It seems to me that David Corn’s column is completely anachronistic. What the president needs to do tonight is fairly simple. He needs to explain that the credible use of force has compelled Russia and Syria to offer up Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile on a silver platter. We can, if Congress follows through with an authorization to use military force, simply box up all Syria’s sarin, and VX and mustard gas in crates and have them destroyed. Or not.
Would your representative like to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons at no cost to the United States, or not?
People can argue about whether this was the plan all along or simply something the administration blundered into, but as long as the president keeps the choice simple and stark, it’s hard to see how Congress can refuse him his victory.
Nothing has happened yet, but this is definitely some serious chess. By recognizing Russia’s fear of CW proliferation into Dagestan and Chechnya, etc., the President has delivered a potential solution that out-witted all players, including our own MIC by using their own rationale for war to escape war. I’m very impressed, but don’t hold out any hope that credit will fall where credit is due.
Now will come demands for conditions of this disarmament that prevent the Syrian gov’t forces from using the time they have bought to ‘win’ the civil war. We’ll see how far he can push this.
Jiu Jitsu for the win.. Maybe. Hopefully.
Very good observation as to what could be motivating Putin to turn on a dime (supposedly) and to go from opposing US initiatives to supporting them. The last thing any Russian leader wants is Sarin/VX in the hands of Chechen militants hell-bent on avenging Grozny. And who ordered Grozny razed?
Putin.
The Russian give-’em-up gambit certainly should make this a much easier vote for Dems, as I have to believe that they overwhelmingly trust the prez not to intentionally torpedo Putin’s efforts. Obama says he will take yes for an answer and Dems are entitled to trust him. It’s still a (technical) vote for war, and they’ve had oceans of calls against it so far, but with the international control plan and Obama’s statements, they will not clearly be a war party.
Of course, this also makes clear that the vast majority Repubs cannot vote for the authorization for an Obammy success, and won’t. What they will say will be logically problematic and absurdly hypocritical given their Iraq or Bust votes, but that’s never been a problem for them or their braindead minions. Will there be enough of them in the House to break away and vote with Nancy’s Dems? Most likely.
Of course this could all be a scam by the Deep State to bamboozle the nation into another ME war. But if Congress doesn’t like where this is heading in another two weeks, they can always rescind the authority. They are really quite a powerful body if they had any idea how to operate as a responsible institution (or any desire).
.
“… at no cost to the United States.”
The Obama administration received a blank cheque from the GCC states for all costs incurred in
removing Assad by military means. Putin didn’t take Prince Bandar’s offer, Obama/Kerry did.
Saudi Prince of Darkness – Bandar
Wonder if the “blank cheque” was payable in cash or more like the one that GHWB accepted in 1990/91 from the government of Kuwait that was redeemable by US corporations for building contracts after the war? Except somehow — perhaps in the fine print — US contractors had to compete for and didn’t win many of those contracts.
Not for nothing, but I swear, this narrative that certain PBO critics & hell that some alleged supporters have that PBO is just the luckiest SOB on the planet is just getting ridiculous. I think at some point it may be realized that maybe it’s not jusy “luck” at all, but ya know actual planning and decision making?
At what point will PBO be actually credited for having actual political skill? I suspect it’ll be once hes out od officr.
The political skill of Presidents are never apparent while they are in office, in part because the internal documents that show the President in action are not available until years later. Popularity reigns as the guage of political skill until decades later.
The most immediate guage of accomplishment is a comparison of the country immediately before the President took office and immediately after he leaves. There is a lot on the agenda yet for the Obama administration: the rollout of Obamacare, recovery of employment, withdrawal from Afghanistan, state of the federal budget. Most analysis of political skill will depend on how these turn out.
The biggie is whether he succeeds by the end of his term in shifting the political culture to more serious consideration of issues. On this, the heated debate about Syria shows some green shoots but the same old political forces are trying to impose their framing in order to get back to frivolous issues.
Why is it on Obama to shift the political culture? Why not measure his success in terms of whether he improved the economy, got people health care, saved lives, defended rights or any other result you care to think about?
The political culture lives in the imaginations of an insular community. The other stuff is real people.
We’ll probably never know whether this was planned, just as we probably won’t with Biden’s famous gay marriage “gaffe”. What matters in both cases is that Obama seized the opportunity for a needed course correction when it presented itself. I give him plenty of credit for that regardless of how it came about.
From Sun Tzu on The Art Of War:
IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS
8. To see victory only when it is within the ken
of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight
and conquer and the whole Empire says, “Well done!”
10. To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great
strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of
sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no
sign of a quick ear.
11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is
one who not only wins, but excels in winning with
ease.
12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation
for wisdom nor credit for courage.
I’m not sure that an authorization to use military force keeps the deal going. What both sides need right now are actions that demonstrate good faith. Giving the US, Russia, and Syria the time to bring a resolution to the UN Security Council while leaving a Congressional vote hanging makes more sense to me.
And the big doubt for a lot of critics of this policy is really whether the US is capable of acting in good faith. Charging ahead with an authorization to use military force looks like US business as usual. Lip service to peace; votes for war.
My representatives are already in the the President’s (Hagan and Price) and John McCain’s (Burr) pockets.
Which do you not want to make complicated? The actual dismantling of Syrian chemical weapons or the political choices facing Congress? A Yes vote is not necessarily a victory in the long term politically for the President. And avoidance of a vote at the moment is not necessarily a defeat for the President in the long term. And by long term, I mean looking at the 2014 election issues.
Until we see how the Russian initiative and Assad’s professed acceptance of it play out it would be foolish to take a vote whose outcome is in doubt. Much smarter to delay and leave the threat still hanging over the players as they maneuver in international diplomacy.
Meanwhile, for the President and Democratic leaders to say, “Well, ya know, looks like we ain’t gonna get our war powers on after all, so let’s just drop it, okay?” would remove the pressure from Assad to follow through, and then where would we be? Really, what sort of political naif would do something as silly dumb as that? And we know this President is neither dumb nor politically naive — he wouldn’t be where he is now if either were true.
It’ll be time to stop rattling that saber and resheath it when the deal is done. Make it plain the United States is willing to deal along the lines laid out by Putin, but leave all options open.
The point is the change the debate in such a way that the vote passes. It’s not really that difficult to recast the debate now on using the authority as a negotiating tool rather than a missile launch.
The AUMF draft should be altered to state that force will only be authorized if Syria fails to comply with a U.N. resolution, which keeps them in the crosshairs and puts the U.N. in the crosshairs, too.
Putin called Kerry’s bluff and now we have to call Putin’s bluff. We can’t back down now.
It also might be helpful for the Senate to reassert its Article 1 war powers in the AUMF instead of ceding more authority to Article 2. The Congress is trying to dodge its responsibility to conduct a serious consideration of war and peace in consultation with constituents.
Instructive in this was DiFi’s “I know more than you do” arrogance to the fact that the majority of constituents oppose intervention.
link
That is a poison pill for the UN resolution that is needed. And when Russia and Syria balk at this provides the pretext to go directly to use of force. The stench of McCain-Graham is strong in that formulation.
The proposed resolution needs to be such that the weapons be placed under international custody by a certain date and to be removed by a certain date without any attibution of guilt. And done under the logic of removing the temptation to use them or capture them.
The point is the removal of the weapons is it not?
It’s not a poison pill. It’s a requirement, and if Russia wants to make a fuss over it, then they can take the heat. If the resolution isn’t clear on that point, Obama would be authorized to use force but would have no reason to do so.
In any case, Human Rights Watch is convinced, and Russia’s actions are a tacit admission of Syrian guilt anyway.
Russia’s actions are not a tacit admission of Syrian guilt. They indicate that Russia has an interest in this war not happening, and incidentally in seeing the chemical weapons destroyed, that’s all. If you insist on reading admissions of guilt into peace offers, you will get much fewer peace offers, and the inference is not logically justified anyway: it is superfluous to explaining Russia’s actions.
Admission of guilt is a poison pill. The US has not proved its case publicly; it is not clear that it can even prove it privately. If it insists on this provision and the negotiation fails in consequence, that means the United States is going to war not to prevent chemical weapons use, but because it demands the world say it was right, even at the cost of increasing the likelihood of chemical weapons use (relative to the alternative of disarmament). It is the worst rationale yet. How many people should die so the US can say it was right?
.
Byline … with the McCain/Graham poison pill! WTF you expect Russia and China to ratify this? Other nations have proposed the perpetrators to brought before the ICC in The Hague. Also dubbed the African Court of War Crimes as the focus has been on the African continent. Is Fabius offering Kerry an rescue buoy.
It’s looking like the folks who want to use military force don’t want a UN resolution. Not a hopeful sign.
Well, of course not.
Would the anti-Castro crowd have welcomed a Russian-inspired U.N. resolution that fell short of deposing Castro?
When you’re trying to outwit the warmongers, you have think on your feet.
Russia has shot down France’s propopsal to declare Assad guilty. But Russia said she will introduce the chem weapon surrender resolution. that is the important part. And once introduced the McSlowpoke bus will be lagging too far behind to get their amendment through to the Senate floor. Congress will be ss happy to have a way out of this box as is the POTUS and most everyone on Earth.
As for Assad himself… The Hague can declare him guilty no matter what happens to the French resolution of McCain’s wishes. one step at a time.
Jerusalem Post: Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago
Foreign Policy magazine (behind paywall) broke the story.
It just got complicated. Hope Obama can put Egypt and Israel on the bargaining table as well. If a Congressional authorization to use force is the ace that Obama holds in this, the remaining presence of chemical stockpiles in Israel and Egypt are the ace that Putin holds. Note that Iran is a full signatory of the CWC and has a declared and monitored chemical weapons production facility.
Why not ask Israel to give up its nuclear weapons too? Just as likely.
If Syria and Egypt no longer have chemical weapons, what is Israel’s rationale for keeping them? Besides the folks who gained their country because of European response to the fact that six million were killed in chemical gas chambers are going to have a problem arguing the morality of chemical weapons. What exactly does “Never again!” mean?
You are consistently making this too difficult by trying to use this crisis to solve all the world’s problems. Keep it simple.
I don’t see how I’m making it difficult. Nobody listens to an old geezer anyway. I’m saying that if it’s about chemical weapons the President should press the advantage of a moment in which it is dramatically clear why chemical weapons are not useful militarily.
Oh FFS, can’t we just avert the present crisis first?!
Who is “we”? My agency over the government of the United States began and ended the first Tuesday in November 2012 and won’t appear again until the first Tuesday in November 2014. Between those times, I don’t matter except as a Vote Yes opinion or Vote No opinion on a spreadsheet. Only Villagers and people with money have the details of their positions recorded.
I’m sorry, but this is like Melissa McEwan voicing disappointment that the rebooted Star Trek didn’t cast Kirk as a woman. There’s a difference between statements in the spirit of “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?” and those that begin “What Decision-makers should do is…”
I accept your apology.
The problems of the world stem from a lack of respect for truth and sincere inquiry. ie Science. When we say truth is only for our side, we have stepped out of the wholeness of being and entered a partisan divided world that rotates around the personal ego, aka “me”. Of course, that’s where we live in THIS world. The trick is to hold fast to truth and keep that honest sense of inquiry alive. It’s especially important now because the heavy hasbara that has been assaulting us for decades is finally seeing significant pushback.
As far as Israel’s CW, they get a pass? Why? If it is so important so as to go to war in Syria, and the vast majority of states are there already, WTF? And no, we don’t need sidetrack stories, the realpolitik explanations of the ‘special case’ because WE are CITIZENS who can see, ask questions about and speak directly to the issues.
Simple Path:
As far as the details of the unfolding, do we really need so much speculation? Nothing we say on a blog is going to affect the real world, short term outcome, imo, but standing strong in truth sends a powerful message in these times.
We should be asking pointed questions at every turn. Matt Lee shows the way on how to be persistent in questioning our elite mouthpieces.
President Obama is not very likely to turn this chance at success into an utter failure. This is not about eliminating Israel’s stockpiles of WMD and President Obama is not going to make this about Israel’s WMD.
I really, truly don’t understand why Obama would want Congress would vote now – or would want the McCain/Graham formulation of holding off only if the UN declares Assad responsible for the attack. I understand why the war profiteers want it, but is the point to drive up Lockheed-Martin and Boeing stock prices, or to remove Syria’s chemical weapons?
And there’s no way in hell I want to see Congress pass an AUMF, precisely because I don’t trust the US government to act in good faith. Remember how long the US govt invoked the 2001 AUMF and for what dubious purposes? Even if you trust Obama, do you trust the next WH occupant? A lot can happen in three years.
In the newest Le Carre (which is very good, of course), there’s a wonderfully cynical line acidly describing people “who, in their Christian socialist decency, believe that the purpose of diplomacy should be to prevent war rather than promote it.”
That line has a bite for exactly the same reason people don’t trust an AUMF.
I think you do understand it, but you’re talking yourself out of understanding it.
To me it’s absolutely irrelevant whether the President “stumbled into” this agreement and the constant shift to this focus is maddening. The point is, Syria first claimed they had no CW and now they’re admitting they do and are offering to have them destroyed.
It’s clear to anyone with half the brains God gave a tapeworm that Russia didn’t suddenly wake up in the morning and decide to tell Syria to give up their CW. The implicit intent of President Obama to use military force against the Assad regime is THE catalyst of all of this. The go-through Congress was simply a way to buy some time. It was like a ticking time bomb.
And don’t think Presidents Obama and Putin didn’t discuss this at G20 either…
.
WTF Syria didn’t have to admit it possessed chemical weapons, the nation is not party to the CWC Treaty. Identical to Israel who doesn’t admit possessing between 200-400 nuclear warheads, it’s not party to the NPT Treaty and scrutiny of the IAEA. Iran has signed and ratified parts of the NPT Treaty. Israel has signed the CWC Treaty but has not ratified it. Israel does have nerve gas agents. Almost all the secrets of Syria and Israel can be found on open sources and the Internet.
○ US nixes talks to create nuclear-free Middle East – Nov. 2012
○ Call for nuclear weapons-free zone in ME – March 2013
I think the administration doubted that this would happen, but I hesitate because I think they have likely become fairly adept at managing contingencies.
Jan Schakowsky, my rep, was likely ready to back the Prez on an attack. She’ll happily back him on disarming Syria of CW.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/politics/syria-democrats/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medi
um=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29
So let’s say that somehow all these players secure the language and the “Russian proposal” as the Syrians are calling it, plays out. UN teams or Russian teams round up the weapons that Syria denies it has and secure them.
What next? If Assad or his brother get aggitated again and decided to use their hidden private arsenal, again, that puts a whole new spin on Russian credibility in the UN, and China as well because they’ve now joined the negotiating team. Assad at that moment will have given the weight to green light a UN action, making holdouts empty handed.
Al Jazeera showed clips yesterday of Iranian fighters inside the Syrian border and the comraderie with the Assad military. Pretty pungent stuff. Makes me wonder if the Iranians (sorry to say this) were the ones who used the sarin. But beyond that, Assad’s command and control over the Iranians needs to be addressed.
I tried to tell y’all when this episode started that Kerry and Lavrov were working the back channels and that they were trying to get a diplomatic solution.
This is by no means over. There are a lot of challenges with verification. Let’s hope our Congress can get over themselves and give the President the backing he needs to close this deal.
Would those challenges to verification have to do with the fact that the weapons are sitting in the middle of a civil war? Surely after a quarter century of build-down of nuclear and chemical weapons, the US and Russia know how to coordinate these things.
They do know how but it will still be a challenge.
With this announcement the chem weapons surrender looks on even firmer ground. How can Russia veto her own proposal? Why would Chine veto it, making her the one and only obstacle to a diplomatic settlement? once the US approaves, Syria is boxed in and can reneg only with IMMENSE risk.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-un-idUSBRE9890ZA20130910
Since this amazing development looks even more certain today, my take is that BooMann is correct. President Obama can make a tremendous case for going forward. Let the historians decide who gets what credit.
Two news items.
Syrian Foreign Minister: Syria ready to sign CWC.
UN Security Council closed-door session at 4 PM.
If the resolution is now going to be an alternative if the chemical weapon negotiations fail, rather than an outright plan to attack, it will have to be modified to so state. Otherwise, passing it would be bad faith in our part.
That approach would backfire completely on me.
And it’s very simple: The US likes to attack. As long as authorization hangs in the balance there’s leverage for the US to engage in negotiation. Give that authorization and the incentive will be strong to just get on with the attack.
You can always authorize it after talks break down or are stalled or whatever. You can only authorize once. Then it’s gone forever and you’ve put it all in the president’s hands which is something you shouldn’t do without clear deliberation.
So too, I still don’t see how any strikes yet explained will do anything but make things worse and not strengthen any prohibition against chemical weapons. You can’t just throw that over the side unless you’re admitting that even authorizing a strike would not lead to a strike.
Don’t make it complicated.
Help KickStart World War III
Second City media nails a marketing trope.