Did America's Top General Save Nation From Open-Ended War in Syria?

President Obama was ready to launch the United States into a new Middle East war in Syria over the Labor Day weekend until the nation's top general persuaded him that he would be blamed for serious unintended consequences that could arise, according to usually well-informed sources speaking in confidence.

That general is Martin E. Dempsey, left, a career Army officer who became chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011. He persuaded the president that military implications could escalate beyond the limited boundaries White House civilian advisers had claimed in convincing the president as of late Friday night to move forward with bombing campaign.

That bombing would have been without congressional, NATO, or other significant international military support aside from enthusiasm from France, Syria's former colonial ruler. The war could potentially escalate to a vastly wider war.

The evidence was in the first proposals offered by Obama for congressional authorization after he backed off his go-it-nearly-alone plan. Yet the administration tipped its hand by making its initial request for authority open-ended, creating the possibility of a vastly wider war if Syria or any of its allies retaliated in any way. 

The military risks, not the political ones, loomed largest for the president as he reversed course, according to my sources. Nonetheless, Obama sought political and constitutional cover by seeking to share responsibility with congress. Notably, he wants to start a war based on thin evidence and without being able to line-up support even from most of the nations funding rebels in Syria.

The account I received from sources, while impossible to verify in every particular with total certainty, is congruent with what we know of the players and event time line. 

Dempsey testified to congress and otherwise warned of risks associated with the military options available to the United States in helping rebels overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has governed the nation for more than four decades.

Dempsey did not forcefully argue his own view previously before the Labor Day weekend, as far as is known. He preferred to provide cost-benefit options in a more neutral fashion. But the increasing belligerence by Secretary of State John Kerry and more junior civilian members of the White House inner-circle, such as former UN Ambassador Susan Rice and her successor, Samantha Power, apparently persuaded Dempsey to speak more bluntly early in the weekend.

Rice and Power are advocates of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine by which the United States can claim a right and obligation to attack another country by arguing that the United States is protecting civilians. The United Nations adopted language in 2005 defining the concept. Critics -- who include both those in the military and peace advocates, and both conservatives and liberals -- argue that the doctrine is dangerously subjective and can entangle the United States in far-flung wars without authorization by congress required by the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, some critics have suggested that rebels, many of them non-Syrians desperate for United States intervention on their behalf, may have launched the fatal gas attacks, not Syria's government.

Beyond those dramatic events, readers here should realize other vital factors rarely mentioned in mainstream news accounts, especially in the United States. I'll summarize these points into three bullet points. Background for the material is an appendix below and in my book, Presidential Puppetry, whose hardcover edition is published this week.

Most important, our top government officials (including the president) and most famous media pundits who shape our discourse have fewer real-world power than the public might imagine.

True, the officials command authority over the military and voting power in congress. And they occasionally act in unpredictable fashion and against long-term career interest. The pundits look important when they pontificate. But they usually know quite well their careers can end quickly. Dynastic power on Wall Street, not Main Street, controls the country, as President Wilson wrote a century ago in his book, The New Freedom. I use the umbrella term "puppet masters" whereas others focus on major parts, such as Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex -- or its more current and powerful successor, the Intelligence Industrial Complex.

Whatever the name, these masters of the universe and the government officials they place in office have targeted the Assad family at least since 1984, according to high-level CIA correspondence declassified this summer. That long-term interest -- and not the street protests of two years ago, democracy building, or even the massive deaths on Aug. 21 from gas -- brought about the current war resolution targeting Assad. He is UK-educated Alawite.

He and his wife, Asma, are shown at right in a photo via Creative Commons. She is a UK-born onetime banker of Sunni descent. They have rallied much of the central part of the country against rebels with a series of recent military victories. The victories endanger well over a billion dollars in foreign spending to overthrow their heavily armed dictatorship, which is ratified by occasional elections and which has attacked no outsiders justifying its overthrow under traditional international law.

Two other points to consider:

• Puppet masters like to work in private to advance their wealth-building and other interests, including dynastic succession and religious advancement. They often work through secret societies. Therefore, the media that they heavily influence rarely mention the keen interest that the Gulf monarchies have in building a natural gas pipeline through Syria to provide natural gas more cheaply to Europe, thus undercutting Russian supply chains. Neither do Russia's rivals want to focus attention on the willingness of radical Muslims to keep the Arab world largely destabilized, except in those fundamentalist monarchies protected by the United States and cooperating with lucrative deals for all concerned. The monarchies are protecting Israel behind the scenes. The system provides oil and arms deals for well-connected insiders in NATO countries, and poses an ongoing threat to Russia and China by stirring up dissent among minorities within Russia's borders especially and in such nearby countries as Chechnia, located between Syria and Russia.

• The inherent contradictions and internal rivalries among the puppet master group are providing a rare opportunity in the next 10 days or so for its goals and methods to be exposed in Congress and elsewhere to the American people. Congress is, of course, gerrymandered into set camps and dominated in both parties by the big money interests that sustain the leadership and the major media upon which they rely for voter approval. But the country is so fed up with Mideast wars and economic austerity at home that newer members could take the kind of remedial action exhibited last week in Britain's Parliament -- which shocked Obama and the rest of the West's neo-conservative and neo-liberal leadership cabal by voting against a military strike against Syria.

Kerry, left, a Yale Skull and Bones member who ascended to prominence as a Vietnam War veteran and critic, pulled out all rhetorical stops over the past week to advocate for war. Conservative scholar Paul Craig Roberts has been among his blunt critics, as in a column Sept. 2, Washington Is Addicted To Lies.

Assad also challenged Kerry and other critics to produce evidence. Assad's comments came in an interview published Sept. 2. "The Middle East is a powder keg, and today the fuse is getting shorter," he said in an exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro.

As the French government published declassified documents purporting to show the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people, the Syrian president vehemently denied the accusations.  "Whoever is doing the accusing must come up with proof. We have challenged the United States and France to provide a single piece of proof. Messrs Obama and Holland haven't been able to do so, even to their own people," Assad said.

He said there was no logic to claims his forces used lethal sarin nerve gas in an attack on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August. "Supposing our army wanted to use weapons of massive destruction; would it do so in a zone where it is located and where soldiers have been injured by these weapons, as the United Nations inspectors noted when they visited the hospital where they were being treated. Where is the logic?" Assad said.

To be clear, I hold out the possibility that Assad or those in his forces unleashed the chemicals. But like other critics, I would require public and persuasive evidence given the obvious incentive for non-Syrian rebel fighters to unleash the kind of "false flag" attack suspected by Pat Buchanan, as described below.

Over the weekend, Kerry even invoked Israel's security as an additional reason for a military strike against Assad. This was a dangerous step because any Israeli interest in an Assad downfall (a divisive issue even in Israel) could strengthen Assad's popularity in Syria,where he is already gaining back minority support from Christians, Kurds, and other minorities fearful of a bloodbath if hardline fundamentalists of the Saudi/Qatar/Muslim Brotherhood viewpoint take power.

The U.S. congressional vote poses a particular difficulty also right now for Western leaders because the real story behind Benghazi could blow apart the public's faith in the bipartisan leadership that has made Benghazi a household word without disclosing the main secrets. That story is outlined in my book, Puppetry, and is too detailed for this column without the supporting context.

But stay tuned this week for the first revelations. They will be excerpted on this site and elsewhere -- and in ample time for congressional decision-making.

Background

At right, President Barack Obama is shown meeting in the Situation Room with his national security advisers to discuss strategy in Syria on  Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013.

A previous day's photo, below left, shows that the seating arrangement remains fairly constant, with neo-lib Rice, the national security adviser, showcased as apparently the most engaged participant and seated as usual on the president's left.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is on her left with more junior personnel, for the most part, to the immediate left. Vice President Biden, who argued as a senator (as did Obama) that presidentially ordered war-making was unconstitutional without consultation with Congress, is at the president's right. Kerry and Attorney General Eric Holder are to Biden's right. Uniformed personnel far in the background,as befits a country with a tradition of civilian military leadership.

Yet war advocates often value skills of political narratives over those of military experience. Partly for those reasons, Hagel, an award-winning combat veteran of Vietnam, had difficulty winning Senate confirmation earlier this year. (Official White House Photos of the Day by Pete Souza)

As more general background: "Dempsey, a multi-tour command veteran of the Iraq war, has never openly opposed a strike on Syria, something that would risk undermining civilian control of the military," Spencer Ackerman of the Guardian reported Aug. 27. "But when asked for his views, in press conferences and testimony, Dempsey has tended to focus on the risks and costs of intervention. In April, Dempsey said that the US military could force down Syria's warplanes and disrupt its air defenses, but not without significant peril to US pilots, all for a negligible impact on dictator Bashar al-Assad."

Somewhat similarly John Cassidy of the New Yorker headlined an Aug. 31 column, Has Obama Forgotten General Dempsey’s Warnings? The column was published before it became clear the president was halting his apparent decision to launch bombs to fulfill his vow to punish Assad's regime for more than 1,000 deaths that the United States alleges he ordered.

Rice and Power are leading advocates of so-called "Responsibility to Protect," a policy theory whereby the White House no longer has an obligation to disclose anything more than it desires in order to launch military action for humanitarian goals. Last week, we published columns describing the Obama administration's advocacy and the danger that such a vague notion can serve powerful vested interests with scant constitutional or other checks and balances.

During the holiday weekend, strong criticisms of U.S. arguments surfaced from right, left, and center. Conservative Pat Buchanan told an NBC Meet the Press audience that the chemical attack ‘Reeks of False Flag Operation by rebels to bring the United States firepower into the war on their side. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said he feared a bloodbath of Christians if the Western-educated Assad is overthrown by radical jihadists, many from outside of Syrian, who comprise a key part of the rebel fighting force.

Russia President Vladimir Putin repeated his opposition to allied attacks and his doubt that the Assad government was responsible for the deaths. Meanwhile, a number of normally staunch NATO allies of the United States, such as conservative governments in Britain and Canada, failed succumb to Obama's requests to join the military strike. Even the Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar reported to have spent billions of dollars for arms and mercenaries to overthrow Assad, declined to support a U.S. military strike, albeit on the grounds that it shaped up as too limited.

The lack of international support or a report by United Nations inspectors did not appear to deter Kerry and the neo-liberal White House hawks seeking a military strike. They are regarded as allied with former White House adviser John Brennan, right, the former CIA bureau chief in Saudi Arabia and now director of the entire agency.

The Wayne Madsen Report, a subscription newsletter by a former Navy intelligence officer, broke this story Sept. 1, Obama caved under last-minute pressure from Dempsey. Dempsey moved to prevent he regarded as a significant danger for the country and the president. "If you do this, the plan will fail and you'll get in deeper," Madsen wrote. "And without congressional approval, you'll be screwed," Dempsey told Obama.

The White House is leaking information to favored reporters at the Washington Post that the president decided Friday night to delay an attack, thus removing Dempsey from the narrative. It would be highly inconvenient for the pro-war faction that dominates official discourse in Washington if Congress explored a gap in judgment between the nation's top military officer and the younger president, a non-veteran.

Dempsey serves as the 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In this capacity, he serves as the principal military adviser to the President, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council," according to his biography. "By law, he is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer. Prior to becoming Chairman, the general served as the Army’s 37th Chief of Staff. Past assignments have taken him and his family across the globe during both peace and war from Platoon Leader to Combatant Commander. He is a 1974 graduate of the United States Military Academy and a career armor officer."

Dempsey has extensive experience in the Mideast. From September 2001 to June 2003, Dempsey served in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia training and advising the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In June of 2003, Dempsey took command of the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad, Iraq. After 14 months in Iraq, Dempsey redeployed the division to Germany and completed his command tour in July of 2005. He then returned to Iraq for two years in August of 2005 to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces. From August 2007 through October 2008, Dempsey served as the Deputy Commander and then Acting Commander of U.S. Central Command. Before becoming Chief of Staff of the Army, he commanded US Army Training and Doctrine Command from December 2008-March 2011.

After the president's decision to seek congressional approach Kerry stated Sarin gas used in Syria attack, as reported by the Washington Post and elsewhere. He said the gas on Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 people, the first time that U.S. officials have described the chemical weapon at issue. Officials emphasized that they still want to take military action action against Syria, pending Congress’s approval.

Congress is in recess until Sept. 9. So far, more than 210 House members have signed a letter to Obama warning him not to attack Syria without congressional authorization. In addition, a head count showed that some Democrats would join Republicans in voting for impeachment if a bill were introduced.

Jack Goldsmith is a Harvard Law School professor and former Bush administration legal analyst who helped devise legal strategies supporting Bush administration approaches to war following the 2011 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against terrorists. He wrote this weekend an analysis of the AUMF by the Obama administration. Such congressional authorization would parallel the 1964 Congressional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that led to millions of deaths in Indochina wars for a decade.about how the Obama administration tipped its hand by drafting a proposal for congress to award Obama and his team open-ended authority. 

Goldsmith asked, for example, "Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?" 

"Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  Again, very easy to imagine."

As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is worth, and then some.

The proposed Syrian AUMF is worth a lot, for it would (in sum) permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war and the use of force has the purpose of preventing or deterring (broad concepts) the use or proliferation of WMDs in, to, or from Syria, or of protecting the U.S. and its allies from the mere threat (again, a broad concept) of use or proliferation of WMDs connected to the Syrian conflict.

Congress needs to be careful about what it authorizes.

In my book, Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters, I argue that Obama seeks to serve his masters on core issues, despite his branding to the public as being to the left of his fellow puppets who lead the Republican Party. Yet the next two weeks leading to a showdown vote in congress has the potential to disclosure many secrets on hot-button issues.

Do not expect General Dempsey to provide much more help, unless he is pinned down under unusually aggressive questioning. Whatever he told President Obama over the weekend will disappear from view under the mid-20th century constitutional abomination devised to keep secrets, "Executive Privilege."

Yet Dempsey has already done his part, largely in secret, and in the tradition of selfless warriors and patriots.

The rest is up to us. There will be those brutalized by the police as portrayed in a Philadelphia video Aug. 31: