US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[PassedOut]

Surprised doesn't begin to cover it. The only unresolved question I have about Putin's piece is whether he is just having his fun mocking us, or whether he actually thinks that talking of God and peace and law etc will actually gain him support. I suppose it is both.

Whatever his personal beliefs, it does not surprise me that Putin, who has the strong support of the dominant and powerful Christian church in Russia, expresses himself in religious terms. We certainly see the same in politicians in the US, who sometimes suppress personal beliefs for political purposes. You might remember that Khrushchev placed a cross on his mother's grave and made the sign of the cross over himself.

[Aberlour10]

<Cough> Grozny /<Cough>

 

The first take shows Grozny to the time of Jelzins presidency. What this great democrat and USA friend did with this town, you see it.

 

http://jonnoevans.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/grozny-city.jpg

 

This take shows Grozny nowdays, after this bad bad Putin ( the reincarnation of J . Stalin) pumped there x billions of dollars in

 

http://www.franceinter.fr/sites/default/files/imagecache/scald_image_max_size/2012/08/09/426975/images/Grozny-City_Towers_Facade_Clocks.jpg

[kenberg]

This thread is obviously devoted to an important topic and I would not want to see it die, so I will comment a little on the pictures.

 

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union it was a mess. Of course it was, it collapsed. If progress has been made since then, I am happy for them. But who cares if I am happy or unhappy about what is happening internally in Russia?

 

What we have is a brutal Syrian dictator, supported by Russia, with a large stockpile of chemical weapons. There will, of course, always be arguments such as Putin's that of course the rebels shelled themselves. As near as I can recall, arguments of that sort are always made in almost any atrocity. Perhaps it is sometimes so, but really not often. The CIA did not fly planes into the Twin Towers, Roosevelt did not let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor to bring us into the war, and really the rebels did not shell the area that they controlled with nerve gas. Prove it? How would I? In mathematics, someone once self-published a treatise explaining that where mathematics went wrong was in the formula (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2. If you just drop the b^2 term as he proposed, you can square the circle. or something., No sale. . Evolution is a fact, although I can not prove it to doubters. And Assad gassed his people. The question is what to do about it.

[Trinidad]

The question is what to do about it.

And the answer is: Let the appropriate authorities handle it.

 

Rik

[Aberlour10]

The question is what to do about it.

 

This case should be handled in Hague as well as massacre of Srebrnica.

[kenberg]

I see ny the morning paper that the US and Russia have reached agreement. I will believe it when I see it actually carried out, but I guess perhaps maybe something good is happening. I remain deeply skeptical. I suppose that the essence of the agreement will be that Assad gets to slaughter his people as long as he doesn't use gas. The world is not a very nice place and there are times that I think that my safe, easy, comfortable life simply leaves me unprepared to deal with this harshness in an effective manner. Somehow, saying "Go on, keep killing each other, but no more gassing, good luck to you" seems inadequate. Better than the gassing though.

 

I have this uneasy feeling that, dealing with Putin, Obama is in over his head. We shall see.

[Aberlour10]

. I suppose that the essence of the agreement will be that Assad gets to slaughter his people as long as he doesn't use gas.

 

There is no "black and white" in this conflict. Assad slaughters not alone. All parties follow these no-mercy-policy.

The lastest UN report says the rebel groups commit massive war crimes too. Not only the strong islamists supported

by Saudi Arabia, but also moderate groups among the rebels. Uncounted civilians,alawits, kurds, christs have been murdered,

during last two years, these are documented facts, not the Assads propaganda.

[kenberg]

There is no "black and white" in this conflict. Assad slaughters not alone. All parties follow these no-mercy-policy.

The lastest UN report says the rebel groups commit massive war crimes too. Not only the strong islamists supported

by Saudi Arabia, but also moderate groups among the rebels. Uncounted civilians,alawits, kurds, christs have been murdered,

during last two years, these are documented facts, not the Assad's propaganda.

 

Yes, I understand this to be true. As I get it, the Assad family represents a minority religious faction that would be at least abused and perhaps eliminated if others had the power to do it. So they kill off the others, as long as they remain in power. Many in the Christina community support, or at least supported, Assad because he was not killing them, but others would. Now everyone is killing everyone else, and people by the millions are fleeing, no doubt intending to kill people elsewhere. Do I have to about right?

 

In my opinion, the Obama administration has been thoroughly incompetent in this. Announcing that Assad must go without any plans to achieve this was idiotic. I am at a loss to know what sort of plans there might have been, so maybe he could shut up. The comment about the red line was later described as off the cuff, and not to be taken seriously. Ditto with Kerry's comment about international control of chemical weapons. Maybe I get to run off at the mouth and there are no consequences for the nation or the world, but the President can't do that. They seem to have been caught flatfooted by the use of chemical weapons and they are making up their strategy on the fly for dealing with it. As for this latest US-Russian agreement, I think we are being played. I can hope otherwise, but Russia agreeing to destroy a stockpile that they have been instrumental in helping to assemble strikes me as highly unlikely unless there are side conditions we have not heard about and that will definitely not like when we do hear about them.

 

The US is often said to be too big a player in the Middle East. I think it is about to become a much lesser player. Perhaps that will be good, perhaps not.

[PassedOut]

Let's see how this agreement, once it is formalized by the UN, works out.

 

This is only a baby step, but is a step in the right direction. The best thing for the US to do is to support the UN fully and to work harder to make the UN a more effective organization. The cowboy stuff has got to stop.

[blackshoe]

I do not think the UN is the solution to all the world's ills. That said, I do think the ICC is the appropriate body to deal with Assad - and anyone else in that conflict who commits or has committed war crimes. OTGH, I remember what President … Jackson I think it was, said about a particular decision of the Supreme Court: "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

[PassedOut]

I do not think the UN is the solution to all the world's ills.

Nor do I. I seriously doubt that there will ever be a "solution to all the world's ills." Should the worst of the ills be solved, there will always be another lower tier of ills to be solved next. Folks everywhere have a responsibility to work on solving their own particular ills, and we have plenty of ills to work on here in the US.

 

The issue at hand is the use of military force against a brutal dictator who violates international law. That's a matter for the international community, through the UN.

 

The focus now is on Russia's ally, the brutal dictator Assad, but the US would do well to stop propping up brutal dictators ourselves, after a long history of doing exactly that. Whatever short-term gains a country gets from doing so is dwarfed by the long-term losses in the future.

 

It's a sad fact that many wonderful places in the world are now dangerous for US citizens to visit. You can't enrage people over and over without consequence.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, when someone commits a crime, you arrest him, try him, and if he's convicted impose whatever sentence the court directs. The "arrest" part is a police function, not a military function, although I grant it may take military force to carry it out. As the UN does not have its own military (yet) it will have to rely on member countries' military to carry out the arrest.

 

While I agree that US foreign policy needs a makeover, that's irrelevant to the question of what to do about Assad.

[Aberlour10]

, but the US would do well to stop propping up brutal dictators ourselves,

 

Agree. Washington could start to do it, talking with the allied regime in Riad about brutality of these forces in Syria, which are controlled, paid and armed by Saudi Arabia. But, I doubt it will ever happen.

[y66]

I seriously doubt that there will ever be a "solution to all the world's ills."

You might enjoy Ralf Dahrendorf's ideas about taking "steps in the right direction" and renovating international systems of governance which he talks about in Reith Lectures 1974, The New Liberty, Lecture 6: Steps in the Right Direction (pdf). The published version of this lecture includes what Dahrendorf describes as a slightly melodramatic if apposite warning from Max Weber:

 

Ahead of us is not the bloom of summer, but first a polar night of icy darkness and hardship, whichever group may win the battle of the day. For where there is nothing, not only the emperor but the proletarian too has lost his chance. Once this night slowly begins to cede, who then is going to be alive of those whose lent has now apparently blossomed in such abundance. And what will have become of all of you within yourselves? Embitterment or barbarism, simple dumb acceptance of the world and one's place in it, or the third and by no means rarest: mystical escapism by those who have the gift for it, or who -- as happens so often and is so miserable to see -- strain themselves into the fashion?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so clearly equate renovating international systems of governance with survival. It would be very cool if this chemical weapons gambit works and leads to more constructive actions of this type.

[PassedOut]

Agree. Washington could start to do it, talking with the allied regime in Riad about brutality of these forces in Syria, which are controlled, paid and armed by Saudi Arabia. But, I doubt it will ever happen.

I do see these matters as inherently related to the situation in Syria, but not everyone shares my view:

 

While I agree that US foreign policy needs a makeover, that's irrelevant to the question of what to do about Assad.

And indeed I found this link from y66 interesting:

 

You might enjoy Ralf Dahrendorf's ideas about taking "steps in the right direction" and renovating international systems of governance which he talks about in Reith Lectures 1974, The New Liberty, Lecture 6: Steps in the Right Direction (pdf).

Thanks for posting it!

[blackshoe]

I did not say that past foreign policy did not lead to problems — Assad, the Shah, the Saudis, Noriega, Marcos, Ho Chi Minh are all examples of one sort or another. I only said, and say, that the particular problem of Assad and his recent use of chemical weapons against his people, and what we do about that single problem, is not affected by past or future US foreign policy. I suppose one could argue that how we got to this situation might affect what future US foreign policy should be, but that's a different issue.

[y66]

Ross Douthat's cute riff on Putin's op-ed: Call me Vlad.

 

Excerpt:

 

When I came into my office, he was in my chair, feet up, shirt off, an AK-47 propped against the desk.

 

“President Putin,” I said, playing it cool. “Nice Op-Ed last week.”

 

He looked up from my computer. “Ah, yes. I was just checking this, how you say, ‘most-e-mailed list’ that your New York Times keeps. I see I’m still No. 1.”

 

“Only until someone writes a piece about Ivy League admissions, Mr. President.”

 

His laugh sounded like ice cracking in a Siberian spring. “Call me Vlad,” he said. “And tell me: Is it always this easy to get a rise out of you Americans? I watch your TV, I follow your elections. I thought you are used to propaganda.”

 

“And this anger about the paragraph where I questioned American exceptionalism? After reading the online comments, I concede that American people are exceptional: exceptionally easy to bait.”

 

“Well, you can’t blame us for being annoyed with the situation. President Obama traps himself by threatening a war that Congress wouldn’t support, you sweep in with a bogus solution he has to accept because the alternative is impotence ...”

 

“How is the solution we have offered not a good one?”

 

“Will it lead to Assad giving up his chemical weapons?”

 

“I have no idea. But the diplomatic to-and-fro makes him unlikely to use them, which is what you wanted, no?”

 

“Well, the ultimate goal is to remove him from power ...”

 

He banged his hand on my desk. “This is how it always is! You cannot stop with reasonable goal. You must have unreasonable one. Toppling the Taliban was not enough — you had to repeat our mistake and occupy Afghanistan. Saddam contained was not enough — you wanted regime change, democracy. Killing terrorists is not enough — you want the Muslim world to love you.”

 

“Well, there’s that exceptionalism thing ...”

 

“Yes, yes, I admit, America really is different. Sometimes, deep in my cold, black heart, I even feel flicker of admiration for that difference ...”

 

“Well, thanks ...”

 

“But mostly it makes me insane. I have been dealing with American government for 13 years, and my needs have always been simple, straightforward. I just want what Russian leaders will always want: a sphere of influence, a partner to fight terrorism, stability at home, respect abroad. But your presidents, Bush and Obama — who can tell what they want? One minute they ask me for help in Afghanistan or offer some sort of ‘reset’ button; the next they push NATO to my borders and try to topple my only Middle Eastern client ...”

 

“Well, maybe they both started out hoping that you were something other than a thug and ended up disappointed.”

 

He stroked the AK-47. “Maybe. But you are lucky to have me. After the 1990s, you could have had a crazy revanchist who tried to conquer his neighbors instead of just bullying them like me. Or another clown like Yeltsin, who let everything fall apart. Instead, I’ve delivered growth, stability, continuity — even our birthrate is now higher than yours!”

 

“O.K.,” I returned, “but your continuity is just corrupt one-party rule, and your hold on power is actually weakening. You’re relying more on demagogy, cracking down on civil society ...”

 

“Your Obama would still give his eyeteeth for my approval ratings.”

 

“Touché. But in the long run, you’re a prisoner of your corrupt system. You’ll either hang on while it crumbles or step down and end up jailed by your successor.”

 

“I cannot let you change the subject, American columnist. Here is a message to transmit to your readers: As much fun as I had baiting them, part of my Op-Ed was sincere. I am not America’s enemy. I do not wish a new cold war. I do not wish to dominate the Middle East, whatever that means.

 

“No,” he went on, “all I want is an American foreign policy that sees the world as it actually is, and an American leader who can arm-wrestle at my level. Which is what you Americans should want as well, no? Maybe someday you should consider electing one.”

 

He rose, pecs flexing, and looked around my office. “Oh — and if I should need post-presidential career outside of Mother Russia, I think my Op-Ed sets me up nicely to become a columnist for your New York Times, no?”

[kenberg]

Excerpt from the excerpt:

"I cannot let you change the subject, American columnist. Here is a message to transmit to your readers: As much fun as I had baiting them, part of my Op-Ed was sincere. I am not America's enemy. I do not wish a new cold war. I do not wish to dominate the Middle East, whatever that means.

 

"No," he went on, "all I want is an American foreign policy that sees the world as it actually is, and an American leader who can arm-wrestle at my level. Which is what you Americans should want as well, no? Maybe someday you should consider electing one."

 

 

An ongoing tension. I know that many people, including posters here, see the U.S. in a very bad light. I ask that they consider, at least consider, the possibility the we, at times, wish to make the world a better place. This sometimes is at odds with "seeing the world as it is" and arm-wrestling with Putin. We backed Iraq in its use of nerve gas in its war with iran. The enemy of an enemy is a friend, I guess. Putin would certainly understand such a decision, but it is hardly the moral highground.

 

We end up in great inconsistency. In the 50s, we failed to back the French in their war in Indo-China, (can't support colonialism of course) but later we went in ourselves. We opted out of the Suez crisis in 56 (or thereabouts) but we are now deeply involved in the Mideast. We first backed Iraq and then later invaded Iraq. And, as the hypotetical interview with Putin says, we followed the Soviet mistake of getting heavily involved with Afghanistan. Bringing down the Taliban government was one thing, but trying to build a democracy there? How we gonna do that?

 

 

Do we look to Machiavelli or to idealism for our foreign policy? Sometimes it seems to be an unsettling combination of both. David Ignatius has a column today about Machiavelli and lessons for Obama.

http://www.washingto...1964_story.html

I like Ignatius so I am sorry to say this, but I see the views expressed there as whistling in the wind. What he sees as clever maneuvering by Obama I see as incoherent stumbling.

 

 

Anyway, exceptionalism rears its head again. I see this as an argument with no purpose. Exceptionalism is not a policy. It's not even a coherent basis for a policy. The French never tire of pointing out that they are just oh so much more sophisticated than Americans. Perhaps so. Who cares? Sophistication is not a policy, exceptionalism is not a policy. The Irish are better story tellers. Again, who cares? You walk up to someone and announce that you are exceptional, it starts an argument with no end and no purpose.

[y66]

Less smugness and more seeing things as they really are seem like good places to start renovating U.S. foreign policy. I admired the Sheriff Bell character in No Country For Old Men but I thought his uncle had it right when he said "This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity". Why do U.S. foreign policy makers think we have to be the sheriff to play a constructive role?

[blackshoe]

Because they've fallen in love with the myth of their own rectitude? Because, like politicians everywhere and throughout time, they see it as an opportunity to increase their personal power?

[mike777]

don't worry about it...

 

no one will punish Assad for being a killer...

 

 

Now many will keep him in power despite Obama saying he must go....

[Winstonm]

don't worry about it...

 

no one will punish Assad for being a killer...

 

 

Now many will keep him in power despite Obama saying he must go....

 

There should be a resource available to accurately describe what world leaders say - perhaps something placed "on the line". How about that?

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way,” Obama said in a written statement. “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

[kenberg]

I pass on a quip from Gerson relating Syria and the budget battles:

 

Recently overheard from a senior House Republican, commenting on prospects for a budget agreement: “At this point we’re hoping Vladimir Putin comes up with a plan.”

[Winstonm]

Another quote from a New York article:

Ronald Reagan warned conservatives in 1961 that if Medicare passed into law, “one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” The conservative movement sustains itself by constantly disregarding its warnings of the last mortal threat to liberty and redirecting itself onto the next one.

[Aberlour10]

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar

al-Assad is standing in their way," Obama said in a written statement. "For the

sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad

to step aside."

 

 

Its true, but unfortunately not only Assad is standing in their way,

Obama seems to forget following player in this determination:

 

Turkey

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Katar

Hisbollah

CIA

Al-Quaida

Russia

GB/France

 

Its not high probable that only one of them will step aside.