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....

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...

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

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??

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.

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

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.

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...

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??

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.

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

Sure..

Let's start with Libya....

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..

Great job, Obama... :^/

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.

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

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Hardly. :)

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.

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...

OHMYGODS!! Liz and I agree!!!!

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

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.

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..

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...

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...

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

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

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.

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