Indeed. Presumably he learned his lesson about “red lines”. It’s easy not to get involved-- don’t get involved and don’t make idle threats.
Putin did not want Syria’s CW to be destroyed until after Obama said that Syria was to be bombed because the Assad regime used them.
A fly on the wall could have heard something along these lines:
And what is Mace suggesting? That Obama threatened to bomb Syria and that threat caused the Syrian rebels to be infiltrated by foreign fighters including many if not all having ties to terrorist organizations.
Think about someone who tells you that Putin **got everything he wanted ** from the US/Russia deal to destroy Syria’s CW arsenal, such as Putin got the rebels to be fractured and ineffective..
Let’s have Mace explain how Putin got Obama to get or allow the terrorist foreign fighters to infiltrate the local Syrian rebel forces in Syria in exchange for Putin getting Assad to give up his CW Arsenal. That Putin is slick. I hope Mace can explain how it all came together for Putin in such a masterful way.
Oh many of you agree with Mace… Perhaps you can help Mace explain it.
Cite how you know it was an idle threat. I don’t think you*** know ***anything about the threat being idle. Why make a claim you cannot backup.
And what was to be learned about ‘red lines’… Had there been no red line comment that was followed up with a threat to bomb Syria there would not have been a process started that eventually remove or destroy the CW arsenal for the midst of the Syrian Civil War?
On Rachel Maddow right now there was guy on from the Defense Dept talking about the ship that is to be used to destroy Syria’s CW at sea. He said something interesting. He said (this is from memory… no transcript available yet) that a year ago it was known that something might have to be done about Syria’s CWs so they began designing and building this special ship. A year ago eh? What’s the meaning of that… or was it just a slip up on the timing?
Cite? Seriously. Cite that Putin gives fuck one which weapons are used to slaughter thousands of Syrians or that he cares about the awesomeness of Obama or fears the mighty might of the US military.
The lack of political or public or international support as been cited.
All well and good that the chemical weapons are being done away with, but on the whole it isn’t all that important. There are still hundred thousand+ dead, millions refugee, a raging civil war, Islamists running wild, and no end in sight. The not executed threat to bomb Syria is said to actually done more harm to the “rebel” side than had there been nothing at all. Supposedly they were greatly demoralized by the non-bombing. Certainly Russia and China took it as a sign of US weakness.
Where have you been the past few months? You say you recognize how little has actually been achieved in the most aggressive large scale CW arsenal destruction ever attempted, and then in the midst of a civil war to boot.
No, let you explain who said Obama “allowed” this. Just because Putin gets something, doesn’t mean that Obama “allowed” it. You made that up.
But we all know that Obama wanted Assad gone, and Putin wanted Assad to stay. Who got what he wanted? Hint: his name does not begin with “O”, but the letter in the alphabet that follows “O”.
The Soviet Union had 39,000 tons of weapons which are being destroyed. That something like 35 times the amount Syria has. What are you talking about?
You apparently missed some of the details. What Syria has been doing is dismantling their production facilities. I agreed that’s good. But they haven’t been destroying their existing stockpile of chemical weapons.
That was what was supposed to begin this week - and that’s what’s being delayed. So at the moment Syria essentially still has all the chemical weapons it had a year ago, which I have a hard time defining as major progress on the issue of Syria not having any chemical weapons.
It is important for several reasons. Decrease and eliminate the potential that any CW fall into hands of terrorists. The CW presence complicates and reduces the options for the international community to intervene militarily if that became choice to save lives for humanitarian purposes similar to the what happened in Libya. If and when a diplomatic and political settlement is reached and the Syrian Army could be disbanded as a new Syrian government is set up - the presence of the CW Arsenal would be a detriment for a new government to deal with - not impossible but a distraction and specifically in the event that Russia loses its leverage over Assad or Assad loses control of the military that is in control of the CW arsenal.
The red line was to respond if CW were used. The red line could never be drawn to stop the killing unless the red line could be backed up with sending in ground troops to keep warring factions apart. Nothing about the redline that led to the removal process of CW has aggravated or worsened the civil war and casualties and Islamists running wild.
The non-executed threat to bomb Syria is not what harmed the rebel side. The infiltration of Islamists is what harmed the terrorist side. The bombing plan was not to weaken Assad and strengthen the rebels. The rebels we would have supported of course wanted the US to bomb the crap out of Assad so they could defeat them. A common misconception is that such a campaign was Obama’s intent. When you say ‘nothing at all’ would not have harmed the rebel side. I am not sure how that is supposed to work.
Had Putin not caved and not forced Assad to give up his CW arsenal then Obama most likely would have launched the limited two days of strikes that would have been more ‘message’ than actual destruction of Assad’s military assets. In that case the rebels would have been disappointed anyway. The Syrian rebels were in a serious bad position from the start. Had Obama bombed Syria to cause the downfall of the Assad regime there was not enough confidence that the rebels could set up a government strong enough to keep the Islamist from doing more harm than good including getting there murder minded hands on the CW and heavy conventional weapons.
There is no way I can agree Putin saw Obama’s threat to bomb Syria as a weakness. I don’t know much about China or why they would see any of this as US Weakness. Putin could have waited to see what the US Congress did with regard to authorizing military strikes. Netanyahu was calling for military strikes. The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives openly supported Obama in bombing Syria.
We should be sure too that Putin knew that the rebels were weak long before Obama pushed the need to bomb Syria for using chemical weapons on civilians. If Putin knew the rebels were not doing so well - the idea in Putin’s mind could have been that bombing Syria if approved by Congress specifically - or with Obama acting as Commander in Chief - could be the boost the rebels needed. So Putin took the deal before Congress could vote. Putin gave up the CW to stop the “PRECEDENT” of the US and perhaps France dropping bombs on Syria’s infrastructure. That “PRECEDENT” could have led to strengthening the rebel position… but did Obama really want to weaken Assad too much if there was no guarantee that the Islamists would not fill in the vacuum of a toppled Assad regime… with all those CW stockpiles located there.
This comes from the Christian Science Monitor in May 2013.
Read More: Why Syria is (still) different for the West - CSMonitor.com
You have a hard time defining major progress because you must not understand that Syria’s “capacity to produce and use chemical weapons has been reduced to zero.”
See this link: http://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/syria-misses-deadline-remove-chemical-weapons
So you are incorrect. A year ago Syria had full control of its CW arsenal with no inspection teams documenting the whereabouts and inventory of all that is there. Now it is under supervision of The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That is progress. It is progress that is going according to schedule but for this first shipment. So what is the first shipment?
The first shipment scheduled for destruction at sea was scheduled to leave Syria on December 31 2013. This first shipment involves what was identified as Syria’s most hazardous chemicals, including around 20 tons of mustard nerve agent.
I believe the next shipment to sea for destruction is scheduled for March.
I am not certain if all chemicals will be destroyed at sea or within Syria. Let’s pay attention and watch the progress instead of poo-pooing what would be a major achievement if it took a year to do instead of six months…
Here is what you challenged: *You say you recognize how little has actually been achieved in the most **aggressive *large scale CW arsenal destruction ever attempted…
Do you know what aggressive means?
And most of Syria’s CW are being destroyed outside of Syria at Sea. Russia can spend thirty years doing what is being done in Syria in Seven Months. That is not aggressive.
Again do you understand what aggressive means and in the midst of a civil war.
There is no civil war in Russia as there is in Syria.
Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy.
What a coincidence that Mace used the word masterful to describe Putin’s handling of the Russia/US UNSC Deal / As part of the deal Putin got the rebels fractured and ineffective.
What did Putin masterfully do to get the *rebels fractured and ineffective *as part of the Russia/US UNSC Deal?
Mace does not know since he replied “No, let you explain who said Obama “allowed” this. Just because Putin gets something, doesn’t mean that Obama “allowed” it. You made that up.”
My statement was, "Let’s have Mace explain how Putin got Obama to get or allow the terrorist foreign fighters to infiltrate the local Syrian rebel forces in Syria in exchange for Putin getting Assad to give up his CW Arsenal.
So Mace has confirmed that Puttin GOT something he wanted in the deal. It was *fractured and ineffective rebels *that Mace says Putin GOT… “Gets”…
So how did Puttin “Get” *fractured and ineffective rebels *out of the deal? Or was *fractured and ineffective rebels *not really part of the deal. If it was not part of the deal then how did Putin Masterfully *get fractured and ineffective rebels *out of the deal with the US?
I think Mace is telling us that Obama had nothing to do with however it was that masterful Putin got everything he wanted which includes the rebels fractured and ineffective.
Is that correct?
Don’t throw around terms if you aren’t willing to back them up. Both Russia and the United States have, and are using, facilities that destroy their respective CW stockpiles far faster than the Syrian stockpile will be destroyed. This isn’t opinion, this is fact. The fact that you are arguing about it shows that you aren’t aware of the facts, in my opinion.
Still awaiting a cite that the civil war started because of Assad’s chemical weapons. Also some explanation of this -
What was “done”?
Regards,
Shodan
And while we’re re-asking questions that get ignored, how about you (NfbW, tell us how many people remember the name of the country that was disarmed of WMD, with Tony Blair leading those efforts. Do you? Without googling it?
Because you said that Obama and Kerry have made a major achievement that will be recognized for decades, and I maintain that nobody is going to remember in, oh, 18 months.
The Unraveling: How Obama’s Syria policy fell apart.
For anyone interested in an in-depth analysis of this “masterful” accomplishment.
Obama had a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a “weasel”. Actually, you could call it that with or without the tail.
NotFooledbyW, is it part of Obama’s fiendishly clever plan that Assad should leave power? Is that also in progress, as evidenced by the fact that it isn’t happening?
And please explain this -
What was “done”?
Regards,
Shodan
Apparently the irony of your statement escapes you. So let me point out that by your own admission, the process of destroying Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal halted at the first point where weapons were actually going to be destroyed. You seem to feel that agreeing to destroy the weapons, and planning on how the weapons would be destroyed, and setting up a schedule for destroying the weapons were all significant steps. I feel they’re meaningless steps unless they’re followed by weapons actually being destroyed - which hasn’t happened.