I’m willing to wait and see what happens. The fact that they are “open” to this deal is meaningless. It will be a positive sign when they actually take the first, substantive step in doing so.
If the goal of the exercise is to prevent Assad from using such weapons again, and a bluff is sufficient to that end, what’s the problem? So far, he hasn’t. And if he doesn’t do it again, we can still blame Obama?
Got a nickel says Congress passes a “Yes, repeat, I said No!” resolution. Nothing is permitted, nothing is approved, and nothing will be unless! he does it again. Then all bets are off. We can’t do anything worthwhile about what has already been done, except humanitarian aid. But if we can stop it from happening again, and a strategic bluff will accomplish that…well, there it is, yes?
And if Congress passes such a thing, and Obama says “OK, the people have spoken, so be it, I will comply”? Gosh, the outpouring of Republican approval will be tidal!
“Attaboy!” says Terr! “Way to go, Mr. President”, says Grumman! “Nice move!” says I, the Queen of Romania.
But that’s OK, you guys will still have Benghazi and Vince Foster.
So, Obama and Putin were absitively, posolutely, not going to have a private meeting at the G-Spot Summit. And then, they did. “Vlad, lets just sit over here, you and me, and talk some shit.”
And this suggestion pops out of nowhere, Syria and Russia accept. OK-doke, so far, so good. A face saver for all concerned and an implicit understanding that Assad will not do it again.
Where’s the problem?
I have no problems with what Kerry said. The American people don’t want a prolonged engagement. Saying it will be “unbelievably small” is a way of assuring them that we won’t be shock and awing our way across Syria for the next 10 years
“Unbelievably small” is a pretty relative term, isn’t it? Three hundred armed Spartans make a pretty impressive show of force, generally speaking. Three hundred armed Spartans holding the pass at Thermopylae against the whole weight of the Persian empire? That’s an unbelievably small force, in terms of what they accomplished.
So, it sounds to me like Kerry is saying that we can accomplish the goal of degrading Assad’s chemical weapon capability with a smaller show of force than one would expect. I have my doubts about the veracity of the claim, but it is not remotely “incoherent.”
I’m also not entirely clear how Syria surrendering control of its chemical weapon stockpiles is not a win for Obama. If we can be assured that Assad will not use chemical weapons, and do it without firing a single shot, isn’t that the best possible outcome for this administration?
One US cruise missile hitting one significant military target inside Syria would be unbelievably small but it sends a huge signal to Assad’s regime in that Assad is not protected by his close ties to Russia from a US response.
200 Cruise Missiles lighting up Assads military infrastructure lets Assad know that the good ole USA does not give a rats ass about Russian objections to US hitting targets so near to Russia’s huge strategic naval base in Syria.
It’s a huge message to Putin too.
I see no incompetence in Kerry’s remark.
Your mole hill isn’t the mountain you think you are seeing.
I hear Sean Hannity is now griping about the ‘unbelievably small’ comment. Is this a right wing hate talk radio talking point for the day or what?
No, it does not. It tells Assad that US is less danger to him than the rebels (which hit way more than “one significant military target”).
Is 200 cruise missiles an “unbelievably small” attack?
I can’t stand John Kerry but I’d buy him a drink today. Let’s just baffle the shit out of the enemy from now on.
You really don’t understand how this works. Obama does (or at least his people do), that’s why the administration realizes Kerry’s “offer” was a huge blunder and is desperately trying to walk it back.
There will be negotiations set up about setting up the surrender of control. There will be talks about where to hold the talks, about who the parties to the talks will be, about who takes eventual control, what exactly they take control of, what does “control” mean, how the “control” is handed over, etc. etc. A million (almost literally) details. Over each of which one can quibble basically forever, while maintaining the image of “moving forward”. Meantime the control is still Syria’s. For years, or decades, if need be.
[QUOTE=Terr]
Is 200 cruise missiles an “unbelievably small” attack?
[/QUOTE]
For us that’s wouldn’t be a major campaign, especially if it was 200 air strikes/cruise missiles. That would actually be a pretty small campaign…for us.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m also not entirely clear how Syria surrendering control of its chemical weapon stockpiles is not a win for Obama. If we can be assured that Assad will not use chemical weapons, and do it without firing a single shot, isn’t that the best possible outcome for this administration?
[/QUOTE]
Depends. If Obama comes out strongly and says that this is a great idea, thanks to the Russians for proposing it, and we are totally in favor of it, but we want UN verification of the turn over to the Russians and assurances by the Russians of security and safety, blah blah blah, then I think this could be a positive for Obama (not to mention a huge bonus to the Russians if they pull this off).
It’s all in how Obama et al package this and how they respond…and also on how firm they are on us getting those assurances that the nasty things WILL be turned over to the Russians and that the Russians will safeguard them and ensure that the Syrians (or the rebels) don’t have access to them in the future. Myself, I’d also press for Assad to formally accept responsibility for their use and an apology and pledge to not use them in the future, but that might be a bridge too far.
That’s why I don’t understand why Kerry’s comments need to be walked back. It was obvious that Syria would never actually give up control of its weapons and its offer to do so would never be in good faith. That’s why Kerry said it could never happen.
“Unbelievably small”?
Makes 'em worry what a medium size attack would look like. 
You seem hung up on that phrase for some reason. It’s just rhetoric. Interestingly enough, if the Syrians DO go for this Russian thing then it says that they were worried about the ‘unbelievably small’ attack enough to take these steps.
Like the story about the Texas Small sized condoms in WWII that we sent the Russia. 
Still not seeing the downside for Obama, here. For weeks, I’ve been hearing about how Obama’s “line” speech placed him in an untenable position, forcing him to choose between a politically unpopular attack, or doing nothing, and making the US look weak. Here’s his perfect out: our threats brought Syria to the negotiating table, and talks are proceeding. Repeat as necessary whenever US intervention is brought up, until your time in office winds down and you can dump it in the next guy’s lap.
Or, if he’s genuinely worried about chemical weapons in Syria, he has an opportunity to resolve it peacefully, and if Assad drags his feet too much, well, we still have plenty of cruise missiles lying around.
You think that playing a charade that everyone knows is a charade that only exists to make US “save face” doesn’t make US look weak, especially after all the threats and buildup. You’re fooling yourself.
Basically, after the buildup that Obama provided, almost anything that happens that doesn’t result in Assad’s downfall, right now, will be considered (in the Middle East) as a win for Assad. That’s how ME works. Hell, Egyptians still celebrate, every year, their “win” in the 1973 war with Israel. So, Obama will bolster Assad. Even if he goes through with the “unbelievably small” strike.
I can believe a pretty small strike. I could even believe no strike whatsoever. This sounds like a challenge to the imagination!
“So just one cruise missile then?”
“Smaller than that!”
“Umm… a single bomb dropped from a single plane?”
“Smaller!”
“A single shot fired from a 9mm in the general direction of Syria?”
“WHAT PART OF SMALLER DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? I SAID UNBELIEVABLY SMALL DIDN’T I?”
So Putin and Obama are just doing the old “good cop, bad cop” routine with the US as the bad cop for once?
Yeah, that’ll be a good narrative, let’s go with that. Gotta find some way to save face I guess, and I’m sure it’s the one they’ll run with.
John Kerry has an unbelievably small brain.
I have always thought he was a dim bulb, and this sort of stumble just confirms my opinion. Patrician tones are no substitute for intelligence.