There’s some good news today. However, it is Libya, not Syria, that has been disarmed of chemical weapons. It’s a little difficult to get a sense of how much CW was disposed of after Qaddafi fell, but it seems to be around a dozen tons or so – in other words, one-eightieth the stockpile size of Syria. Plus the destruction was conducted in situ, and it still took 2 years and 4 months to complete since Qaddafi was killed.
Note that I don’t characterize this accomplishment as “masterful,” it’s just a good thing. It also illustrates that these things aren’t easy. I think the White House Chief of Staff’s comments on the troubles with Syria’s stockpile fall well short of declaring “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” as some people here are ready to do. Mr McDonough said the Syria deal is "not falling apart, but we would like to see it proceed much more quickly than it is.”
Which reminds me of the rule of thumb on diplomatic or PC speak: If someone says something isn’t funny, it probably is. And if someone says something is not falling apart, it just might be.
US intelligence chief says that the CW deal last year strengthened Assad’s position.
"“The prospects are right now that (Assad) is actually in a strengthened position than when we discussed this last year, by virtue of his agreement to remove the chemical weapons, as slow as that process has been,” said James Clapper, director of national intelligence. "
No. I think Putin is only concerned about keeping Putin in power. He’d sell out Assad in a second if that was to his advantage. But for now, acting as Assad’s protector serves Putin’s cause.
It is however important to note, that you are on record stating that you are relieved that the *‘method of CW elimination’ Putin’s Diplomatic Efforts * that ‘has tilted the balance heavily towards Assad, thus “resolving” the war in his favor.’
If you are not supportive of the US attempting to resolve the Syrian civil war by arming and aiding rebels more and weakening the Assad regime by direct US military action, does that mean you are you saying that it is best that the Syrian Civil war gets resolved by strengthening Assad in part by removing and destroying his CW arsenal?
Clapper did not say why the CW deal boosted Assad’s position. From the link:
“Clapper, testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee hearing, did not specify why last September’s agreement on chemical arms had boosted Assad’s position.”
Do you believe that the US should not have negotiated the deal?
Do you have a factual basis for denying all the investments the Russians have made?
They have airlifted trucks into Syria ready to transport the CW ‘safely’ to the port. It does cost something to airlift trucks doesn’t it. Their Navy is providing security at the port.
Did you fact check your bold declaration with one source or more? That was quite bold. You sound so sure of yourself.
And I’m sure you got excited about the second delay of transferring the CW to the Port. But the Russian lorries are there and ready to move. A Russian Deputy Foreign Minister says the ‘completion of the process’ will be by March 1. So that is about three weeks later than originally planned. But there was a lot of float in the original schedule which was to be wrapped up by July… It is becoming apparent that the chemicals to be destroyed after March 1 will be those that are not as dangerous as the first batch.
You see that ‘wrap up’ will be just before the Mid Term Elections here in the US and Obama mentioned in the State of the Union that it was the ‘threat of force’ that is getting those CW moved ever so diplomatically. Do you see how the threat of force works well if you recognize when there is potential to achieve its goal you back off using the force that was threatened to be used. Perhaps Obama threatened Putin and Assad again. Maybe he didn’t. But the chemicals will soon be loaded on the Russian trucks and in a 'convoy over land and delivered to the ships at sea.
Using the threat of force to achieve a major diplomatic achievement getting rid of Syria’s CW… to go with getting rid of the small amounts of CW in Syria.
So you’re finally seeing the light that the “masterful” move was Putin’s, not Obama’s. I’m “relieved” that you have finally seen the light, and take pride in having helped you arrive at your new position.
Nope you are in error. I have not chsnged my position one iota. The elimination of CW was achieved because of Obama’s initiative and Putin acquiesced under the threat of force. The CW issue was pursued as a separate national security matter apart from resolving the civil war.
“For a limited time you can give some of your CW and continue with your genocide, sure that we aren’t going to do a thing to stop you, courtesy of Barack’s Red Line. Call now, operator are waiting”.
Assad in power? check
Putin gets to continue using his puppet? check
Genocide continues? check
Symbolic gesture of (some) CW? check
If one considers CWs to be, in themselves, more important than an ongoing genocide, which will be unaffected by giving away (some/most/all) CWs, THEN it’s Obama’s Metternicht moment.
It’s lke saying “they’re now using plug-in hybrids to send political prisoners to their slave-labour camps, less pollution yey!!!”.
Assad retaining control of Syria is not a security threat to the US. CW’s in an unstable region with an AQ presence is most definitely a security threat to the US.
Half a loaf is better than none, and from a US security POV, this is better than half, with zero risk to US troops. I realize that if you guys were in charge, you’d hold out for complete peace and harmony throughout the entire Middle East, but Obama lives in the real world.
Personally, I believe the risk of AQ setting up some kind of safe haven from which to plot things like the underwear bomb plot is by far the most serious risk to the United States. The idea that AQ could obtain, store, move and use a significant quantity of CW doesn’t strike me as the most likely series of events. The CW agreement does nothing to address the safehaven concern, but it does make the second, somewhat far-fetched scenario even more far-fetched. That’s not really progress to yell from the rooftops.
The question I raised earlier in this thread was essentially whether this agreement to dispose of CW which takes some wind out of the sails of efforts to address the civil war is an effort that is half a loaf or just half-assed. There’s no shame in the agreement, but this is a relatively minor issue in a conflict that is quite serious, both in the toll of human lives and the consequences for the region.
You know, I came in here to post pretty much the same thing, except I’d add: I’m sure the Syrians are just thrilled to be pawns in this effort of the US to exert its will in another country because it feels there is some small threat to us. The rebels had half a chance before, but this move consolidated Assad’s hold on power. Meanwhile, the slaughter continues, and the latests reports speak of the torture of children as young as 10 years old. If we’re not going to help them, we should stay the fuck out and not make ourselves an implicit partner of Assad’s.
Seems like a cave in the hills is more than adequate for an underwear bomb plot, and I find your “safe haven” scenario more far-fetched than CWs being stolen, but I could easily be wrong. I do agree that IF it happened, it would be a serious threat to the US.
Which is why Obama, or Hillary, any other President, would make it an unsafe haven, in the IMO unlikely event you are right. Probably not troops, if it’s a Dem, but plenty of drones and cruise missiles. Maybe even troops, if Ted Cruz is Pres.
Either way, it won’t be a serious threat for long. The CWs are a threat NOW.
What agreement in the world can or would address the “safe haven concern”? Think about it. The CW deal is backed by international law negotiated in political reality between two opposing sides of permanent members seated on the UN Security Council.
I know of no consortium of freedom loving nations + China that have come together to find a means to negotiate diplomatically with al Qaeada or any other non-nation-state terrorist organization’s leadership that would diplomatically put aside the safe-haven threat of which you place your priority of concern.
The only negotiating with terrorists such as those gaining safe haven is military and CT efforts by our intelligence and other intel agencies from around the world is called the ‘war on terror’ and Obama is authorized since 2001 to take whatever action necessary to eliminate any threats arising from a safe haven being developed in Syria as a result of the civil war there. And he will do that from what I’ve seen to date.
And another significant argument by experts in this arena say that the removal of CW from Assad’s command and control diplomatically, reduces the leverage of Assad’s negotiating position for justification for remaining in power in general. That is because if the Assad regime were weakened to a point (by US air assault alone) then the problem arises as to what happens to command and control of the remanants of the Syrian Army which is fully responsible for safekeeping of over a thousand tons of deadly chemical weapons in the midst of a war zone being infested with al Qaeda and other terrorists by the day.
Last ditch use for revenge by the retreating Syrian army is also a potentially deadly scenario for innocent victims of this civil war and the rebels.
Considering these realities and critical facitirs I am confident that you and Mace are wrong and your view is not very relavent to the broader analysis of what must be done about Syria regarding national security…
And then just to be sure there is this:
Also very significant other’s, invluding our biggest biggest ally in the region, would dismiss your view as do I: