Middle East 14 - You know nothing ...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

I understand that the point is to not make the statement in the first place.

It still gives the bias torwards military action.

No, it doesn't. And I have no clue as to why you can't grasp that concept.

[Phaing]

OMG.... I just realized;

Russia said they are going to "take responsibility for Syria"?

:rofl: :lmao: :lol:

Yeah, rots o' ruck boys, you'll need it.

[sToNED_CAT]

Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, their governments overthrown and the countries occupied and administered by the occupying forces. Kosovo had a bombing campaign to force the Serbs back. Once achieved peacekeepers were sent in to try and keep both sides from re-engaging in hostilities and they for the most part succeeded. There were no combat missions. There was no administrative role for the peacekeepers. They just tried to facilitate peace. I think the differences are pretty self-evident.

Peacekeepers in Kosovo failed. Their role was just to stop violence, result was the Serbs were cleansed instead of Albanians. Kosovo eventually became independent state. How's that success, when Clinton and co. never wanted (at least publicly) independent Kosovo? Just because there were few (peacekeeper) deaths and West wasn't very affected by war doesn't mean it was successful. Perspective is everything I guess, I highly doubt Serbs consider the intervention success.

[generic]

As opposed to Syrian, the verified claim has shown that the Assad regime HAS chemical weapons, that it has ALREADY used it against civilians, and that we're not seeking to get bog down in the foolish pursuit of nation-building.

If by "verified claim" you mean "forceful assertion". The evidence presented was at best circumstantial and at worst entirely of the trust me kind. I'd guess if they had anything that concrete they would have come out with it by now instead of insisting that they know.

Of course there is this supposed intercept making the rounds pointing toward a breakdown in line of command. That's not a particular strong case for war if it turns out to be true.

Also shows the rebels have them and have used them. The hard lefts seem to skip right over that.

I think your misusing the term "hard left" here.

Also FLoW:

Your scenario for a Russian reaction is perfectly plausible. The only problem here is that they'd likely be telling the truth. The rebels still have a lot more to gain by sporadic chemical weapon use than the regime.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

OMG.... I just realized;

Russia said they are going to "take responsibility for Syria"?

:rofl: :lmao: :lol:

Yeah, rots o' ruck boys, you'll need it.

Wait a minute -- does the President really want to cede to Russia responsibility for what happens in Syria?? Is that our brilliant national policy? Because the issues in Syria go way beyond this one use of chemical weapons. It is a proxy war between a Russian/Iranian client in Assad, and, well, whomever is backing all those rebels. The Russians would love nothing more than to dictate what happens in Syria. And considering it is the stated national policy of the U.S. that "Assad must step down", letting Russia "take responsibility" for Syria is a complete win for them.

Already, even at this early stage, it is becoming apparent that Assad and the Russians are linking the chemical weapons issue to the civil war itself. The rebels see that, our allies in the region see that, and that's why they're apparently quite demoralized by what has happened this week. Because as they see it, we've just put Russia in the drivers seat.

[Shryke]

Huh? He doesn't have to say he misplaced anything. All he'll have to say when it comes time for the accounting is that the rebels got some.

Right, which only happens if he misplaces some. If the rebels have chemical weapons it means Assad does not have control of his chemical weapons supplies. That means "We need intervention to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of Al-Queda". And now all the talk about how bad the rebels are becomes very useful.

First, we're not "making sure" of that, for all the reasons I pointed out previously. He can use them again.

Also, I advocated "turn over your weapons" as what our initial position should have been when the Administration first spoke on this, precisely so he could try to spin his way out of the "red line" trap. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone in his Administration made a public demand or statement that Syria should turn them over. That wasn't their argument for the first two weeks.

The only option discussed, and pushed both abroad and in the U.S., was military intervention, which led to Cameron losing a vote, the clear erosion of support in Congress, and international condemnation. That's why the reporter asked the question at the conference in London "is there anything Syria could do...", precisely because we hadn't said there was anything they could do. This was a post-strike alternative proposed by someone else, not the U.S.. The public position of our government was "military strike". Nothing more or less.

This reply doesn't make sense in the context of what I said.

You claimed the redline was all about retribution, but it's not. The redline was "Don't use chemical weapons. If you break the rules, we'll do something about it so you and everyone else learns not to do it again".

There hasn't been any punishment for breaking the rules. And at the minimum, we'll have endorsed the "one free bite" rule in the context of chemical weapons use. "Use them once, and the penalty will be that you can't use them again." I hardly think that was the message the President really was trying to send when he mentioned his "red line".

No, this is wrong. When you punish someone after they break the rules, you aren't endorsing a "one free bite" rule. Not when you punish a child for pushing their brother or when you punish a country for using chemical weapons.

And in this case there was the threat of punishment, to which Assad and Russia have reacted by saying "Ok, ok, we'll stop with the chemical weapons."

Well, that's where we differ. I think an Assad promise to turn over his weapons is worth nothing. You think it is everything.

How is Russia left responsible? They can play it either way. They can say, "no, this really must be the responsibility of the U.N.", if they don't want to be involved. Or if they do want to be involved for reasons of their own, they'll just continually blame the rebels for making it impossible for them to do their job.

Russia is responsible because Russia is backing this proposal and handling the whole thing. Russia is saying "We'll disarm Assad" which means if Assad isn't disarmed, it reflects on Russia. And Russia cares about that in so much as that if the Russians turn out to not be able to back this proposal up with action, they lose basically all of their rhetorical power on the issue. They said "We'll handle this" and if they don't then when they say "We'll handle this" next time on the Syria issue they will be completely without credibility.

Russia is saying "We will disarm Assad". Or course they are left responsible. That's the definition of responsible.

And let's say that's what happens -- they come back (after a nice long delay/negotiation period) and say "the restrictions on which the Americans are insisting are unreasonable. We cannot safely catalogue and gather munitions while a civil war rages, yet the Americans refuse to endorse a ceasefire, and they and their allies continue to fund the rebels This was a good solution, but the Americans are making it impractical."

What then? Now there is no deal, which theoretically places us right back where we were on Sunday. Congress still won't approve military action (especially not after this fiasco), and the only option Obama will be left with to engage in military retribution, which you said is "fucking idiotic". And he'll have to do it without the support of the international community, the American people, or Congress.

Except now you can justify intervention on the grounds that Assad is not cooperating and/or the Russians can't do anything about it.

I think the Russians see this chemical weapons issue as a net plus for them. Look like the peacemaker, score some rhetorical points against Obama, make the U.S> delay and look indecisive, and then look like the aggrieved party when the U.S. insists on conditions that are unreasonable. You don't need a threat to take up that option -- it's a win on it's own merits.

Of course the Russians see political advantage in this. Why else would they do it?

The question is, are we getting what we want anyway? And so far if what you want is no chemical weapons, that answer is "Yeah".

You just argued above that the Administration has guaranteed that the use of chemical weapons won't happen again, not that Syria (allegedly) will be punished if it does. In any case, -- a second use of chemical weapons would have strengthened the U.S. hand regardless of the clusterfuck of the last 5 days. We didn't need the posturing, threats, and too-public loss of domestic and international support.

Huh? I'm not sure you understand what I said at all.

If Assad uses chemical weapons again after this, he just justifies the case for intervention. A second use under any circumstances would have further justified that response but it does so even more now since Assad had agreed to get rid of them. Before they weren't claiming to do anything one way or the other with them. (also denying they used them, but as I said above, even the claim that it was the rebels further justifies intervention.)

I disagree, but that's not really relevant to the point. You stated that the Administration's goal was to prevent another use of chemical weapons -- to prevent him from using them again. The people killed by a second attack (assuming it can be cleanly pinned on Assad) aren't helped by the Russians (perhaps) looking bad after the fact. The victims would still be dead.

And overall, I think you greatly overestimate the possibility of Congress and the American people rallying around this cause, even if he uses him again. The vast majority of the country basically thinks this is not our business, and is hesitant to support either side in that conflict anyway.

I think you vastly underestimate the Executives ability to act on their own on this matter. Especially after further justification by further actions.

And a second attack is stopped because the undermining of the Russian position and the consequent rise in the possibility of a strike is the stick here to keep Assad from doing it again. As it always is.

[Shryke]

Kittenguard,

If you try to views foreign policy through the lense of a highschool jock, then you'll be able to comprehend the constant shilling about power politics and putin-love here coming from flow.

It really is the kind of narrative Putin plays in to.

I get the impression FLOW would be much happier being a Russian. Their politics is practically centred on this kind of check-thumping these days.

[Shryke]

Also, we're getting the first look at how the Russians and Assad are gonna play this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world/middleeast/listing-demands-assad-uses-crisis-to-his-advantage.html?hp&_r=1&

In exchange for relinquishing his chemical arsenal, Mr. Assad said Thursday, he will require that the United States stop arming the Syrian opposition — a demand that might seem wishful from the leader of a devastated country where civil war has left 100,000 dead, two million living as refugees and large swaths of territory beyond his control.

Mr. Assad outlined his demands on Thursday, telling a Russian TV interviewer that the arms-control proposal floated by his patron in Moscow would not be finalized until “we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists.”

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a blunt response to Mr. Assad’s comments after meeting Thursday with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, saying the standard procedures for identifying and securing the weapons were too slow in Syria’s case. “There is nothing standard about this process,” Mr. Kerry said. “The words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough.”

They are gonna try to use this issue as leverage to attempt to keep Assad in power.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also, we're getting the first look at how the Russians and Assad are gonna play this:

http://www.nytimes.c....e.html?hp&_r=1

They are gonna try to use this issue as leverage to attempt to keep Assad in power.

Well, duh. That's been blindingly obvious from the time the Russians first tossed this out there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If the rebels have chemical weapons it means Assad does not have control of his chemical weapons supplies. That means "We need intervention to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of Al-Queda". And now all the talk about how bad the rebels are becomes very useful.

He is creating the perfect argument for his own government to stay in power. Because if it doesn't, those nasty rebels will overrun some weapons stockpiles (and he'll likely claim they've already seized some). And he'll say that western support for the rebels is making it more difficult to maintain control over them. This is all about him staying in power.

You claimed the redline was all about retribution, but it's not. The redline was "Don't use chemical weapons. If you break the rules, we'll do something about it so you and everyone else learns not to do it again".

Okay, so....what are we going to to about it? Let's say this whole chemical weapons things falls apart in a month or so. It will then have been two months since they were used. What happens then?

No, this is wrong. When you punish someone after they break the rules, you aren't endorsing a "one free bite" rule. Not when you punish a child for pushing their brother or when you punish a country for using chemical weapons. And in this case there was the threat of punishment, to which Assad and Russia have reacted by saying "Ok, ok, we'll stop with the chemical weapons."

Okay...so he used them once, and the only "punishment" is them promising that he won't use them again. Right?

Russia is responsible because Russia is backing this proposal and handling the whole thing. Russia is saying "We'll disarm Assad" which means if Assad isn't disarmed, it reflects on Russia. And Russia cares about that in so much as that if the Russians turn out to not be able to back this proposal up with action, they lose basically all of their rhetorical power on the issue. They said "We'll handle this" and if they don't then when they say "We'll handle this" next time on the Syria issue they will be completely without credibility.

Russia is saying "We will disarm Assad". Or course they are left responsible. That's the definition of responsible.

That's nothing more than a temporary, purely semantic argument. Because what happens when the Russians and Syrians come back and say "we can't get control over all those munitions as long as those nasty rebels are still attacking. You need to stop arming them because we need to get effective control of those weapons, and have the ability to move them." Which is a perfectly credible argument given that everyone has acknowledged how difficult it is go gather up all those weapons even in a time of peace.

Except now you can justify intervention on the grounds that Assad is not cooperating and/or the Russians can't do anything about it.

And they'll say that the level of cooperation the U.S. is demanding is impossible as long as there is a civil war raging, which is an argument has at least some facial credibility. So Obama will be left essentially where he was before -- deciding whether to bomb Syria despite a lack of support internationally, by the public, and in Congress. Except with the added disadvantage of having giving Assad more than a month to place hospitals, orphanages, and whatever around what are believed to be the most likely targets, and otherwise dispersing equipment he deems valuable.

I think you vastly underestimate the Executives ability to act on their own on this matter. Especially after further justification by further actions.

I think I'm probably a bit more aware of his power to do that than you are. I just think it would be a stupid thing to do. Doesn't matter to you, of course, since it isn't your country that would be dropping the bombs, and you're just a backseat driver on this.

[snake]

Just looking at some timelines and if the rebels are to be believed there have been six chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government on the rebels since ol Red Line made his speech on August 21, 2012. That's a lot of crossings. lol

[The Progressive]

I believe that it would not have been that difficult to offer some aid and stability to the Libyan government post war. Pretty much the opposite of Iraq and Afghanistan, where things could have been handled much better if the fools had a clue what they were doing.

:lmao:

So how much "aid" should be given and how many troops gonna be needed to provide for "peacekeeping" and "stability", snake? What's the measure of success by your account?

[snake]

:lmao:

So how much "aid" should be given and how many troops gonna be needed to provide for "peacekeeping" and "stability", snake? What's the measure of success by your account?

Aid?? I don't know the damage done nor the costs of repairs. A few hundred million for sure I would think. Perhaps more. As for troops??? Perhaps 30,00-50,000. Best to get as many as possible from the AU and and Arab states with a UN mandate. Success would be a centralized authority, disarmed militias, a stronger armed forces, a national police force and an overall more secure and safe country.

A similar mandate to the Kosovo peacekeeping force as listed here would be a good starting point I would think.

[Xasthur]

Why do so many people here think that Russia was outmaneuvered by Obama?? I mean, if Obama's goal was to put the pressure on Russia and keep his hands off a military intervention, he could just have mentioned things like the difficulties of such an actions, especially the variety of opposition forces. Instead of that, he openly insists on blaming Assad personally for chemical weapons abuse and paints the whole situation black and white.

Why would he push a military intervention if he has no intent to use force at all? Especially after the events in Libya, were the bombings did provide the end of the civil war and the downfall of a Gaddafi (even if the long-term consequences are still unclear).

I don't see Russia being afraid of taken over responsibility either. Isn't that actually the thing that Putin want? I see his article in the NYT less than an plea to the American people, but more to the people of the world, so he could play for the gallery for them as their hero who speaks against the American governments hubris and bias.

When I look at the possible options of an outcome for this, I don't see the Obama administration coming out without massive loss of credibility. The only risk Putin has is that once the civil war reaches a critical state, Assad goes batshit and uses his chemical weapons against every living creature, but that is highly unlikely.

[Horza]

Why do so many people here think that Russia was outmaneuvered by Obama?? I mean, if Obama's goal was to put the pressure on Russia and keep his hands off a military intervention, he could just have mentioned things like the difficulties of such an actions, especially the variety of opposition forces. Instead of that, he openly insists on blaming Assad personally for chemical weapons abuse and paints the whole situation black and white.

Why would he push a military intervention if he has no intent to use force at all? Especially after the events in Libya, were the bombings did provide the end of the civil war and the downfall of a Gaddafi (even if the long-term consequences are still unclear).

Because he was cornered.

The 'red line' remarks put him in a position where he had to respond with something pretty serious to a large-scale gas attack like August 21 or take a hit to his credibility. You can argue credibility is overrated and military intervention would be futile and/or reckless but world leaders tend not to see it that way.

I don't see Russia being afraid of take over responsibility either. Isn't that actually the thing that Putin want? I see his article in the NYT less than an plea to the American people, but more to the people of the world, so he could play for the gallery for them as their hero who speaks against the American governments hubris and bias.

When I look at the possible options of an outcome for this, I don't see the Obama administration coming out without massive loss of credibility. The only risk Putin has is that once the civil war reaches a critical state, Assad goes batshit and uses his chemical weapons against every living creature, but that is highly unlikely.

Yep, this works pretty well for Putin. But it also works well for Obama: he can argue that he's giving diplomacy and the UN a chance to work, that this prevents Assad from using chemical weapons again, that this shows he takes non-proliferation seriously and all without firing a shot in anger. Getting trolled by Putin in the NYT is a small price to pay for avoiding unpopular airstrikes or an embarrassing backdown.

[flinn]

al Qaeda announced that they will begin offensives against other rebel factions in Syria.

Also...

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged small-scale attacks inside the United States to "bleed Americaeconomically", adding he hoped eventually to see a more significant strike, according to the SITE monitoring service.

In an audio speech released online a day after the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 strikes, Zawahri said attacks "by one brother or a few of the brothers" would weaken the U.S. economy by triggering big spending on security, SITE reported.

[snake]

The NYT is reporting that Obama will drop the push for a threat of force in the new UN resolution to be put before the UNSC. Looks like they'll be looking for sanctions and other such punitive measures. I guess they'll be trying to get a resolution that will actually pass and that has some sort of teeth rather than nothing at all. They still reserve the right to take unilateral action but in reality it really looks like that option is fading fast.

Interesting stuff.

[the_one_who_was_promised]

Also very interesting that almost every country is talking about these two hostages but not one single mention in the U.S. media....

Obama knows the rebels did it, unfortunately it doesn't fit in his agenda.

I'm not surprised it isn't being reported.

Our country's media did what can only be regarded as a footnote on the siege in Maaloula a week ago - very reluctant to blame the FSA rebels (who had apparently previously promised not to enter the city and had now finally done so with jihadists in tow). The only quote they were willing to report on was some villager apparently praising the rebels for not having opened fire on the villagers.

Of course, it was a completely different story on Reuters and even as the BBC were forced to be a bit less liberal with the truth a few days later shall we say, the story still received minimal coverage - being designated to the 24 hour channels rather than the main networks. Today, the story was that it was the West's fault that Syria was overrun with jihadist rebels.

I hope they do not intervene, otherwise things easily could turn out to be vary naste for us westerners. Our politicians don't share the same view about this conflict,though. The funniest thing is that if all those who support the idea of invading Syria to overthrow the current ruling family of the Assad would be instantly executed by those who they aim their support at.

I agree with you. In the rush for intervention, I hadn't seen an exit strategy which I found extremely worrying. If the strikes were meant to be a "pin prick" and they were deemed ineffective resulting in further action, what would the end game be? If Assad would have been taken out, Christians, Alawites and other Shia minorities would be extremely vulnerable to massacres. This would be a foregone conclusion if some fundamental elements of the opposition ended up in power by infiltrating the more moderate components.

I am 50/50 as to who was responsible for the chemical attack. We cannot ascertain all the evidence that the US has accumulated because it is apparently "classified" but judging by the fact that Obama was heading towards a pretty convincing defeat in the House of Representatives, I deduce that the evidence was at least not strong enough, as judged by those Congressmen, to merit another foreign invasion.

If the evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt (and I take the way the vote in Parliament went and the way the one in Congress was headed to be a pretty good indicator of that personally), the rebels are not entirely trustworthy, and the missile strikes provokes retaliation from Iran and Russia, then military strikes would surely have been counter-productive. What is the point of launching strikes just to "teach someone a lesson" if those strikes cause far more deaths, conflicts and injustices than they had otherwise have done? It's a really stupid idea, with the potential to flare up the Middle East and beyond.

I sincerely hope these peace talks are successful, for all parties concerned. Wouldn't it be great if they could build on these and hopefully get the moderate elements of the opposition engaging with the regime in time..

[the_one_who_was_promised]

al Qaeda announced that they will begin offensives against other rebel factions in Syria.

Apparently, this has been going on for some time. I have read several reports over the last few months that some components of the FSA do engage with the jihadists from time to time to help them fight the regime, but there have also been accounts of infighting between the various factions of the opposition. It appears they have very different agendas, but either way, it doesn't look like it would bode well for a successful and cohesive transition of power were Assad to fall.

The NYT is reporting that Obama will drop the push for a threat of force in the new UN resolution to be put before the UNSC. Looks like they'll be looking for sanctions and other such punitive measures. I guess they'll be trying to get a resolution that will actually pass and that has some sort of teeth rather than nothing at all. They still reserve the right to take unilateral action but in reality it really looks like that option is fading fast.

Interesting stuff.

This sounds very promising - I hope that it is true.

[Horza]

Ursula Lindsey:

The Egyptian Army hasn’t fought a war since 1973, and the U.S. Embassy judges that its capabilities have “degraded.” But that’s not the point. People don’t love their army because of how powerful it is, but because of how much they want to overcome their own feelings of powerlessness. To the great majority of Egyptians, the army is synonymous with the country, and supporting it is a way of wishing that Egypt will become all the things it currently isn’t: strong, independent and prosperous.