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

[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.

 

[OmCheeto]

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.

And didn't he kill Obama? Um, I mean, ok, Osama?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

This is false. Maybe you forgot, but I didn't and people definitely reminded him and discussed it in the media immediately after the attack, before he said he wanted to respond to it. Here's such an article:

President Barack Obama said the alleged mass chemical attack in Syria “is clearly a big event of grave concern,” he told CNN in an interview aired Friday morning. But the President was hesitant to get the U.S. more involved. Citing the ongoing human and financial burdens the U.S. still faces in Afghanistan, he was unwilling to “get involved with everything immediately” and “drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

Two years ago this month, Obama called for the ouster of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. A year ago, Obama drew what he called a “red line” saying the use of chemical weapons would change his “calculus” on the conflict, which has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the last two and a half years. Syrian opposition groups say this red line has now been crossed with this one attack Wednesday morning claiming as many as 1,300 lives in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.

Now that that moment seems to have arrived, though, the President is hedging.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/obama-blurs-red-line-in-syria/

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.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

My belief is in-line with Time's assessment of him as a "reluctant warrior". His positions were in many cases not feasible as policy so the actions don't always seem to fit his ideology. For example, the Afghan surge: sometimes in order to withdraw from a war you first have to win the war.

 

[nsaspook]

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

The CIA directly arming and training the rebels is a recent development but we have been 'facilitating' arms transfers with some very unsavoury people for a long time.
http://world.time.com/2013/05/29/libyans-arming-syrian-rebels/

 

[fargoth]

Providing weapons may not be pacifistic, but it is more pacifistic (and isolationist) than joining the war with ground troops.

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.
With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).
The US's involvement in this is not altruistic, and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.
If everyone would have kept out of this, Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed. Um...you didn't actually say what his power play is here.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

 

[jim hardy]

After seeing Assad's TV interview Monday night

I am not convinced we are supporting the right side over there.

He had a point when he said to Charlie Rose , to effect (kindly excuse I can't remember verbatim) :

As head of state what would you do when foreign hooligans come into your country and foment a violent revolution , killing people? Coddle them? Do you know of such a thing as 'soft war' ?
And why does US insist on calling them "opposition" ? Opposition engages you in civil debate, not blow up churches and behead people. Do you call the 9-11 hijackers 'opposition' ? No, you call them terrorists.
Why do you support them in my country ?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "Grand Chessboard" that Iraq was a beach-head (he likened it to Normandy) for spreading democratic and west friendly governments to the resource-rich region.
But even he seems not supportive of this.

Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

I guess Putin feels the region is important to his folks, too.

 

[nsaspook]

And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to have learned something from the past.

Our support of these groups will turn into a complete disaster if we don't get a handle on this.
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/09/12...-scene-of-utter-cruelty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1

What follows is a harrowing series of photographs of Islamic militants publicly executing, by decapitation, a young Syrian in the town of Keferghan, near Aleppo, on August 31, 2013.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First comment:

For those who have argued that use of chemical weapons mandates such an attack, what is the standard of proof required that the Syrian regime was responsible? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? More likely than not?

This is perhaps more difficult than in other cases, since the Free Syrian Army is a breakaway group from the Syrian Armed Forces, which means it is very difficult to say with certainty "only the pro-Assad forces have this particular weapon."

Undoubtedly, the best evidence is from interception of communications, which for obvious reasons will not be made public.

Second comment:

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

 

[fargoth]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security.

Apparently he's moving them around already...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-spread-chemical-weapons-around-50-sites.html
and has last year, too
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...-chemical-weapons-stirs-fear-on-capitol-hill-

 

[turbo]

This situation is a mess. One that Obama should have avoided at all costs, instead of heeding the war-hawks. In my opinion (and the opinions of a lot of US citizens) the US does not need another war in the ME, especially one in which Russia is a proxy to the target of our aggression.

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

I fear "pretend to oversee" is more likely. Where do you think Assad gets most of his weapons from anyway?

 

[nsaspook]

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

 

[Bandersnatch]

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

 

[nsaspook]

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would agree with that today but at the time his previous use and possible possession of CW and other weapons was a major talking point.

The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e. the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

[mheslep]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

I'm not sure it is fair to say that door has just now been opened. For instance, the Russians have had a military presence at the Syrian port of Tartus since the Soviet era. If the Russians want to use the pretense of they were present are were fired upon then they've had it for some time. Granted getting involved with removal of chemical weapons gives them more reason, but only for a limited time window.

The chance of an escalation with the Russians does point to the broader strategic consequences of a future US decline, that is, how that world might look. In a year 2000 world, Russia would not consider belligerent action that might involve the US. But in some future, a US with a much smaller military, or a US that has all it can handle with one engagement elsewhere, in that world perhaps a Russia calculates it can stymie the US in a case like Syria, can block the US in a 1990's Bosnia and allow Milosevic to continue the massacre.

 

[russ_watters]

First comment:

I'd call it reasonable doubt. But they don't necessarily have to make the evidence public.

Second comment:

No. A weak response is pointless or worse.

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's?

Yes, I said it in post #235

Obama backed himself into a corner here and then Putin rolled-up a barrel and threw Obama over it. There are several different possible ways this could go and all of them are bad for us or Obama, with the exception of one: Russia and Assad are honestly going to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons, with little gamesmanship. And few people actually believe that/it looks like the gamesmanship has started.

So I see that as the most likely possibility. It is a huge win for Putin and Assad.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.

Agreed.

With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).

I'm not seeing that logic at all, could you explain it?

Certainly at the very least Russia doesn't qualify as more pacifistic as the US and that's only regarding the Syria situation. Beyond that, there are a lot of conflicts/wars going on currently and recently.

The US's involvement in this is not altruistic...

You keep saying that without arguing why you think it. Again, when a country/person acts against his interest, that's a pretty good indicator that they have an altruistic motive.

... and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.

I didn't say that. You misunderstood apparently.

If everyone would have kept out of this...

Who is "everyone"? So far, the only significant actors here are Russia, Assad and some foreign Islamic fighters. The US involvement has barely started.

...Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

I don't think such things should be condoned.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

[/quote]
I wasn't aware the CIA was training rebels, but I did say "material support". Even after Obama promised to provide weapons, he didn't do it right away (I think it has started by now). Contrast that with Russia who is the major benefactor of Assad.

 

[Dotini]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

 

[OmCheeto]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

I think you may have misread the piece.

...inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.
...
...the internationally verified transfer of Syria’s chemical stockpiles to Russia, where they eventually would be destroyed.

I would imagine the [STRIKE]Soviets[/STRIKE]^* Russians already have facilities set up, as do we.

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

2001: facility completed
Sept 2004: Army began weapons disposal
Oct 2011: completed disposal
contained: 3,717 tons

It might take a couple of years to destroy. But I don't care how long it takes. I'd just like to see them out of Syria.

all bolding mine

---------------------------
* Showing my age.

 

[nsaspook]

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

We could even help Russia, we could barge the Syrian CW up the river, restart Umatilla for a few years and be sure it's gone. Now who could object to that?

I'm with you, the quicker we get it out of Syria the better.

But there is a little legal complication that needs to be addressed.
The CWC article 1 forbids transfering CW to anyone.

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;