Who agrees with these two Republicans?
I have know idea if Russia will keep its base if the the Assad regime is replaced by something else. So my answer to your first question is “it doesn’t”. The fact that it doesn’t makes it impossible for the claims that Putin spanked Obama this past week credible.
More from the Huffpost link I posted earlier:
Ok, I’m going to try one…more…time.
The only way Russia wins (per you) is if they keep their base, which means keeping Assad in power.
How does keeping Assad in power = a win for the US, especially since we’ve been helping his opponents?
There is no - NO - plan in place for regime change, which means Russia and Assad win (unless the “rebels” manage to overthrow him).
So how is this some kind of a huge win for us?
It strengthens the world’s commitment against chemical weapons, and makes their use in future conflicts less likely.
That’s a victory for all mankind.
Apropos of nothing much, a detail from one of my favorite books, Alas Babylon:
“Soon after, an American fighter pilot attempting to intercept an enemy plane over the Mediterranean inadvertently fires an AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missile that goes off course and hits an ammunition depot in Latakia, Syria, resulting in a large explosion. This event becomes the apparent casus belli for the Soviet Union to launch a nuclear strike against the United States and her allies.”
Of course nothing like that would ever happen in the modern day - nothing could possibly go wrong with any of this. I just find it somewhat interesting.
This from your link (45):
and these paragraphs from your link (45):
Anyone who seeks an honest assessment of how this disarmament process will go can take these two positives to the bank that it will go well and in time for the 2014 mid term elections.
But I understand why Republicans must defile and depress all foreign policy positive accomplishments by the Obama Administration even if Republicans have to make no sense when they do it.
And see, there’s the problem - in your mind the only HONEST assessment is that everything will go swimmingly and anyone who doesn’t take it at face value is some kind of partisan hack.
Not that you are, of course.
The ‘win’ for America and the Obama Admin is that Putin has ceded to Obama his military objective without having to launch a single ‘million dollar’ cruise missile. Putin has given Obama a valid course of action that is immeasurably better than the objective the military action itself could have produced.
The win on diminishing the threat of 1000 tons of CW in the midst of a civil war without need for use of military action is on the record. The threat of military action if the diplomatic plan falls apart is still on the table.
We are way ahead of where we were one week ago. And that is good.
Anyone can holler partisan driven forecasts that suits their political attitude, but what I just wrote was pointing to two objective reasons why the gloom and doomers on inspections will end up being wrong.
I notice your move was not to respond to those two points, but to go down the path of injecting hyperbole that my mind is convinced that everything will go swimmingly. I don’t need everything to go “swimmingly” to see this come through as a positve for world affairs. I need our CIA to be correct that right now all Syria’s CW are under Assad’s control. And I need to trust that the leader of the Syrian rebels is good fir his word that the rebels will not interfere with the transfer and destruction of 1000 Tons if CW from the conflict.
If those two points are not positives for my personal assessment that inspections have a good chance at working quite well you could try to explain why not.
If they don’t, I firmly believe US military strikes will occur, but the US position on that improved over last week too.
My response is that you DO NOT KNOW that the “doom and gloomers” will end up being wrong, you just hope they are.
Actually, I hope we are too - I’d actually be happy if things work out exactly the way you think they will - but you do not know that things will go that way.
As to military strikes if things don’t go as planned - I’m not as positive as you are that they will, because I don’t believe the Administration wanted them in the first place, they were just forced into a corner where they had to talk tough because of prior “red line” comments. This is, of course, where you come in and parrot Obamas post-hoc “the world set the line, not me” rhetoric, which is false.
If Assad will do this in good faith, why would any country oppose a UN resolution authorizing force? For example:
Me: I promise to give up my bomb if you don’t shoot me.
Community: Okay, but if you don’t give up your bomb, do you agree that we can shoot you?
Me: No. I don’t agree with that.
What would anyone think about my disagreement other than I’m not really going to give up my bomb? (Never mind that I’m not supposed to have the thing anyways. That shows the weakness of the community at the outset)
Obama fail. He blustered himself into a corner even with the “itty bitty bombing” campaign idiot-savant promise Kerry was made to say (how fuckin’ ridiculous! Right out of Big Bird) – fact is, not even the US’s biggest ally was going along with it. Never mind the rest of the world – excluding France for their own colonial reasons – not that they were going to carry the weight anyway.
So, in light of his huge blunder, Obama looked for an out anywhere he could – turns out it was Russia’s Putin that gave it to him. Didn’t even have to wait to be humiliated by Congress.
Result: Putin gave Obama a lesson in world diplomacy he won’t soon forget. Including his letter in the NYT and his sly ridicule of the so often mentioned “American Exceptionalism.”
The End. Ooooops! I forgot: “Obama kicks ass! Rah rah, USA!!!”
What lesson was that? Threaten to use military force on Putin’s Middle East
partner and going it alone and Putin will give you better than what you want without having to deplete your stockpile of cruise missiles and bunker busters.
Trusting the Russians and Vladimir Putin? Trusting the UN to do it’s job on a followup?
Sure, seems likely to succeed. When in doubt, trust Russia. They are our friends and would NEVER look at a way to make us look bad, or weak, especially from such a rich source of arms buying income like a client state like Syria! It’s not like the Russians are protecting their interests here, they are concerned about the WORLD and the PROLIFERATION of such weapons? How could we ever doubt their sincerity when they are a partner in democracy and on the UN Security Council?
Lets call it what it is, a compromise (and a fail) for the Obama admin. They had the actionable intel in their hands months ago and did nothing about the “red line” (which, like troop withdrawal timetables, should never have been announced publicly). The admin of the US should have acted long ago but did not. That timetable expired awhile ago. The prolonged Congressional approval process was a joke, and was heavily influenced by…RUSSIA! And now we are where we are. And seemingly this is the best option out of other shitty options. But it still sucks.
Yay! Now we have this situation where I cannot foresee any type of guarantees as to the complete and utter destruction of Syria’s WMD’s by Russia, nor any reliable verification by the UN, and meanwhile, Assad will continue to pummel innocents into rubble with impunity, which is really the real hypocrisy here when the sheer numbers of deaths are to be considered.
We’d be better off SUPPORTING Assad, just like we’d be better off if Saddam Fucking Hussein was in power in Iraq. For all the fear mongering regarding Iran we sure are adopting a wide pathway for their hegemony in the region.
This whole thing sucks ass.
For the same reasons they didn’t want to join with Obama in bombing. There’s always the risk that they will have to back up what they say.
Regards,
Shodan
This comes from the Link (45) in the AP Story:
So the US intelligence number of sites is 45 but that is reduced by half to 23 where there are what the call ‘exploitable quantities’. Does anyone know what they mean by that phrase?
Anyway I don’t see 45 as being an overwhelming number of sites since US intelligence agencies believe all stocks remain in government control.
This is not like Iraq where UNMOVIC was forced to prove a negative with 100% accuracy possession of CW capacity by the dishonest and despicable Bush regime.
This is about gathering up what Assad most likely kept an inventory of all weapons made. He’d be nuts to not be strict about CW record keeping.
Therefore even 45 to 50 over all sites does not appear to be some formidable challenge to catalog the extent of what’s there and begin to have the UN inspectors verify they are secure.
And shutting down production facilities is easier than that. Now unless you wish to believe a defector as we saw in Iraq - goes by the CIA nickname Curveball - who will claim that Syria has the production facilities on truck trailers and move them all about so no UN inspector or world intelligence agency can find a trace of them.
And we all know that US intelligence is never, ever wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
So what US intelligence agents believe under Obama is okay, but what they believed under Bush was evil. These agents are the same people, you know… Remember, intelligence agents (i.e. spies) don’t quit every 4 years on election day.
Assad probably does keep an inventory list. It’s probably kept as the single most highly classified top-secret document in his entire military.(similar to the secrecy with which the US army keeps the launch codes for nuclear missiles). So, of course, he’ll happily mail you a copy. In fact, since he’s so happy about letting the UN inspectors see the list, he’ll just tell his buddy Putin to publish it on the op-ed page of the NY Times.
Yes, easy as pie…
If it was so easy, Obama could have shut down the facilities 2 weeks ago, as soon as the pictures of the dead children were released. No dilly-dallying needed.
It makes no difference if the nerve gas bombs were used by Assad, or by the rebels. If we knew where the production facilities were,then Obama could have eliminated them in 5 minutes,by launching cruise missiles onto the factories. This could have been presented to the world as a humanitarian act,–destroying buildings, not people, and staying neutral by not aiming at either side in the civil war. Destroying the production facilities would prevent more nerve gas from being produced for either side, saving the lives of civilians.
But apparently, it’s not as easy as you claim.
So far, this agreement looks great on paper. Russia and America cooperating for the good of the entire human race…
But it will probably be totally ineffective, for the reasons I listed in post #18 above.
And I very, very much hope that I’m wrong.
Let’s leave open the possibility that there are more sites than identified (intelligence underestimation).
In this hypothetical case incorrrect information allows no military intervention while maintaining a circumstance in which the most of the chemical weapons are destroyed and the remainder cannot be used (as use would prove he still had more). A bit different that the consequence of incorrect information last time, eh?
Let us accept that there is no outcome that is ideal for the U.S. - this seems to be the least poor one possible. (And I read the post predicting Assad will attack Israel and fail to see how that particular possibility follows differently under this than under any other path in which Assad feels an existential threat and is willing to do anything. Silly that.)
I am amazed that people are swallowing the idea that international inspectors will be able to effectively survey all these sites in the midst of a very active civil war. This a more formidable task than was faced by weapons inspectors in Iraq, and that was rather a farce.