It’s true that President Obama televised speech last night was semi-moot because the real objective now is not so much to get congressional authorization to use military force as to get a U.N. resolution passed that will effectively disarm the Syrian regime of their chemical weapons stockpiles and their capacity to make more weapons. But the credible threat of force is what got Russia to come to the table on disarmament after a year of frustration.
In assessing Vladimir Putin’s thinking, I am forced to conclude that he did not think Obama could be deterred from acting by a defeat in Congress. I am not sure that he is correct about that, but I am glad, at least for now, that we don’t have to find out.
I want to reiterate that the foreign policy establishment in this country, including the president’s cabinet, believes that the civil war in Syria cannot be concluded in a tolerable manner unless Assad is forced to enter negotiations that will end with his resignation. They are probably correct about that, but we cannot produce that outcome without a serious military commitment that the president does not want to make. The proposed strikes against Syria were being sold as “incredibly limited,” but make no mistake that the opportunity to tilt the battlefield against Assad was not going to be lost. The president had lost control of his own foreign policy, and Putin gave him a lifeline.
Let’s be clear that the president, in seriously considering Putin’s offer, is bucking his own foreign policy establishment, although the Pentagon may be with him on this. The president is severely disappointing both Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who both thought the United States had been roped in to intervening decisively. The Israelis can’t be too displeased, as eliminating the chemical stockpiles in Syria will be a great stress relief for them. But they wanted more. Anyone who wants the Syrian civil war to end anytime soon with the Assad regime as the loser is going to be plenty miffed about the president’s lack of resolve.
But the limited punitive strike that was really intended to be something more was never likely to be successful unless in involved substantial mission creep. As I put it last week, “in for a penny, in for a trillion pounds.” That was the point, because the policy demands it. And the policy is extremely difficult to execute because it does not seek to depose Assad until such time that the human rights of religious minorities in Syria can be protected. The president is rejecting that plan in favor of something quite laudable that still won’t do a whole lot to advance the overall policy. He is still refusing to make Syria’s future our responsibility.
“I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force — we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.”
We should thank him for that, fully cognizant that he stands nearly alone against a foreign policy establishment that thinks we either have a military or a humanitarian imperative to end the civil war. It’s not an easy position for him to take, and it’s not clear-cut morally, but we don’t have the wherewithal to create the outcome we want at an acceptable cost, and we don’t have a united Congress or a willing public.
The president is pursuing a prudent course and he will take severe criticism for it. Remember that.
I thought that the tone Kilgore takes with regard to chances of a legitimate diplomatic resolution was a tad overly optimistic. I think its way too early.
What I like about the snippet about the Iraq lesson, is that Obama knew that before we invaded. He knew about the risks and unknowns of occupation after hostilities. He’s just using the Iraq lesson as a glaring example to remind people of this.
Perhaps lost in all this is the initial start of Arab Spring and subsequently the Syrian civil unrest was sparked by unemployment. And in Syria’s case, a crop failure of 75%! A crop failure easily linked to global warming.
This morning as I looked at the news that Kenya has discovered a major source of water that will allow a country with fertile soil to now raise crops, with the promise of economic gain and stability; one can’t help but think that in the Middle East…in Syria with 75% crop failure…run by a dictator(s) who is/are poor economists and lack the foresight to preserve their agriculture, things will remain unstable.
Global warming should come of age in our negotiations with Syria. The technology that was used in Kenya is something that can be put on the table as well as better land use. Just sayin
He lost control of his own foreign policy? He didn’t want to get involved in Syria’s civil war. He drew a red line on chemical weapons. CW’s were used. He had to act. He positioned military assets in the region to prepare for a limited strike to degrade Assad’s ability to continue to use CW’s. He’d been trying for at least a year to find a solution to Assad’s possession of these weapons. The solution was proposed (remove the weapons) and is being considered. That proposal wouldn’t even be on the table were it not for Russia wanting to stop the limited strike on Syria. Meanwhile, the threat of this limited strike has been put temporarily on hold. Seems remarkably like sound foreign policy to me.
Plus groundwork for a far more (diplomatically) important deal with Iran.
where you are going, I think he drew the line based on intelligence that said the line would not be crossed.
That it was, and was arguably against the self-interest of Assad, makes me wonder if Assad ordered this at all.
Proof that Assad used CW?
Shouldn’t we clean our own house first? George Monbiot
US and Russia build-downs are apparently coupled. So both could reduce their stockpiles together. A vestige of the MAD deterrence strategy of the Cold War that has worked to get rid of 90% of the stockpile.
Removing the CW is not the end of things. It makes ground invasion by ‘someone’, anyone much more likely. Putin may has put at least one side of Assad’s ass in the wind.
Let’s say all the CW is removed. The very next day (if not before), the realization that the humanitarian argument for intervention is still present, as well as all the other pro-intervention arguments will dawn.
Yup.
I don’t think chemical weapons are an effective military option. A lot of this is symbolic. Important, but symbolic.
His ass checks will be exposed to the wind as soon as foreigners arrive in Syria and are granted lock-and-key control of Syrian chem weapons stocks. That will be perceived as weakness by the nail-chewers who make up the support circle which in one form or another props up every strongman.
Signs of weakness introduce dangerous thoughts to such minds. Thoughts such as: We could have bought 2,000 tanks for what we spent on those, and he’s giving them away? If he falls, what happens to me? Is this the moment I should defect? Will my rival slip Assad the shiv before I am able to do so?
Similar thoughts can extend down to lower ranks and manifest themselves in lower morale, an uptick in desertions, less vigor in battle.
I’m not saying all will be over if Syria actually gives up her chem weapons. I am saying it makes Assad look weak, like he “caved in”. And that works to undercut the morale of his supporters.
The best way to win a fight is not to out-bloody the foe, but for the foe to simply decide it is no longer worth fighting. This Russian proposal might well end up contributing considerably to such a loss of morale among Assad’s loyalists.
He won’t look weak if he trades success on the battlefield for most of his CW “later”. Full court press with conventional weaponry in some rebel weak spot.
Well sure. Morale is a quality that waxes and wanes. But if the chem weapons really are put under Russian or international control it will serve as an irritant whenever fortunes turn o=downward.
Imagine if every American ICBM, air-dropped bomb and missile, and every nuclear missile sub were put under the control of troops from Canada, Brazil, and Finland. None of those nations are hostile to the US but can you just imagine what the Fox News element would have to say about the sitting President who allowed that?
We’ve decreased our own chemical weapons stockpiles by 90% and I don’t remember hearing bupkis about it, so it can be done.
First of all, our chem weapons stock does not and did not represent out entire strategic NBC weapons arsenal.
Secondly, this was done of our own free will as part of a treaty. It was not done while staring down an enemy’s gun barrel.
Thirdly you totally ignored the concept of foreign troops inside national borders taking control of the nation’s entire strategic arsenal while that nation’s own troops have no access to said weapons.
Lastly you failed to answer the payoff question: do you not see how surrendering a nations entire strategic arsenal – bought with a huge fraction of national wealth and assembled over years of hard work – to foreign troops inside the nation would tend to irritate large swathes of the population?
Isn’t it just possible that even people within and protected by the regime don’t like to think that their safety requires gassing children, etc? I just don’t think this will be hard for Assad if he manages to smash enough stuff in the mean time. If the trade off is seen by Alawites, etc as between their continued existence versus a loss of the civil war and massacre, Assad will be cut plenty of slack. The protection of minorities is part of current negotiations and will be part of any agreement.
Not sure if your interpretations of America’s history with chemical weapons is well founded, but that is a distraction (we began unilaterally destroying CW and BW during wartime in 1967 and also unilaterally rejected first use of BW in the same era). The Chinese were making claims in hopes of messing with our int’l reputation. The Google and the Wiki has tons on this.
As far as foreign troops on their soil, you just need to be a little less creative in your thinking: There is a nice, juicy Russian military base on the coast that could easily receive shipments guarded by Syrian military and observed by UN civilians. They are negotiating right now, we just don’t know how it would get done. There do seem to be plenty of good ways that don’t require ‘foreign troops’ beyond those already there.
Not ever going to praise hostage takers for being open to accepting ransom for a promise not to kill the hostages. Putin is correct to demand a long-term “hands-off” in the deal. It’s what has spared Cuba from US attacks/invasions after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In other news of “his own establishment:”
Exactly how is that requirement enforced? Why would any US official trust the Israelis to “do the right thing?”
The Assad regime should not be considered “hostages.” That’s ludicrous.
By what right or international law did Obama have to say over two years ago that Assad must go? That the US policy towards Syria was regime change? Are you so blinded by sixty years of US propaganda that you can’t see that that is no different than a schoolyard bully? (It’s not as if we didn’t learn several years ago that Syria was on the US target list of goverments to topple.)
Assad didn’t “obey” the US; so the US (along with certain allies) funded various Islamist fighters to violently overthrow the Syrian regime. Forgetting or overlooking the fact that unlike Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad has a couple of powerful allies. Then Obama issued his red line, and golly gee, chemical weapons began appearing.
All this broadly ends in only one of three ways. 1) We demand that our government stop doing this shit. End our imperialistic empire (see Chalmers Johnson’s “Nemesis.”) Stop making up fake cases for war. 2) We beat down all the remaining countries not currently beholden to us and rule the world. (Of course, that would set up the beginning of a new historical chapter as the “Shock Doctrine” would be ruthlessly applied.) 3) WWIII.
It’s NSFW or for queasy people but this provides the answer for you.
Not only immature, but also illegal as Dave Lindorff helpfully points out.
Our relationship to international law is a very ripe and interesting topic, but these left-wing tropes are very boring. First, we built the system that we don’t respect. Second, the UNSC vetoes are a necessary evil that we put in to keep the system from collapsing the second a great power doesn’t agree to a course of action. Third, we operate outside the UN and the ICC for a similar reason. If the veto is the last word, the UN will collapse. We have to be able to break international law in order to preserve it.
The world is a complicated place and we cannot devise a world devoid of hypocrisy and double standards that actually has staying power and that will function.
This idea that Syria can do whatever it wants because Israel…is hopelessly stupid. So, too, the idea that we or the Chinese or the Russians have the final word on everything via our veto.
Personally, I am glad that people expect us to live up to the high standards we created, but the second you put the Syrian regime in the role of victim here, you’ve totally lost me.
Illegal – Noam Chomsky
Hypocritical and inconsistent:
But that takes higher order thinking and less bias to see.
in the case of a country in a Civil War almost always benefits those in power – which is Putin’s goal. This is one of the many reasons why this is not like the Cuban Missile crisis.
The objective is declaration of chemical weapons inventory and production facilities and removal of chemical weapons inventories from the theater of civil war under international supervision.
As billmon points out, Putin and Assad have the power to do that and do it quickly without a UN Security Council resolution. For the moment, Assad giving Russia the keys to the facilities and responsibility for compliance would constitute international control as Russia is within a chemical weapons build-down framework. Having another country’s technical representatives — such as from India — could provide the independent verification of Russian actions. Both Russia and India know how to carry out this process.
My reading of the President’s speech is that he is: (1) holding warhawks like McCain and Graham at bay; (2) reluctantly allowing time for UN diplomacy to take place (as if he does not trust the outcome); (3) reversing policy on regime change in Syria; (4) asserting the international legal right to bypass the UN if it acts in a way the US disapproves; (5) asserting again an absolute Article 2 war power to carry out a strike independent of Congress should he decide the necessity of such an action.
Items 2 and 3 are welcome. Items 4 and 5 are dangerous precedents.
The speech is such a hodge-podge that I can’t tell what the President’s prudent course is except for the actions of the moment.
If the President is over the longer term taking a prudent course, he is doing what we elected him to do. That is performing to expectations. On a job evalation, he would get any particular “Attaboys” just for not being George W. Bush.
As much as pundits love it and we political bloggers love to discuss it, the public is getting tired of hidden hand diplomacy and disguised move politics on issues of critical policy. I know that if you destroy the mythological mystification the risk is that you destroy the ability of the institution to function. Just look what transparency and blog coverage of the health care bill sausage-making has done to Congress. Or what the realization that justices are not above the political fray has done to the Supreme Court. But the public is getting tired of getting promised peace and prosperity and getting war, unemployment, national debt, higher taxes, and lower incomes with which to pay them. That is the background against which the public said No to the rush to strike Syria. Folks inside the White House bubble should wake up and realize what thin ice both it and Congress are on.
Tarheel Dem, I always read your posts and generally agree with much of what you say because you obviously are better informed than I, but I have a problem with your somewhat negative take. If the American public is getting “tired of hidden hand diplomacy”, then, by golly, they ought to go read some history and exercise some brain cells. In what real world is diplomacy not done behind the scenes? Admittedly, one has to trust those with the hidden hands, but, by golly, diplomacy ain’t gonna work without them.
And, for the record I do trust this President. He’s just proved to me that he can stand up to all sorts of pressure, even if his hair is 35% grayer than it was last November. I do not say that lightly. And, those additional gray hairs have been caused not only by Russia and Syria, but also by conservatives (and the media which indulges them) who’ve undermined his credibility from the get-go and by this point are so vested in believing the worst about him they can no longer see most issues rationally. My local paper doesn’t let a day go by without publishing at least one letter talking about Obama’s weakness, lack of intelligence and character, and calling for his impeachment.
Personally I am totally with Booman on this one. Thank God, we’ve got a non-cowboy President who can stand up for boring “prudence”.
Ditto on this post.
If we’re tired of “Hidden Hand Diplomacy”, the only thing we’re more tired of is the full-on manly man, big stick, with us or against diplomacy that worked so well for George W Bush.
People hunger for this manly way of doing things, when the results typically don’t justify it. Like when Johnson decided we needed to get more involved in Viet Nam, or he might look weak. Somethings in the water down there in Texas. Perhaps they are all secretly gay…
By “hidden hand diplomacy” I’m not referring to the fact that diplomacy requires confidences. I am referring to a growing public perception that US diplomacy has an agenda that does not put the public interest of ordinary citizens first.
That was not a comment on my trust of lack of trust but growing public skepticism that manifested itself in a reflexive opposition to a military strike on Syria.
As for boring prudence, we will see how that works out. All he has done is halt the headlong media rush to war.
His hair is grayer because (1) he is five years older than he was in 2008 and (2) the pressures of the office tend to gray the hair of those young enough not to already have gray hair.
If I have a negative take, it is because of the two things that I cited that are out there: (1) unilateral decisions that would violate the UN Charter and (2) the absolutist view of Presidential war powers. And because both are dangerous precedents. Bush finessed both of them on Iraq. President Obama is flagrantly asserting both privileges. That is troubling. And moreso if someone less prudent ever becomes President.
Fair enough.
It does seem that this leads to the old pragmatism vs. idealism model.
For you averting war is not enough. For me, given the array of forces that the president had to resist and prevail against, I will consider it a real achievement, and a striking victory against an entire media / political apparatus.
I think that the world is full of such partial victories, and progress rarely manifests in one big move. so that marks me as a pragmatist. Like the gay issue, Obama just teased that along, bit by bit. If he’d tried it all at once, like Clinton, it would have been shot down.
Maybe if Obama postured a little more people would find him more accomplished.
For you, personal victories are enough. For me, personal victories should not come at the costs of weakening institutions that have slowed down the rush to war.
Too many people are worrying too much on a day-to-day basis about how President Obama is perceived. We’ll have definitive first answers to that around 2027 or 2028.
At some point, the US and the world will have to regain the institutional ground of separation of powers in the Federal government and of no unilateral action relative to the UN to rebalance the functioning of those institutions. That is a pragmatic requirement to avoid continuing crisis. I see movement from the White House in the other direction–asserting unilateral exceptionalism and Presidential war powers under Article 2. We already know from W what happens when a President ignores institutional constraints. We do not need to make the destruction of those constraints a policy of Democratic administration. That can really come back to bite.
I’m just defining victory on slightly different terms, and I’m willing to count incremental victories as victories.
2 good things have happened here:
you are certainly right, it would be nice if we could have everything fixed all at once. Like reining in presidential war-making and making the UN more effective. But Rome was not built in a day, and I’m very happy that Obama has done what he’s done, with the cards that he was dealt.
I’m pointing out that institutionally, Obama’s policy relative to the Congress and the UN violates Hippocrates first maxim: first do no harm. It’s not a a matter of not good enough; it’s going in the wrong direction on policy.
His policy relative to those two institutions in this case has been… To include and consult them. You seem to find this concerning because you don’t think he really believes in doing what he’s actually in the midst of doing. IMHO he specifically acted here in such a way as to walk back a lot of the precedents from how he handled Libya. Less executive boldness, more internationalism. The dangerous part would be if he went further in the opposite direction. Doing what he’s doing is less dangerous, no?
What you are saying is that he is strutting like a hawk and negotiating like a dove. There’s really no way to tell until the subsequent events are closed. And given classification, likely no way to tell for fifty years.
But he himself is making the assertions of Article 2 powers himself and he himself is claiming the international right of the US to act unilaterally, which is contrary to the UN Charter. Allowing those as legitimate assertions is dangerous IMO. And I feel obligated to say so.
Asserting power that he doesn’t then use is actually a step in the right direction vis a vis Obama in Libya, and especially vis a vis Bush. I find that to be the opposite of worrisome. I also believe that the Constitution is fairly clear that war-making is supposed to be Congress’s call, but I’m not surprised that any president feels differently, given hundreds of years of precedent.
Quick comment on your first point.
When the WikiCables first came out I looked at a couple of dozen. They were not particularly juicy of themselves (no Israel cables, for example), but they contained a disturbing element it seemed to me. Figuring out the format and the alphabet soup for the abbreviations was fun. So after the overview, then the body of the cable would discuss the particulars, all talking in what seems like to a novice sincere concern and how the State Department should comport itself. But then at the very end, the tone of the final paragraph would turn VERY DARK and some action, often involving corporate interests, would be discussed. Pretty creepy. Like two different voices speaking on the same page.
“The president is pursuing a prudent course and he will take severe criticism for it.”
Cool, you’ve come up with the tagline for Obama’s entire administration.
Word.
This is golden.
I just cannot understand why people are so invested in the the theatrical aspects of government. Obama has repeatedly chosen strategies that have succeeded, and for a great many, they are not satisfied because, well, I don’t know. Looking for John Wayne.
Syria is perfect. Obama clearly did not want to bomb Syria. But all of Washington, and a few ‘allies’ including Israel want us to. So he bumbles along like Mr. Magoo (hat tip to JS), and then just when the Villagers think they’ve gotten him to pull the trigger, he sends it to Congress.
I think we all knew, including Obama, that Congress was never going to green-light the war. So problem solved, and as a bonus, congress looks even more feckless and partisan, and Lindsay Graham and John McCain now have to explain why so many Republicans would not vote for an act of war on a country that has not attacked us (my personal favorite).
And Syria confesses to owning the chemical weapons, and Russia gets invested into corralling Syria. Even if the the Russians get or give nothing, this whole thing gets a 2-year timeout.
Works for me.
Remember that other Russian, Gorbachev? Many in the West consider him a giant for his handling of the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. At home, not so much. When he ran for President in 1996, he got a ridiculously tiny % of the vote. Lower single digits, iirc.
So yeah, people get surly around change.
And as it says in The Art oF War of the wise general:
12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation
for wisdom nor credit for courage.
“In assessing Vladimir Putin’s thinking, I am forced to conclude that he did not think Obama could be deterred from acting by a defeat in Congress.”
I don’t even know if that was his main line of thinking. Couldn’t it just be that he saw the Syrian situation as am ongoing royal pain in the ass for Russia that could only continue to deteriorate? Putin has his own concerns about radical Muslim militants. In other words, his main goal here was actually to stabilize the situation and bring in some international controls. Not so different from Obama’s (from another perspective, of course). That’s why they could find much to agree on.
Why could he not do this before? Because it would not have been bilateral.
I tend to agree. This chem weapon surrender proposal makes sense from a Russian perspective. Russia will act according to what is best for Russia, not for what is best for Syria or for Assad.
Assad will of course act likewise. The fact he agreed to the concept makes sense only under the assumption Russia put him under extreme pressure and/or offered him significant reward. Most probably both.
Assad may have had to decide between Russian arms supply drying up and keeping his CW. Or, giving up the CW in exchange for increased Russian arms flow plus diplomatic cover in the UN against US attack.
And it’s hard to see Russia arriving at this conclusion unless they are very worried about what would happen to Syrian CW during the endgame. They do not want tons of sarin and VX to eventually reach their own rebels in the Caucus. Perhaps the US threat of attack allowed Russia the “bilateral” cover she needed to justify such a strong move.
Who knows? The one thing that seems certain is to observe each nation’s acts as serving that nation’s interests. Russia is not doing what she is to save the Assad regime, per se. If it survives, fine. If it doesn’t, Russia must be positioned for that outcome too.
Perhaps he is not thrilled by the idea of unsecured chemical weapons given the situation in the Caucasus and his desire to have a successful Olympics. Then there are the concerns about how military strikes from the US may cause the conflict to spread.
Considering the reports about his supposed conversation with Prince Bandar, I think you’ve struck on a key national interest for Putin.
My reading of Russian intentions is that they would be delighted if chemical weapons were completely gone. The US and Russia have been slow-walking the last dismantling of their own stockpiles seeking to complete the list of signatories. Current schedule for the complete dismantlement of the remaining 10% of US and Russian weapons is 2014; China is dismantling WWII-era Japanese weapons remaining in China with a scheduled end date of 2022.
Jim White at emptywheel brings another issue to mind. Actually complying with Syria’s commitment to surrender chemical weapons to international custody (and presumably dismantling) requires a ceasefire-in-place (at a minimum) in the Syrian civil war. And that involves all of the principals for who various rebel factions are proxies agreeing to a ceasefire. Because all of those principals are UN members, we will very soon get a reading on which countries outside Syria would really like to see the chemical weapons remain in place.
I suggest that we send John McCain and Lindsay Graham in person to Syria to watch and verify the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Just to make sure there are no hidden weapons smuggled into…[pick a country]
I just keep thinking about who exactly “we” is when we talk about “our” responsibilities in Syria. If it’s a humanitarian issue, then surely all of humanity should be concerned, not just the United States.
At any rate, I’m happy to see my government working to stop the use of chemical weapons, but not through unilateral military action. Or any unilateral action, really. Even if we are the “indispensable nation,” we aren’t the only nation on the planet.
And we do have our own affairs to worry about. If we get involved in Syria now, then everything is going to be about Syria for who knows how many months or years. If we don’t get involved, then I don’t think anyone’s even going to be thinking about it once the next crisis hits.
Because as coldhearted as it might sound, to me this whole Syria thing is a huge distraction. The Republican party right now is a far greater threat to global peace and stability than the Assad regime. Pretty soon they’re going to try to make us choose between defunding ObamaCare and crashing the economy, and I’d rather see the president focused on that than a country on the other side of the world.
Well done Martin, you made a sound analysis of the present political situation. With recognition by Assad the US will strike with all its military might, the nerve gas option was moot for domestic use. Bashar Assad or his brother could have used them in a doomsday scenario on Israel. It was imperative to remove the threat. No one offers a solution or speaks much about the Jabhat Al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham fighters. My take on PBO’s speech …
President Obama’s Presentation on Syria
Excellent, well balanced and credible statements by our President. PBO should have ended his presentation at 13:00 min., the rest was a redundancy where he put extra focus on the horror of Ghouta and puts repeated blame on the Assad regime. All images of war crimes from all sides in the civil war in Syria are horrific. The stream of hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled destruction, bloodshed and murders are heart wrenching. The need for a political solution could have warranted more space in his speech. I’m glad the war rhetoric has diminished and I hear a clear intention and commitment for dialogue and diplomacy. A break with the rhetoric of our Minister of Propaganda just 24 hours earlier, NeoCon Susan Rice, she shames us all.
Furthermore, how the last months in Syria evolved which forged Obama to act.
A combination of the fall of Qusayr and Hezbollah fighters entering the fray. The Sunni men from Lebanon already offered their services to the FSA and Al Qaeda affiliates in battling Assad. Fighters and arms were coming into Syria from all sides: Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. The US, Western powers UK/France, Turkey and the GCC states all wanted the overthrow of the Assad regime. The Obama administration (Ms Clinton) played the Muslim Brotherhood card and nixed Saudi King Abdullah. The King played his joker (veteran Prince Bandar) and reset order in regional powers. Overthrow of Morsi in Egypt and Hamas back in its Gaza cage. The political opposition, Syrian National Council, was the stage where Qatar and SA fought for influence and got nowhere. With Kerry, policy was reformed to set the stage for a political solution in the Syrian crisis. Kerry and Lavrov had a good relationship. Obama blundered by appointing two “humanitarian hawks” Susan Rice as his National Security advisor and Samantha Power as the UN ambassador. A vindictive Ms Rice wanted to push her NeoCon policy and got the president’s ear. After the Kerry-Lavrov deal, Obama made a 180º about face and decided for diplomacy.
.
Of course Assad made a deal with Putin. Syria will be assured of a continuous supply of more advanced weapons. Even Iran is not forgotten by Russia.
○ Amid pressure on Syria ‖ Russia confirms sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran
○ NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans’ data with Israel
Kerry went on Godwin on this issue and you still see him and his boss as peacemakers? Still think he’s going to deliver on that I/P peace?
Putin didn’t throw him a lifeline. Putin finally agreed to get in on the deal that had been in the works for more than a year because of the credible threat of force. There are many reasons why Putin would want to be seen as a broker right now, not the least of which is the Olympics Russia is hosting.
Boo, you have been all over the place on this story.
“Obama also added that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had talked about the plan now on the table both during the recent G-20 meeting in Russia and during another meeting last year in Mexico.
In other words, the proposal is a true diplomatic breakthrough long in the making.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/09/220775117/obama-to-make-case-for-syria-strike-in-netw
ork-interviews
It’s not a breakthrough until the situation on the ground changes. And that will require flexibility on the part of the US, Russia, Syria, Iran, France, and the UK. (And probably Israel as well.) Unless Putin and Assad decide to make removal of chemical weapons a surprise fait accompli. (Logistically, I don’t see how that happens quickly unless Syria’s inventory was much lower than analysts projected).
The situation on the ground has already changed. Assad’s CWs are dispersed and there is no way in hell they are going to be used again.
That’s a presumption on your part that Assad has done what you would do in his situation.
One could make similar presumptions about Prince Bandar if you buy the opposite “evidence” being pushed in the absence of clear public evidence about the responsibility for the attacks.
According to several credible news reports Assad has dispersed his chemical weapons forces, so that is not a presumption. If he does use them, whether or not he was previously responsible, he’s toast. Also not a presumption.
How do those credible news source know? Did they get a Government of Syria press release, information on background from US defense or intelligence sources, or are they making a presumption as well.
The middle one.
Yes, yes, I am presuming that the various reports are accurate. Oy.
wanted to stay out – in defending that position drew a link that he didn’t think would be crossed to show he wasn’t being weak – and then was shocked when that line was crossed.
I think what has probably surprised him is the extent to which the foreign policy elites have been dismissed (rightly so) by the country at large. As a result, he is in a pretty weak position with the country and in the World. It is not a trivial event – and my fear is that it will embolden the GOP to make trouble over the debt ceiling and the ACA.
I was right with you in your first paragraph. Couldn’t agree less with your second. When I got to your final sentence, I laughed out loud.
Like the GOP isn’t already emboldened to make trouble over those two things, and anything else they can think of!
Obama is going into the fight, the harder it will be to shut up the crazies.
At some point a deal is going to have to be made around the debt ceiling and the budget. The President’s popularity will effect how that is resolved.
.
Universally it is seen the US has failed in policy towards Syria, the revolution and the analysis of Assad’s overthrow. There is a reason only France is capable and willing to join Obama’s military strike on Syria. As I have written the last two years and is repeated today in the US, Europe and the Arab states: US policy is confused and not credible. It’s wonderful for Obama, the perception is otherwise within Washington DC and the 50 states. The decision to hold off a strike on the Assad regime has really pissed-off King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the Emir of Qatar, Emirates, Erdogan in Turkey and Netanyahu of Israel. Obama has just set a break with 35 years of tradition in the Middle-East. The step Obama has taken is very courageous, we’ll have to wait if it is rewarded with a positive result: a political solution to the civil/sectarian war in Syria. Obama is putting US National Interest first as recent Chiefs of Staff have asked.
In another excellent panel discussion on France24, short interviews were seen with Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran. Unheard praise for the US and Obama for taking the military action on Syria off the top priority list. It was suggested that Putin and Lavrov will, in the short term, propose a new offer in the nuclear armament stalemate. Mentioned was the offer to take high enriched uranium processing out of Iran and move this to Russia and under IAEA inspection. No doubt, Bashar Assad, Maliki and Iran are emboldened by the latest decison for diplomacy by PBO. I have said all along, a solution to the I-P issue must be comprehensive and include the greater Middle-East and Gulf region. Kerry needs a chance to work the diplomatic channels as senator Obama promised during his campaign in 2008.
○ UN report: War crimes on both sides have worsened in Syria
○ Taking WMDs out of Syria is ‘nightmare’ for Obama
Right.
This fiasco is embarrassing and absurd.. it was clear this latest effort at Western meddling in the ME was in trouble when our usual partner in crime Great Britain vigorously voted NOPE.
Did Obama take a clue from this?
NO, Just like bush/cheney did with Iraq, Obama started pounding the war drums louder than ever, as did Kerry and the rest.
Weak, very weak.
This again proves what I’ve been saying for some time now– when it comes to certain major U.S. policy, there is ZERO difference between the two political parties.
He seems a little muddled about the prospects for negotiations and who it is that is holding that up, doesn’t he? My understanding was that the ‘wahhabi cannibals’ and the ‘generals in safe hotel rooms’ (FSA) did not want to say yes to talks, with a lot of no-go preconditions. That after the recent SAA advances, they wanted to get back to even before the talks could begin.
Has there been a change in the dynamic here?
The situation in Iran has taken a radical turn from the Western hasbara storyline. The genius that Khamenei has shown the past year to get Iran positioned as they are now will be fertile ground for historians. Rouhani is as perfect in his own destiny as Obama has been for the US.
When the media frenzy over the ‘diplomat sheik’ breaks later this month, it will mark another major setback for the war spinners. Never will the difference between ‘integrity’ (Rouhani) and ‘sociopath’ (Netanyahu) become clearer.
.
The rumors were picked-up yesterday on France24 Debate about Syria.
And Putin just fired a peace missile this morning in a NYT op-ed.
Stand alone? According to TPM’s counts, the resolution would have been defeated in the House. Now granted Republicans might turn on a dime, but the American people stand behind him.
However, we owe him our support against the MIC and the FP Establishment in this matter.
WoW! Karma didn’t take long on that one (per Politico):
John Kerry needs to quote some more foreign organization lobbyists approvingly.
He’s picking Kissinger’s brain today. In celebration of the coup that stole Chile’s democracy on September 11, 1973.
Apparently it was more than Kissenger. Kissenger, Baker, Albright, Hillary, …a who’s who of the past 40 years of foreign policy and foreign policy disasters.
Kerry and Kissinger were to meet privately for an hour or so.
But nice to see that the whole gang of warmongers had a pow-wow.
here is my assessment, FWIW.
So what we have is a poorly planned escalation with a face saving deescalation. The momentum for war is gone. Syria has yet to give up anything, and if Putin is to be believed will not do so until firm commitments of non-aggression are provided by the US. Since the US will NEVER give up its ‘right’ to use military force whenever it pleases, these negotiations will go nowhere and the US will eventually have to either recreate the momentum for war that has been lost, or accept that they will not be able to overthrow the Syrian government. My guess is they will try the former several more times, before accepting the latter.
Your analysis is well-argued. My comments by your numbers.
1. US objectives are never clear because of the different forces that yank them around. At the simplest level, my reading of events is that the President in 2011 wanted to encourage Assad to enter a dialog with the protesters in Homs, Hamaa, and Deraa. And that the movement to arm the defectors from Syrian army first came from Libyan militias politically aligned with some of the Syrian defectors, and Qatar followed-up and brought US CIA into the effort. I think there is a lot of confusion at State and DoD about what the US should now do in the region after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Al Quaeda has its own resource base; I don’t know to what extent either the KSA or Qatar have been directly arming them. Qatar was arming Moslem Brotherhood factions until KSA encouraged the Emir to abdicate. Saudis are arming Salafists and Wahabists of non-al-Quaeda varieties most likely. That’s what makes ending the civil war so problematic.
In August of 2011, President Obama stated the facts on the ground in Syria at the emergence of the civil war that Assad had lost his legitimacy [with respect to his people]. The relevant portion is:
About US policy, what we know is that it rarely responds to humanitarian concerns when it comes to foreign relations.
4, Yep.
It all depends on how eager Putin is to get Assad’s chemical weapons disposed of. Another possibility is to force a negotiation of a ceasefire in the civil war (if most of the opposition forces are fronting for one neighbor or another) in order to carry out the inventory and destruction of the chemical weapons. If the US has Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia on as tight a leash as you think, it might be possible for the ceasefire to take hold.
But you are right, Russia and China will not trust another Chapter 7 limited intervention by the US and NATO to take place. If there is an intervention to remove chemical weapons, neither the US nor NATO countries will be part of the troops that go in.
TD, thanks for taking the time to read and respond.
To elaborate: When the U.S. president says “the Syrian people have to choose their leaders…except for that guy.” what he is saying is, the US needs to have input in the Syrian people’s decision. No matter how much you hate Assad, or how much he deserves to be hated, no foreign power should have ANY input in who may or may not rule Syria. And yet, by saying that, President Obama announced that it is US policy to overthrow the Syrian government (an act of war according to international law, but that is another matter.)
It is a myth that Assad’s only supporters are the 12% Aliwites and 10% Christians and 4-5% other minorities. Without some substantial support in the Sunni community, I doubt he would survive as long as he has.
Public opinion in the Arab world is shifting, I can tell you from the numerous conversations I’ve had with relatives in Egypt. Nearly all the relatives I have were anti-Mubarak, and most were anti-Morsi and they used to be anti-Assad and were shocked when I defended him. About 3 months ago, the tone of the conversation shifted and they were suddenly very sympathetic to Assad’s position. That was before the recent crisis which I suspect has only burnished his reputation (lots of people assume the gas attack was a false flag)
That last point is important for the following reason: The Russian ships that are now guarding the Syrian coastline. They are not about to fire upon US vessels, but as I mentioned before, they are surely going to datalink with Syrian defenses and provide them with the very extensive radar and signals intelligence that they can collect. They will be able to warn the Syrians when tomahawks are launched and where they are heading, so tactical surprise is unobtainable. Tomahawks are subsonic, so that means 30-60 minutes warning. Also, if linked to Russian ship radar, Syria’s Buk air defense system can take out some tomahawks…which would be a huge embarrassment for the US, without actually giving any excuse for escalation.
Hypothetically, Russian ships could also ‘paint’ US aircraft and guide Syrian SAMs to them. I doubt they would do that as the US military would go ape-shit. But nobody could say for certain that they wouldn’t. If they did and the US escalated, then Syria would be the least of the world’s problems.
And so imagine a situation where the US launches an attack on Syria and Syria appears to be putting up a fight (with Russian help)…even if it is only tomahawk blocking. Now Assad is a hero in the whole Arab world and the US is in a very awkward position. It took four months to overthrow Qaddafi after NATO bombardment started and he had zero international help and a much weaker army.
I have no doubt that this was part of Obama’s calculus. Imagine his position if he had started a very unpopular war over congressional disapproval and the proceeded to loose. You can then see what a favor Putin did for Obama, and the US as a whole.
But that favor isn’t for free. Syria, at this moment, has given up zero chemical weapons, and if Obama wants the bragging rights of saying he got rid of them, he is going to have to take the military option off the table. As Putin has made clear.
My guess, though is that Obama or the forces around him will refuse that deal, Syria will keep its chemical arsenal (or not, if the Russians offer something better to replace it like the S-300 or even 400.) And the US will continue to look for war or a way to help Al Qaeda win.
At least, that’s how I see it.
His speech was totally moot, let’s get real, please.
Why do some progressives insist on pretending Assad giving up one form of weapon means children’s lives will be spared?
How many children are still in harm’s way in Syria? aren’t hundreds of thousands of them in the refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan?
Assad has already re-started the conventional bombing.
Obama’s level of absurdity/hypocrisy is off the chart.
Paul Pillar, The National Interest: Where Politicized Intelligence Comes From
Why you eventually have whistle-blowers.