Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy.

[Magiver]

@Shodan

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

Red-line statement made and then foot was thrust into open mouth.

[Belowjob2.0]

@John_Mace

The Unraveling: How Obama’s Syria policy fell apart.

For anyone interested in an in-depth analysis of this “masterful” accomplishment.

What this article doesn’t do is demonstrate how US interests have been damaged by the outcome.

eta

I see the benefits of staying out of it, whether Obama either stumbled into the outcome, or did a Brer Rabbit. ( I suspect the latter, but who knows?)

What would have been the benefits of intervention? What’s going on in Syria is tragic. So it goes in many parts of the world. Why intervene there, and why at that time?

[dasmoocher]

So, from John Mace’s link in re transporting the CW:

That road has been designated by the regime and by the U.N. as a necessary thoroughfare for transporting more than 1,000 tons of chemical agent and precursor out of Damascus and its outlying suburbs and to the Port of Latakia, where these materials are meant to be loaded onto a Danish-Norwegian flotilla and eventually transferred to a U.S. ship for their destruction at sea. It’s a journey that stretches some 300 kilometers through contested or rebel-held territory featuring plenty of al Qaeda militants, which is why the United States, Russia, China and other countries are outfitting the regime with armored vehicles, geonavigation devices and decontamination equipment. Any interdiction of or attack on a single convoy along this route could be catastrophic, as chemical weapons experts have noted with a mounting sense of alarm commingled with incredulity at the international community’s apparent calmness about the task that lies ahead and that must, according to Resolution 2118, be totally completed by mid-2014.

A link in this story leads to this blog article:

Probably the biggest threat to the convoy will be powerful roadside bombs, which can be big enough to blow 60 tonnes tanks several metres in the air. A powerful explosion like this would undoubtedly destroy all the mustard gas in the targeted vehicle but the confusion, mayhem and slaughter would undoubtedly provide the opportunity to take some of the other trucks carrying CW material. This element is covered in more detail on Syria Deeply. The regime’s request last week for military capability to protect this convoy is either a delaying tactic or they know it is going to fail and are looking for reasons to justify this failure.

So one possibility, maybe remote, is that the Islamists may get their hands on the CW.

Why? From this article:

SD: Why would the opposition want to blow up the convoy? Aren’t they happy to see the chemicals go?

HBG: There are two reasons. A a lot of the opposition is angry about the fact that the international community seems to be helping the regime here. They see chemical weapons as being synonymous with the international community supporting the regime.

There are also members of the opposition like extremists ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra who have declared they want to get hold of these chemical weapons [for use in warfare]. There’s unsubstantiated reporting that some of them already do, and everyone sees what a powerful weapon they are. The convoy is potentially a very easy target for the opposition to attack, and it might prove too much a temptation for the opposition to avoid.

Where are the CW designated for destruction right now? ETA: They’re not in the port yet, correct?

A NYT article from yesterday said this:

Syria, however, is not. Late last month, the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the group charged with the removal efforts, said in a joint statement that security conditions in Syria had “constrained planned movements” and that bad weather had foiled plans to move the weapons out by the target date of Dec. 31. Among the biggest problems is the highway that joins Damascus to the coast, which has been recently retaken by the government but where rebel forces continue to be a threat to vehicles and the fear of ambush remains intense.

[Human_Action]

That’s odd, because I have it on good authority that:

@NotfooledbyW

Many scoffed at the idea that the CW could be safely removed from an active war zone. They have been shown to be wrong too.

[dasmoocher]

I doubt there will be a conversion of belief on The Road from Damascus.

[Magiver]

@dasmoocher

I doubt there will be a conversion of belief on The Road from Damascus.

moving it away from a military base greatly increases the likelihood it will fall into the wrong hands.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

That’s odd, because I have it on good authority that:

((((Quote: Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW: Many scoffed at the idea that the CW could be safely removed from an active war zone. They have been shown to be wrong too.))))

Are you saying that removing the CW from Syria to be destroyed is not ever going to happen and that Syria is still in control of those chemical and then 8 month plan is a farce because Syria will never give up it CW because Putin masterfully bitch slapped Obama around when Obama put the brakes on the Cruise Missile shower for Assad?

This is a question by the way to find out how far you agree with the scoffers.

Do you believe the 20 Tons of Mustard gas and most lethal chemicals will be destroyed or at least be on a ship being destroyed by August? Get yourself on record so I can laugh at you to as I will laugh at all the other scoffers come mid-term Election Day 2014.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

Do you believe the 20 Tons of Mustard gas and most lethal chemicals will be destroyed or at least be on a ship being destroyed by August? Get yourself on record so I can laugh at you to as I will laugh at all the other scoffers come mid-term Election Day 2014.

What is your prediction for what is going to happen on election day?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Are you saying that removing the CW from Syria to be destroyed is not ever going to happen and that Syria is still in control of those chemical and then 8 month plan is a farce because Syria will never give up it CW because Putin masterfully bitch slapped Obama around when Obama put the brakes on the Cruise Missile shower for Assad?

We must have different ideas of what “safely” means, if that’s the standard you’re applying here. By your reasoning, if a CW convoy got ambushed and dozens of OPCW workers killed, people would still be wrong to scoff at the idea of removing the weapons from an active war zone, as long as it got accomplished at some point.

@NotfooledbyW

This is a question by the way to find out how far you agree with the scoffers.

Do you believe the 20 Tons of Mustard gas and most lethal chemicals will be destroyed or at least be on a ship being destroyed by August? Get yourself on record so I can laugh at you to as I will laugh at all the other scoffers come mid-term Election Day 2014.

I have no idea, given that I don’t know how much of the delay is attributable to the security problems, and how much is Syrian intransigence.

[NotfooledbyW]

Does anyone disagree that all of Syria’s CWs are now under OPCW control in a war zone? I specifically need G.Action’s view to avoid a sub-plot of this thread about the various definitions of what ‘safely’ might mean.

Also that fact means Assad and his military leadership have been deprived of the ability to kill civilians, women and children, with chemical weapons as they were able to do last year. Does H.Action or anyone else disagree with that?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Does anyone disagree that all of Syria’s CWs are now under OPCW control in a war zone? I specifically need G.Action’s view to avoid a sub-plot of this thread about the various definitions of what ‘safely’ might mean.

Also that fact means Assad and his military leadership have been deprived of the ability to kill civilians, women and children, with chemical weapons as they were able to do last year. Does H.Action or anyone else disagree with that?

Eh, kinda. The (declared) weapons are still at Syrian military bases, if Assad wanted to hang on to them, I doubt OPCW inspectors will fight a pitched battle to keep control.

Not that that’s likely, mind you. If Assad wanted to keep a stash of chemical weapons, he’d more likely just never turn them over to OPCW at all.
Do you concede that people who “scoffed at the idea that the CW could be safely removed from an active war zone” have not been shown to be wrong, as you alleged?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

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.

Are Russia and the US having their CW arsenals destroyed by a consortium of other nations as is the aggressive plan for Syria. Are Russia and the US destroying their CW under a UNSC Resolution directed at them to comply by specific dates such as the case for Syria.

You have a propensity to argue about adjectives. What is that all about? Lets talk substance context and facts that can be reasonably adduced. I am talking about Syria and the removal of CW by the worlds nations that have been wanting this done for a long time. This UNSC agreement tied to Syria and the OCPW is the most aggressive
undertaking of this type ever. The two super powers you name are not in this category.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Shodan

Still awaiting a cite that the civil war started because of Assad’s chemical weapons.

If you are addressing me provide a cite from which you think I said that?

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

Are Russia and the US having their CW arsenals destroyed by a consortium of other nations as is the aggressive plan for Syria. Are Russia and the US destroying their CW under a UNSC Resolution directed at them to comply by specific dates such as the case for Syria.

You have a propensity to argue about adjectives. What is that all about? Lets talk substance context and facts that can be reasonably adduced. I am talking about Syria and the removal of CW by the worlds nations that have been wanting this done for a long time. This UNSC agreement tied to Syria and the OCPW is the most aggressive
undertaking of this type ever. The two super powers you name are not in this category.

You have a propensity to make bad arguments and then spend oodles of time trying to explain why your errors of statement are facts, not opinions, and denying that you have to walk back on your original statement.

You also have a propensity not to answer questions directly asked of you. For example, my question about election day, Shodan’s repeated request for clarification of the bizarre “what’s done was done” statement, etc. Please answer those questions before making another “Can anyone deny that …?” post.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

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.

There is no country that starts with I and ends with Q that was disarmed of WMD by Tony Blair. Think about it.

"On September 14, after three days of intense negotiations in Geneva, the two countries jointly presented to the world a very* ambitious *framework agreement."
I realize its not the same adjective… but… oh well… context is everything.
And think about this:

As the situation developed, within a mere seven weeks after the chemical weapons attacks in the Ghouta district just outside Damascus on August 21, Syria became the 190th party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Following months of deteriorating bilateral relations, elimination of Syria’s chemical warfare capacity offered Russia and the United States common cause to rekindle security cooperation. On September 14, after three days of intense negotiations in Geneva, the two countries jointly presented to the world a very ambitious framework agreement.[1] Syria announced its accession to the CWC on the same day, the best indicator thus far that it was a behind-the-scenes partner to the deal.[2] Two weeks later, the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adopted the foundation of the framework agreement, including the ultimate destruction deadline of mid-2014.[

And think about this:
“The tasks facing the OPCW and United Nations are unprecedented. Never before has the international community attempted to secure and destroy a chemical weapons stockpile in a war,”
Perhaps H.Action will provide us with a definition of ‘unprecedented’ somewhere along the way.

The tasks facing the OPCW and United Nations are unprecedented. Never before has the international community attempted to secure and destroy a chemical weapons stockpile in a war, let alone a civil war in which multiple factions are fighting each other for territorial and ideological control. Besides the challenges of collecting and eliminating the chemical weapons and the specialized equipment and facilities for producing them, the primary concern of both organizations will be the safety and security of their personnel.

An then perhaps you can answer me this… in the cases for destruction of CW arsenals belonging to the United States and Russia(Soviet Union) respectively was there an Executive Council of the organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) framework agreement adopted that included an **ultimate destruction deadline **of about 8 months.
If you cannot produce that ‘ultimate destruction deadline’ set that is as aggressive as 8 months in proportion to the size of the CW needing to be destroyed then you owe me a very sincere apology for your absolutely unwarranted attack on what I wrote about the aggressive plan for Syria.
Cites in this post are contained in this link:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_11/Ridding-Syria-of-Chemical-Weapons-Next-Steps
There’s some excellent points the significance of this Russian/US deal and the overall prospects for peace too. It would behoove all the naysayers to read a little something that is not being editorialized on websites such a Politico.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

There is no country that starts with I and ends with Q that was disarmed of WMD by Tony Blair. Think about it.

Let’s recap: you said that Obama will be recognized for decades for disarming Syria of CW.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair and George Bush announced an agreement in December 2013 whereby Libya renounced ALL its WMD programs (including nuclear), and (1) you don’t remember it, and (2) you assume I’m talking about Iraq.

Do you still think disarming Syria of CW will be remembered for decades? Even though you don’t remember Libya agreeing to abandon all WMD programs just ten years ago?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

You have a propensity to make bad arguments and then spend oodles of time trying to explain why your errors of statement are facts, not opinions, and denying that you have to walk back on your original statement.

You also have a propensity not to answer questions directly asked of you. For example, my question about election day, Shodan’s repeated request for clarification of the bizarre “what’s done was done” statement, etc. Please answer those questions before making another “Can anyone deny that …?” post.

I don’t have to walk back on this issue. You do. Your rebuttal point was egregiously, significantly, obviously, in error.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

Let’s recap: you said that Obama will be recognized for decades for disarming Syria of CW.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair and George Bush announced an agreement in December 2013 whereby Libya renounced ALL its WMD programs (including nuclear), and (1) you don’t remember it, and (2) you assume I’m talking about Iraq.

Do you still think disarming Syria of CW will be remembered for decades? Even though you don’t remember Libya agreeing to abandon all WMD programs just ten years ago?

Why is your current line of questions using the word ‘remembered’ instead of recognized as you acknowledged I wrote when you quoted me? Now that you mention Libya I remember it and recognize it. So my point stands.

I recall it as a phony justification used by Bush and Blair to credit the invasion of Iraq as the reason Gadhafi caved. I never bought that round of justification attempts for kicking inspectors out of Iraq and yes I forgot about it. But the Gadhafi disarmament was no where’s near as monumental or enthralling to experts and historians who love to discuss these types of major policy matters as the Syrian Crisis… And no one was killed by Gadhafi’s chemical weapons as they were in Syria that I recall.

I said "CWs gone six or ten months from today is huge and will be a major achievement **recognized **for decades to come.

Recognized as in the foreign policy experts, commentators and historians on those matters. Remembered by Joe Six Pack and Susy Soap Opera… naw. Or remembered by most folks who do pay attention to foreign affairs… naw. Policy experts in the national security world…? YES definitely … it will be recognized for decades. And It may influence a swifter resolution to the overall conflict in Syria before all is said and done.

And more YES to your question, because there was an overriding issue taking place in Iraq at the time. And secondly it was a diplomatic achievement where Gadhafi according to Bush and Blair at least feared he would be next after Iraq. And Thirdly, Tony Blair is not the President of the country in which I live.

[John_Mace]

It’ll be a footnote to a war where untold thousands of people were killed, and millions left as refugees.

[NotfooledbyW]

And who are you that all mankind must adhere to your judgment and make your wisdom on this matter final? Cite how you know CW disarmament experts in the military and international political world will not recognize this eight month disbarment achievement for the significance it will have on history and the Syrian Civil war.
Anyway I will accept as more valuable to my judjments on this matter the author of this analysis:

Glimmers of Hope for the Future

The Syrian civil war continues to bring the greatest devastation onto civilians by means of conventional weapons. Many commentators from the Middle East and representatives of human rights organizations fear that the individuals responsible for the carnage, most notably Assad, will escape justice for the gross violation of the laws of war as a consequence of the chemical weapons agreements. Yet, it is far from established that the limited, punitive military strikes advocated by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States could have bought more justice for the Ghouta victims and survivors.

Disarmament involves removing a discrete weapons category from the military doctrine of a political entity. Weapons destruction is one aspect, but losing the doctrinal capacity to deploy and employ those weapons is by far the most important factor in preventing future rearmament with those weapons. Once the weapons category has been removed from military doctrine, there is no longer any testing of munitions and delivery systems or any training of troops in the use of these weapons.

Disarmament is also about preventing the outbreak of war. Because particular weapons technologies are considered to be destabilizing to international relations, people view their elimination as a contribution to peace and security. Even if war breaks out, disarmament prevents their use in combat or escalation of hostilities.

Translated to the U.S.-Russian framework agreement and the OPCW and UN Security Council decisions, forcing Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal will prevent a future Ghouta from occurring during the civil war. By bringing about Syria’s accession to the CWC and by identifying a central role for the OPCW, Russia and the United States have made chemical disarmament in Syria a longer-term responsibility of the global community rather than a temporary, ad hoc reaction to a pressing problem by a few.

If successful, those disarmament decisions may inject a fresh dynamic into the so-called Helsinki process on eliminating nonconventional weapons from the Middle East. The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference still requires the convening of a meeting on that subject. Nevertheless, some of the core assumptions about regional security, in particular, with regard to the strategic relationships among Egypt, Israel, and Syria, will have to be revisited in terms of the doctrinal relationships between their respective weapons holdings. Thus, for example, Syria’s chemical weapons served a doctrinal function similar to Israel’s nuclear weapons as an instrument of last resort in case of an existential threat to the state. As the former will soon be eliminated, this could have an impact on current regional security postures or on the prospects of other countries joining the CWC or the Biological Weapons Convention. If Israel were to join the CWC after the completion of Syria’s disarmament, Egypt would become wholly isolated, globally and within the Arab League, as a CWC nonparty.[23] If Egypt were to join the CWC under international pressure, how would this affect its bargaining position within the NPT context?

The standoff over Iran’s nuclear program may acquire a different dynamic. U.S. and Iranian statements on the margins of and to the UN General Assembly in late September suggest a newfound willingness to address concerns and desires in constructive ways. The first meeting in Geneva between the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Iran ended with a positive joint declaration and commitment for speedy follow-on discussions. The Iranian presidential election in June may prove to have been a watershed event in reconnecting Tehran with the world in mutually beneficial ways. These outcomes will benefit the disarmament of Syria and possibly the Geneva negotiations attempting to end the civil war. Iran is set to play important roles in both processes.

Making progress on these multiple fronts will require a move toward an inclusive process of political transition in Syria. That transition could benefit from progress being made with Syria’s chemical weapons disarmament if it built on some of the practical arrangements and dialogue that the disarmament process is establishing and the political transition process will require. At the same time, key steps in the disarmament process will depend on cooperation by the different parties of the Syrian conflict or at least their commitment not to derail it. If one accepts that there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict, then it would be shortsighted to portray chemical weapons disarmament as a tactical victory for the Assad regime. It should be seen as a step toward de-escalation enabling political dialogue aimed at a political transition.
Jean Pascal Zanders is an independent disarmament and security researcher at The Trench, a research initiative focusing on disarmament and arms control. He was a senior research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies. Ralf Trapp is an independent disarmament consultant and was a senior planning officer with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and secretary of the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board.

You can read even more if interested at:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_11/Ridding-Syria-of-Chemical-Weapons-Next-Steps