The Red Line: Part Deux

[Gannon Goodson]

After some research it turns out we do have national interests in Syria, as do the Russians.

Our national interests in Syria:
1. Support of Israel=remove chem weapons.
2. Build an oil and natural gas pipeline that by-passes Iran and reduces natural gas coming out of Russia and going to Europe. Syria/Assad have rebuffed the plan, so replacing them with a US/West friendly government is a key US interest=Remove Assad.

Russia's national interests in Syria:
1. Maintain a balance of power vs Israel = Keep Chem Weapons
2. Maintain status quo vis-a-vis Radical Islamic Separatists not being able to overturn governments. This reduces incentive for more Chechnya like events=Keep Assad in power
3. Build an oil pipeline through Iran and control flow of natural gas so they continue to be the supplier for Europe=Keep Assad in power.

So, it is in Russia's interest for the Syrian government to be led by Assad, to maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons and for the rebels to be defeated. We've stated over and over that we aren't working for regime change and don't want to destroy all the chem weapons. We just want to damage them as punishment for using them. We say this despite the fact those are our major national interests in this affair and despite the fact we are actively arming the rebels to help overthrow Assad.

Now our threat of force has somehow convinced Putin to give up on a key national interest and instead help us achieve ours? He says this despite the fact he has actively upheld the Assad government and has assets in place that can protect the stockpile from attack.

We are both lying, but one of us seems closer to achieving their aims than the other. Unfortunately, in this affair that appears to be Putin. Assad is still in power and appears to have the upper hand against the rebels. The only way we achieve our national interests in this is for the Assad government to fall. Just getting rid of the stockpile won't achieve our goals--Putin can replace them in a matter of days if he wants. Assad has to go and he has to be replaced with a government that will work with us instead of Russia. I don't see that happening at this point.

Don't forget, Syria is one of Russia's largest arms customers. I don't think Moscow is really interested in helping us with our foreign policy objectives. Russia's goal is to be the main power broker in the region. They're not interested in playing nice with us, and why should they be with Mr. Training Wheels in the White House.

 

[hog88]

After some research it turns out we do have national interests in Syria, as do the Russians.

Our national interests in Syria:
1. Support of Israel=remove chem weapons.
2. Build an oil and natural gas pipeline that by-passes Iran and reduces natural gas coming out of Russia and going to Europe. Syria/Assad have rebuffed the plan, so replacing them with a US/West friendly government is a key US interest=Remove Assad.

Russia's national interests in Syria:
1. Maintain a balance of power vs Israel = Keep Chem Weapons
2. Maintain status quo vis-a-vis Radical Islamic Separatists not being able to overturn governments. This reduces incentive for more Chechnya like events=Keep Assad in power
3. Build an oil pipeline through Iran and control flow of natural gas so they continue to be the supplier for Europe=Keep Assad in power.

So, it is in Russia's interest for the Syrian government to be led by Assad, to maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons and for the rebels to be defeated. We've stated over and over that we aren't working for regime change and don't want to destroy all the chem weapons. We just want to damage them as punishment for using them. We say this despite the fact those are our major national interests in this affair and despite the fact we are actively arming the rebels to help overthrow Assad.

Now our threat of force has somehow convinced Putin to give up on a key national interest and instead help us achieve ours? He says this despite the fact he has actively upheld the Assad government and has assets in place that can protect the stockpile from attack.

We are both lying, but one of us seems closer to achieving their aims than the other. Unfortunately, in this affair that appears to be Putin. Assad is still in power and appears to have the upper hand against the rebels. The only way we achieve our national interests in this is for the Assad government to fall. Just getting rid of the stockpile won't achieve our goals--Putin can replace them in a matter of days if he wants. Assad has to go and he has to be replaced with a government that will work with us instead of Russia. I don't see that happening at this point.

Neither pipeline goals are met with Assad out of power.

Once Assad is removed the fighting will continue between to terrorist aligned rebels and the "not-so-bad guy" rebels for control.

 

[YorkVol]

Don't forget, Syria is one of Russia's largest arms customers. I don't think Moscow is really interested in helping us with our foreign policy objectives. Russia's goal is to be the main power broker in the region. They're not interested in playing nice with us, and why should they be with Mr. Training Wheels in the White House.

Syria's purchases are small compared to some others, but point taken. I didn't mean to imply I thought the Russians wanted to help us with our goals, that was a skeptical remark.

 

[volinbham]

I would imagine they were scared of the West because:

1) Some of those weapons came from Iraq.
2) They are one of the very few countries not to ratify or ascend to the the CWC.
3) They had already denied that they had CW.
4) The West has been supplying aid to their enemy.
5) Scared of Obama's red line (deny).
6) Not scared of Obama's red line (undercut him domestically and internationally)

Or...

Russia told them not to.

I took MG's question to mean why all the drama from the US if it was just a battlefield error and not authorized by Assad.

 

[lawgator1]

It will be a good month at best before a framework can be worked out and agreed to at the UN. Another couple months to figure out how to get inspectors safe passage through Syria during a civil war. Conventional thinking is that the CW are highly dispersed. Could take 6 months to a year to complete inspections and verify inventories. Then there's the issue of actually securing the CW during a civil war. As a side note, the travels of the inspectors will tip off the rebel factions about the locations of CW stores.

All this relies on good faith efforts by all parties involved. I'd be glad to be wrong but Kerry was right when he said this was impossible

I agree with you on the this. My optimism is beyond guarded.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That happens the gloves should come off. Until then, let the bastards kill themselves.

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

 

[PKT_VOL]

After some research it turns out we do have national interests in Syria, as do the Russians.

Our national interests in Syria:
1. Support of Israel=remove chem weapons.
2. Build an oil and natural gas pipeline that by-passes Iran and reduces natural gas coming out of Russia and going to Europe. Syria/Assad have rebuffed the plan, so replacing them with a US/West friendly government is a key US interest=Remove Assad.

Russia's national interests in Syria:
1. Maintain a balance of power vs Israel = Keep Chem Weapons
2. Maintain status quo vis-a-vis Radical Islamic Separatists not being able to overturn governments. This reduces incentive for more Chechnya like events=Keep Assad in power
3. Build an oil pipeline through Iran and control flow of natural gas so they continue to be the supplier for Europe=Keep Assad in power.

So, it is in Russia's interest for the Syrian government to be led by Assad, to maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons and for the rebels to be defeated. We've stated over and over that we aren't working for regime change and don't want to destroy all the chem weapons. We just want to damage them as punishment for using them. We say this despite the fact those are our major national interests in this affair and despite the fact we are actively arming the rebels to help overthrow Assad.

Now our threat of force has somehow convinced Putin to give up on a key national interest and instead help us achieve ours? He says this despite the fact he has actively upheld the Assad government and has assets in place that can protect the stockpile from attack.

We are both lying, but one of us seems closer to achieving their aims than the other. Unfortunately, in this affair that appears to be Putin. Assad is still in power and appears to have the upper hand against the rebels. The only way we achieve our national interests in this is for the Assad government to fall. Just getting rid of the stockpile won't achieve our goals--Putin can replace them in a matter of days if he wants. Assad has to go and he has to be replaced with a government that will work with us instead of Russia. I don't see that happening at this point.

I disagree with the first goal of Russia. Their main goal with the CW's is that they don't fall into Chechynian hands. Assad having chemical weapons to balance Israel out is feel good on Assad's front.

I agree that our publicly stated goals are dumb (and not true). I think the US would like to see a long, drawn out war with the secular Syrian finally beating out Al-Qaeda.

Personally, I only care about the CW's. I want to see them destroyed. I think Russia at this point would like to see them destroyed (they are a major risk/liability to their objects in Syria). This gives me hope that they will help get rid/secure the CW's.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Don't forget, Syria is one of Russia's largest arms customers. I don't think Moscow is really interested in helping us with our foreign policy objectives. Russia's goal is to be the main power broker in the region. They're not interested in playing nice with us, and why should they be with Mr. Training Wheels in the White House.

IF they believe "Mr. Training Wheels" will attack, regardless of Congressional approval, then yes, they are wanting to play nice in the short-term (while taking all the pot shots they can) to secure their long-term interests with Syria.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

IF they believe "Mr. Training Wheels" will attack, regardless of Congressional approval, then yes, they are wanting to play nice in the short-term (while taking all the pot shots they can) to secure their long-term interests with Syria.

They're not playing nice. Russia already said; e.g., dictated, that we must agree not to strike before Syria puts their chemical weapons under "international control" *wink* *wink*.

It's not hard to see what's going on here if you've spent 5 minutes studying geopolitical issues. That's why the White House is only in half-spin mode. They can't get away with full-spin on this one. You know you're in trouble when Axelrod has to light up twitter with his ramblings.

 

[PKT_VOL]

They're not playing nice. Russia already said; e.g., dictated, that we must agree not to strike before Syria puts their chemical weapons under "international control" *wink* *wink*.

It's not hard to see what's going on here if you've spent 5 minutes studying geopolitical issues. That's why the White House is only in half-spin mode. They can't get away with full-spin on this one. You know you're in trouble when Axelrod has to light up twitter with his ramblings.

Your bias is coming through hard.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Your bias is coming through hard.

Gullible isn't a word.....look it up.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Gullible isn't a word.....look it up.

Dumb.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Your bias is coming through hard.

What do you mean?

 

[Velo Vol]

Sigh.

Obama loosens demands on U.N. resolution on Syria - latimes.com

International leadership really is becoming an endangered species. It's vanishing in America, AWOL in Europe, Arab states have completely ducked, and Asia (save South Korea) doesn't care.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What do you mean?

Your contempt for Obama has led you to develop a double standard.

When Obama grandstands, he is weak, meager, and on training wheels. When Putin is grandstanding, he is strong, not playing nice, professional, etc.

I dislike Obama as much as the next guy but they are both doing the same sh*t. The real talk/work is going on behind the scenes. The public grandstanding, on both sides, is worthless. The end result, which is yet to be determined, is all that matters

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Your contempt for Obama has led you to develop a double standard.

When Obama grandstands, he is weak, meager, and on training wheels. When Putin is grandstanding, he is strong, not playing nice, professional, etc.

I dislike Obama as much as the next guy but they are both doing the same sh*t. The real talk/work is going on behind the scenes. The public grandstanding, on both sides, is worthless. The end result, which is yet to be determined, is all that matters

You've misunderstood me. Putin is grandstanding and not playing nice. That's his personality. I said Putin was a professional politician, not a professional "human being" if you catch my drift. He's about as low as they come, but it makes him an effective leader. While Obama shot off at the mouth (which really turned out to be his downfall during this debacle), Putin waited. These are things he learned working his way up through the KGB.

I'm not calling him a saint who deserves a Nobel Prize. Nice people don't belong in politics.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You've misunderstood me. Putin is grandstanding and not playing nice. That's his personality. I said Putin was a professional politician, not a professional "human being" if you catch my drift. He's about as low as they come, but it makes him an effective leader. While Obama shot off at the mouth (which really turned out to be his downfall during this debacle), Putin waited. These are things he learned working his way up through the KGB.

I'm not calling him a saint who deserves a Nobel Prize. Nice people don't belong in politics.

I didn't mean it personally. My broader point is that both men are grandstanding (BS'ing) in the public realm. Bashing one man and not the other is hypocritical at this point.

This whole thing hinges on the SVR's ability to assess whether Obama is serious about his intent to strike.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

I didn't mean it personally. My broader point is that both men are grandstanding (BS'ing) in the public realm. Bashing one man and not the other is hypocritical at this point.

This whole thing hinges on the SVR's ability to assess whether Obama is serious about his intent to strike.

You make a valid point. Believe me, I've been critical of Putin as well. I've already pointed out Putin's hypocrisy when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. He doesn't care if a few thousand die in a chemical weapons attack so long as his ally remains head of state. Are we to believe Putin (or his speechwriter) found the Lord and believes that "all are created equal" all of the sudden? What's makes it even more laughable is the op-ed appeared in the Old York Slimes.

The difference in grandstanding is Putin was a little more subtle. Obama used the bully pulpit ("red line") and wrote a check his ass could never cash in this political and social climate. That's what community organizers do. Putin does what seasoned politicians do: smile, continue to support your ally, wait for an opening, take control of the situation, and mock your adversary.

Syria goes through Moscow now.

 

[lawgator1]

@PKT

There is no point in discussing these issues from the perspective of what is the best policy approach when the other side's entire thesis is simply "Obama bad."

 

[lawgator1]

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com

Deal reached. And what is really intriguing is the notion that it may open the door to a long range discussion of trying to end the war.


Oh, and in before the same people who ten days ago were whining that we should not be using strikes and should use diplomacy, now whine we should be using strikes, not diplomacy.

 

[Gramps]

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com

Deal reached. And what is really intriguing is the notion that it may open the door to a long range discussion of trying to end the war.


Oh, and in before the same people who ten days ago were whining that we should not be using strikes and should use diplomacy, now whine we should be using strikes, not diplomacy.

I am glad a deal has been reached. I just hope it is a real deal and Syria complies. We don't need another war.

 

[lawgator1]

I am glad a deal has been reached. I just hope it is a real deal and Syria complies. We don't need another war.

It is awfully suspicious it came together so quickly.

 

[YorkVol]

Senior U.S. administration officials told reporters on condition of not being identified the main sticking point was what consequences al-Assad and his government should face over their alleged chemical weapons use.

These officials have no expectations Russia would agree to any U.N. resolution that included authorization for possible military force against Syria. The United States, therefore, will not insist it be included.

That runs counter to Obama's call for the international community to take action, including a potential military strike, for what the United States and allies call a chemical weapons attack by al-Assad's forces last month outside Syria's capital that they say killed more than 1,400 people.

the above is from thCNN article, makes me question if anyone thinks we'll use force.

 

[lawgator1]

Senior U.S. administration officials told reporters on condition of not being identified the main sticking point was what consequences al-Assad and his government should face over their alleged chemical weapons use.

These officials have no expectations Russia would agree to any U.N. resolution that included authorization for possible military force against Syria. The United States, therefore, will not insist it be included.

That runs counter to Obama's call for the international community to take action, including a potential military strike, for what the United States and allies call a chemical weapons attack by al-Assad's forces last month outside Syria's capital that they say killed more than 1,400 people.

the above is from thCNN article, makes me question if anyone thinks we'll use force.

And above that it says the agreement is subject to use of force.

 

[FLVOL69]

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com

Deal reached. And what is really intriguing is the notion that it may open the door to a long range discussion of trying to end the war.


Oh, and in before the same people who ten days ago were whining that we should not be using strikes and should use diplomacy, now whine we should be using strikes, not diplomacy.

And you trust Russia to hold up its end of the deal ? You're as naive as Barry and the rest of his minions....