Syria

[sukeban]

Russia is ballin' so hard on the Administration right now.

 

Seizing on an off-the-cuff remark that Kerry made yesterday, Putin has proposed that Syria voluntarily relinquish its cache of chemical weapons and allow them to be destroyed by an international team of weapons experts. As this is obviously the most reasonable proposal on Syria yet proposed, the Administration really has no other option but to accept it, else they appear as completely unhinged and irrational warmongers. Russia has, as such, pulled off a great diplomatic coup, wresting the moral high ground on the issue away from the US by advancing a plan that eliminates Syria's chemical arms without the use of violence.

 

However, as much as this deal represents a Russian triumph, the Administration (in particular, Obama) should not be blinded to the opportunity that it presents to them, namely, a face-saving method of walking back their Syrian attack plans. Accepting the Russian proposal would allow Obama to call off the Congressional vote (which he is likely to lose) on Syria while simultaneously claiming a victory over Assad in terms of their chemical weapons, a win-win if he is not too proud to recognize it.

 

Let us hope that Obama accepts this gift. Though his war-eagerness has confounded me these last two weeks, somehow I think that he will.

[Harbringe]

Lets see Saddam Hussein's WMD's destroyed in 1991 , UN spends decade making sure they gone , by 2003 Iraq invaded Saddam eventually hung , Qadaffi agrees to give up his WMD's in 2003 by 2007 they completely removed by 2011 he dead . Who wants to bet that this is opens the door to an all out assault on Assad , cause it doesn't address the reason they exist in the first place ,Israel's illegal nuclear WMD's or address the outside players who are pouring billions into the hands of al queda types in the counrty by various states such as KSA or Qatar or USA , etc .

 

If this opens the door to Assad being destroyed maybe those crazy North Koreans aren't so crazy after all to be holding onto their WMD's.

[Vindekarr]

Honestly I didn't see Russia's idea coming, but it does give me some small hope for a reasonable resolution.

 

If we're going to start a war and invade some country with no hope in hell of defending itself under the guise of laying down the law and protecting the innocent, we may as well actually go somewhere that's a legitimate threat, or where something truly horrible is taking place. Syria's only an internal threat right now, and by jumping in with both feet as the yanks want to, we may just end up creating a far larger threat when some tribal warlord steps in, takes control, and decides to make things even worse for the populace-or worse, us. Why not do some good and get involved in Somalia, or the countless ugly little wars in Africa in which it's not thousands dying, it's millions.

 

We in the West DO have the military power to do good, but honestly, what good are we doing knee-deep in crap in the Muddle-East, fighting a pointless and unwinnable campaign against seemingly infinite numbers of tribal crazies which we in fact, armed and indirectly created. We can't win, and we're fighting for commercial interests who aren't remotely worth protecting. IMO we should cut and run before things get even uglier-let alone start yet another war in the region. Hell, I would bet half the tribal crazies hate us simply because we're the big foreign bastards that came in and blew all their s#*! up to "protect" what we see as our oil(that's in their dirt)

 

Shooting isn't working in the muddle-East, so as Russia so obviously pointed out, talking might serve us better. Offering Al Assad the option to hand over the WMDs would be an excellent opportunity to resolve things peacefully and maybe work towards shaking the "crazy-ass white guys that invade everything" image.

[sukeban]

@Harbringe

 

I think that some of the schizophrenia in Obama's rhetoric probably reflects a competition for influence between various factions within the Administration, between neocon sympathizers (Kerry, Clinton), foreign heads of state (Saudi, Turkey, Israel), naive liberal interventionists (Powers, Rice), and whatever Obama himself might have actually thought about Syria. It appears as though each of these elements held sway during various points over the last two weeks, with the Administration's position shifting to accommodate each side's new strategy/demands.

 

At any rate, I suppose it remains to be seen what the Administration ultimately desires in Syria: regime change (with an eye on Iran) or WMD removal. If the latter, then this deal is a complete success; if the former, then the deal is an unwelcome obstacle in their invasion narrative. Their good faith (or lack thereof) will be telling, as they can be reasonable in their expectations and timeline OR they can treat the Syrians like the Romans treated Carthage, making one unreasonable demand after another until their demands can no longer be met without a complete surrender of sovereignty, at which time invasion becomes both innevitable and "legitimate."

 

@Vindekarr

 

Fully agree.

Edited September 10, 2013 by sukeban

[Aonghus]

Be interesting to see what PresBO has to say tonight. (He's due to address the nation, assuming it hasn't been canceled.) Reuters is reporting that after spending Yesterday first denying that Kerry said what he said, then denying that Kerry's statement was administration policy, Reuters today is reporting that Obama called Russia's offer "a potential breakthrough."

[rizon72]

Be interesting to see what PresBO has to say tonight. (He's due to address the nation, assuming it hasn't been canceled.) Reuters is reporting that after spending Yesterday first denying that Kerry said what he said, then denying that Kerry's statement was administration policy, Reuters today is reporting that Obama called Russia's offer "a potential breakthrough."

Is it any wonder that my head spins when listening to this administration. Their own members are not even on the same page.

[MajKrAzAm]

What’s unclear is whether Obama understands that his foreign policy legacy will be to have ruined the American position in the Middle East, and our patrimony of the last seven decades. If the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran signaled weakness, the Russian deal screams surrender. The real surprise is that it’s not Iran kicking the United States out of the region under Obama’s watch, but Putin.

[sukeban]

It appears as though the West might be attempting to go the Carthage route, with the (French, WTF?) UN resolution apparently containing language that the Assad regime be condemned and that its members be referred to the International Criminal Court for their (unproven!) role in the Ghouta chemical attack, something that they obviously know the regime/Russia will not agree to. Furthermore, the new Senate resolution seems to incorporate this language as well, making for an easy legal trigger for a strike should either the UN language change or the proposal be rejected. And in the meantime, Russia insists that the UN Resolution not be "backed by the use of force" against the Assad regime if its provisions fail; likely Russia remembers how they were duped by the West over the Libyan no-fly zone and they don't want to see a repeat performance of UN-backed regime change against Syria.

 

I suppose that certain aspects are open to negotiation, but the use of force likely is not. Russia wants any Western attack to lack UN approval--to be a "rogue" attack--and the West still seems to be sharking about looking for another pretext to strike. So maybe not much has changed at all... though if Obama thinks that this weaksauce show of "diplomacy" will bolster public support for his attack, he is highly likely to be mistaken (might change a couple of votes in Congress though).

 

@MajKrAzAm

 

I don't think that Obama bears full responsibility for this; I mean, look at the boon for Iran that resulted from our toppling of Saddam. Further, I don't really know if the Middle East is really a region that we want to be seen as dominating any longer, as the demographic/natural resources/economic crises that set off the Arab Spring aren't going to be stopping any time soon. IMO, the Gulf States are a far more malevolent force in the region (and world) than is Iran, so a more equitable balance of power in the region is not a particularly terrible outcome. We would be wise to seek reapproachment with Iran rather than antogonize her, as they are by far the most advanced and socially stable state in the region. As a society and state, Iran will outlast Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf monarchs, and we would be wise to keep this in mind when devising our long-term foreign policy.

Edited September 10, 2013 by sukeban

[JimboUK]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/syria-crisis-iran-backs-russia-chemical-weapons-plan-live

 

According to this the security council meeting called by Russia has been cancelled, seems like the U.S want's the right to use force and the Russians aren't going to go along with it, and after Libya who can blame them?

[Vindekarr]

Not me. Just let me go make a tin-foil hat, I've got a crazy theory. Maybe Russia has something they don't want the US to find in Syria? maybe they supplied the chemical weapons? It's highly unlikely, but then again, it's also highly unlikely that the Russian government, which normally every bit as warlike as our own governments, would be playing peacemaker out of the goodness of it's national heart. Who knows, I just hope we sit this one out. Airstrikes, dronestrikes, and Tomahawk missiles are just going to make the civilian death-toll even worse. We'd be much better off doing something about all the poor bloody refugees fleeing their homes, who have nowhere to go and that nobody wants to take in.