Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 954

Chuck Hagel, Fashion Icon?

In the middle of the very serious discussion lawmakers are having over whether or not the U.S. should attack Syria, one man and his fabulous shirt are the one thing everyone can agree on. 

[image error]Chuck Hagel wore a bright magenta shirt to his Saturday morning meeting with President Obama and the rest of the cabinet. Even when hidden by a tan jacket, the shirt still stands out in a room filled with old white men in standard white shirts with a blue tie, or blue shirts with no tie. Everyone else is dressed like your boring, old dad while Hagel looks like your favorite uncle. (Secretary of State John Kerry gets points for sporting a Salmon-colored tie that would make Ross Geller proud.) 

It was a bold choice for the Defense Secretary during a tense meeting when the President supposedly informed his team that he would put the decision to strike Syria in the hands of the House, and now he's earning the admiration of many for his breaking the norm. Once the image was released, many were quick to praise Hagel's fashion. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein highlighted the "amazing" shirt while the photo quickly spread across social media: 

"Chuck Hagel's shirt is so ugly" - People on Twitter who probably haven't even gotten dressed today

— Alec Jacobs (@alecjacobs) August 31, 2013

Miami style? RT @ezraklein: Chuck Hagel’s Situation Room fashion is amazing http://t.co/8Tq4Dyadxw

— Colin Jones (@colinjones) August 31, 2013

Every thing about this picture is magnificent. Hagel's shirt. The woman on screen in her living room. Everything.

— Walter Hickey (@WaltHickey) August 31, 2013

HAGEL: I don't always attend briefings on #Syria, but when I do, I say screw a tie & go with a bright magenta shirt. pic.twitter.com/5zPPfapiIz

— Paul Szoldra (@PaulSzoldra) August 31, 2013

If you drag Chuck Hagel into the office on a Saturday, do not expect him to change out of his magenta polo shirt http://t.co/fgpjjSA2Um

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 31, 2013

Do you get the sense that Defense Secretary Hagel was going somewhere else? http://t.co/Bo3zX9dw26

— Olivier Knox (@OKnox) August 31, 2013

Knox does bring up a good point. Hagel looks like he was on his way to a tee time when he got the call to head for the White House. And who could blame him? It's a long weekend! But it seems strange that Hagel wasn't invited to join the President's late afternoon foursome, then. Maybe the President doesn't feel like he can stand next to a man with such fabulous fashion sense. 

       

Obama Was This Close to Bombing Syria

For the first time in a long time, the President will consult Congress instead of unilaterally ordering at attack against Syria. This is a big deal, and the President only made the big decision last night against the better judgement of his entire senior staff. 

It seemed like a sure bet that the U.S. would launch a "limited" strike against Syria at some point this weekend. The U.N. pulled their team of inspectors out early, a surprising and unprecedented move seen as a clue that an American attack was incoming. But there won't be any U.S. missiles in Damascus this weekend, because Saturday afternoon the President announced he will seek Congressional approval before hitting the big red button. 

So how close was the U.S. to launching an attack? Real close. The President was set on striking this weekend until Friday night, according to the Associated Press, when things suddenly swung completely in the other direction: 

The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.

But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

The above picture was released by the White House shortly after the President made the announcement to the public, showing the meeting with his team of advisers Friday night where he allegedly overruled their judgement. The one below shows Obama meeting with his executive team in the Situation Room Saturday morning, presumably telling everyone his new plan: 

[image error]

(Love the pink, Mr. Hagel.) 

As Buzzfeed's Ben Smith and Evan McMorris-Santoro explain, Obama's decision should not come as a surprise: restoring Congress' role in decisions of war was something Obama campaigned on before he was elected in 2008. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Senator Obama told the Boston Globe prior to being elected. What Obama has done is move the country further towards the checks and balances outlined by the Constitutions that so many past Presidents (and Obama) have previously chosen to ignore. 

Smith and McMorris-Santoro expected the President's decision to divide the Republican party in two -- old defense hawks like Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsay Graham on one side, and young libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz on the other. Except Graham and McCain released a joint statement praising the President's conclusion that the chemical weapons attacks required a response, while saying they won't support attacks if they're not part of a broad strategy: 

“However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America's friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world – all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.”

So this should be fun. Reactions throughout the political world have been wildly different, with many members of Congress urging leadership to resume House activities before September 9. That's when the House is currently scheduled to resume, and a Syria vote has been penciled into the schedule. The Syrian rebels are not pleased, though. They feel like they've had the "carpet pulled out from their feet," according to NBC's Richard Engel. Help will (maybe) come soon.

       

The NSA Doesn't Mind Parody T-Shirts After All

The National Security Agency can shut you down if you create a funny T-shirt bearing the agency's logo because it's technically against the law. They usually don't do that, though, because they have bigger fish to fry. One online T-shirt market place has been shutting down NSA products left and right, claiming legal intervention from the agency, when in reality the NSA could care less. 

[image error]Dan McCall is a longtime Zazzle store owner who started printing NSA-branded merchandise in the immediate wake of the NSA scandal. Zazzle is an open marketplace where people can sell T-shirts and other products online. McCall started off modestly with just a few T-shirts and bumper stickers. Each piece had the NSA logo with a clever, obviously fake slogan underneath it.

But the Zazzle team wasn't a fan, apparently, and they removed McCall's NSA-themed products from the marketplace. Zazzle said the products, "contained content which infringes upon the intellectual property rights of National Security Agency," and claimed they were contacted by NSA lawyers. Frustrated and upset with the service he used for five years, McCall packed up shop and moved all of his products to Cafepress. He's since started selling stickers, shot glasses, aprons, gym bags, iPad cases, among other things, with the NSA logo on them. Quite successfully, mind you. 

McCall's ordeal played out almost identically to Gawker writer Max Read's attempt to market and sell T-shirts with NSA-related logos through Zazzle. Read made a few T-shirts and mugs with the PRISM logo shortly after the scandal first broke. But, almost immediately, Zazzle removed the products because Read was allegedly violating intellectual property rights. At the time, Zazzle didn't explicitly acknowledge getting contacted by NSA lawyers. Zazzle claimed they received word from the "intellectual property right holder" that Read's products were breaking the law. So there was some mystery afoot but, really, who else would make the call? 

One thing apparently became clear: the NSA really hates funny shirts. That, and the use of its logos on funny T-shirts. But the agency never directly commented on the shirt scandals until Friday, when they sent two separate statements to the Daily Dot clarifying their position. The first statement: 

The NSA seal is protected by Public Law 86-36, which states that it is not permitted for “…any person to use the initials ‘NSA,’ the words ‘National Security Agency’ and the NSA seal without first acquiring written permission from the Director of NSA.”

 

Right, right, right. A pretty standard explanation of how the T-shirts violate the law. But then the second message came, and threw the entire story on its head:

NSA has not sent a cease and desist letter to Zazzle since March 2011 regarding a mug they were selling using the NSA Seal.   At any time that NSA is made aware that the NSA Seal is being used without our permission, we will take appropriate actions.

So... it wasn't the NSA after all? They haven't been paying attention to Zazzle stores this whole time? Frankly, I'm shocked. Zazzle has not, so far, explained why they're so afraid of the NSA logo. The agency hasn't contacted them in over two years, and they claimed (twice!) that the NSA called directly within the last six months. 

Go forth, young entrepreneurs, and make as many NSA-branded products as you feel. You, too, can look fresh if the feds are watching. 

       

Obama Will Seek Congressional Support for a Strike Against Syria

Final: President Obama announced the U.S. will strike Syria at some point in the future, but it won't be happening until at least after September 9, when Congress resumes and the issue will be put to a vote. "Today I am asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward as one nation," Obama said. 

The President announced he believes the U.S. "should" seek military action against Syria for the chemical weapons attacks that killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds children. "I have decided that the US should take military action against regime targets," he said, before explaining that he is prepared to go forward without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, and that the attack would be "limited in duration and scope," with no "boots on the ground." 

"We are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama told the assembled of reporters.

The President used the last half of his speech to explain himself to the American people. "I know well we are weary of war," he said at one point, before clarifying that "we are not comfortable putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war." But the crimes committed are too much to ignore, he said. "What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" And the U.S. cannot turn a blind eye to something so heinous. It's not in the country's nature. "We are the United States of America. We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus," Obama said. 

So now all the power falls to Congress, where a debate and vote will over whether or not the U.S. should attack. Speaker of the House John Boehner already announced the House will hold a vote on the week of September 9 to see if the country should strike:

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress.  We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised.  In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th.  This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

Here's a full transcript of the President's remarks, per The New York Times: 

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

Update 1:58 p.m. "I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we've made," Obama says.

Update 1:57 p.m. "We are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama told the assembled of reporters. The attack is "not time sensitive," he said. Obama also made clear he would not wait for approval from the U.N. Security Council for an attack. 

Update 1:55 p.m. The President says, "I have decided that the US should take military action against regime targets." He explains the attack won't have boots on the ground, and will be "limited in duration and scope." Obama will also seek congressional approval for an attack. 

Update 1:51 p.m. Obama, finally speaking, flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, called the attack "the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century."

Update 1:47 p.m. The President is now more than a half an hour late for his own press conference. The reason why is unclear, but the Associated Press reports he's seriously considering seeking Congressional approval before authorizing a strike. 

Update 1:42 p.m. The President was apparently speaking on the phone with Sen. John Cornyn, who urged Obama to call Congress back into session so a Syrian strike could go to a vote. The President is now off the phone and should be out shortly. 

Meanwhile, NBC went back to soccer coverage after waiting for more than 20 minutes. 

Update 1:23 p.m. The President is roughly eight minutes late, and protestors can be heard on the White House live-feed telling him not to attack. Here they are:

Protestors outside the White House against intervention in Syria pic.twitter.com/ZKS0fDbLOp

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) August 31, 2013

They're chanting, "Obama, hands off Syria." Also, Japan is reportedly considering supporting a U.S. intervention in Syria. 

Original: The President will explain what the administration's plan going forward with Syria is during a surprise press conference in the White House's Rose Garden. 

Obama indicated he would authorize a "limited" retaliatory attack after Syria's government allegedly used chemical weapons to kill more than 1,400 people. The U.N.'s team of inspectors left Syria ahead of schedule Saturday morning, but it'll be weeks before we get the results from their investigation. Secretary of State John Kerry explained the U.S.'s case for an attack to reporters on Friday. On Saturday, Syria's Prime Minister said the country's army has its "finger on the trigger" preparing for an international attack. 

According to multiple reporters, Obama will not be announcing an imminent military strike. Instead, he'll be explaining the U.S's plan for the coming days. 

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

 

We'll update this post as soon as the President's press conference begins. 

       

No, Egypt, That Swan Is Not a Spy

Someone in Egypt thought a swan was a spy, but it turns out they were wrong. Shockingly, the beautiful bird wasn't an undercover agent looking to gather information from the skies. 

The Associated Press reports Egyptian authorities in Qena, more than 250 miles outside of Cairo, recently detained a swan after a citizen accused it of being a spy because the bird had an electronic device on its leg. The electronic device "likely could be a wildlife tracker," the AP notes. 

Pigeons were used to carry messages in World War II, sure, but in a world with computers and drones and massive surveillance operations, we suspect there's no intelligence operation in the world still relying on birds to gather info. But they continue to get accused of spying, the poor things, when really they're just trying to find lunch or a place to sit. History shows us that birds are rarely ever the spies they're accused of being. 

In July, Turkish officials were forced to release a kestrel after tests showed it was not a spy sent by Israel. Yes, you read that correctly. Villagers in Altinavya captured the small bird and noticed it had a metal ring with "24311 Tel Avivunia Israel," inscribed on part of it. After the bird was turned over to authorities for X-rays, they discovered the bird was just a regular bird. 

Stop harassing the birds, everyone. Feed them some bread instead.  

[Pictured: some suspicious looking swans, in Turkey, probably gathering classified information.]

       

The Tim Tebow Fever Dream May Finally Be Over

The world has been a scary, scary place since quarterback Tim Tebow entered our lives, but that may all be over now that his professional football career has potentially come to an end. According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, the New England Patriots released Tim Tebow on Saturday. 

The Christian boy scout quarterback never had a chance of starting in New England. That job belongs to Tom Brady, he of many Super Bowls, dashing good looks and a supermodel wife, and will belong to him until the rapture destroys the earth. So Tebow was left to fight with Ryan Mallett for the number two spot behind Brady. In his last preseason game, Tebow actually played well -- completing six-of-11 passes for 91 yards, two touchdowns and one interception. But that wasn't enough to displace Mallett, the Patriots' third round pick out of Arkansas in the 2011 draft. 

The signing was questionable in the first place. It seemed the NFL's Tebow era had come to a close -- the breathless tabloid coverage, the never-ending mentions on ESPN, the fashion magazine photo spreads -- after he was released by the New York Jets. But Bill Belichick, the evil genius, decided to pick up the former Florida standout quarterback just to see what he could do. Now that experiment has yielded its results, and they've come back negative. This GIF is all we have left: 

Does this mean the devil has won in New England? Probably, yeah. Yahoo!'s Dan Wentzel reports Tebow has no plans to quit football, though it's unclear what exactly happens next: 

If he isn't scooped up this coming week, he can certainly wait out the inevitable wave of injuries and hope that teams in need of depth call him in the weeks to come. Maybe that works. He could also have a future in the Canadian Football League, where a more wide-open style of play might be a good fit for his run/pass combo style. 

The idea of Tebow playing in Canada seems to be a popular one, because it would surely be hilarious, but it's not a perfect fit: 

On the one hand, Montreal holds Tebow's rights and Anthony Calvillo's coming off a concussion. On the other hand, Tebow can't throw. Hmmm.

— Bruce Arthur (@bruce_arthur) August 31, 2013

And, predictably, the reaction on social media has been less than kind to the poor 26-year-old: 

if tim tebow wants to be on my flag football team we need a tight end

— ryan lambert (@twolinepass) August 31, 2013

SATAN WINS RT @AdamSchefter: Patriots released Tim Tebow.

— Sean Gentille (@seangentille) August 31, 2013

Thank God we got rid of Tebow.

— Mace Hindu (@dharmicX) August 31, 2013

(lol bye bye Tebow)

— Luis Paez-Pumar (@paezpumarL) August 31, 2013

We never got some juicy scandal out of this whole thing. It's hard to not feel sad, or disappointed, that this may all be over without one. Godspeed, sir: may you land on your feet somewhere, perhaps with a better throwing motion. 

       

The U.N. Inspectors Have Safely Left Syria: Now What?

The U.N. has officially left the building, and now the rest of the world waits while the U.S. weighs whether or not to attack Syria as a retaliation for a chemical weapons attack allegedly carried out by the Assad regime that killed hundreds of civilians. 

The U.N. team of inspectors left Damascus around 4 a.m. Saturday morning local time. They arrived in Lebanon safely and will now report directly to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and submit their findings for analysis. It will take roughly two weeks to process everything and release the results.

Many suspect the decision whether or not to strike will come before that, probably some time this weekend. Secretary of State John Kerry presented his case Friday, Congress has been consulted, and the Senate is getting briefed Saturday afternoon. But behind the scenes, the U.S. is facing pressure to attack. Representatives from South Korea, Israel and Turkey, are privately worrying, according to the Wall Street Journal, that North Korea, Iran, Russia and China will all feel some sense of security should the U.S. not strike Syria. They can do whatever they want, the thinking goes, without worrying about a U.S. response. 

At least Turkey is publicly supporting Obama's proposed plan for a "limited" retaliation against Syria. "The Americans, like us, are sure that a response should be given to the use of chemical weapons. We are of the opinion that the U.S. will go into action following internal deliberations," a Turkish foreign ministry official told the Hürriyet Daily News on Friday. The U.K. remains opposed, bur France is still pressing for an attack. 

For now, the U.S. is realizing that maybe, just maybe, they bungled the drive for support from international allies: 

Privately, some American officials acknowledged mistakes over the past week in their buildup for a strike, leading British lawmakers to reject participation on Thursday. It is unclear when Mr. Obama realized that the British vote would go against him, but it was not until Friday afternoon that the White House released what it said was evidence of chemical weapons use by the Assad forces — nearly 24 hours after Parliament had voted rather than beforehand, when it might have been used to build a coalition against Mr. Assad.

That could have been organized a little better, yeah. 

Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin publicly called for the U.S. to make a definitive case showing the hard evidence that Syria was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. The U.S. believes the attack, carried out in a Damascus suburb last week, killed 1,429 people. "Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used... chemical weapons, and say that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," Putin told journalists Saturday. "If they don't show it, that means there is none." He also said the Assad "has used chemical weapons is utter nonsense." In related news, Reuters reports Assad has begun to pay the $1 billion bill he's rung up with Russia's arms industry over the last two years. 

The White House's four page report, released while Kerry spoke Friday, explaining how surveillance, intercepted communications, and witness reports make a case showing Assad coordinated the chemical attacks was apparently not enough for Putin. 

No new signs of an impending attack have appeared yet: no button has been pushed, no senior officials have announced a forthcoming attack, nothing is certain. There is only a waiting game being played now. 

       

The U.N. Inspectors Are Leaving Syria Early

Today was the last day in Syria for a team of U.N. inspectors tasked with finding evidence from the chemical attack last week near Damascus. But it looks like their departure will happen a bit sooner than planned. The last inspectors still in the country were supposed to take off at 7 a.m. Syria time on Saturday. Now, however, they're leaving at 4 a.m. on Saturday, according to CBS. That's about 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Friday evening.

The Saturday departure is already one day ahead of schedule. On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon ordered the 20-person team of inspectors to depart the country by Saturday, and report directly to him. The move could well be in response to the U.S.'s continued build-up to a "limited" military retaliation against Syria. Many on the team of inspectors have already left the country. Now, the UN will turn their attention to analyzing the samples collected by inspectors. That process could take at least a week, though Ban Ki-Moon will get an initial briefing this weekend. The inspectors are not looking for evidence on who carried out the attack. The U.N. will reportedly hold a 12:30 press briefing Saturday afternoon.

Citing correspondent Elizabeth Palmer, CBS explains why the new 4 a.m. departure is so strange: "[it] is an odd time to travel," they write, "because the route the inspectors are taking - the road to Beirut - is known to be dangerous." While they don't have a solid reason to report for the change of plans, CBS notes that "it does seem to be a last-minute and extraordinary decision."

While the U.K, along with the U.N., is not on board with the U.S.'s reported plans to carry out a retaliatory military action against Syria without the U.N. report, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes it has all the evidence needed to prove that the chemical attack happened, and that the government of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for carrying it out. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke shortly after a release of intelligence summary from the administration on Friday, laying out the administration's case for Assad's culpability in the deaths of what the government estimates at 1,429 people. With the evidence released and Congress "consulted," the U.S. seems willing to go ahead with a military response even without international support (though it seems to have France's).  Beyond Obama's announcement of whatever decision he's prepared to make on Syria, it looks like there's little left on the adminstration's "to do" list before moving ahead.

       

Syria Is Exactly Like (and Nothing Like) Every Other War

Attempts to understand the potential U.S.-led military strike in Syria have made amateur historians of us all. The events in Syria are specific to Syria, but that hasn't kept journalists from comparing other wars to Syria as a source of reference. George Packer criticized some of these comparisons in a debate with himself in The New Yorker on Thursday: "That’s the problem with these arguments. Iraq! Vietnam! Valley Forge! Agincourt! People resort to analogies so they don’t have to think about the matter at hand."

Well let's think about the matter at hand and look at some of these analogies. After inspection, it turns out Syria is exactly like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and World War I. But it's also absolutely nothing like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and World War I. So there you go.

War: Iraq

[image error]

Why Syria is just like Iraq:

The comparisons of Iraq to Syria are numerous, and they are universally used as an example of why not to intervene. Former military men like Navy veteran Jack Camwell are particularly fond of this point, in the negative sense, as Camwell write explains:

It seems like 2003 all over again. A despotic Middle Eastern regime is accused of using chemical weapons on its own people, and the White House is mulling military action. How many times must America go down this road?

It's not just war-weary Americans making this point. Though obviously from a different perspective, Russia's foreign minister argued along similar lines to Camwell in his criticism of the potential attack:

The situation “brings to mind the events of 10 years ago, when, on the pretext of false information about the Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction, the United States outside the U.N. went on an adventure, the consequences of which are well known."

These two sources — a military veteran and a Russian diplomat — presumably make up two very different sides of the American foreign policy spectrum. Yet both use Iraq-Syria comparisons. They must be correct then, right?

Why Syria is nothing like Iraq:

If the U.S. government is to convince the public that attacking Syria is necessary, it will certainly need to reject the Iraq comparison. “Iraq and Syria are in no way analogous,” a State Department spokeswoman said. British Prime Minister David Cameron agrees: "I am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts... but this is not like Iraq."

But these comments aren't just political talk; the origins of the wars are exceedingly different, as Financial Times international editor David Gardner points out:

The fundamental difference between Syria and Iraq is that Syria began as an attempt by a mass movement of Syrians to free themselves from tyranny. Iraq was an unprovoked invasion that was obviously going to: break a state and its already traumatised society; proliferate Sunni jihadism of the Bin Ladenist variety; and, because of Iraq’s Shia majority, immeasurably strengthen Iran. 

The attack on Syria is a direct response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. The Iraq War was a direct response to ... 9/11? In addition, Obama said today that any Syria operation would not have "boots on the ground" and would not be an open-ended commitment.

War: Afghanistan

[image error]

Why Syria is just like Afghanistan:

Almost every argument Americans use about being weary of Middle East war use both Afghanistan and Iraq to argue against attacking Syria. Columnist Thomas Mullen explains in The Washington Times Communities:

After twelve years of war, hundreds of thousands of U.S. and foreign civilian casualties and trillions in debt, the U.S. has accomplished nothing in the Middle East. They haven’t eradicated the Taliban or Al Qaeda. There has not been a single regime change favorable to U.S. interests. Americans are not freer. They are less free than they have ever been in U.S. history.

The Obama administration’s response? Do it again.

The "it" that Mullen refers to here is to go to war in Syria just like in Afghanistan. Both are in the Middle East, and both include military attacks. Therefore, Mullen argues, they are similar.

Why Syria is nothing like Afghanistan:

The strategy of each war make the comparisons kind of moot. Secretary of State John Kerry declared today that the Syria attack would be nothing like Afghanistan (or Iraq), and there would be no soldier-led invasion. The differences in the way the war will be fought do make for some issues, though, as one Army officer told The Washington Post: "We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war." The strategy that the U.S. employs fighting in Afghanistan would not relate to Syria, so it's hard to make a good comparison between how the two would go.

War: Libya

[image error]

Why Syria is just like Libya:

The limited strikes against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, without American troops on the ground, make Libya appear to be a good comparison to Syria. The Christian Science Monitor explains:

If the United States attacks Syria, it’s likely to be much like the opening hours of the multinational military effort which ousted Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya in 2011 – wave after wave of ship-based cruise missiles, launched at night and with considerable accuracy at military targets.

Those ship-based Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Libya from nearby navy ships, and the U.S. has already positioned five of its warships in the seas near Syria as they await orders.

Why Syria is nothing like Libya:

First, Syria's alliances with China and Russia protect it from U.N. action, whereas Libya was a state in relative isolation, NPR explains in a post titled "Why Syria Is More Complicated Than Libya." Secondly, Syria's rebel forces are incredibly jumbled and the U.S. refuses to take sides. In Libya, though, America actively supported Qaddafi's main rebel group.

Most importantly, there is the difference in the overarching goal of the attack. "In Libya, Obama and his allies sought to take out Qaddafi. In Syria, the president has described the U.S. goal as preventing the use of chemical weapons." Obama has repeatedly asserted this week that any attack on Syria would not be an attempt to oust Assad from power.

War: Kosovo

[image error]

Why Syria is just like Kosovo:

Kosovo provides the closest blueprint to Libya, at least in the eyes of Obama administration national security aides, who are currently studying the Kosovo engagement. "Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar," one senior administration official told The New York Times. In the words of the article's author, the NATO-led bombings of Serbian forces who waged ethnic cleansing against Kosovo Albanians have some similarities to Syria: "civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses."

In addition, Slate's Fred Kaplan notes that like in Kosovo, another NATO attack could be in the offing here to avoid a unilateral force:

But where can Obama turn for the legitimacy of a multinational alliance? Nobody has yet said, but a possible answer is, once again, NATO—this time led perhaps by Turkey, the alliance's easternmost member, whose leaders are very concerned by the growing death toll and instability in Syria just across their southern border.

If the Obama administration is studying Kosovo, there must be some similarities, right?

Why Syria is nothing like Kosovo:

Well, not so much, say veteran military planners of the Kosovo War.

"The similarities between what we did in Kosovo and what is now being proposed in Syria are exactly zero," said Peter Galbraith, the former Ambassador to Croatia and close ally of the late Richard Holbrooke. "The situations are completely different. In Kosovo, we had a partner. In Syria, we don’t. Kosovo is small, Syria is large."

Those are very simple and easy to understand differences. Kosovo small. Syria big. Kosovo we are together. Syria we are alone. Foreign Policy's Elias Groll delves a bit deeper, and settles on the same overall idea. Unlike Syria, Kosovo had major overarching goals, and in the end needed U.N. ground forces to complete those objectives. The KFOR — Kosovo Force — are still there to this day.

George Packer in The New Yorker highlights that those things just aren't going to happen in Syria.

This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.

No U.N. status for Syria, then. Okay, so comparisons to Kosovo are not wholly accurate either. What else is left?

War: World War I

[image error]

Why Syria is just like WWI:

Chemical weapons were first introduced to the world at the Battle of Verdun in World War I, and their terrifying use in that war led to the norms against chemical weapons. Those same norms are still in place now, and the main cause of the U.S. consideration of intervention.

Aside from that, Kerry and Obama have warned that not attacking Syria could threaten America's allies, like Israel. The U.S. would come to defend that attack. Would Russia and China retaliate? "This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914," one of George Packer's inner monologue voices exclaims.

And The Week argues that Obama's closest presidential comparison is Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned on an anti-war platform and then eventually entered World War I.

Why Syria is nothing like that one war:

World War I included most of the world. America can't even get its best ally to join an attack.

(Photo of Afghanistan: AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus; Photo of Libya: AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky; Photo of Kosovo: AP Photo/Giorgos Nissiotis; Photo of World War I: AP Photo)

       

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Officiate a Same-Sex Wedding

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will officiate a same-sex wedding ceremony on Saturday between Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts (no relation to the Supreme Court Chief Justice). Ginsburg, who won't resign until she's good and ready so stop asking, will be the first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex wedding.

And guess what? According to an interview with the Washington Post, Ginsburg already has a second same-sex wedding on her calendar for September. Her first one, however, looks to be extremely fancy. The ceremony will be at the Kennedy Center itself, and includes opera and Broadway stars, along with heavy-hitting philanthropists on the guest list. But that's all secondary to what Ginsburg's involvement symbolizes. Here's what she told the paper:

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship...It won’t be long before there will be another [justice officiating a same-sex marriage]”

Kaiser said that he “can’t imagine someone I’d rather be married by.”

Just months after the Supreme Court threw out most of the federal restrictions on recognition of same-sex marriages, a Supreme Court justice will become a participant in one. But she's far from the only Supreme Court justice to celebrate the joy of marriage by officiating for a friend: Justice Clarence Thomas conducted Rush Limbaugh's third marriage in 1994, held at the Justice's home. Limbaugh has since divorced and remarried.