US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[Winstonm]

I only had one point to make: that saying "it is time for Assad to step aside" is a far cry from saying "Assad must go".

[kenberg]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

 

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

 

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

[dwar0123]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

 

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

 

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

In the way they were intended, they likely mean the same.

 

However, if you want to come up with a continuing comment. What follows from "Go" can be a lot stronger without sounding silly.

 

1.

Assad must go, lets get a CIA operation going to assassinate him.

 

2.

Assad must step aside, lets hope this comment convinces him to do so.

[kenberg]

Agreed, there could in fact be different meanings, But really, as you say, there aren't.

 

Assad might:

1. Stay in power, Not go, not step aside.

2. Be killed. "Step aside" is sort of a nice euphemism. Louis XVI stepped aside during the French Revolution.

3. Go into luxurious and protected exile. Various dictators have stepped aside in this manner.

 

I don't foresee Assad stepping aside in the sense that he will then retire to a peaceful life on a camel ranch in Southwest Syria.

 

Larry Summers, perhaps, stepped aside, sort of. He stepped aside so as to not get run over, but we can be polite and say he stepped aside. Assad won't be doing that.

[billw55]

I don't understand where you get that idea.

 

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

 

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

 

Rik

Russia responds to UN report

 

This sort of thing is more predictable than you think.

[Winstonm]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

 

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

 

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

 

Last time I checked Clinton was still not Obama. ;)

[Winstonm]

Agreed, there could in fact be different meanings, But really, as you say, there aren't.

 

Assad might:

1. Stay in power, Not go, not step aside.

2. Be killed. "Step aside" is sort of a nice euphemism. Louis XVI stepped aside during the French Revolution.

3. Go into luxurious and protected exile. Various dictators have stepped aside in this manner.

 

I don't foresee Assad stepping aside in the sense that he will then retire to a peaceful life on a camel ranch in Southwest Syria.

 

Larry Summers, perhaps, stepped aside, sort of. He stepped aside so as to not get run over, but we can be polite and say he stepped aside. Assad won't be doing that.

 

If you ever had to testify under oath with a court reporter taking down your words, you would understand that there is a significant difference bewteen saying "xyz has to go" and saying "xyz needs to step aside". The first sounds like a mafia don talking about an enemy while the second sounds like the chairman of the board discussing a competitor's CEO.

 

Sure, we can assume that the underlying meaning is the same....just don't try to prove it... :D

[kenberg]

Any resemblance between the Middle East and a court of law is accidental and unlikely.

 

Anywau, maybe this will work out better than I think it will, I guess we can hope. I have no desire to be right in my pessimism, but I think that a year from now Assad will not have gone, will not have stepped aside, and the chemical weapons will not be destroyed.As I get it from the NYT op-ed, Putin still believes, well Putin still says, that the rebels gassed themselves.

[blackshoe]

If he has to "step aside", but doesn't, we presumably regretfully leave him alone. His person, anyway. If he "has to go", then we give him the chance to step aside. If he does not, we send in the troops to remove him.

[Winstonm]

If he has to "step aside", but doesn't, we presumably regretfully leave him alone. His person, anyway. If he "has to go", then we give him the chance to step aside. If he does not, we send in the troops to remove him.

 

That's how I understand the difference to be.

[kenberg]

If you see me comin, better step aside

A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died

etc

 

 

So basically the idea is that Obama was just sort of sayin, he wasn't really expressing any sort of policy or intentions or even ideas. He was just sayin.

If Assad wants to go that would be super but if he wants to stay, hey, that's cool. No biggie.

 

I very seriously doubt that this view of Obama's comments matches with the Assad views of the comments, or matches the views of any Middle East leader, elected or otherwise. People, whether "people" means heads of state or just folks, really don't much like this sort of ducking and weaving by the U.S. president. It's going to hurt him. It has hurt him. Badly, I think. He is now in a position where he has to hope that Putin and Assad are really planning to have the dismantling of chemical weapons go forward. These are not a couple of guys I would like to bet my future on. Perhaps I misjudge. I don't think so.

[blackshoe]

Oh, our leader has screwed up royally, no doubt about that. Not the first time, and unfortunately probably not the last. <_<

[hrothgar]

Oh, our leader has screwed up royally, no doubt about that.

 

How so?

 

1. Syria has admitted to possessing chemical weapons (a positive change) and agreed to remove them

2. The Russians have agreed to work towards removing Syrian chemical weapons rather than blocking action

3. The US was not forced to take any kind of military action

4. Lastly, to quote Sullivan:

 

Syria is the proof of principle for an agreement with Iran. And an agreement with Iran – that keeps its nuclear program reliably civil and lifts sanctions – is the Holy Grail for this administration, and for American foreign policy in the 21st Century.

 

Is this situation in Syria perfect? No.

Was it within our power to achieve a perfect solution? Once again no.

 

I would hardly this a "royal screw up".

[kenberg]

Oh, our leader has screwed up royally, no doubt about that. Not the first time, and unfortunately probably not the last. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif

 

The difference beteen you and me on this is that I voted for the guy. I don't regret my vote, but there are times I find the man very frustrating. But then my wife sometimes finds me very frustrating so...

[kenberg]

How so?

 

1. Syria has admitted to possessing chemical weapons (a positive change) and agreed to remove them

2. The Russians have agreed to work towards removing Syrian chemical weapons rather than blocking action

3. The US was not forced to take any kind of military action

4. Lastly, to quote Sullivan:

 

 

 

Is this situation in Syria perfect? No.

Was it within our power to achieve a perfect solution? Once again no.

 

I would hardly this a "royal screw up".

 

For me, there rare a couple of large items.

First, I just do not believe that Putin is to be trusted on this. I may have to eat my words, i truly hope I have to eat my words, but don't see it as realistic to think the chemical weapons will be brought under control in this manner. Maybe O could call W and ask him how this "I looked into Putin's soul" went. Maybe this quote is not precise. Sue me.

Second, I know the defense of Obama is that he has shown flexibility. Sometimes flexibility looks and awful lot like random motion. I would like to think that somewhere in the innards of his council there was discussion along the lines of "How will we respond if Assad uses his chemical weapons?". "Wing it" is not a plan.

 

Maybe this will work out. I am very skeptical.

[hrothgar]

 

Second, I know the defense of Obama is that he has shown flexibility. Sometimes flexibility looks and awful lot like random motion. I would like to think that somewhere in the innards of his council there was discussion along the lines of "How will we respond if Assad uses his chemical weapons?". "Wing it" is not a plan.

 

 

The following quote dates back to at least the late 19th century. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that dates back to ancient Rome or Egypt or some such.

 

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

 

I agree that the optics on Obama's plan weren't particularly good, but at the end of the day I think that the results were as good as one could expect. More important, I agree with the key decisions that he made

 

1. The United States should consider using force to help maintain the standard against using chemical weapons

2. The United States will not use force unless congress supports this policy

[Aberlour10]

First, I just do not believe that Putin is to be trusted on this. I may have to eat my words, i truly hope I have to eat my words, but don't see it as realistic to think the chemical weapons will be brought under control in this manner.

 

Surely, Putin is not to be trusted on many things ( from the western point of view ) but I do it on this and it has a significant reason.

 

 

Putin has a big problem with Jihad in Caucasus.

 

Many rebels/terrorists from Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya have been fighting in Syria.

 

One day they will return to Caucasus and Putin wants to avoid ...they would be able to bring there syrian chemical weapons.

 

The best solving of this russian problem would be destroying all these weapons in Syria now. In the case the rebels will beat Assad and these weapons still exist, the real danger for Russia would be growing.

 

Putin safeguards russian vital interests here,

 

PS. Such reports like this one here came repeatedly in last months:

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,4224285.story

[Winstonm]

The following quote dates back to at least the late 19th century. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that dates back to ancient Rome or Egypt or some such.

 

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

 

I agree that the optics on Obama's plan weren't particularly good, but at the end of the day I think that the results were as good as one could expect. More important, I agree with the key decisions that he made

 

1. The United States should consider using force to help maintain the standard against using chemical weapons

2. The United States will not use force unless congress supports this policy

 

I think this is a reasonable use of force because it limits the use of force to specific outcome, i.e., a limited punitive action.

 

This, I think, is a useful and viable goal for our military, whereas the belief that the US can create by military action regimes that are US-friendly and democratic is an idealistic but entrenched fantasy.

[kenberg]

The following quote dates back to at least the late 19th century. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that dates back to ancient Rome or Egypt or some such.

 

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

 

I agree that the optics on Obama's plan weren't particularly good, but at the end of the day I think that the results were as good as one could expect. More important, I agree with the key decisions that he made

 

1. The United States should consider using force to help maintain the standard against using chemical weapons

2. The United States will not use force unless congress supports this policy

 

I very much agree with 2. This is not really a constitutional issue with me, rather I think if congress is not supportive, we are off to a disastrous start.

 

1. is trickier, and you phrased it, correctly, as "should consider". It's a long and awful story. I recall, just one of those odd memory quirks, where I first learned the word atrocity. Shortly after, or maybe just before, the end of WWII I was wandering about downtown St. Paul on my own and the World Theater had billboards announcing the film "Atrocities of Manila". I had no idea what sort of city an atrocity was. As I grew older, I learned they were plentiful. There are times I feel that we should all, as a species, apologize to the planet. Anyway, I believe in doing good, but I have only modest hope for us all.

[PassedOut]

So we have another step in the right direction: U.N. Deal on Syrian Arms Is Milestone After Years of Inertia

 

American officials have said they were pleasantly surprised by the completeness of the Syrian government’s declaration of its chemical weapons program, which was presented on Friday.

 

But far more formidable challenges lie ahead.

 

By November, international monitors are to inspect all of Syria’s declared sites, and equipment to produce and mix chemical weapons is to be destroyed, according to a so-called framework agreement that was negotiated by the United States and Russia this month and that is to be enforced by the new Security Council resolution.

 

Syria’s entire arsenal is to be eliminated by the middle of 2014, according to that accord, a process that Mr. Assad has said could take a year.

We won't know for awhile how this will work out, but it is likely that the Russians don't want these weapons getting into the hands of terrorists either.

 

Things appear to be looking more promising with Iran too (and without a single US bomb being dropped).

[kenberg]

The first paragraph from the article:

 

The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have agreed on a resolution that will require Syria to give up its chemical weapons, but there will be no automatic penalties if the Syrians fail to comply, officials said Thursday.

 

A paragraph on the send page:

The measure notes that “in the event of noncompliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic,” the Security Council can decide to “impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.”

 

Ah yes, "they can decide". We all can decide to do a lot of things. But "can decide" and "have decided" are very different. And, after a decision, there is the implementation. Don't hold your breath until it happens.

 

There was an intervview with the President of Turkey published in the Post the other day. He shares my pessimism. Not that his pessimism, or, especially, my much less informed pessimism, proves anything, but I'm really not up for taking Assad's word for it that he will be cooperative. Or Putin's.

[PassedOut]

There was an intervview with the President of Turkey published in the Post the other day. He shares my pessimism. Not that his pessimism, or, especially, my much less informed pessimism, proves anything, but I'm really not up for taking Assad's word for it that he will be cooperative. Or Putin's.

No doubt a general sense of pessimism is healthy, even if vague. Nothing ever goes precisely according to plan.

 

The Syria proposal came from Putin's government and I suspect that he might value his own credibility in the matter. But, as you suggest, he might not. Time will tell.

 

Should the implementation of the agreement fail, followed by Putin's government blocking a punitive response, that will clarify the situation for the world. My expectation is that Putin will act to further Russian interests, and that he sees that the failure + blocking scenario won't do that. But, of course, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

 

If the worst does happen, though, it won't be due to cowboy actions of the US government. For a change, let some other government take on the role of acting stupidly.

[kenberg]

I think of it pretty much as follows:

 

 

1. Putin, Assad, chemical weapons and Jihadists: Putin does not want Jihadists to have chemical weapons. He does want Assad to have chemical weapons, in fact he was the main supplier. He has a strong interest in Assad's survival as head of Syria.

 

2. The U.S. may be coming to a similar conclusion. Assad having, and perhaps using, chemical weapons is not as bad as Jihadists having and definitely using chemical weapons. This agreement will go far in assisting Assad's survival. I expect there are more than few in the adminstration who have decided that, given the alternatives, this is acceptable.

 

3. Putin has his own view of credibility. In the NYT piece he stuck to his claim that the Jihadists gassed themselves. He is not in the least worried that people do not find this credible. Otoh, he has backed Assad while the U.S., whatever one might say about exact wording, has spoken in favor of Assad's departure. When Assad remains in power, this will be credibility for Putin in a form that he values. And an embarrassment for us that will linger.

 

 

What should we do? First, acknowledge reality. This round went to Assad/Putin. Not even close, it was a blow-out. Then some review needs to occur, focusing on just how it could be that we approached this looking like Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame.

[Aberlour10]

Some further thoughts on it.

 

It does not surprise me that turkish goverment is deeply disappointed about the currrent situation. From the first day of this conflict they wanted "western intervention" in Syria with the goal of the regime change. They put the oil in the fire whenever it was possilble,. With the Obama's decision to punish Assad's reigme Erdogan saw the day coming US Air Force bombing Syria not only for days but till Assad fails. This hope was destroyed by agreement in Geneva. The first party which loudly announced "this agreement will never work" was of course the turkish goverment.

 

 

Russia resits the proposal to take automatically sanctions from the Chapter 7 into the UN-Resolution because it feels still fooled especially by France and GB in the case of Libya. Putin let pass this resolution with the only goal to protect civilians. Paris and London reinterpreted tricky this resolution and bombed whatever they wanted till to regime change with the UN-Resolution in the raised hand. Moscow decided, such a trick will be never successfull again.

 

But it doesn't matter. With or without UN Resolution, Obama will bomb if he thinks he should. This did every US goverment if the Security Council was not 100% on their side..

[PassedOut]

Putin does not want Jihadists to have chemical weapons. He does want Assad to have chemical weapons, in fact he was the main supplier. He has a strong interest in Assad's survival as head of Syria.

As you point out, Putin might indeed have locked Russia into a dead losing position over the long term, as the Russians, like the US, have often done. It will be interesting to see how he maneuvers to extricate himself, and Russia. Likely we are seeing the first step now.