Middle East 14 - You know nothing ...

[Durckad]

Wow we must had witnessed a different iraq war and afghanistan war from you, durkad.

Clearly. From the very beginning some people were saying that we were dramatically underestimating the number of troops we'd need in order to successfully instill order in Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime

The iraq and afghanistan wars i remember were the ones in which the goal were regime change with over one hundred thousands troops participated and billions spent on reconstruction afterward.

It's easy to say that 'regime change' is a plan almost as much as 'write great novel' is a plan for me. Problem is that doing so is much, much more difficult than simply putting it in list form and putting a check next to it to make yourself feel better.

We poured money and bodies into Iraq long after we realized that the initial plans weren't working out so well. It's the equivalent of dumping a bunch of spices on a steak long after you've burned it to oblivion. It's going to taste like shit no matter what you do at this point.

I also think that us starting a war in Iraq while Afghanistan was well underway certainly showed that we weren't 100% committed to either one.

I also remember almost everyone callling that a quagmire.

If we had done it properly and not the Bush/Rumsfeld way, maybe it wouldn't have been.

I actually do think that if we had focused on Afghanistan and hadn't gotten our attention diverted by Iraq, we'd be in a much better position there, but I don't have anything to back that up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Btw, I was watching a replay of part of Carney's press conference today, and the Syrian situation came up. Obviously, verification is an issue. As I heard it, I wondered if I misheard something so I just checked the transcript. Does this strike anyone else as odd?

Q Picking up on that word “verifiable,” you are no doubt aware of the difficulties that many experts have raised in the last 24 hours about verifying removal of chemical weapons in many scattered stockpiles in the midst of a civil war. How difficult a task is that? And does that present practical problems that could be separate from the diplomatic language involved to make this workable?

MR. CARNEY: I don't doubt that this would be a complex operation, which is why it has to be verifiable, which is why Syria would have to keep any commitment it made to allow for this process and to facilitate this process, and why Russia obviously, as the nation that proposed this avenue, would have to engage directly in verifying it and making it happen.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/11/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9112013

Uh, that sounds to me like he's saying that the Russians, not the U.S., will be the ones with the boots on the ground verifying that Syria is turning over its weapons.

I wouldn't think you'd trust Russia to verify that Syria was in compliance....

[Horza]

Uh, that sounds to me like he's saying that the Russians, not the U.S., will be the ones with the boots on the ground verifying that Syria is turning over its weapons.

I wouldn't think you'd trust Russia to verify that Syria was in compliance....

I don't think the admin for a second believes this is going to result in a workable program that results in handover or destruction of non-trivial amounts of Syrian chemical weapons.

Instead they (probably) think that by putting the onus on Russia to verify they can prepare the ground for rallying support for action if and when a) the verification process breaks down or bee) the regime uses chemical weapons again. If they can pin this to Russia they will get what they want (no more gas attacks) for zero military expense, even if the stockpiles remain intact.

[The Progressive]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=221460804

More evidence of obama's long game as a writer from wsj discuss the chains of event surrounding discussion to disarm syria of its chemical weapons between john kerry and his russian counterpart going back about a year.

For trisky ..... This is perhaps the same story we heard on npr.

[The Progressive]

It's easy to say that 'regime change' is a plan almost as much as 'write great novel' is a plan for me.

If we had done it properly and not the Bush/Rumsfeld way, maybe it wouldn't have been.

I think that regime change was achieved rather easily and quickly, but it was the rebuilding a new government that was the hardest part. Hence my chuckle at snake's flippant remark about vague peacekeeping force and aid and support to the new government. Lol, notice the lack of specific number of troops needed, or how much aid and resouces are necessary, or even how the new government should be formed ....... That sort of criticism is comically childish.

No disagreement that the bush and cheney neocons fucked it up.

[Shryke]

It wasn't a politically expedient option or an politically easy decision but we can easily see what those half-assed measures have led to. Certainly nothing to be proud of. Dropping a few bombs and then turning our backs on the country has made a fuck up of things. But I think there is still a window of opportunity to "fix" our fuck up. But I don't think anyone really cares anymore. Especially with much juicier fish to fry. Pity.

And yet the alternative of doing nothing would have been worse.

And this is the problem with your entire analysis. You seem to not want to admit that the results of any one action have to be measured against the possible results of other actions, including "doing nothing".

[Shryke]

Btw, I was watching a replay of part of Carney's press conference today, and the Syrian situation came up. Obviously, verification is an issue. As I heard it, I wondered if I misheard something so I just checked the transcript. Does this strike anyone else as odd?

http://www.whitehous...-carney-9112013

Uh, that sounds to me like he's saying that the Russians, not the U.S., will be the ones with the boots on the ground verifying that Syria is turning over its weapons.

I wouldn't think you'd trust Russia to verify that Syria was in compliance....

Why?

This puts Russia on the line for Assad's actions with any chemical weapons not turned over and destroyed. And also puts tons of pressure on Assad to keep any of them he still has afterwords underwraps.

[Shryke]

No, they didn't. At least, not since Assad actually used chemical weapons, which was the only time there was a chance he'd actually do it.

Except there seems no chance he'd do it. Not for the US anyway. The idea was already out there though. It had been discussed and considered.

That's what's being ignored by those involved in the spin. We've wanted Syria to sign the chemical treaty and disarm for years, and they've ignored us. That's what those prior discussions were about. Giving up those weapons before they were used.

Exactly. You ask why they didn't publicly say anything and answer yourself.

But Assad's actual use of those weapons changed all that. Once that happened, you didn't hear a peep from the U.S. about "turn in your chemical weapons or else." Instead, the "or else" was coming anyway because he'd actually used them. The President was very blunt -- he believed military strikes should be made because Syria crossed the "red line" of actually using chemical weapons. So, he made some bellicose speeches trying to rally support....and then the Brits backed out. Then it was becoming more apparant every day that he was not going to get the votes in Congress either. Nobody would plan to look that weak. If your goal all along was just to have them give up those weapons, that's exactly what you'd have proposed after attack itself.

Instead, he made threats that it was becoming more apparent lacked both international and domestic support (which the entire world noticed), and then Vlad stepped in.

And Putin really couldn't resist rubbing it in Obama's face, because he also wrote an Op-Ed in the NYT. And it's not an Op-Ed that says "great teamwork on this one." It's basically Putin telling Obama to sit down and let the adults talk for awhile. Humiliating, and I can't believe the NYT gave him that platform to publicly reprimand the President. On 9/11, no less.

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

What's humiliating about it? You seem overcome with an urge to frame this as some sort of personal slap to Obama's pride or something. It's a strange obsession.

[The Progressive]

Lol, it's typical obama hate from the rightwing. Horza and shryke nailed it that the onus is now on russia and putin has effectively handed obama the present of casus belli if assad uses chemical weapon again.

The russians truly got played here by obama's manuever ........ I think years from now the historians will compare this as a much more subtle chapter of the great game as compared to the ham and fisted way kennedy pulled off the cuban missile crisis.

[Mudguard]

Wow. If anyone got outmaneuvered here, it was the US. The US tried to raise support among its allies for the use of force, and it failed. Obama tried to get the support of Congress, and was failing. The Obama administration was constantly repeating that it was necessary to use force. In contrast, Russia proposes a diplomatic solution with wide appeal and which neuters the US proposal. Assad just simply agrees to Russia's proposal to give up his chemical weapons and the US is sidelined. At a minimum, Assad has bought himself 3-6 months of delay, and likely much more, by essentially giving up nothing. It could take months just to come to an agreement on the terms of the handover, and Russia will be only too willing to string this along as long as possible. What little momentum Obama had for pushing forward a military response has completely evaporated.

Assad may have no intention of giving up all his chemical weapons, and even if he had no intention to give up any chemical weapons, he buys himself at least 3-6 months. My guess is that at best, assuming an agreement actually ever gets signed, Assad hands over a token amount of chemical weapons. Given that Syria is in the middle of a civil war, how realistic is it to be able to do any real investigative work to look for chemical weapons that Assad is hiding and do any real verification or accounting of his chemical weapons stockpile? It's pretty much impossible. Also, does any of this really hurt Assad? No. In fact, he now knows that the US is unable to muster any sort of support abroad or at home for a military response, even after over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and over 1000 killed by chemical weapons. Meanwhile, Russia continues to prop up Assad while the US remains unwilling to get meaningfully involved with Syria.

[Shryke]

Wow. If anyone got outmaneuvered here, it was the US. The US tried to raise support among its allies for the use of force, and it failed. Obama tried to get the support of Congress, and was failing. The Obama administration was constantly repeating that it was necessary to use force. In contrast, Russia proposes a diplomatic solution with wide appeal and which neuters the US proposal. Assad just simply agrees to Russia's proposal to give up his chemical weapons and the US is sidelined. At a minimum, Assad has bought himself 3-6 months of delay, and likely much more, by essentially giving up nothing. It could take months just to come to an agreement on the terms of the handover, and Russia will be only too willing to string this along as long as possible. What little momentum Obama had for pushing forward a military response has completely evaporated.

Assad may have no intention of giving up all his chemical weapons, and even if he had no intention to give up any chemical weapons, he buys himself at least 3-6 months. My guess is that at best, assuming an agreement actually ever gets signed, Assad hands over a token amount of chemical weapons. Given that Syria is in the middle of a civil war, how realistic is it to be able to do any real investigative work to look for chemical weapons that Assad is hiding and do any real verification or accounting of his chemical weapons stockpile? It's pretty much impossible. Also, does any of this really hurt Assad? No. In fact, he now knows that the US is unable to muster any sort of support abroad or at home for a military response, even after over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and over 1000 killed by chemical weapons. Meanwhile, Russia continues to prop up Assad while the US remains unwilling to get meaningfully involved with Syria.

Which only works out bad for the US if the US just really wanted to oust Assad.

If all the White House cared about was the chemical weapons, they get exactly what they want.

[Ser Reptitious]

But I think there is still a window of opportunity to "fix" our fuck up. But I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

Agreed on both counts: Sending a UN or AU peacekeeping force into Libya could still help turn things around for the better, but unfortunately the political will and/or necessary attention being paid by the rest of the world (which is a necessary precondition for such a move) does not appear to exist. Pity indeed!

[Mudguard]

Which only works out bad for the US if the US just really wanted to oust Assad.

If all the White House cared about was the chemical weapons, they get exactly what they want.

The US only gets what it wants regarding the chemical weapons if Syria actually gives them up, which is far from likely to happen. There is widespread skepticism from the Obama administration regarding Assad's pledge to turn over his chemical weapons, and I think they are likely right. It's probably just a ploy to sideline US military involvement, which Assad has successfully achieved.

[Shryke]

The US only gets what it wants regarding the chemical weapons if Syria actually gives them up, which is far from likely to happen. There is widespread skepticism from the Obama administration regarding Assad's pledge to turn over his chemical weapons, and I think they are likely right. It's probably just a ploy to sideline US military involvement, which Assad has successfully achieved.

Not really. As said above, Assad is now basically incapable of using those weapons again without inviting a much larger response and making Russia look incompetant/untrustworthy.

[Horza]

The US only gets what it wants regarding the chemical weapons if Syria actually gives them up, which is far from likely to happen. There is widespread skepticism from the Obama administration regarding Assad's pledge to turn over his chemical weapons, and I think they are likely right. It's probably just a ploy to sideline US military involvement, which Assad has successfully achieved.

Getting rid of Assad's entire arsenal would be nice, but it was never in prospect either from the air or through inspection.

From the US's point of view its enough that the gas rockets get shelved. Remember: the US doesn't want an air campaign.

[Mudguard]

Not really. As said above, Assad is now basically incapable of using those weapons again without inviting a much larger response and making Russia look incompetant/untrustworthy.

The US position has moved well past "stop using chemical weapons." We already lost on that. We already gave them the ultimatum to not cross the red line, which Assad ignored by gassing over 1000 of his own people. At this point, the US position is that they must either give up their chemical weapons, or we will use force. It's not just "stop using chemical weapons" again. Well, the use of force isn't a realistic option at this time, and even if Syria refuses to give up his chemical weapons, there still doesn't appear to be enough support for military action. If Syria keeps its weapons and the US remains sidelined even after Assad has gassed 1000 of his own people, then Assad has successfully crossed Obama's red line and laughed in his face, and there's really not much Obama can do about it now.

[Shryke]

The US position has moved well past "stop using chemical weapons." We already lost on that. We already gave them the ultimatum to not cross the red line, which Assad ignored by gassing over 1000 of his own people. At this point, the US position is that they must either give up their chemical weapons, or we will use force. It's not just "stop using chemical weapons" again. Well, the use of force isn't a realistic option at this time, and even if Syria refuses to give up his chemical weapons, there still doesn't appear to be enough support for military action. If Syria keeps its weapons and the US remains sidelined even after Assad has gassed 1000 of his own people, then Assad has successfully crossed Obama's red line and laughed in his face, and there's really not much Obama can do about it now.

No, he's crossed the red line, been threatened with military action and is now forced to give them up/not use the chemical weapons again on threat of far more likely then before military action.

I mean, your idea here that the US "lost" only works if you assume the whole point of the strike was to either topple Assad or engage in retribution for the use of chemical weapons. Those are the only two goals not being accomplished.

[Clueless Northman]

Obama might have talked about getting rid of the chemical weapons peacefully a year ago, but the thing is, there hasn't been any talk about wanting Syria to do it nicely since the gas attack, but only "bombing in X days".

It's possible that things went actually well for Obama's initial plan/wish, but the only thing the public opinion is seeing right now is Obama wanting to strike Syria and backing down, thanks to Russia - if he wanted to appear the winner, he should've openly and widely talked about peaceful deal about Syria's weapons these last weeks and months.

Which only works out bad for the US if the US just really wanted to oust Assad.

If all the White House cared about was the chemical weapons, they get exactly what they want.

Except that the blatant support for the rebels clearly shows that the administration wants to oust Assad. It's just not ready to go full-military.

Failed state. Armed militia carving up the country. Murders, rape, ethnic cleansing. No rule of law, no security. Funny how some people label this as a success.

To be brutally cynical, that's quite a good result for the Europeans, if not for the Americans.

Before the revolt, Libya was one of the main gates for illegal immigration to Europe, and Gadaffi actually threatened to open the floodgates and actively helped the tens of thousands of immigrants to cross, if European countries were to support the revolt - even with mere words.

Now, Libya is a mess and Sub-Saharan Africans are chased on sight throughout most of the country. For the EU, that's one country less through which mass immigration can pass. From their governments' points of view, it's obviously a good outcome.

[Mudguard]

No, he's crossed the red line, been threatened with military action and is now forced to give them up/not use the chemical weapons again on threat of far more likely then before military action.

I mean, your idea here that the US "lost" only works if you assume the whole point of the strike was to either topple Assad or engage in retribution for the use of chemical weapons. Those are the only two goals not being accomplished.

Has Syria given up any chemical weapons? No. Will Syria give up all its chemical weapons? Even the US doubts this will happen. Is it far more likely that military action will be used if Syria uses chemical weapons again? No, not yet. Not a single resolution has passed that authorizes the use of force in such a situation. The UN security council is not passing such a resolution. Congress is supposed to be working on some new resolution, but there's no indication yet that they have the votes to get it passed.

[Shryke]

Obama might have talked about getting rid of the chemical weapons peacefully a year ago, but the thing is, there hasn't been any talk about wanting Syria to do it nicely since the gas attack, but only "bombing in X days".

It's possible that things went actually well for Obama's initial plan/wish, but the only thing the public opinion is seeing right now is Obama wanting to strike Syria and backing down, thanks to Russia - if he wanted to appear the winner, he should've openly and widely talked about peaceful deal about Syria's weapons these last weeks and months.

Is there any polling? I haven't seen anything saying what "the public" thinks.

And I'd imagine the previous suggestions going nowhere is why it wasn't broached recently, at least not publicly. I mean, Assad is still denying the government even did it.

Except that the blatant support for the rebels clearly shows that the administration wants to oust Assad. It's just not ready to go full-military.

Actually the under-the-table support for the rebels clearly indicates that while the US would probably rather Assad lose (I'd say more realistically they'd rather the right type of rebels win), they aren't interested enough in doing it to actually get direct about it.

A month ago they didn't want to bomb Assad out of power, so why would they now when the chemical weapons issue is being dealt with?