet with me," he told me, "and conditions have only gotten worse since

then. You have brutal people involved and what if they got our weapons? How would we control it all?" The window of opportunity for safe involvement in Syria, he feels, closed about a year ago. "Maybe two years ago we knew who the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was," he noted, "but now we don't. Maybe the CIA does, but I certainly don't." That uncertainty, for Wolf, is just a part of what makes the stakes so high. "It takes just two hours to drive from Jerusalem to Damascus," he said. "Now Jordan is in trouble. There are bombings in Lebanon. Egypt is in crisis. Syria is falling apart. What a war we'd be facing Contrast this with the myopic piece by Elizabeth O'Bagy: On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War , which appears to follow the Obama Administration line that bombing may help the FSA with Saudi supplied weapons to create enclaves that would protect the various ethnic and religious minorities. This despite the inchoate attempts to establish an internal and exile opposition coalition. OBagy who is a senior analyst at The Institute for the Study of War bases her assessment on observations of what is occurring on the ground in Syria. Based on her investigations in the field in Syria she concludes: Where does this leave the U.S. as the White House contemplates a possible strike? The Obama administration has emphasized that regime change is not its goal. But a punitive measure undertaken just to send a message would likely produce more harm than good. If the Syrian government is not significantly degraded, a U.S. strike could very well bolster Assad's position and highlight American weakness, paving the way for continued atrocities. Instead, any U.S. action should be part of a larger, comprehensive strategy coordinated with our allies that has the ultimate goal of destroying Assad's military capability while simultaneously empowering the moderate opposition with robust support, including providing them with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems. This should be combined with diplomatic and political efforts to first create an international coalition to put pressure on Assad and his supporters, and then working to encourage an intraSyrian dialogue. Having such a strategy in place would help alleviate the concerns of key allies, like Britain, and ensure greater international support for U.S. action. The U.S. must make a choice. It can address the problem now, while there is still a large moderate force with some shared U.S. interests, or wait until the conflict has engulfed the entire region. Iran and its proxies will be strengthened, as will al Qaeda and affiliated extremists. Neither of these outcomes serves U.S. strategic interests. However, there are overarching consequences of the proposed bombing campaign by the US in Syria. One is unleashing a more dire threat alluded to in President Obama alluded to in his White House Rose Garden announcement, Assads using Biological Warfare (BW). Dr. Jill Bellamy van Aalst, an expert on Syrias BW noted in an opinion article for Israel Hayom , the immediate threat to Americas only reliable ally in the conflict zone, Israel: Are Biological Weapons Next on Assads Agenda?: Assad's use of chemical weapons should serve as a wake-up call on his ability to use highly portable and devastating biological warfare agents. National security echelons in Washington should view this as an important message.

Given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks this past weekend, Israel knows that use of both chemical and biological weapons by the Assad regime represents a clear and present danger. If Assad is capable of using chemical weapons near Damascus, he is equally as capable of launching biological weapons, which pose a global pandemic threat. After increasing evidence of a mass-casualty chemical weapons attack in Syria, the international community no longer has the luxury of standing by and seeing what is next on Assad's weapons-of-mass-destruction agenda. An area that perhaps, Ms. O'Bagy didnt visit was the Kurdish heartland in Syrias northeast that is teetering on the break of a major humanitarian disaster because of al-Qaeda threats and conflicting divisions among the Syrian Kurdish leadership. Kurds have fled in the hundreds of thousands to the adjacent Kurdish Region in Iraq. Robert Sklaroff and Sherkoh Abbas (see our interview with Abbas in the June 2012 NER Will There Be Room for Kurds and Other Minorities in a Post-Assad Syria ) noted this in an article published this weekend in the blog Israpundit, The Kurds Can Lead a Reborn Syria, At Peace with ALL of Her Neighbors. They noted: American ships are rushing to the Levant, presumably preparing to launch a bombingcampaign in reaction to the mass-gassing that Assad again directed at his citizenry. Although pundits could analyze the reasons forand consequences ofthe delay of this effort, it is only necessary to get into the weeds far enough to identify how a coalition of the willing can quickly be assembled to stop the slaughterand to build a stable, peaceful Syrian society. The Kurds have been issuing humanitarian appeals to the international community to save the Syrian Kurds, but it seems their plight is finally being heardor maybe not! Minority ethnic and religious groups hope to create a secular democratic federal republic led by secular Sunni Kurds, Arabs, Alawi moderates, Christians, Druze, and Turkmen. Kurds played a substantial role as Syria gained independence from France. Inasmuch as they are the countrys second largest ethnic group, the Kurds can play a very positive, democratic role in forging its future. Those who claim that there is only one choice in this matter (arming Assad or the Rebels) must be helped to view the conflict within a larger context. Opposition is not homogeneous. Urgently acting upon humanitarian concerns could dovetail with the need to help long-term friends of the United States who can be depended upon to help others build a modern Syria. The Syrian Kurds could be the leading contingent in a postAssad Syria and deserve our help. Ms. O'Bagy's comments belie the tragedy unfolding in Syria's Northeast-the heartland of the country's Kurds. Division among Kurdish factions and the presence of Al Qaida fighting units have driven hundreds of thousands into the sanctuary of adjacent Iraqi Kurdish Region. There is a looming humanitarian crisis that Kurds will likely face this winter, as the civil war has deprived them of cultivation of the bread basket of Syria in their northeastern enclave. Moreover, that is also where Syria's oil reserves are located.

There is vastly more catastrophic Biological Warfare (BW) threat and the ease by which the Assad could transfer pathogens to terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Think of Iranian supplied drones already in the possession of Hezbollah making a swarming attack on Israel with releases of pandemic pathogens. O'Bagy praises the FSA fighting contingents and the help from the Saudis using Croatian supplied 1990's gear in Syria's south. However, without a Syrian government in Exile composed of moderate Sunnis, Alawites, Druze and Kurds backed by the US, UK, France and others there is no future for Syria. Where is the future for Syria? Perhaps one should revert to the past under the French Mandate when Syria had a weak central government with ethnic semi-autonomous provinces. But the aftermath of a possible strike on Syria's meager air assets and command and control echelons may achieve nothing more than havoc for the beleaguered population. A rush of weapons and supplies to Assad's forces from Iran and Russia along with more IRGC Qods force and proxy Hezbollah contingents could occur. Syria's civil war looks eerily familiar. Think of the actors in the Spanish civil war and the outcome. George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia portrayed the betrayal of the Republican government by Stalinist Communists that faced National forces supplied by Mussolini and Hitler's Condor Legion. The Syrian geo-politics are dissimilar from those operating in 1930s Spain. Unlike the Wests position in the Spanish Civil War with weapons embargoes against the Republican side, the US, Qataris and Saudis have been beavering away supplying weapons for questionable opposition forces. The most effective of those opposition forces are seeking to overcome Assads military in the coming battle for control of Damascus and its suburbs. Bombing and filtering of arms to the opposition will only embolden these Jihadis seeking to establish a Sharia governed Syrian Sunni Emirate. That would threaten any freedom for Syrias religious and ethnic minorities, especially the Alawites, Syriacs Orthodox Christians, Druze and Kurds. Sic Gloria Transit, Syria Mundi.