IGX

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I don't get how we go from there to Putin, who said Syria wasn't doing anything wrong, winning.

The president of the United States takes to the airwaves to urgently persuade the nation to pause before doing something it has no desire to do in the first place.

Strange. And it gets stranger still. That “strike Syria, maybe” speech begins with a heart-rending account of children consigned to a terrible death by a monster dropping poison gas. It proceeds to explain why such behavior must be punished. It culminates with the argument that the proper response — the most effective way to uphold fundamental norms, indeed human decency — is a flea bite: something “limited,” “targeted” or, as so memorably described by Secretary of State John Kerry, “unbelievably small.”

The mind reels, but there’s more. We must respond — but not yet. This “Munich moment” (Kerry again) demands first a pause to find accommodation with that very same toxin-wielding monster, by way of negotiations with his equally cynical, often shirtless, Kremlin patron bearing promises.

The promise is to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. The negotiations are open-ended. Not a word from President Obama about any deadline or ultimatum. And utter passivity: Kerry said hours earlier that he awaited the Russian proposal.

Why? The administration claims (preposterously, but no matter) that Obama has been working on this idea with Putin at previous meetings. Moreover, the idea was first publicly enunciated by Kerry, even though his own State Department immediately walked it back as a slip of the tongue.

Take at face value Obama’s claim of authorship. Then why isn’t he taking ownership? Why isn’t he calling it the “U.S. proposal” and defining it? Why not issue a U.S. plan containing the precise demands, detailed timeline and threat of action should these conditions fail to be met?

Putin doesn’t care one way or the other about chemical weapons. Nor about dead Syrian children. Nor about international norms, parchment treaties and the other niceties of the liberal imagination.

He cares about power and he cares about keeping Bashar al-Assad in power. Assad is the key link in the anti-Western Shiite crescent stretching from Tehran through Damascus and Beirut to the Mediterranean — on which sits Tartus, Russia’s only military base outside the former Soviet Union. This axis frontally challenges the pro-American Sunni Arab Middle East (Jordan, Yemen, the Gulf Arabs, even the North African states), already terrified at the imminent emergence of a nuclear Iran.

At which point the Iran axis and its Russian patron would achieve dominance over the moderate Arab states, allowing Russia to supplant America as regional hegemon for the first time since Egypt switched to our side in the Cold War in 1972.

The hinge of the entire Russian strategy is saving the Assad regime. That’s the very purpose of the “Russian proposal.” Imagine that some supposed arms-control protocol is worked out. The inspectors have to be vetted by Assad, protected by Assad, convoyed by Assad, directed by Assad to every destination. Negotiation, inspection, identification, accounting, transport and safety would require constant cooperation with the regime, and thus acknowledgment of its sovereignty and legitimacy.

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go. Indeed, Putin has openly demandedthat any negotiation be conditioned on a U.S. commitment to forswear the use of force against Assad. On Thursday, Assad repeated that demand, warning that without an American pledge not to attack and not to arm the rebels, his government would agree to nothing.

This would abolish the very possibility of America tilting the order of battle in a Syrian war that Assad is now winning thanks to Russian arms, Iranian advisers and Lebanese Hezbollah shock troops. Putin thus assures the survival of his Syrian client and the continued ascendancy of the anti-Western Iranian bloc.

And what does America get? Obama saves face.
Some deal.

As for the peace process, it has about zero chance of disarming Damascus. We’ve spent nine years disarming an infinitely smaller arsenal in Libya — in conditions of peace — and we’re still finding undeclared stockpiles.

Yet consider what’s happened over the last month. Assad uses poison gas on civilians and is branded, by the United States above all, a war criminal. Putin, covering for the war criminal, is exposed, isolated, courting pariah status.

And now? Assad, far from receiving punishment of any kind, goes from monster to peace partner. Putin bestrides the world stage, playing dealmaker. He’s welcomed by America as a constructive partner. Now a world statesman, he takes to the New York Times to blame American interventionist arrogance — a.k.a. “American exceptionalism” — for inducing small states to acquire WMDs in the first place.

And Obama gets to slink away from a Syrian debacle of his own making. Such are the fruits of a diplomacy of epic incompetence.

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Source on this repeated insistence?

protobuilder wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Source on this repeated insistence?

That's your takeaway? Really?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Source on this repeated insistence?

That's your takeaway? Really?

It's the only relevant thing in your article (hint: continued Russian influence in Syria is not bad for the United States). The only thing it says about the US position is that Obama repeatedly insisted Assad must go. If that's true, then Obama 100% lost. So the key question is: Did he really insist that?

Since you didn't provide a source for the article, and it turns out it was written by Charles Krauthammer, I suspect that part is made up. You don't have to make shit up when your argument is solid.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Source on this repeated insistence?

That's your takeaway? Really?

It's the only relevant thing in your article (hint: continued Russian influence in Syria is not bad for the United States). The only thing it says about the US position is that Obama repeatedly insisted Assad must go. If that's true, then Obama 100% lost. So the key question is: Did he really insist that?

Since you didn't provide a source for the article, and it turns out it was written by Charles Krauthammer, I suspect that part is made up. You don't have to make shit up when your argument is solid.

I don't know if Obama said it repeatedly or not, but I (and the rest of the world) saw him do it very publicly at least once - shouldn't that be enough?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:So Krauthammer's description of Obama's unfulfilled agenda exists only in the neo-con thought bubble. Thanks for the tortured clarification.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

So much for Obama’s repeated insistence that Assad must go.

Source on this repeated insistence?

That's your takeaway? Really?

It's the only relevant thing in your article

Grandpa's Spells wrote:So Krauthammer's description of Obama's unfulfilled agenda exists only in the neo-con thought bubble. Thanks for the tortured clarification.

Pinky wrote:No, another relevant part is that Kerry's statement was made off the cuff to dismiss the idea that Assad could avoid an attack.

After Kerry's statement, the State Department made it very clear that no such offer was on the table and effectively retracted the statement. The Russians then stepped in and got their buddy Assad to agree to surrender his weapons.

Unless you think the administration really was secretly trying to broker this deal all along and the State Department dismissed Kerry's statement simply to avoid ruining the surprise, it looks like the administration was outmaneuvered.

Andy79 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:So Krauthammer's description of Obama's unfulfilled agenda exists only in the neo-con thought bubble. Thanks for the tortured clarification.

Neo-con thought bubble? Tortured clarification? There are some pretty good meds for schizophrenia, Spells. Get help.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: That's ridiculous. If the goal is to punish Syria for chemical weapons usage, eliminating all their chemical weapons with Russian support is a much better solution than air strikes.

Kerry making an off the cuff statement does not mean his statement describes an undesirable scenario. You go from Russia supporting Syria without reservation to Russia suggesting Syria's chemical weapons be removed in the midst of a civil war, and Syria agreeing. You have to be very, very focused on the 24 hour news cycle to think this represents a losing scenario for Obama.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Help out the ones who don't watch Fox.

Kerry: "Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay. But he isn’t about to."

Russia: "Syria could turn over their chemical weapons to the international community.

Syria: "OK."

US: "We're cautiously optimistic about this."

I don't get how we go from there to Putin, who said Syria wasn't doing anything wrong, winning.