ChrisWeigant.com

A Syrian Solution On The Horizon?

[ Posted Monday, September 9th, 2013 – 16:36 UTC ]

News broke today on Syria, but it's not exactly the news everyone was expecting. The political world was really expecting today to be a day of dueling interviews, beginning with Charlie Rose's "scoop" interview with the leader of Syria, Bashir Al Assad. Later in the day, President Barack Obama would blanket the airwaves by granting six network evening news interviews. This was to be followed up tomorrow night with a primetime presidential address from the Oval Office. That's what everyone was expecting the news to all be about, at any rate.

Instead of a competition in the arena of press relations, however, a possible solution to the Syrian crisis appeared (almost mirage-like) on the horizon. Details are scant as of this writing, but Syria seems to be looking favorably towards a Russian proposal that they turn over all of their chemical weapons stores to international monitors who would then destroy them -- putting all chemical weapons completely out of reach of both sides in the conflict forevermore.

This could turn out to be a brilliant diplomatic success which would answer the core problem of the Syrian chemical weapons. It could also turn out to be unworkable, a fiasco, or some other species of failure. To even say that it is "too early to tell" is a vast overstatement at this point, as the details of the proposal haven't even been made public yet -- much less how the United States will react, what this means for Obama's attack votes in Congress (the soonest of which may take place as early as Wednesday in the Senate), and how the United Nations Security Council will react. That's all just in the realm of politics and diplomacy -- there are other problematic questions as well on the organization, implementation, and mechanics of how the Syrian chemical weapons will be handled. It's too early to tell (again, as of this writing) even what the actual proposal is, as no real details have been confirmed by anyone other than very brief statements.

Even after such a list of caveats, the possibility of a successful end to the current crisis is indeed tantalizing -- which is what makes the proposal such big news in the first place. Because, assuming for the point of discussion that such a proposal can be made to work (an enormous assumption that may prove very quickly to be groundless, I will fully admit), it does seem to be a rather elegant way out of the wilderness for just about all of the interested parties in the current crisis. The "current crisis" means the question of chemical weapons, I should point out (in yet another caveat), because even if this plan is adopted and does work perfectly, it is not going to end the civil war in Syria. So it's not like this is any sort of peace accord or anything.

But it would bring benefits to just about all of the involved parties. The Syrian rebels wouldn't see their military position change much, because just removing chemical weapons from the Syrian government's arsenal doesn't change the fact that Assad would still have lots of other weapon types, all of which are effective and deadly on their own. It won't "move the battle lines" at all on the Syrian map, even if some sort of cease fire happens while the international monitors move in to secure the chemical weapons. So, for the rebels, it wouldn't change their situation much at all -- except for knowing that they wouldn't have to worry about being killed by nerve gas any more. Which -- in and of itself -- is important; but it wouldn't change the rebels' overall military situation much.

Such an agreement would benefit Assad and the Syrian government, on a number of levels. If it could avert an American airstrike, then that's a big benefit to begin with. It would also be a public relations victory for Assad on the world stage. Assad is now fully aware that the actual use of such weapons might just carry such a high price for him in the future that the weapons themselves become tactically worthless in his military calculus. So trading them away to gain a diplomatic victory might be very appealing to Assad. By giving up his chemical weapons, Assad would gain more than he would lose. For this to be true, though, the threat of American retaliation for their use would have to be very real (which, depending on what Congress does, might not actually be the case).

Syria is no friend of America, but they do have a longstanding relationship with Russia. If Russia took the lead on sending in the personnel to secure the weapons sites and begin their destruction, it would avoid the prospect of less-friendly and less-trusted foreign troops (read: Americans) being the ones to take control of the weapons. This would help Assad at home and in the wider region, because having American troops on Middle Eastern soil is always problematic for any country's leaders in this part of the world. Russia would benefit by boosting its own image in the world community (stepping up to the plate to defuse a volatile situation), and by using its weight to perhaps get the United Nations to approve such a mission. Putin would score a diplomatic victory which could help him both internationally and domestically, appearing as a world-class statesman. This would all happen a short time before the world's attention will turn to the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

In America, the proposal could preclude the enormous fight in Congress over Syrian airstrikes, and could allow President Obama to claim his own diplomatic victory. While the events of today were orchestrated to appear spontaneous, it is pretty hard to believe that everyone just came up with the idea today -- that a few offhand remarks by John Kerry were immediately acted upon by the Russians and accepted in principle by the Syrians within a matter of hours. Again, this is largely just speculation, since the public doesn't yet know the real story on how this proposal was conceived. A more believable scenario (to me, at least) is that the proposal itself has been in the making for a while now -- which would put Obama's decision to delay the strikes by consulting Congress in an entirely different light. A lot of diplomacy -- involving both successes and failures -- happens outside the public eye, and this could easily be true in this instance as well. If the diplomacy started over a week ago and continued during the G-20 meeting in Russia last week, then it makes a lot of sense that Obama would have chosen to pay the political price for delaying immediate airstrikes, in order to gain a much more favorable outcome -- diplomatically, politically, and militarily.

The diplomatic victory for Obama could play out with a U.N. Security Council resolution (something which wouldn't have been possible for airstrikes) approving the plan. Politically, Congress would likely delay final votes on the authorization for the airstrikes, avoiding a very tough vote for Democrats and Republicans alike. This would remove the risk that Obama took by asking Congress in the first place -- the risk that they'd turn him down. Politically, Obama could claim that what got Assad to the table in the first place was the very threat of American airstrikes -- and that that threat was so tangible and fearful that it produced an even better outcome than any airstrike could ever have hoped to achieve.

Militarily, this would be a dramatically better outcome than perhaps destroying Assad's air capabilities and crippling a limited amount of his other war machinery. Even those most supportive of Obama's airstrike plan would admit, when asked, that it would be impossible to actually target the chemical weapons themselves within Syria (even though we think we know where most of them are stored), because shooting a single cruise missile at a chemical weapons depot could just disperse an enormous cloud of nerve gas to the surrounding areas. Cruise missiles just aren't capable of incinerating all the chemicals and rendering them harmless. Which is why nobody (even the strongest supporters) ever even suggested that the U.S. would target these weapons in our airstrike plans. But an agreement which first immediately removed the weapons from the Syrian government's control and which later destroyed the weapons completely would result in a chemical-weapons-free Syria -- a much better result, militarily, for all concerned. And a much lower risk factor on all sorts of levels.

True diplomatic victories give everyone involved some benefit. Today's proposal seems like an excellent plan because it would indeed allow many to claim some portion of the credit, for both international public consumption as well as domestic. The rebels wouldn't have to worry about future chemical weapons attacks. The world wouldn't have to worry about what would happen if the weapons fell into rebel hands. Assad would be seen in a much better light on the world stage, and could tell his own people he "made America blink." Russia's international stature would be boosted, and Putin would emerge with a much better standing worldwide right before he puts on an Olympic show, and would also be able to tell his own people he solved an international crisis singlehandedly. The United Nations would retain some relevance in the world's military affairs.

President Obama could tell America he made Syria blink, and that Syria was forced into the diplomatic agreement because of the airstrike threat -- even if Congress didn't approve it. The critics who have popped up in the past week decrying Obama's delay of the airstrikes would be silenced (or at least have to come up with some different complaints), because Obama would tell America that there was indeed a reason for this delay: to give the diplomacy time to work. Congress would heave a large sigh of relief as they could avoid actually voting on the question of war (something many in Congress love to demand, but which has obviously been a lot tougher on them then they might have previously believed). The American public would likewise be pleased that America isn't getting involved in another Middle East war -- something which is incredibly unpopular at the moment.

Certainly, there are all sorts of things that could go wrong. A proposal isn't an agreement, and the details will be crucial. There will likely be problems with implementation, and the process is almost guaranteed to be slower than anyone now predicts. Even if perfectly successful, removing chemical weapons from the Syrian battlefield won't change the military situation in the ongoing civil war much at all. It would be pretty easy to be pessimistic (or even downright cynical) at this juncture in time, for these and dozens of other reasons.

Even so, the possible success of the idea is more than a little tantalizing, for all concerned. It would solve a lot of very thorny problems for a lot of the interested parties. For that reason alone -- for the possibility of averting future thorny problems -- the world needs to seriously consider the proposal floated today to solve the Syrian chemical weapons conundrum. While success is by no means guaranteed, the possible positives so outweigh the possible negatives -- including the status quo before the proposal was made public -- that it should be given the chance to work by everyone involved. Up until now, it has been popular (and rather defeatist) to say "there are no good options in Syria." Perhaps -- just perhaps -- one good option now has entered the realm of possibility.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

36 Comments on “A Syrian Solution On The Horizon?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Side Note:

    I have to say that in the past few weeks, I've tried to sample as much as possible of the public's online feelings towards the whole Syria situation, and there has been one voice consistently crying for a diplomatic solution to the problem.

    So, LizM, I have to give credit where credit is due -- your faith in the possibilities of diplomacy might just turn out to be vindicated (if not downright prophetic). When most (myself included) were convinced that diplomacy had been completely left behind in the entire debate, you showed that sometimes it pays to have more faith in talking rather than bombing.

    Just wanted to say that.

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    If this were to happen it would be pretty amazing. Fingers crossed -

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Thanks for that. I really appreciate it.

    Military action by the US in Syria and in the current context makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. I think Obama knows that. I know Biden knows that. Kerry is a mystery as he, apparently, walked back his original statement about having Syria's chemical weapons under international control and, ultimately, eliminated by saying that his statement was just "rhetoric" and that, in any case, Syria wasn't going to do that, anyway. Whatever.

    Someone should teach the US SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR GOD'S SAKE, a thing or two about the art of positive thinking and, ah, diplomacy.

    Kerry's backtracking aside, this is one inordinately obvious opportunity that the Obama/Biden administration had better not squander. Global security may depend upon it.

    It was a bit disheartening, to put it mildly, to hear President Obama say today that IF ... IF a diplomatic solution is out there then he would be all for it. Really? WHY, ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH, IS HE NOT LEADING AND PUTTING A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION ON THE TABLE HIMSELF, MONTHS AGO, INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR PUTIN TO PUT ONE ON A SILVER PLATTER FOR HIM???!!! Un - believable.

    Anyway, looking forward to his big speech tomorrow night ... with bated breath. Ahem.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    As I said, diplomacy sometimes bears its best fruit when raised in some very secret gardens. We likely won't know what "really happened" inside the Obama foreign policy operataion until books are written 5 or 10 years hence.

    So don't knock Kerry or anyone else right now for their public statements, because what is going on privately may be a whole lot more important. Which is, really, what you've been saying all along... no?

    :-)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, another side note -

    I probably won't post anything tomorrow until after President Obama gives his address to the nation. I'm planning on a "snap reaction" type of column, just to warn everyone...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The parallels between Syria and Iraq are becoming more and more pronounced...

    Ironic that an off-the-teleprompter comment by Lurch that was immediately walked back by his own State Dept has become the last best hope for the Obama Administration..

    All I have to say is that it simply cements in my mind that it is truly Amateur Hour at the White House...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    While success is by no means guaranteed, the possible positives so outweigh the possible negatives --

    Really???

    The very unlikely possibility that Assad might actually be sincere outweighs the much more likely possibility that another couple thousand men women and children might be killed by CWMDs??

    Sorry, but I just don't see it...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Military action by the US in Syria and in the current context makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

    Actually, it's the ONLY thing that DOES make sense...

    Diplomacy only makes sense when it's players are sane benevolent leaders who actually CARE more about the welfare of their people and less about their own personal power..

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that Assad is that kind of leader and there is MOUNTAINS of evidence to support the idea that Assad is the anti-thesis of that kind of leader.

    Given this fact, diplomacy makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever...

    Pushing diplomacy in the here and now with Assad is akin to pushing diplomacy with Hitler in the aftermath of the concentration camps..

    It's ridiculous..

    Peace at ANY cost is not peace.. It's slavery..

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    As a long-time observer of US foreign policy, I know that we normally see only the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the words and actions that occur around any problematic issue.

    However, much of what we have been able to see of the Obama/Biden operation has been far less impressive than what I had every right to expect from this crew - including Egypt, the NSA/Snowden affair, and Syria.

    I fully agree that an effective foreign policy cannot and should not take place in the open and how Kerry has been handling the Israeli-Palestinian file has been extremely impressive and what I had hoped we would have seen much more of.

    I'm sorry, but the public pronouncements on Syria especially, have been bordering on the asinine for quite a while now. But, as long as we start seeing a competent tip of the iceberg, all is good.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, much of what we have been able to see of the Obama/Biden operation has been far less impressive than what I had every right to expect from this crew - including Egypt, the NSA/Snowden affair, and Syria.

    OHMYGODS!! Liz and I agree!!!!

    Truly a sign of the apocalypse!!!! :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    SYRIA SAYS IT ACCEPTED RUSSIAN WEAPONS PROPOSAL
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-10-07-47-43

    See that??

    Obama just handed Russia Superpower status, all tied up with a nice bow...

    Russia reaps the diplomatic rewards, not the US...

    I honestly thought that Obama could NOT be more dumberer on the Foreign Policy front..

    Looks like I was wrong...

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Diplomacy only makes sense when it's players are sane benevolent leaders who actually CARE more about the welfare of their people and less about their own personal power..

    Well, in such cases as those, diplomacy is certainly a less difficult proposition. But, the art of diplomacy is even more essential in circumstances such as what we have in Syria. Sure, it is difficult to deal with leaders like Assad but deal with them we must and in the most effective manner possible in order to uphold international norms and protect national security interests.

    Having said that, military action is undoubtedly the least desirable and effective method of dealing with situations such as what we have in Syria today, given all of the consequences that may follow military
    intervention.

    On the other hand, the credible threat of the use of military force is sometimes necessary in order to move the parties through a diplomatic solution that, in the case of Syria, may take many years to come to fruition and may very well see the end of the Assad regime - but not in a way that will destroy the country and plunge the region and major powers into costly and prolonged confrontation.

    It seems to me that setting up a credible threat of the use of military force in Syria is precisely what the Obama administration is attempting to do here, despite the decidedly clumsy nature of its public actions and pronouncements of late. With any luck, this will be a successful course of action with a reasonable diplomatic outcome, if it may take years to fully resolve - for the US, Russia, the international community and regional powers and, most importantly, the people of Syria.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Truly a sign of the apocalypse!!!! :D

    Hardly. :)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, in such cases as those, diplomacy is certainly a less difficult proposition. But, the art of diplomacy is even more essential in circumstances such as what we have in Syria. Sure, it is difficult to deal with leaders like Assad but deal with them we must and in the most effective manner possible in order to uphold international norms and protect national security interests.

    Yes, deal with them...

    But we don't deal with them in a manner that condones the actions. At least, we shouldn't...

    Basically, if this goes thru, it will give every tin-plated psychotic dictator license to commit these kinds of brutal acts..

    We will be allowing the Syrian government to get away with brutally murdering two thousand innocent men, women and children??

    If THIS is the red line that Obama was talking about, then he is more of a wimp then even *I* thought...

    Having said that, military action is undoubtedly the least desirable and effective method of dealing with situations such as what we have in Syria today, given all of the consequences that may follow military
    intervention.

    It may be the "least desirable" for some people, but it is, in arguably the BEST and most effective option to insure Assad doesn't get froggy again..

    It seems to me that setting up a credible threat of the use of military force in Syria is precisely what the Obama administration is attempting to do here,

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Between Kerry's totally boneheaded "unbelievably small" comment and Democrats AND Republicans in Congress whining, the credibility of the threat of military action is virtually nil...

    Hardly. :)

    Touche' :D

  15. [15] 
    dsws wrote:

    I still say there weren't any good options on Syria -- for US. "Russia tells Syria to roll over" is an option for Russia; "Syria rolls over" is an option for Syria. Darn close to mandatory, given Russia's position as Syria's top patron, but not quite.

    I have to wonder whether we gave Russia anything as quid-pro-quo, or whether they did this out of some motives of their own.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It may be the "least desirable" for some people, but it is, in arguably the BEST and most effective option to insure Assad doesn't get froggy again..

    To be clear, a diplomatic and political approach to this problem is undoubtedly the most desirable course of action for the Syrian people, given the facts of the civil/sectarian conflict in Syria and how it is evolving.

    I'd like to hear your arguments detailing how US military intervention in Syria today could be the best and most effective means of dealing with the conflict there.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be clear, a diplomatic and political approach to this problem is undoubtedly the most desirable course of action for the Syrian people, given the facts of the civil/sectarian conflict in Syria and how it is evolving.

    I disagree... Those Syrian people you refer to were the ones that were gassed in their beds..

    I doubt they are willing to accept an approach that leaves Assad in power and gives him the opportunity to gas them again...

    I have already laid out my battle plan. No need to rehash that..

    Why is it the best plan??

    Because it decimates Assad's ability to make war..

    Of course, my plan doesn't take into account the political fallout... While I concede it's a reality that must be considered, it's not my area of expertise so I don't feel qualified to comment on it... :D

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Of course, my plan doesn't take into account the political fallout... While I concede it's a reality that must be considered, it's not my area of expertise so I don't feel qualified to comment on it... :D

    That's a little too convenient. Anyone who promotes the military option MUST address ALL of the very predictable fallout of that course of action.

    Otherwise, their call for military action is simply not credible.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a little too convenient. Anyone who promotes the military option MUST address ALL of the very predictable fallout of that course of action.

    There is no "predictable" fallout in this.... At least, none of any consequence..

    But I can make some educated guesses.

    There will likely not be any direct response from Russia. Putin likes to pretend that Russia is a Superpower but it is, at best, a regional power. Russia has neither the capability or the will to take on the US directly..

    Russia CAN re-supply Assad but it runs the risk of repeating the mistakes of the late 80s that beget the destruction of the Soviet Union.

    Once the US *does* commit to an all out assault on Syria, partners will be lining up. Israel is already chomping at the bit, no surprise there.. Other countries will jump in, once they see that Obama is actually SERIOUS about his red line and is actually willing to do something about it..

    As I said, Russia won't be in any rush to challenge the US directly. The wild card in the mix will be Iran...

    Iran is where the unpredictable part comes in. Iran is lead by religious zealots and the only thing predictable about them is that they are unpredictable. Good leaders can be counted on to do what's best for their country. Bad leaders can be counted on to do what's best for themselves..

    Zealots are driven neither by altruism or greed. They are driven by demons.....

    "So, waitaminute. A bunch of innocent people had to die so you could... 'buy yourself some time'??"
    "Hi. I'm Meg. I'm a demon"

    -Supernatural

    :D

    .... driven by demons to do very unpredictable things..

    On the one hand, Iran could keep it's powder dry and survive to bring about Armageddon another day.

    Or, Iran could decide that today IS a good day to die...

    My educated guess is that, if the US does launch an attack along the lines that I have laid out, Russia will make a bunch of noise and make a token gesture to replace Assad's toys that were destroyed. But that would be the end of it..

    Iran is not ready to bring about the Apocalypse so they too will whine and cry and pound some podiums and that will be that..

    No country in the world wants to face the combined might of the US and Israeli armed forces..

    As decimated as the Democrats have made our military, we still have the best fighting force on the planet...

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I see that you fail to address what will be the consequences for the US after military action in Syria.

    Would you like me to list some recent examples of how well the US has fared, or not, when US military force has been used in the region, in a limited capacity or otherwise?

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Liz-

    Have been out of the country but kudos for staying strong on diplomacy!

    Another suggestion I saw which I thought was really interesting was to take all of the money we're thinking about plowing into military efforts and help the refugees!

    As the author puts ask: What if the U.S. flag "flew over the rescue efforts?"

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/04/1236373/-The-unmentioned-option-in-Syria

    It's good to remember when talking about 'options' that not all options are military.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    Thanks!

    Yes, the refugee crisis is getting bigger and more aid is required from the international community.

    There also needs to be an effort put towards a total arms embargo in Syria. Perhaps, Putin can be persuaded to get on board with that, as well.

    There are other things that can be done - all in a concerted effort to get the parties that are reasonable in this conflict to the negotiating table. As for the rest of the combatants, they need to be isolated and taken out of the equation.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putin Didn't Save Obama, He Beat Him
    With the Russian proposal on Syrian chemical weapons, the United States is being escorted out of the Middle East.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/putin-didnt-save-obama-he-beat-him_753730.html

    Great job, Obama... :^/

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see that you fail to address what will be the consequences for the US after military action in Syria.

    Uh... I thought I just did...

    I sure can tell you what the consequences of NOT taking military action after Obama established his "red line"...

    Russia replaces the US as the dominant power in the Middle East...

    Obama got played... Pure and simple..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you like me to list some recent examples of how well the US has fared, or not, when US military force has been used in the region, in a limited capacity or otherwise?

    Sure..

    Let's start with Libya....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sorry, but the idea of diplomacy at ANY cost is just as bad as the idea of peace at ANY cost....

    It's inherently and ultimately self-defeating...

  27. [27] 
    db wrote:

    Liz,

    Lyndon Johnson said it best, "In dealing with people you don't trust; keep your guard up & your hand out."

    I don't trust Assad, but if he can be releived of his poison gas without bombing, I'm for it.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't trust Assad, but if he can be releived of his poison gas without bombing, I'm for it.

    What makes anyone think he CAN be relieved of his poison gas??

    That's the whole point...

    Are we just going to trust that Assad is sincere?

    No??

    How will we verify??

    Trust the Russians??

    The entire idea revolves around trust..

    And ya'all think that we can trust a government that just gassed to death over two thousand innocent men, women and children...

    Based on what??

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Word is, Obama is going to tell Congress to hold off on the vote to authorize military force against Syria...

    So, basically, it's EXACTLY as I said last week...

    “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
    -President Obama, Aug 2012

    "Never mind..."
    -President Obama, Sep 2013

    If this doesn't show the world that Obama is incapable of strong leadership, nothing will...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    db,

    I don't trust Assad, but if he can be releived of his poison gas without bombing, I'm for it.

    The conventional wisdom now seems to be that this should be given a chance to succeed but that the chances for success are slim to nil. I think that is what is often referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Of course, putting Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons under the control of the United Nations for eventual destruction will be a hard and long process but, that is no reason to be so negative about its eventual outcome. I guess we'll soon see how serious everyone is about making this diplomatic initiative a success.

    It's also important not to think of this initiative to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons as the endgame but as one step along the way toward a ceasefire agreement and a negotiated end to the conflict. It's safe to say that the Assad regime will survive this process initially but I wouldn't bet the farm on its long-term survival.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, putting Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons under the control of the United Nations for eventual destruction will be a hard and long process but, that is no reason to be so negative about its eventual outcome.

    I would have to disagree with that.

    If the UN is involved you can bet that it will be a disaster..

    Remember, this is the same UN that ran the Iraq Oil For Food Program and managed to skim 9 BILLION dollars from it...

    This is the same UN that sent peacekeepers down to an African nation to disarm the rebels but ended up supplying the rebels with weapons. At a very hefty profit, of course..

    And there is the IPCC whose fallacies, crimes and BS need no explanation.

    If the UN is involved in Syria, you can bet it's going to be a cock-up operation unparalleled in human history

  32. [32] 
    db wrote:

    Liz,

    I certainly agree that a negotiated settlement to the fighting in Syria is the long-term goal. I have no answer to the Sunni-Shia problems and don't advocate getting US ground forces involved.

    I suspect Assad will play games with turning over the poison gas; though I'm not as pessimistic as Michale. As Jon Stewart said, the goal is getting the gas out of Assad's control. The hows & whys are secondary.

    But I'll still come back to Lyndon. I don't trust Assad; but I'll keep my hand out.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I'll still come back to Lyndon. I don't trust Assad; but I'll keep my hand out.

    That's usually a good way to pull back a stump..

    Let me ask you this..

    Other than wishful thinking, what do you have that supports your chosen course of action as the best course of action??

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] -

    OK, what's a "CWMD"? Never heard that term...

    dsws [15] -

    Actually, this is a general comment for everyone. I've heard an interesting bit of speculation recently -- pure speculation, no facts to back it up, I should point out -- that might make some sense.

    What if Assad is right? What if he didn't personally order the gas attack? Well, if this were true, it might mean that his grip on his military is slipping. If his brother or some faction of his military decided on their own to use gas, without telling Assad, this could mean an indication that things are completely out of Assad's control. Again, pure speculation.

    BUT... if true, this might explain the Russians' willingness to act. If Putin trusts Assad to do what he's told but sees Assad's control slipping, then there would be a motivation for them to corral the WMDs. Assad would have the motivation to do so too, so that future attacks beyond his control don't happen.

    It's just a "what if..." but it certainly is an interesting one to consider.

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, what's a "CWMD"? Never heard that term...

    Chemical Weapon of Mass Destruction...

    What if Assad is right? What if he didn't personally order the gas attack?

    Actually, there are intelligence intercepts that suggest that very thing.

    My personal take is that it matters not..

    Just as it wouldn't matter if Obama didn't personally order a nuclear airstrike on Damascus...

    If US Forces carried it it, it would still be Obama's responsibility...

    The response SHOULD be the same whether or not Assad personally ordered the attack or not..

    Of course, we now know that there won't be any strike. Obama weaseled his way out of his red line and now US credibility in the ME isn't worth a plug nickel...

    Israel will go it alone against Iran now, knowing that any US promise or commitment isn't worth the electrons it's made up of...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-15-09-56-59

    Ooooooooooo...

    Lurch said that the threat of military action is real!!!!

    Oooooooo.... I guess Assad REALLY needs to cower in his boots, eh???

    Jeeezus.... The fact that Obama and Kerry et al REALLY think that their "threats" are meaningful to ANYONE simply shows how deluded and taken with their own press releases the Obama Administration has become...

    No one with more than two brain cells to rub together think that Obama can influence a wet noodle....

Comments for this article are closed.