Former Rep. Ron Paul does not just oppose a potential military intervention in Syria, or think the government is exaggerating the case for war, or think we’re moving too quickly, but thinks the government is outright lying — “I think it’s a false flag,” he says, invoking the favorite phrase of conspiracy theorists everywhere.

“[Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, I don’t think is an idiot. I don’t think he would do this on purpose,” Paul told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto of the allegation that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians.

“Oh, so you question whether Assad even used the gas, of if he’s just being set up?” an incredulous Cavuto responded.

“Yeah, just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” Paul replied. “I think it’s a false flag. I think really, indeed. And nobody knows if indeed he was slaughtering people by the thousands with poison gas. If he was that’s a different story, but that’s not the case.”

“The implication is that Assad committed 100,00 killings — there are a lot of factions out there. Why don’t we ask about the Al Qaeda? Why are we on the side of the Al Qaeda?” he added.

Paul spoke before he saw the unclassified intelligence assessment released today by the White House, so perhaps he would change his mind with the new data. But we’re guessing not.

Last summer, Paul took to the House floor to tell the warmongers to leave Syria alone. “Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda,” he said.

And he could be right, of course. The rebels have been accused of using chemical weapons and there’s some evidence they have, even though the administration says they found no evidence of it.

Paul’s old buddy Alex Jones seems to be with him on this. InfoWars is blaming the rebels for last week’s chemical weapon attack, and accusing Secretary of State John Kerry of inflating the number of dead.

For what it’s worth, Paul appears to be using the term wrong. “False flags,” in the standard conspiracist’s lexicon, usually refer to acts of violence perpetrated by the The Powers That Be that get blamed on some other group for the purpose of ginning up support to crack down on said group. Or just to create a general sense of the panic that the government and the Powers That Be can exploit. The Reichstag Fire is the archetypical example. In that case –according to the conspiracist lore — Nazi agents set fire to the building, blamed it on the communists, and then seized power. In the Syria case, what Paul is describing is more a typical psyops job.

However, this rationale for military strikes (which I agree with) puts him in a box. The organizations charged with enforcing international law are not joining in the attack. The U.N. Security Council is “paralyzed,” as Obama said in today’s speech, because Russia will certainly veto any resolution to use force. In the 1999 Kosovo crisis, President Clinton, also faced with Russian recalcitrance, turned to NATO as the entity to launch a massive air campaign. Obama’s aides cited Kosovo as a possible model when they floated the idea of a strike several days ago, but the British Parliament’s refusal to authorize force precludes the NATO option as well. Many members of the Arab League support American action against Assad, but they are unlikely to take a formal position either.
Advertisement

Obama has assembled a small coalition of foreign allies who have said they’ll join in an attack, including France, Australia, and—most important—Turkey. But this isn’t enough. And, again, this isn’t a matter of legal nicety. It’s a matter of political legitimacy, which will be needed to convince Assad that there’s determination behind the first few airstrikes—and to provide ballast in case the attack doesn’t have much effect.
To gain some measure of legitimacy, Obama at least needs domestic support. And so, in addition to announcing that he’d decided to launch an attack on Syrian targets, he also announced that he would have Congress debate and vote on a resolution authorizing military force. The lawmakers aren’t scheduled to return to Washington from vacation until Sept. 9, but it’s worth the wait (though couldn’t he demand they come back sooner?).
If Obama had simply announced that he was launching an attack, he would have prompted endless sniping from Congress, especially if the first few days of airstrikes had no effect. And Assad would watch the sniping with glee, concluding—rightly or wrongly—that the American attacks wouldn’t last long, so he should hold firm for a few days more.
An authorization on the use of force binds Congress to Obama’s actions—assuming the measure passes. It will also have the salutary effect of shifting precedents on America’s use of force generally. Maybe the new standard will be that Congress does play a role in any such decision. No more lazy sniping—or hollow rooting—from the sidelines. Those who have long urged Obama to do something about Syria, and then criticized him in recent days for doing something (just because it’s Obama who’s doing it), will now have to step up and take a stand.
As Obama walked away from the podium, a reporter asked what he would do if Congress voted down a resolution. He said nothing, but the answer seems pretty clear. If Congress votes no, he won’t launch an attack. The legislators will come to realize this, and will see that this is not a parlor game, and I think that’s why they’ll vote in favor.
There will be lessons noted from Iraq, and I suspect the authorization will impose limits on the duration and perhaps the scope of military action. Some will complain that these limits constrain the president, but in fact they free him. Who knows? Maybe we will learn—contrary to the experience of the past decade—that a democracy can go to war in a full and open vote without deceit.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:The other aspect to the Congressional decision for Syria is that it potentially gives the President and SECDEF much greater logic to cut the Department of Defense budget even further.

DoD has been very vocal about not going into Syria, and there are a number of articles this week about leaks (some called them floods) emanating from DoD about how we're going to approach Syria.

If Congress says no, then there is even more reason for the President to cut the DoD budget. If they say yes, I suspect we'll see requests from more OCO supplemental, especially when the missile strikes are completely ineffective and the Administration is left wondering what the hell they can do next.

Brilliant move on the President's part on a number of levels.