You mean like using them to attack American warships? Sending a message, perhaps? “Dear Barry: Nuke the shit out of me! Your pal, Vlad the Imploder…”
The “funny” thing about all this is:
Looks like Putin and Assad made a pretty good bargain. Promise to get rid of CWs in exchange for ensuring Assad stays in power. Imagine if there is a full scale effort in place to get rid of CWs, and Syria turns into Yemen or Afghanistan. Or Libya (our most recent “success” in the region).
Honestly, how on earth do you do this with a raging civil war going on? I’m beginning to wonder if it’s even a good idea to try! Civil war + CWs being moved or accessed + al Qaeda. What could possibly go wrong?
So long as he is constrained from using them, isn’t that more to the point? And how does having inspectors go and look at them increase the likelihood that AlQ is going to get them?
Did you read the citr? And we’re talking about doing more than “look” at them.
Of couse “looking” is not without dangers since it tells otjers where the CWs are.
Really, am I the only one who thinks its nuts to do this while a raging civil war is going on with all sorts of Islamists floiding into the ciuntry?
I think what’s nuts is assuming you can trust Assad at all. Also, assuming that the only alternatives are Assad and al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, I am not assuming thoses are the only choices. But we need to keep in mind that there are Uslamist elements figjting there. Whether they call themselves al Qaeda or not isn’t particularly important.
Of course there are Islamist forces fighting there. But they’re not the only opposition to Assad, and it’s not preordained that if Assad falls, he’ll be replaced by an Islamist government.
It isn’t. But it is likely. Al-Queda-aligned forces in the opposition are the strongest, militarily, best organized, and are doing most of the fighting. And the so-called “moderate” leaders are Islamist as well. The Islamist leaders are there on the ground, while a lot of the “secular” opposition leaders are outside of Syria.
There are Islamic propagandists who are pleased at anything that can be interpreted to suggest that the US and the West in general is at war with Islam. It is in our best interests not to promote such a view. To the simple sort of mindset they find most fertile, Michelle Bachman and John Kerry are both Americans and Christians, hence are reliably enemies of Islam.
Now, if we are to define “Islamist” as being a member of the Muslim faith, they are pretty much all “Islamist”. But the moderate and humane tradition of Sufism is as far from Al Queda as a snake-handling Pentecostal is from a Unitarian. We should be mindful of these distinctions, as I’m sure you are.
I don’t doubt the dedication and professionalism of the UN inspectors, but no one expects them to throw themselves upon a live grenade. The job entails risk, but no one expects them to take needless and extreme risks. If they cannot examine a site with reasonable risk, then they should not, there are plenty enough to choose from.
And the hopeful bonus is the possibility of an agreed cease fire in a given area. It is clearly in the rebel’s interests that those weapons are gone. And Assad is already committed, for whatever that proves to be worth.
So, a temporary and fleeting ceasefire negotiated in the midst of a vicious civil and sectarian war. Dare we hope? Have we any choice?
You’re right, so it’s a good thing I never said that!
If we are going to muddle in their affairs, we have no choice. But we needn’t muddle.
Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.
The new study by IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda…
Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.
There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.
The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are “palatable” to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.
And this is who we’re backing folks.
There are NO GOOD GUYS in any of this. None. Zero Nada.
Not even in D.C.
It’s still unclear to me how much we are “backing” these guys. We’ve been all over the place on whether we are giving them real military aid or not. And once the UN inspectors get there in Nov, I can’t believe we’ll be giving anyone weapons.
Now, let’s not get lulled into thinking we’re the only actor here. Saudi Arabia has a bit of cash, and has no interest in Assad staying in power. Ditto some of the other Sunni, Gulf states.
What What?
From the Washington Post:
Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
The person with no domestic or international support for his position on Syria is Obama and not Putin.
It’s going to be extremely difficult for Obama to bomb Syria now, unless Assad starts using CWs again. Frankly, that’s a good thing in my book. Americans overwhelmingly rejected Obama’s plan, and the more that August CW event recedes into the past, the less support Obama is going to get.
Bombing will do nothing but set the whole disarmament process back. Obama can talk all he wants to about not taking military action off the table, but it’s effectively off the table.
I remain unconvinced that he “wanted” air strikes on Syria. IMHO he wanted Syria to refrain from using chemical weapons (which was probably the most any outside intervention could achieve in Syria given the whole joojooflop situation there) and he hoped that threatening air strikes would be sufficient to achieve this without actually having to bomb anything. After Assad called his bluff and crossed the “red line” he was forced into Plan B (“we’re really going to bomb you now”), Plan C (“…right after I get approval from Congress…”), Plan D (“…and the UN…”) and Plans E, F, G and H. That said…
I don’t think Obama is remotely Machiavellian enough to have deliberately maneuvered Putin into getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons, but I do think he lacks the deep-seated need of many previous presidents to be in charge of (and get credit for) everything. As such, I suspect that when it became apparent that he could get what he wanted (chemical weapons out of Syria and removed from the theatre of the civil war) at the mere cost of inflating Putin’s ego, he was happy to go that route to avoid having to do the air strikes he didn’t really want to do in the first place.
Again, all MHO. Also, I have no idea what role Kerry played in all this but like Biden he needs to stop talking in public.
We’ll never know what he was actually thinking when he said it. But I think he just made an offhand remark that sounded good and didn’t realize the position it put him in as a President.
That makes it sound awfully cavalier, and Obama doesn’t strike me as the type to casually threaten military action; his history suggests that he’s more cautious than that in this particular area. He may have been naive (or at least way too optimistic) about Assad’s reaction to the statement but I don’t see this as an “Oops - did I do that?” moment.
Some of Kerry’s statements, however…
think about the election. Or any election or any politician. Statements are made that are symbolic in nature. How they’re worded is important. Never draw a solid line with specific actions unless you’ve got the support to carry it out. He misspoke in this case.
My ‘what?’ Was regarding the nutty claim that Obama was swinging in the breeze at the G20.
I posted this to show what nonsense that was.
“Quote:
Obama rejects G20 pressure to abandon Syria air strike plan …
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views…
[Sep 6, 2013] Obama refused to blink after Russian President Vladimir Putin led a campaign to talk him out of military intervention at a two-day summit of the Group of …”
Putin has since been the one that blinked when he gave Obama his military objective with regard to CW in Syria.