Things got very interesting today, shortly after John Kerry suggested in London that that Assad regime could avoid an attack if they surrendered all their chemical weapons within a week. Acting on Russia’s strong advisement, the Syrian regime quickly agreed to submit their stockpiles to international control. If this can be accomplished, it would justify the aggressive approach the Obama administration has been pursuing, although it might throw a monkey-wrench in the administration’s overall plans for regime change. According the the Associated Press, we may be witnessing a plan that was set in motion during the G-20 conference in St. Petersburg last week:
The surprise series of statements from top U.S., Russian and Syrian diplomats followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with President Barack Obama during the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, had sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.
Putin himself said Friday at a news conference marking the summit’s end that he and Obama discussed some new ideas regarding a peaceful settlement of the crisis and instructed Kerry and Lavrov to work out details.
This could obviate the need to have a vote in Congress and basically solve all Obama’s short-term problems. The American people would be relieved that we didn’t have to resort to airstrikes; the Republicans would look stupid for not backing the president up; the threat of chemical weapons use and proliferation would be eliminated in Syria, and the international norm against the use of chemical weapons would be effectively reinforced.
On the other hand, Russia and Syria are still insisting that the rebels carried out the August 21st attack and that a full investigation will vindicate the regime. They could be calling Kerry’s bluff in order to trade chemical weapons, which are of limited military utility, for the maintenance of their current battlefield advantage.
Lavrov and al-Moallem said after their talks that U.N. chemical weapons experts should complete their probe and present their findings to the U.N. Security Council.
Al-Moallem said his government was ready to host the U.N. team, and insisted that Syria is ready to use all channels to persuade the Americans that it wasn’t behind the attack. He added that Syria was ready for “full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression.”
Neither minister, however, offered any evidence to back their claim of rebel involvement in the chemical attack.
Lavrov said Russia will continue to promote a peaceful settlement and may try to convene a gathering of all Syrian opposition figures to join in negotiations. He added that a U.S. attack on Syria would deal a fatal blow to peace efforts.
From President Obama’s point of view, the offer on the table is quite possibly too good to turn down, but it won’t satisfy the hawks that want to get Assad out of power as soon as possible.
.
An unintended policy proclamation by Kerry is getting legs with a surprised David Cameron answering in the affirmative if the Syrians do act. Also UN Ban Ki-moon has embraced this “proposal” as an important step to a diplomatic solution. This morning, Kerry was very clear, a military solution to the civil war was not possible, agreeing with FM Hague that in the end there must be a political settlement.
Seems to have caught everyone by surprise and it undercuts the White House effort to gain support from US Congress and public opinion for a military strike. Just noticed Susan Rice was holding a press conference, I didn’t catch the content.
Your conclusiuon could not be more off-base. This proposal as reported provides the critics of the Administration with the firm unambigous goal for threatening military action.
“Why we doing this Mr Presiednt?”
“To make sure Assad follows through on the agreement, Mr senator. If he does there will be no strike. But without the threat of one, Assad will back out.”
Although I had a different scenario,
House defeats Res., Obama says ‘People have spoken’ then pivots and makes peace with Iran, thus leaving the War Parties hanging in mid splutter (House of Saud, Zionists, Neo-con Military Industrial Media Complex),
this sounds good, too. π
Let’s see. Weapons watched by UN, any further use MUST be the rebels. Sorry, Prince Bandar. No reason to “take out” infrastructure, momentum swings back against the wahabi cannibals. Sorry, Prince Bandar. Weapons watched, Israel breathes free, Hey thanks Obama! You ARE a friend of Israel. No Syria war, Iranian war looking increasingly sketchy. Sorry, Israel, Your crimes are still in focus. No Syria war, the Iranian peace train picks up steam. Obama should be VERY concerned because Iran is ready to eat our diplomatic lunch BIGTIME. Heh, Putin will sit down to join him and I’m sure an outdoorsman like him packs a big appetite. Hmmm, maybe we should be thinking about a PRE-EMPTIVE Peace Initiative. We are falling behind the leaders of the world, a yawning PEACE-GAP has emerged.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, “we need to try diplomacy first”. As if diplomatic efforts were going to be on the front page. As if diplomatic efforts were not also concurrently in process.
Good catch on the AP report. Thanks.
.
US Stopped All Diplomatic Efforts
Absolute silence. Dates for talks were postponed, 1 on 1 talks were avoided and even requests for a phone call were rejected.
Freezing is freezing, can’t get much colder than that. The Snowden affair had an effect.
It staes diplomacy was conducted during G-20 which led to this development. Look up the term “backchannel”.
“backchannel”
Yes, thank you.
Don’t get too excited, yet.
There are many things to consider.
Are we watching a coordinated U.S./Russia plan?
Or is Russia simply capitalizing on Kerry’s blunder?
There are factions within the administration, some of whom will sense the opportunity to get an easy win here and others who will feel outmaneuvered by a very clever and ruthless Putin.
Do not forget that the (overall) policy is still regime change, just not until conditions are set. This arguably would stymie the overall policy and allow the civil war to continue on terms favorable to Assad.
You have been too credulous about U.S. motives here.
Yet, the president has an easy off ramp here if he has the stuff to take it.
It’s still an open question whether the policy of regime change would be more beneficial to us.
Far be it for me to say this is a done deal. But is it not an encouraging sign? The most significant portion being Russia’s move from running interference for Assad to making demands of Assad. Not to mention Assad has tacitly admitted Syria does have chem weapons stocks. Even if this is intended as theater, they would have a hard time going back to stonewall denial.
That’s a policy which means we would like to see it happen someday. It does not mean that must be the direct result of whatever is done about the chem weapons, in this specific instance before us. Ridding Assad of his chem weapons stocks in entirely consistent with the policy of regime change. That’s what matters.
Without checking I will wager the Obama Administration has a policy which states climate change poses a danger to mankind. Does anyone here think that translates into an effort hell-bent for leather to achieve a solution tomorrow? No, it means decisions should be evaluated to be consistent with that policy goal.
If Syria follows through, the odds of eventual regime change are vastly increased – CW are most useful as a deterrent against foreign invasion..
I think Obama will wiggle out of the MIC demand for regime change and look like a genius for doing it. Gets to keep his Nobel. Then President Clinton will blow the piss out of Assad if the FSA can’t do it for us in the mean time.
.
Vladimir Putin’s news conference following the G20 Summit
I will recognize a bit of wishful thinking. At the G20 Summit were present UN Ban Ki-moon and envoy Brahimi. FM Lavrov was present, and Putin said the arguments were exchanged but opposing positions stayed firm. We understand each other but we do not agree. A very thin commitment, Putin and Obama agreed FM Lavrov and Kerry will meet together and discuss this painful topic.
“Interesting” in that the CW cover for the whole operation has now been blown? Then why the increasingly bellicose Kerry statements, and the recent cries of “those Saudis will fund al-Qaeda 2.0!” Also, why the Kerry retort of “brutal dictator” who “can’t be trusted”?
If I’m the dupe and lib’rul Pavlovian dog in this masterful display of high stakes diplomacy, fine. But we’ll see soon enough…
That destroyes your nonsense that the “CW Cover” was blown. The outcome of this proposal is all about the CW. The strikes do not happen if the CW is surrendered. Take off the blinders please.
The crux of this matter is whether an “agreement” (with us) is possible. I don’t think you’re gettin’ my point…
Perhaps if you re-stated it with more emphasis on clarity and less on packing in the flowery rhetoric…
.
This cartoon explains the logic of Obama’s it’s not a “war.”
Your report goes a bit further. Syria agreed to this? If so huzzah! This is a solid idea at first impression and Russia either made a tactical error or she has been looking for a way out of painting herself as supporting chem warfare crimes.
*) Getting rid of the chem weapons is even better than the stated goal of the military strike leverage which was just to prevent future use.
*) It requires foreign personnel have access to Syria’s most important military bases.
*) That in turn makes Assad “lose face” or appear weaker to a certain degree. This will tend to demoralize Assad’s loyalist circle to some extent.
Military force is after all the final most brutal manifestation of diplomacy. If it can be avoided in favor of a satisfactory negotiated outcome, then the leverage has done its job.
And given the three bullet pints above, it leaves Assad weaker both from a pure power calculation, and as a perceived strongman. Both work to shorten his regime through defections, increased rebel morale, or even an outright coup delivered by his inner circle.
So I for one am hoping these early reports are right.
It was reasonable for Assad to agree to this because he gains more than he loses. As I’ve repeated many times, or was planning to use them. Many, many nations have stockpiles of chemical weapons.
This agreement was NOT the originally planned outcome. It looks like Messrs. Obama & Putin may have succeeded in making lemonade out of the lemons they were presented with by this massive push to war, which DID NOT originate with Obama.
Sorry, some words were accidentally deleted. “as I’ve repeated many times, there is no verified evidence that Assad used chemical weapons or was planning to use them.”
Booman already wrote, “[trading] … chemical weapons, which are of limited military utility, for the maintenance of their current battlefield advantage.” So I’m basically saying the same thing.
If it was al-Nusra that launched the chemical attack, that’s got to be dealt with too. Even in cosmic Syrian clusterfuck terms, those guys are trouble.
If the rebels did it, why can’t assad find any evidence? Seriously, a lot of folks seem to be bending over backwards to say the most obvious actor here wasn’t responsible.
There is no “proof” of the theory of gravity either. However the probability of any explanation other than Assad’s forces doing the deed is immeasurably small. N one who continues to bend over backwards in this beleif has contributed an inkling of explanation how the rebel forces obtained chem weapons, deployed them, coorfinated this incident with the conventional artillery barrage Assad’s forces launched at teh same time, etc etc etc.
Not to mention that the events up to now show how US involvement as a result is anything but a sure thing. But like with birth certificates and controlled demolitions of the WTC, I am certain we will hear this nonsense said so long as any of us shall live.
Actually, there’s a fair amount of evidence, but according to your circular reasoning, it will all be nonsense. I mean, because the chance that it is not nonsense is immeasurably small. Like the WMDs in Iraq.
A lot of people are pre-set against this because it goes against the official line, and also because it is supported by many RW nutjobs. However, I am not a RW nut job and I support Obama. There’s something more complicated going on here, as some of our commenters and, I think, Booman himself, are aware.
This AP story, “Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility” is not “nonsense”. I link to the latest version:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021779336_apmlsyriaattackscenarios.html
The stampede to war did not originate with Obama, it originated with the “Bandar Bush” gang, and he got caught up in it. Thanks to the president’s courage and great political and diplomatic skills he is starting to get control of it.
Sorry, I have seen empty CTs all my life put forward by people who have never seen large projects managed and who have no background in practical science and physics and this the rebels gassed themselves CT is just another one of them.
But do not despair. there will always be room on the soapbox for this CT along with the birther CT, the 9/11 was an inside job CT, and so forth. We all select the company we want to keep.
You mean … sob … I’m not one of the Serious People?
This just in:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18702-obamas-case-for-syria-didnt-reflect-intel-consensus
.
Sexing up the intelligence dossier …
So last week John Kerry used Murdoch’s WSJ and article by Elizabeth O’Bagy (a paid lobbyist), h/t to investigative report by Max Blumenthal @Mondoweiss. “We know who the good guys are in Syria, there are just a few bad guys amongst the opposition fighters.”
There are reports pointing to Clapper and Brennan for misleading intelligence, link here. Otherwise it would be the White House with responsibility of Susan Rice, the president’s National Security advisor. Watch here remarks here.
Many, many nations do not have stockpiles of chemical weapons, at least the kind banned under Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of countries that have signed and ratified the CWC, only the US, Russia, Libya, and China (disposing of stocks of WWII Japanese chemical weapons) have inventories remaining.
The holdouts are Angola (which is not known to have chemical weapons at all), Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, South Sudan (not known to have stocks at all), and Syria.
The countries with chemical plants capable of producing chemical weapons are Bosnia/Herzegovina, China, France, India, Iraq, Japan, Libya, Russia, Serbia, UK, and US. There is a state party whose declaration on chemical weapons production capabilities has not been disclosed. That state is believed to be South Korea.
The notion that “everybody is doing it” is false. In the last thirty years, countries have been backing away from chemical weapons.
In addition, the US has been destroying its stockpiles for many years now. The facility on Jonhston Atoll has destroyed all its stocks and has been closed down. Two facilities remain on the job. The estimate is the US has incinerated about 90% of the starting stockpile.
It looks like Bashar is going to get the Ghaddafi shaft.
Hey man, I’m not sure you’re hip to this.
That’s all right, you don’t need to be sure.
I gotta say, not for nothing but its got to be ironic that many of the same people who were big on John Kerry back in ’04, are the ones completely over him now. Conserv who hated Kerry then must be loving all this now.
Just an observation.
If what Booman suggests is happening, is what actually is happening, it will be a cold day in hell before our Tea Party friends ever figure out what happened.
in Congress will now be performing “180’s” demanding a Congressional Resolution requiring the Immediate Carpet Bombing of Syria.
Nothing Less Will Be Acceptable !!!!!
Like who? Kerry voted for the Iraq War. He’s been the same guy all along.
Well we won’t have long to wait to see if this unscripted moment from Kerry was sincere. The President is taping interviews for tonight and he’ll be speaking tomorrow. He’s just been given an opportunity to save himself from folly.
Sounds like a good deal to me. Dump this on congress and the russians. If russia screws this up, it won’t take long to find out. And then we’ll see little teabeggers running around sneezing “Benghazi” again or some such thing.
If the Syrians were the ones who used chemical agents against civilians, they certainly have discovered by now their limited military utility. If they weren’t, what better to do than remove that potential causus belli of US intervention.
My current opinion is that the US should agree to move forward with the first confidence-building step being the Syrian formal signing and ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. The US, for its part, will not bring the AUMF to a vote in the Senate or the House after that ratification while further steps are being sketched out. The second confidence-building step would be the Russia, Syria, and the US jointly bringing a resolution to the UN Security Council that seeks international custody of and disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons and dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons production capabilities.
Parallel US diplomatic actions should seek signing, ratification, and implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Angola, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Egypt, acceleration of US, Russian, and Chinese chemical weapons dismantlement programs, and pressure on Israel and North Korea to join in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Are the US diplomatic personnel in those countries capable of that sort of heavy lifting?
The US is at a point of having to decide whether to continue to play the Great Game of Empire or to lay the international framework of a sustainable and peaceful planet. Continuing to treat competitors as enemies will be very hazardous to the US over the next decade. Trust and verify with Russia and Iran and stop the march of the PNAC Greater Middle East nonsense, a idea that remains alive within the foreign policy and intelligence community establishment in the US government.
Can we trust Russia? Well enough to have dismantled 80% of of our nuclear weapons and delivery systems from the Cold War and enough to have dismantled 90% of our chemical weapons stockpiles. Can we trust Iran? We thought so prior to 2002 and they returned that trust, only to be included in Bush’s Axis of Evil. A bigger question, considering 1953 and Bush’s reversal of the pattern of good relations is how much Iran can trust the US. Trust and verify works both ways.
Great take… but don’t be surprised if Mr. Snowden is part of this deal.
“the Republicans (and the anti-strike progressives) would look stupid for not backing the president up”
FTFY
yup.
You think this proposal would have been taken seriously if there wasn’t massive resistance?
Yes I do. I also don’t think the proposal would have been made if there weren’t a credible threat of a US strike.
Wrong on the first, right on the second.
As I’ve said in other comments, the US needs to no hep gaining credibility when it comes to attacking people. No one doubts we can and will do that.
Resistance was only required to extend the duration of the bluff.
Can’t edit. I thought the comment was referring to not backing the push for war.
As it stands, I am 100% for exploring this proposal. So to the extent the administration wants to look into this I am going to support it and will defend it from anyone who attacks them for being weak by doing so.
Good. Me too.
Matthew Schofield, McClatchy: Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests to use chemical weapons, German paper says
Are the Germans now “adjusting their facts to fit the policy”?
So far, we have a President returning war powers to the Congress, where they belong. We have the entire nation having a conversation about our role in the world and the proper justification for military action. We have people on both sides supporting those who they have considered enemies. One way or another, we intend to take WMD’s out of the hands of very bad people. And if Russia comes through, we have international cooperation allowing us to do so without violence and at very little cost.
So, is Obama the luckiest guy on the planet, or is he a brilliant man who manipulated both parties, the media, and the whole friggin world to make a small, but important, change? Four years into his administration, and I still don’t know.
I tend to think that Obama’s team is simply very well prepared for any possibility and is able to capitalize on opportunities very well. They don’t play 11-dimensional chess, but they just might be Batman.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. I don’t really care, though. For some reason, things work out for the better on average for Obama, and it doesn’t really matter if he’s personally behind it as long as it keeps on happening.
“Chance favors the prepared mind” –Pasteur
On your last sentence, I don’t know either. But if he’s the most brilliant manipulator in a while, I have to play my role of being critical of the policy, withhold judgement on the man in order to get those who go straight to psychologizing about the man or strategizing against who they see are the President’s enemies to think about the policy and some of the larger issues.
Being willing to deal and having counterparties understand that you are seriously willing to deal has brought payoffs several times.
But the indirection that drives his foes nuts, drives his supporters nuts as well.
Yes. If we disagree with the policy, we have to speak up. I think they count on us to do so. I just wish that we could keep it non-personal and less emotional. But I truly hope that he writes a book someday. I do want to know what is going on in that man’s head!
I found Jimmy Carter’s brief “White House Diary” more informative than his formal memoirs.
But you are not going to get what is actually going on in a politician’s head. After that much experience, they cannot turn the self-censors off very easily. Not going to be any admissions of “Oh shit” moments, nor any sky-punching “Yeah!” moments either.
Like every American youth I read B.H. Liddel Hart in middle school. (Thanks a weak joke that is.) He was one of the foremost critics of WW1 strategy and is credited for being an early advocate of the indirect strategy. He’s not the most persuasive writer himself but his basic point is sound. The most effective strategy is not one of directly charging the enemy machine guns. It is one of finding a weak point and leveraging that in order to undermine an opponent bit by bit.
The entire concept of “guerilla warfare” can be said to be built on the concept. So while President Obama’s methods might drive you a bit nuts, by crediting him with this approach you really are paying him significant credit.
Or OTOH maybe he’s just like most every other human… doing the best he can with what he has when he has to. π
That’s very interesting about Liddell Hart and WWI. Did his first chapter cover not getting trapped in ironclad mutual defense pacts that cause you to go to war against all sensible national interest and logic?
Foreign policy strategy conceived in military terms always leads inevitably to one war or another as if there is no other form of international politics. And too many folks overlook the fact that indirect strategies are the same as deceptive strategies.
The current turn of events is still fresh and requires many other actions before we will know whether domestic politics allows a President to say yes to diplomacy and no to war. Or whether domestic politics will only be satisified by bloodlust, seeing diplomacy as weak.
The coming days will show how much militarism has corrupted our political culture.
Shy of knowing the end of the story, I’m with the muddling through a verbal screw-up crew.
No, he was a Brit and the British pack with France was actually not at all iron-clad. The Brits wanted Germany not to know in advance what they would decide to do. But most of all he covered military strategy not diplomacy.
The diplomatic equivalent of charging the machine guns was demonstrated by G.W. Bush’s instansigence on Iraq and statemetns such as “you are with us or against us”. Life is fractal. it is self-similar. One sees the advantages of the indirect approach in all sorts of things. From baseball’s hit em where they ain’t to the US submarine campaign against Japan’s maritime shipping in WW2. One does need to select the correct prism however, and that is not always done.
Early on I collected some links about ‘Obama’s Way’.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/12/161950/935/18#c18
Later I found that Obama plays it by the book…..The Art of War.
1.18 All warfare is based on deception.
1.17 According as circumstances are favorable,
one should modify one’s plans.
1.20 Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign
disorder, and crush him.
3.2 Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence
consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without
fighting.
3. 3 Thus the highest form of generalship is to
balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent
the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in
order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field;
and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled
cities.
In my thinking, The Powers That Be (fit your favorites here) are the ‘walled cities’ of our time. They form a seemingly impenetrable web to change, the people seem dispirited, lost in a sea of blogging babble. So what does Obama do? He gets elected frigging President of the city! What better way to ‘balk’ the enemy’s plans!
Russia gained creds with their response here. If this was orchestrated, within G20, may Putin celebrate his new power by picking up the phone to Iran and getting them onboard.
Hah hah!! this is beautiful.
Never underestimate a politician’s ability to come out the outhouse smelling like a freshly cut rose.. instead of something much more malodorous.
But Obama is still insisting on a vote from Congress… apparently he (like Rmoney who could not believe he was losing in 2012.. until he got crushed in Ohio) can’t believe the House is not going to approve a military strike.
Never mind the fact Obama would have looked much more progressive/intelligent had he approached Putin and let him and his people handle Syria– instead of again banging loudly on the MIC war drums, just like bush/cheney did with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now I have to wonder what really transpired between Obama and Putin during the thirty minute chat they had during the G-20 Summit.
Would Obama benefit in any way from Congress crushing or failing to pass the resolution?
YES… he will find a way to benefit, because the fact is he should have started first with Congress, instead of pretending like he had the authority to quickly order a strike.
He does have the authority. Every piece of precedence in this country says so, and a president has never been impeached for doing it.
Congress before nuclear weapons considered war an instrument of policy and the just expression of the Empire of Liberty.
War powers only became an issue with Truman, who did not get a formal declaration of war in Korea and who did not use the war to the maximal advantage of routing the Communists in China and the Soviet Union. He was seen as having seized more power for the President.
Nixon’s intervention in Cambodia, a human rights disaster, was what prompted the Congress to create the War Powers Act to try to bridge the “imminent threat” hypothetical and Congressional authorization. Reagan set out to undermine it. W’s AUMF effectively ended it. The Congress then created a War Powers Resolution that is War Power Act – Lite.
The Constitution is pretty clear. Congress decides to go to war. The President commands the military that fulfills the mission that Congress set out. The problem now is that the mission that Congress set out in 1947 and 2001 and 2003 are all so vague that Congress has effectively ceded it decision of when to go to war over what to the President with no checks and balances except the purse. And the purse is a poor check when there are “troops on the ground in harm’s way”.
There are lots of folks in the public now concerned about two Presidents in succession asserting Article II powers to begin wars, without debate in Congress when there is ample time for debate.
OH??
perhaps you can point me to the section in our Constitution where it states the POTUS has the authority to make and fund war. (actually it’s clear only congress has this authority, but go ahead and prove me wrong).
also take a look at the War Powers Resolution of 1973. it clearly lays out the conditions which must be met in order for the POTUS to order a military strike without first getting congressional approval.
Clue: what happened in Syria meets ZERO of those conditions. this and the overwhelming lack of public and congressional support for this so called “limited strike” means it’s not going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
It’s never been settled in Court, so I can’t tell you one way or the other who is correct “legally.” What I do know, however, is that countless presidents from John Adams and on, but especially post-nuclear-weapons-era with Truman, have never gotten formal declarations and have never been impeached for doing so.
Your “how it was supposed to work” scenario is fantastic, but it’s not how the country has ever operates at any point in the post-War-era, if it ever operated that way ever.
And if you read the wiki-article, some people even believe that The War Powers Act to be unconstitutional itself.
IRRELEVANT.
and so what? there are plenty of laws passed by congress the POTUS “doesn’t like” or thinks unconstitutional.
regardless, the War Powers Resolution is in fact law and I can more or less guarantee you congress is going to hold our president to it.
I don’t disagree; I don’t think the president would go against the Congress if they vote down a resolution. (Which again, isn’t a declaration of war, it’s another AUMF).
The fact that’s it’s another AUMF means that “declaration of war” is a quaint term the no one wants to use because of its heavy implications of mobilization, unconditional surrender, victory and so on.
But the public even after an AUMF expect all of those accoutrements of being in a state of war.
It’s a strange political culture self-deception.
I can’t point you to the Constitution, but I can point you to the War Powers Resolution:
.
See my comment above – Friendly 20 min. chat sticking to positions.
There was no backchannel over the weekend. The impromptu question at the press conference and Kerry’s answer was mooted within the hour by spokesperson that Kerry’s answer was strictly rhetorical. It was Lavrov, the old fox, who picked up on the theme and called for a press briefing in Moscow. The rest is bunk, no credit to Obama or Kerry. Put it on the board of 11-dimensional chess played by Obama.
○ Russia, Syria Back Call for International Control of Syrian Chemical Weapons
○ White House takes ‘hard look’ at Russian proposal on Syria
Why should the President change course because Assad made a press release?
Thought some of you would like to see this.
Please explain it to my why you are so frantic about Syria?
Why Syria and not Libya. (Actually, not you, BooMan, because you were this crazy about Libya)
But, why Syria and not Libya for all the rest of the frantic folks?
Conflict in Syria has the possibility of destabilizing Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and maybe even Saudi Arabia if it gets out of hand. That was not the case in Libya. There have been some repercussions in Mali, but that has been the extent of the spillover so far.
In Libya there was a pretty much a consensus that Gadhafi had to go and the war was carried out by the most loyal military special forces units under command of one of Gadhafi’s sons.
Syria is a complicated story that began with an Arab Spring uprising in Homs that spread to Deraa and other cities. Assad sent in tanks and eventually troops opened fire on Syrians. After several incidents like this, defectors from the Syrian military began forming the Free Syrian Army.
Unlike Libya some months after the Free Syrian Army began operating, the conflict began taking on the nature of a sectarian civil war between Sunnis on the one hand and Shi’a Alewites, Shi’a Hezbollah, Christians, and Jews –who tended to support Assad out of fear of Salafism and Wahabism–on the other. That was the state of things a year ago. Then the Kurds aligned with Assad and Iraqi Sunnis who were refugees from Anbar province in Iraq became involved. And large numbers of refugees started crossing into Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan for sanctuary.
In September of 2011, a political Syrian National Council met in Istanbul. SoS Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of their meeting, but they were almost exclusively ex-pat Syrians who had not current organizations in Syria itself. Later another group formed within Syria as a political opposition front. The two groups were working against each other so much that SoS Clinton tried to bring their leadership together for a conference in Doha, Qatar in December 2012. They are still divided.
With the collapse of the Gadhafi regime in Libya, Qatar began sending arms shipments to the Free Syrian Army in Syria and Libyan rebels, now part of the Libyan government, began also sending surplus weapons to Syria. There are reports that the US CIA encouraged this supplying of arms. The US certainly did encourage Qatar to supply arms to Libyan rebels.
So the situation is that there is no single political opposition that could replace Assad and bring a modicum of stability in Syria. And the opposition that does exists are maneuvering against each other as much as against Assad.
In addition, the reports of CIA operations in Syria apparently encouraged jihadis to become involved against Assad. There are reports that Saudi Arabia also encouraged the involvement of outside jihadis in Syria as a way of weakening an Iranian ally. And one of the jihadi groups involved, al-Nusra, claims to have ties with al Quaeda. So in addition to the political opposition being a complete mess, the military opposition to Assad is both a mess and contains elements that are dangerous if they come to power in Syria.
What made me frantic was the move to carry out a limited strike based on a chemical attack that could very well have been launched with the motive of sucking the US into another quagmire of a war and one that would destabilize a major region of the Levant. What made me even more frantic was the intelligence assessment that used to justify this action. There was no evidence in it, just assertions. It not only looked to me like someone in Syria wanting to draw the US into a quagmire but someone in the foreign policy and intelligence community wanting to draw President Obama into an illegal war (by bypassing the UN Security Council and the hard diplomatic lifting that would require) and into a quagmire that could justify yet another deployment of troops.
It seemed to me that another huge mistake in US foreign policy that would give us another enemy to fight for a decade was in the works. And the statements by the President and SoS Kerry were not really saying why or why the rush to judgement given the fact that there were UN inspectors collecting evidence about the chemical attack.
And it looked like a transparent “wag the dog” attempt to drive the NSA story from the headlines. So transparent that it was not likely to work to the administration’s advantage.
It smelled to me like a huge foreign policy trap. Apparently some other folks had the same twitchy feeling. See the diary I put up “Who’s Lying?” My sense is that it’s Brennan and Clapper, and President Obama should fire both of them.
I understood there was a direct backchannel going on between Kerry and Lavrov from the beginning, but both were engaged in chest-beating. I was uncertain whether it would amount to anything in part because the US rhetoric was so over the top and McCain-like.
Finally Iran has a mutual defense pact with Syria. Gadhafi’s only friend was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and a bunch of socialist admirer blogs. Iran’s pact apparently works like NATO’s — an attack on one is an attack on all. It would not surprise me to learn that Pres. Rouhani of Iran was on board with the deal announced today because what he has to gain from a successful resolution in Syria is a rolling back of economic sanctions if the US and Iran can start direct talks.
What yesterday had only huge downsides now has huge upsides as well. If those upsides turn out to result in the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities without going to war, renormalization of relations with Iran, and the completion of the list of signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the sabre-rattling by Obama will be considered to have been brilliant. I’m still frantic because I’m not sure if those are deals that can happen.
And if Obama, Putin, and Rouhani can get Assad and some part of the opposition together in talks that can politically open up the Syrian regime to transformation towards non-sectarian democracy that guarantees minority religious rights, the road might be open to a political settlement of Syria’s civil war, one part of which could be expulsion of foreign fighters. And that would start a huge transformation of the geopolitics of the region.
The main thing that is different is the UN. On Libya, the action to establish the no-fly zone got established when the deputy ambassador of Libya to the UN defected and began lobbying other UN delegations for their support. Then he testified before the UN Human Rights Commission as to what the Gadhafi government had done and was about to do in Benghazi. His testimony was powerful enough that Russia and China abstained as long as the US provided assurances that the no-fly-zone was not aimed at regime change. The US could give those assurances because President Obama had not himself stated that Gadhafi had lost legitimacy, something that he was too quick to state about Assad, which put Russia in a tight spot on any UN Security Council actions on Syria.
Russia and China stood aside. The UN authorized the no-fly-zone in Libya. Later the UN referred three of the Libyan leadership (including Muammar Gadhafi and Saif Gadhafi) to the International Criminal Court for investigation and allowed seizure of Gadhafi’s personal assets outside Libya. Russia and China have not stood aside on votes on Syria; Russia has stood with Assad like the US stands with Netanyahu. That’s a huge difference. Because US unilateral action would be illegal in international law under the UN Charter. And could bring a resolution in the Security Council (which the US would undoubtedly veto) to bring sanctions against the United States.
.
Minor quibbles …
Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) have joined together and are hard-core Al Qaeda which has established itself in part of the Levant. To underestimate this group will be fatal for any form of a political solution. This is a fact and McCain and Kerry relying on WSJ Op-Ed to deny this is basically a big lie. The Syrian division is an extension of Lebanon (Taif Accords) and Iraq along sectarian lines. The military frontlines has split Syria in three cantons: Kurds in a small part north-east. Sunni in a broad stretch from northern border with Turkey to oe leg extended to Iraq and another towards Homs. By recently recapturing Qusayr, the Assad forces gained a strategic link for the Alawite/Christian/Druze canton from the East-Med along the Lebanon border to Damascus.
As far as the Kurds are concerned, they are fighting for independence and are battling Jabhat Al Nusra forces. Jordan is trying to stay out of the Syrian War because the nation is divided in Muslim Brotherhood and a divided Palestinian block. Jordan can easily fall. Turkey has had a lot of support from Ms Clinton and was a proxy to overthrow Assad. I personally am very disappointed in the Tayyip Erdogan regime these past two years and consider his AKP party unreliable. I used to be for Turkey joining the EU, I now have considerable apprehension. The US has very close ties with Turkey because the nation was a crucial NATO partner during the Cold War and important ally for transporting oil from Caspian Basin to Europe and the East-Med. The US makes a strong case for Turkey to join the EU.
Excellent details to add.
I was writing from memory. Knew I forgot something.
But for me, the bottom line is the UN authorization. Bypass that and you slowly make the UN irrelevant in everything it does and give great joy to Jesse Helms’s ghost.
Just wanted to thank you for this, because of all the screaming about this, few have broken it down the way you have.
Thanks for asking the question in a way that I could lay everything out.
Right now I have two big concerns. The first is the bypassing of the UN, an institution that the US willed into being with a whole lot of diplomacy. The second is the separation of war powers. The Senate AUMF cedes even more war powers to the President. Those are going to stick around President after President unless they are rolled back.