I think Marcy Wheeler’s analysis on Syria is very good. As I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be buy-in even from the neo-conservative crowd that conditions on the ground in Syria are not yet ripe for regime change. Specifically, during the debate in the Senate over authorizing military force in Syria, John McCain insisted on an amendment that read, in part, “absent decisive change to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria, sufficient incentives do not yet exist for regime change.” You can throw a metric ton of rhetoric in the wastebasket about how the president is weak and indecisive and was asking for authority to carry out a too-small attack. But, below the surface, the neo-cons know that the rebels are not ready to try to govern Syria. As presently constituted, we do not want them to win.
As for Obama, I do not think that he ever wants to them to win. He wants them to be strong enough to force Assad into exile but not strong enough to carry on the sectarian civil war into the area of genocide. In this, he is a lot closer to the thinking of Putin than most people realize, which is precisely why they had enough mutual self-interest to call off the dogs of escalation.
Everyone who insists on seeing this conflict as a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia or the U.S. and Iran, is misunderstanding the president. He is trying to stop or change the sectarian element to the conflict. He’s trying to tamp down the extremism on both sides. As to Putin, he has no particular use for the Assad regime, but he does have an interest in maintaining Syria as a client state, or at least a state that isn’t completely hostile. He doesn’t want to abandon an ally, empower Sunni extremists, or risk losing his equities in Syria completely. The only way he can hope to accomplish those things in the long-term is if the regime is able to negotiate a cease-fire that protects the Alawites from brutal reprisals and gives them some share of power. In the end, the Russians probably would need to get credit for forcing Assad out to even have the remotest amount of good will from the rebel side of the conflict. The only way to solve this problem, if it even can be solved, is for Obama and Putin to work in this narrow area where they share a common interest, and that means that we, on our side, have to completely abandon the paradigm that we’re fighting a proxy war against Russia on behalf of the Sunnis.
Obama has never believed that, but our foreign policy establishment can’t seem to shake that paradigm off.
That’s because everyone alive who’s over 25, has grown-up with the US v. USSR paradigm.
Our neoCLOWN’s have never gotten over the fall of the USSR, and haven’t, yet, successfully sold “Islam” as the new USSR.
But they’re trying. BOY, are they trying.
And to tie the US into being anti-Russia, and pro a certain sect of the Muslim religion that’s also anti-Russia, must seem like a little slice of Heaven.
They get two, TWO, enemies, in one!
HUZZAH!!!
Oh, man, this left a mark:
Well the Bushies will be squealing over that one & beltway will be oblivious that hes talking about them
At least we have an adult in the Oval Office.
When Obama gives his SOTU address every year, you can count the number of adults on a couple of hands.
And I say it’s more than one, only because I count Michelle and their daughters, so that’s 4 fingers right there.
Obama playing it by the Book:
IV 8. To see victory only when it is within the ken
of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
IV 9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you
fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, “Well
done!”
IV 11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is
one who not only wins, but excels in winning with
ease.
IV 12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation
for wisdom nor credit for courage.
From THE ART OF WAR
Cool shit.
Not that the habit of reflexively viewing every coup, rebellion and civil war as a proxy fight between the US and the USSR led to really great places during the Cold War, either. Then they look back, decide that the US won the Cold War, think that means the way we fought the Cold War must have been really clever, and suggest we treat the menace posed by <del>Shiite</del> <del>Sunni</del> <del>Shiite</del> extremeists the way we treated communism.
After all, what else could explain the collapse of the Soviet Union than our unequivocally successful performance in Vietnam, or our transparently righteous interventions in Latin America? It’s not like the there are any problems with totalitarianism or command economies that could explain why the Soviet system was untenable.
Whether Obama personally sees this as a proxy war, I leave for others to decide. Certainly, a huge bulk of US policy makers and opinion forming punditry does. And the machinery of state has been aiding the rebels covertly and indirectly through close US allies (Turkey, Jordan, KSA and Qatar.) In other words, Al Qaeda is not produced and aided by US enemies, but by its closest allies. And particularly the latter two have been fanning the sectarian flames from the beginning. If Obama wanted to stop them, he has not even come close.
How this deal plays out remains to be seen. The text of the agreement sounds like a rerun of Iraq, even though I was sure it wouldn’t. The problem for Syria is not the loss of chemical weapons, but the go anywhere, see anything inspectors who can 1) relay all intelligence on Syria’s military to the rebels, the US, Israel, etc., and 2) Cry foul the minute they demand to inspect Assad’s bedroom for chemical weapons, and those dastardly Syrians balk.
Keep in mind that according to the US’s own Dulfer report, Iraq got rid of its entire WMD stockpile in 1991(!) and still inspectors kept on inspecting.
So maybe the super clever Obama has decided that launching an attack 6 months from now after Syria “fails to comply” (and he has gotten all his ducks in a row) is better than launching one now under the most terrible political circumstances imaginable. Hopefully I’m wrong on that and the Russians will stand firm.
Unless there is some under the table deal in which the US leans on its allies to stop sending Jihadis to Syria, then this does not appear to be a good deal for Syria or for Syrians.
Also, I’m still awaiting all that decisive evidence that it was the Syrian government that carried out the Aug 21st attack, and not the rebels.
You and I seem to be at a disadvantage in not having that secret backdoor into the mind of Obama and Kerry that others here seem to possess. And then do all the gyrations and offer spurious logic to explain how what’s in Obama’s mind isn’t inconsistent with his behavior and words.
Sun Tzu:
Chapter 1 Laying Plans
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when
we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are
far away; when far away, we must make him believe
we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign
disorder, and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for
him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow
arrogant.
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.
24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.
25. These military devices, leading to victory,
must not be divulged beforehand.
Just ole Obama, covering the classics.
more:
I’m unsure how you are using “foreign policy establishment”. I don’t imagine the people who work at State are blind to this dynamic.
But the politicians and pundits whose vision extends to the Continental Shelf 24/7 and then try and force everything through that lens are certainly blinkered in their vision.
So I might differentiate between the foreign policy establishment and the DC establishment.
.
The piece by Marcy Wheeler could have been written by McCain/Graham based on mistrust of the political effort and agreement put in place by the CWC teams of John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov. Both President Putin and Obama have committed themselves to the deal. The inspection regime and the destruction of the CW arms and facilities will be performed by the OPCW. I suggest everyone take note of the press conference, it provides clarity. As the Russian newspapers wrote headlines: Chemistry between Kerry and Lavrov. But the good understanding has been there all along. Diplomacy is on the front burner in the White House.
As I have written, a political solution on Syria will be put on the table and agreed upon by Russia and the US within a 90 day period. A backchannel is opened with President Rouhani of Iran for talks on the nuclear issue with the US. The “humanitarian hawks” in the Obama administration have taken a back-seat to diplomacy and the effort of Secretary Kerry.
Marcy Wheeler doesn’t get it.
○ The World after the Kerry-Lavrov accord on Syria by Juan Cole
○ Kerry after briefing PM on Syria accord: Diplomacy preferred solution, but ‘no option off the table’ Jerusalem visit
.
○ McCain baffles Russian communists promising to respond to Putin’s op-ed in Pravda
○ McCain: US inaction put Hollande in `unfair position’ interview by France24
IMHO Marcy seems to be on very firm ground in both the facts she’s using and her analysis and interpretation of those facts. To say that her piece could have been written by McCain is ridiculous.
What she doesn’t do is make claims that Obama and Kerry possess some extraordinary diplomatic skill and get Iran, Syria, and Russia to move exactly where KSA and Israel wants them. While the US and Russia common ground would seem to be the troublesome jihadis, they are instrumental in keeping the US MIC open for business and advancing the regional power of our good ally the KSA. If not for the former, throwing the latter under the bus could be the best (and easiest) course.
My main argument is, emptywheel based her analysis on distrust of the deal with the Russians and the inability for the OPCW to do its task. In the press conference of Kerry and Putin, this point had been adressed and answered. Syria has ratified the CWC treaty and as such has committed itself to the process of CW disarmament. A UN Security Council resolution will be agreed upon in the coming days, supported by Russia and the US. To write this analysis, you don’t believe a word that was said nor value the agreement signed. This is very similar to words and statements by McCain amd Graham. It’s their lifeline.
The following statements by emptywheel are just not true …
○ US Negotiating Position in Lavrov-Kerry Deal Depends on Expansive Commander-in-Chief Claims
○ just agreed to does allow the US to demand a UN resolution backing use of force in case Assad does balk
○ US does expect Russia would still veto such a resolution
○ because we exercise little leverage over them [rebels] , we may not be able to prevent them from scuttling the disarmament process
Her last paragraph is basically wrong:
“In any case, I’m pretty sure I know what the Russians — who, after all, won this round — intend: that’s to protect Assad’s hold on power, via whatever means. And frankly, that’s what we are — explicitly, at least — seeking as well, even while we continue to arm rebels trying to overthrow him.”
Step 2 of this process will be vigorous talks between Russia and the US to iron out a political solution to the conflict. Just as in step 1, there will be a minimum of consultation with partners, the FSA and the Assad crowd. I’m certain there is already a basic agreement on the outline of these talks – Geneva 2. Assad and his henchmen will not be part of a future regime in Syria. If you read between the lines, Putin and Russia already implied such a year ago. If the UN Inspectors point to Assad for the Ghouta gas attack, Assad is definitely out. The meeting between Kerry and Lavrov proceeded in good faith, Obama wil support a diplomatic solution. This is completely new for Obama, a reversal of his decision to attack the Assad regime a fortnight ago.
.
This writer in Israel gets it!
Your posts re Syria in the past few days have been incredibly helpful, but just one observation regarding your last post:
‘As to Putin, he has no particular use for the Assad regime, but he does have an interest in maintaining Syria as a client state’ – i.e. he would like to maintain Russia’s naval access to the Med via the Tartarus base. This is not a minor consideration, so I respect the fact that both he and PBO are seemingly in realistic communication, rather than just fluffing up the epaulette feathers. As for the Tea Party adopting Putin as their new BFF – stomach-churningly hysterical.
I agree with all of this, but this is why the US shouldn’t push too hard on proving Assad’s guilt on chemical weapons. Making him a criminal against humanity makes it much more dangerous for him to, and therefore unlikely that he will, voluntarily leave power. I’m not sure that US can prove it. You seem to think the fact that Assad is willing to deal on chemical weapons constitutes some kind of admission, but it could also be read as meaning chemical weapons are not important to him, so he is trading them for not just stopping this attack but limiting US efforts to overthrow him (it will be more difficult for the US to justify arming violent rebels against a government that is cooperating with the US and the US).
I meant the UN and the US.