News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[Pythagorean]

Hard to say, this is almost a rhetorical question. I mean, if the attack kills Assad himself, would that be "muscular enough"?

"Heck, Assad gassed his people, he got blown to bits. Maybe I shouldn't gas my people." Equally possible.

Though I seriously doubt future dictators would actually have this kind of thought process where they think they are susceptible to world police.

Wasn't the US accused of using chemical weapons in Iraq? I thought there were still birth defects being associated with it in some studies.

 

[russ_watters]

For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked. Yes, I am very worried that our response - if any - will make things worse in one of several possible ways.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked.

It's too late. The mocking has already begun. ("Does this war make me look fat?")

Killing a couple hundred Syrians in the hope that one might - might - be Assad seems to me not to be a credible deterrent to the next dictator.

If the point of a military response is so that the administration is not mocked, I would argue against one. The response of the world will not be "Look how credible those Americans are!" It will be "They killed a few hundred people just to appear credible". This is immoral.

If the point of a military response is to remove Syria's capability of using chemical weapons, the US is not going to be able to do this with a couple of missiles. The Pentagon says that 75,000 troops (which is a little less than half of the entire Marine Corps) is necessary to do this. And that action will have consequences: it will replace the Syrian government to one that is even more hostile to US interests. It will end the "reset" in US-Russia relations, and it will almost certainly provoke Russia to make S-300 sales to Iran - who has an even larger WMD program than Syria.

 

[jim hardy]

"just muscular enough not to get mocked"

??

Now THERE's a weak man's imitation of strength.

Truth IS stranger than fiction.
Is there a satirist in the house?

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play by William Shakespeare. It is believed that it was written between 1590 and 1596. It portrays the events surrounding the marriage of the Duke of Athens, Theseus, and Hippolyta. These include the adventures of four young Athenian lovers and a group of six amateur actors, who are controlled and manipulated by the fairies who inhabit the forest in which most of the play is set.

Insert your favorite politicians.

 

[Pythagorean]

I played Bottom the *** in my high school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream

(When the title of a shakespeare character gets censored, you know you're in trouble)

Needless to say, I was type-casted.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked. Yes, I am very worried that our response - if any - will make things worse in one of several possible ways.

Assad has won this battle, it's time to move on. Let's stop pretending IMO we (The East and West) really want the war to end. The Jihadist are busy killing someone other than us and we supply them with just the level of arms needed for them to think they might someday win. The other side supplies Assad and wants him to battle those Jihadist forces until doomsday but both sides have to play by the rules of no CW.

Will an overt attack at this late stage make them more or less likely to follow the rules and continue the war?

 

[BobG]

Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment.

Legal apprehension? Please tell me you are joking, Ryan? How exactly would that be possible?

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

There's a difference between a nation (usually at the direction of its head of state or government) waging war either on its own people or another country and a non-state actor waging "war". I'm not sure how much I buy into the idea of prosecuting "terrorists" as criminals, but there is still a big difference in how you fight a group like bin Laden and a country. Your goal is to eliminate the enemy's ability to threaten you. Being there's a difference in the weapons available to each, the method of eliminating the threat is going to be different.

A couple of things.

1) What red line is there against chemical weapons?

International agreements since around 1900 "banned" their use, but everyone ignored them until WWI when widespread use made it obvious that they were a really bad idea. The only red line that's existed since then is "Don't use chemical weapons against someone that can use them on you."

Japan used chemical weapons against China in WWII. But they didn't use chemical weapons against allied forces even when they were clearly losing the war.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in their war. There was no huge outcry. There's a good reason there wasn't. Iraq was facing invasion. Expecting a country to cease to exist before dishonoring themselves by using chemical weapons is an unrealistic standard.

But, Japan did refrain from using chemical weapons against allied forces even when facing defeat. It's possible Japan was more honorable. Or it's possible Japan didn't believe chemical weapons would turn the tide of the war, especially when allied forces could retaliate with chemical weapons of their own (or worse, as things turned out).

Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people. This didn't bring immediate retaliation, but it probably contributed at least a little to the severity of the post Gulf War I sanctions.

Or one could argue that Iraq was the first country punished for using chemical weapons against its own people, since we invaded them because of their suspected chemical weapons program - except we punished them 15 years after the fact.

2) While I don't buy the rhetoric, that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to discourage the use of chemical weapons.

While the Bush administration claimed that Iraq still had an operational chemical weapons program, the reality was that the post-Gulf War sanctions actually did work. I have to admit that this was very surprising, since Iraq's chemical weapons capability played such a vital role in defending it from Iran. I'm sure they kept the plans and blueprints so they could resurrect their chemical weapons program in the future, but they had no operational program by time the US invaded.

That proves that there's realistic alternatives to military force in punishing the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that any of the alternative methods would work in Syria. They could if Assad survives his civil war, but I think there's a good chance he won't.

If we do decide bombing Syria is a good punishment, it also means that the bombing has to do more damage than the use of chemical weapons helped. It doesn't mean we have to bomb until the Assad regime falls. We only have to bomb until it's obvious that any sane person would wish they'd toughed things out against the insurgents.

3) The problem with the whole scenario is figuring out which side you want to see win.

Do you really want the punishment to be so severe that you assure the insurgents will win? Will they be any friendlier to the US than the Assad regime has been? Or are insurgents that are only just as unfriendly to the US acceptable as long as the insurgents are equally unfriendly to Iran? Or, if you're concerned about Syria, does the fall of Assad just mean the forces break up into new alliances for the post-Assad civil war?

To be honest, I'm very undecided about whether I think we should bomb Syria or not - mainly because there just aren't easy answers to the third question.

 

[nsaspook]

3) The problem with the whole scenario is figuring out which side you want to see win.

Do you really want the punishment to be so severe that you assure the insurgents will win? Will they be any friendlier to the US than the Assad regime has been? Or are insurgents that are only just as unfriendly to the US acceptable as long as the insurgents are equally unfriendly to Iran? Or, if you're concerned about Syria, does the fall of Assad just mean the forces break up into new alliances for the post-Assad civil war?

To be honest, I'm very undecided about whether I think we should bomb Syria or not - mainly because there just aren't easy answers to the third question.

The cynical answer is we don't what either side to win. Our waiting this long to act has disconnected the punishment from the event and created the possibility of transforming the Syrian crisis into a regional one if we tip the balance away from Assad by a large scale attack. A war of attrition killing the most radical elements on both sides and stalemate is the likely outcome if we do little or nothing.

Most of the possible outcome scenarios have been gamed long ago.
http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20120800_syria_2013_scenarios.pdf

and there is always Plan Y:

 

[jim hardy]

US civil war killed ~ 650,000 from a population of ~31 million, around 2 %.
Syria is at 100,000 from a population ~21 million , around 0.5 %.
They might be just getting started.

Europe didn't help the Confederacy very much because of the slavery issue, which Lincoln deftly interjected with Emancipation Proclamation.

...Putin wants a strong leader in Syria who can keep things under control. ...

Putin knows what he is doing. He stands back while others blunder in and act in the heat of the moment. He needles and riles his opponents so they trip themselves up and do his work for him. Putin intends to win this particular round of his sparring match over Syria on points. A decision against using force in Syria, an embarrassed Obama, the prospect of a unilateral U.S. intervention launched without even the imprimatur of the U.S. Congress -- all that can be spun as a Russian victory if Putin keeps his cool. Against the backdrop of the G-20 summit, the international community will be the judge of whether Putin or Obama has made the most skillful moves.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139905/fiona-hill/putin-scores-on-syria

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.
...
As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.

Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.

Now it looks like even the brother was out of the direct control loop.

CRS report on Syrian CW: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf

 

[mheslep]

There's a difference between a nation (usually at the direction of its head of state or government) waging war either on its own people or another country and a non-state actor waging "war". I'm not sure how much I buy into the idea of prosecuting "terrorists" as criminals, but there is still a big difference in how you fight a group like bin Laden and a country. Your goal is to eliminate the enemy's ability to threaten you. Being there's a difference in the weapons available to each, the method of eliminating the threat is going to be different.

A couple of things.

1) What red line is there against chemical weapons?

UN 1540.

 

[BobG]

UN 1540.

That link doesn't work from this website. You have to go here first and click the Resolution 1540 link on that page.

Resolution 1540 obliges states to prevent non-state actors from acquiring chemical weapons. With a bit of twisted logic, I guess delivering chemical weapons to non-state actors via missile or artillery shell could be interpreted as a violation of this resolution.

Actually, the use of chemical weapons is addressed in the Geneva Protocols and Conventions of 1925.

 

[Vic Sandler]

UN 1540.

That link didn't work for me, but this one did:
UN 1540
Here is an excerpt from the page, with my emphasis.

The resolution obliges States, inter alia, to refrain from supporting by any means non-State actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems.

This doesn't seem to apply to the current situation since Assad is not a non-State actor, and he is not accused of supporting non-State actors. What other red line is there? What remedies are specified?

I am against Obama's proposed action against Assad.
1. Our objective of punishing Assad without toppling him seems like threading the needle and not likely to succeed.
2. Our history of reaction to other uses of chemical weapons is inconsistent.
3. Syria is at the mercy of parties that are powerful, ruthless, and determined. Some of these parties have no political objectives but are simply criminal organizations. Their objective seems to be chaos. Any moderate entity is not likely to thrive in this environment. How do we structure our military response so that we help our feeble friends, without aiding our strong enemies?
4. There has been no discussion of non-military responses.

 

[Evo]

1. Our objective of punishing Assad without toppling him seems like threading the needle and not likely to succeed.
2. Our history of reaction to other uses of chemical weapons is inconsistent.
3. Syria is at the mercy of parties that are powerful, ruthless, and determined. Some of these parties have no political objectives but are simply criminal organizations. Their objective seems to be chaos. Any moderate entity is not likely to thrive in this environment. How do we structure our military response so that we help our feeble friends, without aiding our strong enemies?
4. There has been no discussion of non-military responses.

Please post the sources for these statements. It is a requirement. I am not questioning the legitimacy of what you say. Please read the rules for posting in this section. This applies to everyone wishing to participate. It makes sure everyone is on the same page.

You will notice members posting their sources here.

Thank you.

 

[lisab]

This objection has come up in various forms several times in this thread:

"Chemical weapons have been used before, yet nothing was done about it then. So why should we do anything now?"

That excuse does not work for me. I don't accept past indifference as an excuse to look the other way for actions you know -- you know! -- are unacceptable.

I have no idea why past uses didn't affect the Zeitgeist like this one has, btw.

 

[Vic Sandler]

1. Our objective of punishing Assad without toppling him seems like threading the needle and not likely to succeed.
Washington Post

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said his goal would be to leave the regime weaker after any assault.

2. Our history of reaction to other uses of chemical weapons is inconsistent.
New York Times

It was only in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, started by Iraq after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that chemical weapons were again used in large amounts, and by the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against Iranian forces and his own Kurds. The Iraqis used both first- and second-generation nerve gases to blunt Iranian offensives in southern Iraq and forestall defeat. Given American and Western unease with Iran’s revolution, there was little public outrage as Muslims used poison on other Muslims.

3. Syria is at the mercy of parties that are powerful, ruthless, and determined. Some of these parties have no political objectives but are simply criminal organizations. Their objective seems to be chaos. Any moderate entity is not likely to thrive in this environment. How do we structure our military response so that we help our feeble friends, without aiding our strong enemies?
New York Times

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in the spring of 2012, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

4. There has been no discussion of non-military responses.
This is a negative statement. I have nothing I can link to. I probably should be more specific and say that the Obama administration is only pushing for a military response. They may have had private discussions of non-military responses, but they are not encouraging such discussions in public now because it would blunt the force of their arguments for military action.

 

[OmCheeto]

The more I read, the less I know:

Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk

SEP 2 2013
...
1: What Actually Happened

On Wednesday, August 21 canisters of gas opened in several suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus and within a short time approximately a thousand people were dead. That is the only indisputable fact we know.
...

Polk, in question section 4; "Who Are the Possible Culprits and What Would be Their Motivations?", seems to suspect what my friend told me last week, that it would illogical for Assad to have ordered the gassings.

Some of his figures blow me away

5: Who are the insurgents?

We know little about them, but what we do know is that they are divided into hundreds – some say as many as 1,200 -- of small, largely independent, groups.
...

1200! Good god.


The following surprised me.

8: What Is Current Law on the Use of Chemical Weapons?
...
My understanding of the current law, as set out in the 1993 Convention, is that the United States and the other NATO members are legally entitled to take military action only when we – not their citizens -- are actually threatened by overt military attack with chemical weapons.

If anyone can quote the section in UN 1540 which refutes this, I would greatly appreciate it.

It's a long article, and Polk apologizes for its length at the beginning.

...
I apologize for both the length of this analysis and its detail, but the issue is so important to all of us that it must be approached with care.
...

But I've read it twice. I'm kind of glad now that Congress is the slowest moving object in the universe.

all bolding mine

 

[Vic Sandler]

This objection has come up in various forms several times in this thread:

"Chemical weapons have been used before, yet nothing was done about it then. So why should we do anything now?"

That excuse does not work for me. I don't accept past indifference as an excuse to look the other way for actions you know -- you know! -- are unacceptable.

When we looked the other way in the past, did it send a message? Did Assad get the message?

McCain, by the way, is a yes. He says a No vote could send a "seriously bad" message to the world.

Obama described the mission as twofold: to "send a message to Assad," and to "[degrade] his ability to use chemical weapons" now and in the future

.

I am not suggesting that we do nothing nor that we look the other way.

We are on shaky international legal foundations.. we need to know if we have exhausted all sanctions and diplomatic options.

All of these quotes are from this article.
The Guardian

 

[nobahar]

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in their war. There was no huge outcry. There's a good reason there wasn't. Iraq was facing invasion. Expecting a country to cease to exist before dishonoring themselves by using chemical weapons is an unrealistic standard.

Hi BobG, apologies if I have misunderstood, this is a little ambiguous. I thought it wzas generally understood that Iraq started the Iraq-Iran War; one source, the British Guardian Newspaper:

"It began 30 years ago this week when Saddam Hussein launched what he hoped would be an easy victory over a disorganised enemy. By its end, nearly eight years later, more than 1 million people were dead and both countries deeply scarred. It has marked the politics of the Middle East ever since." (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/23/iran-iraq-war-anniversary).

The lack of outcry depends on who you are, where your from and your 'allegiances', I guess, I know of plenty of outcry; I suspect, perhaps to some westerners the lack of any great outcry is for no reason other than the following, from the Washington Post:

"...the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. Dobbs noted that Iraq’s chemical weapons’ use was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: ”The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

Also, on the Kurdistan issue (same source):
"In 1988, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ordered chemical weapons attacks against Kurdish resistance forces, but the relationship with Iraq at the time was deemed too important to rupture over the matter. The United States did not even impose sanctions."

There are a lot more and 'better' sources in my opinion (I like the heading "History lesson: When the United States looked the other way on chemical weapons"; "looked the other way"...); but I just wanted some clarification on your claim.

 

[BobG]

Hi BobG, apologies if I have misunderstood, this is a little ambiguous. I thought it wzas generally understood that Iraq started the Iraq-Iran War;

This is true.

They didn't use chemical weapons to protect themselves from an unprovoked attack, but they did use chemical weapons to protect themselves from invasion after the war went sour.

If there's any sort of sliding scale on the acceptability of using chemical weapons, that's still not as bad as starting off an aggressive war using chemical weapons right off the bat or as bad as using chemical weapons against their own people (even when the reason for using chemical weapons against your own people is because they've revolted and are about to depose you).

I'm saying that while rhetoric has a purpose, in practice, you pick your fights and accept the successes you achieve. If countries only use chemical weapons for defensive purposes, you've accomplished something - even if starting a war only to wind up having your own existence threatened is pushing the envelope quite a bit.

 

[Pythagorean]

Obligatory military-industrial complex whining:

According to an analysis by MapLight, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions in Congress, senators who voted in favor of the resolution received, on average, 83 percent more money from defense contractors and other defense interests than senators who voted against the resolution.

http://watchdog.org/104692/senators-backing-war-in-syria-are-flush-with-defense-industry-cash/

Though, one could argue that senators who voted in favor of the resolution and received (on average) 83% defense money do both on the basis of ideology (as opposed to being sell-outs or whatever).

EDIT: it looks like they're using misleading statistics. They're using total dollar amounts and not normalizing by the time spent in office, so somebody in office longer is going to have a larger dollar amount. Bogus.

 

[fargoth]

This is true.

If there's any sort of sliding scale on the acceptability of using chemical weapons, that's still not as bad as starting off an aggressive war using chemical weapons right off the bat or as bad as using chemical weapons against their own people

Haven't Saddam used CW on the iraqi Kurds too?

The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

 

[jim hardy]

Let us hope we've all been outfoxed by two clever politicians playing "Good world leader - Bad world leader" on Assad

http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.html

So what could be more natural to solve the Syrian crisis, which is already nearing a political, if not military disaster? It would be to remove the fuse from this ‘time bomb’, remove the critical parts of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal, especially its delivery systems and most vulnerable and dangerous agents, before the entire Middle East enters into another highly dangerous quagmire, which no one really wants. Such means could include specific warheads, sarin and VX binari agents (which can be carried safely to a temporary storage area in Russia)

The only person which could solve this problem is President Vladimir Putin, who has both the means and the persuasive power to get Assad to allow Russian special forces to remove chemical weapons in time and load them carefully onto the Nikolai Filchenkov and if required on more Russian fleet transports who could arrive at Tartus on short notice. With such a move, President Obama would be off the hook, making his unwanted and quite questionable military strike unnecessary, also saving a lot of face should matters go wrong, as they usually do in this region.

 

[OmCheeto]

Let us hope we've all been outfoxed by two clever politicians playing "Good world leader - Bad world leader" on Assad

http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.html

Excellent find.

And yes, hope, is a good thing.

 

[nsaspook]

Let us hope we've all been outfoxed by two clever politicians playing "Good world leader - Bad world leader" on Assad

http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.html

I don't see the Russians taking the weapons out of country as that would directly involve them in possibly giving them back at some future time, they might agree to provide an operational lockbox (multi-person security release protocols for Syria) to prevent future use by local commanders and provide a means for safe destruction of excess weapons.

 

[Vanadium 50]

hmmm... Who was the last president to wage un-authorized air strikes against another country, without congress's approval?

Was that Nixon?

No, Obama. Libya.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Agreed, and to take the logic further: if the rebels used the weapons, the only likely place they could have gotten them is from Assad's forces.

I don't think that's true. There are claims that the Saudis supplied them. Maybe these claims are wrong, but they are not on the face of them impossible. In any event, there have been instances of non-state actors obtaining and using sarin gas. Aum Shinrikyo, for example, has initiated at least two fatal attacks.

I'm not arguing that the Assad government did not initiate these attacks; I'm just pointing out the holes in the "it can't be anyone else" argument.

 

[jim hardy]

Everybody will try to steal credit for that Jewish magazine's suggestion linked yesterday, http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.htmlNYTimes credits Kerry :http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/w...er-all-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

MOSCOW — A seemingly offhand suggestion by Secretary of State John Kerry that Syria could avert an American attack by relinquishing its chemical weapons

LAtimes credits Russia: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...sia-chemical-weapons-20130909,0,3744754.story

BEIRUT — The Syrian government said Monday that it backed a Russian proposal calling for Damascus to hand over its arsenal of chemical weapons to international authorities in a bid to avoid a U.S. attack.

Huffington Post credits Putin and Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html

Putin himself said Friday at a news conference marking the summit's end that he and Obama discussed some new ideas regarding a peaceful settlement of the crisis and instructed Kerry and Lavrov to work out details.

RT credits Kerry : http://rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-chemical-weapons-handover-615/

Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent destruction to avert a possible military strike.

The Foreign Minister’s statement comes shortly after US Secretary of State John Kerry’s comment that the Syrian President “could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” to avoid a military strike on the country. "Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting [of it[, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done," Kerry said. The Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that Damascus was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression."

I'm having deja-vu's to Danny Glover and Mel Gibson .

I believe it was David Eschel's idea, in that Sept 7th article in Defense Update linked earlier. At least that's first I heard of it.
But nobody would give Israel any credit, will they ?

Hope it works.

 

[nsaspook]

Everybody will try to steal credit for that Jewish magazine's suggestion linked yesterday, http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.html

Hope it works.

Russian and Iranian leaders have been urging Syria to get it's chemical weapons act together for some time. If Syria agrees to the terms and we back down that would be great but it's not a new idea.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121222/178331267.html
http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2013/04/30/want-to-fix-syria-talk-to-iran/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-changer-or-a-shrewd-bluff/?tid=pm_world_pop

The bad news is that if Russia and Syria do go through with this plan, it would signal that both believe Assad can still win without chemical weapons. They would probably be correct. And it would significantly reduce the odds of any U.S. action against Assad, although it’s debatable whether that would be a good or bad thing for Syria. But, as Washington Institute for Near East Policy Executive Director Robert Satloff pointed out to me on Twitter, the “exit of chemical weapons would end any possibility of U.S./Western military action to balance the battlefield.” That’s a sign that Lavrov’s plan might be for real.

I don't see this as bad news. The chances Assad was going to quietly leave were about zero, so a stable pre-civil war Syria with a strong Russian guide sounds pretty good compared to years and years of more war due to a stalemate.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't see this as bad news. The chances Assad was going to quietly leave were about zero, so a stable pre-civil war Syria with a strong Russian guide sounds pretty good compared to years and years of more war due to a stalemate.

I don't see it bad either.
I watched the Assad interview on Charlie Rose tonight. He comes across as a pretty practical guy.
He might be strong medicine but Syria ain't Sesame street.

old jim

 

[lisab]

I don't see it bad either.

I had no hope for a diplomatic solution, but this might work. It could be the first step to a negotiated cease-fire, even.

 

[turbo]

I had no hope for a diplomatic solution, but this might work. It could be the first step to a negotiated cease-fire, even.

Let us hope. Bringing peace to Syria would be a great bonus.

 

[fargoth]

This move (if it will really work and disarm Syria's CW) is the best one possible.
If the US, France and Saudi Arabia want the opposition to continue the fighting, they can continue the military aid they currently give. (The Saudis are actually more sophisticated - they offered a bribe to Russia to drop Assad's support)
No need to get more involved than this.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/02/US-Aid-to-Syrian-Opposition-Tops-1-Billion
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdccxxq1x2bqxx8.-ya2.txt
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-rebels-idUSBRE97O07I20130825
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

My hope is that eventually they would run out of crazy people, the ratio of 10 crazy people to 1 innocent killed could have been better though.

 

[nsaspook]

It's back to normal in Syria:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130910

While the diplomatic wrangling was under way in far-flung capitals, Assad's warplanes bombed rebellious districts inside the Damascus city limits on Tuesday for the first time since the August 21 poison gas attacks. Rebels said the strikes demonstrated that the government had concluded the West had lost its nerve.

"By sending the planes back, the regime is sending the message that it no longer feels international pressure," activist Wasim al-Ahmad said from Mouadamiya, one of the districts of the capital hit by the chemical attack.

 

[russ_watters]

Let us hope. Bringing peace to Syria would be a great bonus.

Double bonus for Putin:

-Putin the Peacemaker beats out Obama the Western Warmonger.

-Providing troops to secure/remove chemical weapons provides an excellent cover for additional propping-up of Assad (I bet he'll even make us pay him for it!)

And for Assad's bonus: semi-official world acknowledgment of his right to kill as many people as he wants, as long as they are his people and he only does it with bombs, guns, tanks, bullets, knives... wait, what were you saying about peace?

 

[fargoth]

Double bonus for Putin:

-Putin the Peacemaker beats out Obama the Western Warmonger.

-Providing troops to secure/remove chemical weapons provides an excellent cover for additional propping-up of Assad (I bet he'll even make us pay him for it!)

yeah, maybe Obama needs to give Putin his Nobel Peace prize (what did he get it for, btw?)

 

[russ_watters]

I had no hope for a diplomatic solution, but this might work. It could be the first step to a negotiated cease-fire, even.

Yes, I expect that after Putin helps Assad kill a lot more of his people, leaving few enemies available to kill, peace will become possible and Russia will gladly sell the weapons to secure it.

 

[russ_watters]

yeah, maybe Obama needs to give Putin his Nobel Peace prize (what did he get it for, btw?)

Good joke, but I know you stole it

 

[nsaspook]

Yes, I expect that after Putin helps Assad kill a lot more of his people, leaving few enemies available to kill, peace will become possible and Russia will gladly sell the weapons to secure it.

Assad has been asking Russia for more planes and advanced weapons for a while. My guess is that's what's on the Russian ships headed to the Syrian port in return for declaring chemical weapons that will take 10 years to destroy under the best conditions and maybe forever in a war zone.

 

[lisab]

Yes, I expect that after Putin helps Assad kill a lot more of his people, leaving few enemies available to kill, peace will become possible and Russia will gladly sell the weapons to secure it.

Definitely something to watch for. I soooo wish the UN could get their act together in a *timely* way to be the mediators here.

Poor Putin. He has two paths he could follow, and I bet he can't decide which would stroke his ego more: he could get deeper involved with Assad and be a proxy war lord, or he could play King Peacekeeper and make Obama look like Bush II. He must feel so torn, poor guy .

 

[Nikitin]

Don't worry Lisa, he does both just fine :)

IMO Putin and his administration are just plain smarter than Obama & co. USA and the west have been looking for an excuse to bomb Assad since 2011 (i.e. establish a "no fly zone"), yet Putin has protected Assad and outmanoeuvred Obama through clever diplomacy and arguments appealing to the anti-war crowd in Western countries.

Also you guys should stop imagining this has anything to do with the people of Syria - this is just power-play. If the west wanted a quick end to the war, they would stop feeding the rebels with money, weapons and diplomatic support and just let Assad crush them. And pls don't tell me the rebels are nice guys - they terrorize and slaughter just like the government troops.

 

[fargoth]

Also you guys should stop imagining this has anything to do with the people of Syria - this is just power-play. If the west wanted a quick end to the war, they would stop feeding the rebels with money, weapons and diplomatic support and just let Assad crush them. And pls don't tell me the rebels are nice guys - they terrorize and slaughter just like the government troops.

I agree.

 

[russ_watters]

The Rwanda genocide was fast too: the only people for whom this is primarily about Power are Assad and Putin. Just ask yourself who has how much of what to gain from saying their position implemented.

 

[fargoth]

The Rwanda genocide was fast too: the only people for whom this is primarily about Power are Assad and Putin.

It's also about power for Saudi Arabia, and all those who train and send weapons to these people.
These "rebels" are not the defenders of the people, they just want to topple the regime and make it their own, and some of them are not even Syrian.
They kill civilians too, and if Assad is defeated they would probably slaughter the rest of his tribe.

There are no good sides here, these are two bad sides and an innocent civilian population caught in the middle of this bloody power struggle.

It involves some western countries (e.g. France, US) and some arab league countries (e.g. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) on one side, Iran, Russia and Syria on the other.

On a larger scale, this is a power struggle between shiites (lead by Iran) and sunnis (lead by Saudi Arabia).

 

[russ_watters]

Granted. I'm mainly referring to the current confrontation between Obama and Putin/Assad though and the implication that this is as much about power for Obama as them. It isn't. Obama is a pacifist/isolationist and his position on this largely goes against who he wants to be/what he wants for America, so it really can't be about power for him.

 

[fargoth]

Granted. I'm mainly referring to the current confrontation between Obama and Putin/Assad though and the implication that this is as much about power for Obama as them. It isn't. Obama is a pacifist/isolationist and his position on this largely goes against who he wants to be/what he wants for America, so it really can't be about power for him.

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"... But he does approve all those weapon shipments - hardly a pacifist act.
He has to be a really naive guy to think that supporting these rebels is humanitarian, and I don't think he is that naive on his second term.
So it is about power for him too, but he would prefer to keep his army out of direct involvement there (as would any of the other players).
In this respect they are pretty much similar.

 

[mheslep]

... Obama is a pacifist/isolationist ...

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

 

[Nikitin]

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"...

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria. Unfortunately for him though, Cameron was unable to convince the UK MPs to join in and Obama is currently getting ridiculed while trying to gather support for the operation. Besides, why would the white house publish so much propaganda if Obama didn't want to attack Syria? No. What the west is trying to do is manoeuvre some pro-western rebel group into power just like they did in Libya (though then Russia did not protect Gaddafi).

IMO, if Obama was a strong leader he would ignore public opinion, the congress and the UN, and just bomb Assad when the iron was hot (pictures of gas-victims flooding in). Sure, there would be some dissent afterwards, but probably far far far less than if he did it now.

 

[fargoth]

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria.

I remember how NY times (at least) criticized him for not acting in a previous gas attack... I don't think the media forgot about his "red line" comment.

 

[russ_watters]

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"... But he does approve all those weapon shipments - hardly a pacifist act.

Individual acts that are not pacifistic don't necessarily speak to his philosophy, especially when looked at in a broader context. That was my point. Providing weapons may not be pacifistic, but it is more pacifistic (and isolationist) than joining the war with ground troops.

He has to be a really naive guy to think that supporting these rebels is humanitarian, and I don't think he is that naive on his second term.

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed.

So it is about power for him too, but he would prefer to keep his army out of direct involvement there (as would any of the other players).
In this respect they are pretty much similar.

Um...you didn't actually say what his power play is here.