Fortunately, events are moving beyond the administration’s proposals. The Syrian government has approved the proposal enunciated by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. The details of the plan are expected today but they’re anticipated to include Syria’s turning over its stocks of chemical weapons, committing not to manufacture more, and joining the international convention banning their use.
That’s a good outcome and I don’t much care who gets credit for it. However, if the actual desired outcome of attacking Syria were regime change, don’t expect such an agreement to satisfy its advocates. Or the rebels. With this agreement in place and adhered to, the civil war will continue for the foreseeable future.
Given that we’ve now accepted the idea I think it demonstrates that for the administration at least the goal was just to dis-incentivize chemical weapons — just as they said it was.
No doubt McCain wants more, he always does. But I don’t see how he can make much noise about it.
The Russians are left essentially guaranteeing Assad won’t use chemicals. And the war will proceed on a more egalitarian basis between the two sides, which, as you know, I suspect is our true strategy.
“That’s a good outcome and I don’t much care who gets credit for it.”
I completely agree. Plus, provided the restocking charge is reasonable, its good to know that Russia’s product return policies rival that of Wal-Mart.
One way to look at this is that the Administration sought to enforce the Geneva Conventions barring use of chemical weapons in war against Syria, but the counteroffer is an arms control proposal similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which regulates chemical weapons development, production, stockpiling, and proliferation.
Getting arms control regulations on Syria would be superior to limiting their use in war. The Convention’s existence was in recognition that possession of chemical weapons would ultimately lead to their use when necessity gave rise.
OTOH the arms control regulations require more time and are more costly to implement, so this could easily be a delay tactic.
To agree to an arms control regulation, Syria will need to have competent administrators, a good-faith desire to disarm, money to safely handle and destroy chemical weapons, and an openness to outside inspectors to verify disarmament.
The United States and Russia are in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, though I do not believe they are acting in bad faith and will eventually come into compliance. Its hard to see Syria being able to comply, even assuming good-faith, and most likely we should expect worse, given the civil war.
The tension will arise if a weapons inspector claims lack of access to do their job. This could be because of Syrian malfeasance or the impracticalities of civil war. The U.S. will be placed in a position of either looking away or mounting a credible military threat. The risk could be eliminated by finding compliant inspectors that will look away.
If Syria is acting in good-faith, then it seems probable that the chemical weapons attack was not approved at the highest level and there was no intention of it happening in the first place or repeating. If the regime lacks the ability to control use of chemical weapons, then their complete removal might be the only way to stop their use, but it also strongly implies lack of administrative skills to ensure their complete removal.
I don’t think the Administration seeks regime change in the short-term. I think in the long-term they think the civil war will only end with Assad’s removal — there is too much history here. But there are no current alternatives.
Syria and Russia will demand the quid-pro-quo for disarmament that the U.S. stop aiding the insurgents. The U.S. would prefer to compartmentalize its earlier plan of aid to insurgents from its current plan of attack, but its hard to see how that would be an agreeable framework with the U.S. agreeing not to attack directly, but maintaining the ability to attack indirectly.
The Congress simply cannot act now. The negotiations will need to proceed. Since its unlikely that a chemical attack will occur in the interim, there is no harm to the war aims, though it does provide opportunity to conceal weapons.
I disagree. I’m changing sides on the AUMF. The threat of force clearly caused this development, removing the threat may undermine it.
My guess:
1) The Russians have known from the start that the Assad regime carried out the attack. (Not that most people had any real doubt.)
2) The Russians don’t like crazy people having or using sarin any more than we do. And if the rebels somehow win, those chemical warheads are going to look even worse to Moscow. But they are in bed with Assad, so they offered various lame defenses.
3) The US threat bugged Assad and really bugged Putin because it would make Putin look like a paper tiger of an ally, unable to defend Syria, unable to deter the US.
4) The Russians saw an easy solution. Taking Assad’s sarin away meant Russia would not have to be left looking either impotent or complicit in whatever came next. It would make a statesman of Putin.
5) The down side for the Russians comes if Assad balks at the last minute or worse yet gets caught using sarin again. So Putin’s intelligence agencies will be all over this.
6) I guess it’s too soon for John Kerry to spend more time with his family?
@michael, delaying the vote on the AUMF (which I think would fail at this point) is not the same as removing it. I also disagree that there was a credible threat of military action stemming from the upcoming vote on an AUMF. Public opinion is strongly against military action. The Congressional whip counts had something like 22 Senators and 22 Representative voicing support. And John Kerry had just assured us that military action would be “unbelievably small.”
Got your faxed talking points Michael?
At best a combustible situation has either been delayed or even avoided. However, what all this really means, regarding a meaningful solution or what the future holds for us, is still too soon to say.
Confusion, though, continues to reign in the Obama administration regarding changing actions, goals, defined problems, or articulation of national interests due to muddled in-house thinking. Absence of such clear leadership has shaped most of this unfolding episode in Syria, including the employment of ill-timed diplomacy both here in Congress and abroad with allies. The result has been an odd fellowship of those for and against proposals initially set forth by Obama/Kerry, and a withering of a supportive coalition overseas — something pretty astounding when one considers the powers of persuasion this country used to wield.
So, while a dastardly event may have been sidestepped (for now), I think the roots of weakness and an inability to decipher cause-and-effect adequately and quickly will remain for the next 3 1/2 years — hopefully without dire consequences.
In the meantime, the winner here will be Putin. The world will look at him more illustriously, with greater admiration that he was able to seize on a Kerry misspeak and carry the ball to at least temporary safety. At the same time his alliance with Assad has strengthened, his prized Syrian naval installation better secured, and because of this last minute hail Mary idea, he can conveniently don sheep’s clothing, appearing more conciliatory than dangerous. However, no matter how people herald this latest move of his, Putin remains a shrewd and cagey tyrant who has been able to capitalize on Obama’s dithering administration, to service his own good. The elements of this new solution, though, hold new uneasy gambits to be considered, as well as land mines very capable of exploding in years to come.
Consequently, IMO, it’s still a mess. And, we may be merely gently rocking in the eye of the storm.
I’d love to be as confident as Dave and others but the way this plan evolved is too bizarre for it to be taken at face value. Kerry gaffes and Putin pounces, and that’s now supposed to lead to a real negotiated settlement?
Think about Michael’s point about what Russia knew about the attack. Did they actually know that Assad had ordered it, or did they lie about what they knew? If they lied, how can they know be trustworthy? And if they in fact knew the rebels were the perpetrators, then how can they now guarantee that won’t happen again?
At the very least, there has been enough evidence that rebel groups have used chemical weapons that enforcement seems highly unlikely. And if nothing else, Russia’s motivation is probably to make calls for regime change impossible. They’ll either enforce the deal Nd Assad will have to stay, or they won’t be able to enforce it all. Neither outcome seems good from our perspective.
I think that Michael’s over-complicating things. The Russians’ sole objective is preserving the Assad regime. They don’t care whether Assad used chemical weapons or not as long as the regime is still in place.
That outcome is more assured now than it was a couple of days ago and in that sense the Russians have succeeded.
I think it’s also arguable that the U. S. has been de-fanged WRT Syria. If the Obama Administration agrees to the Russians’ proposal as long as Assad doesn’t use chemical weapons it’s going to be hard to go back and demand attacking Syria. They’ll be forced to depend on the rebels’ ability to unseat Assad and, frankly, I don’t think the rebels have the juice. They’re as likely to fight among themselves as fight Assad.
That’s not an assured scenario and I’m guessing that the Obama Administration thinks they can get as many drags from the pipe as they want. To my eye the president’s declining approval rating suggests that isn’t so but, again, the administration probably doesn’t see it that way.
I just don’t see how you can put the word ‘victory’ in the same sentence with ‘Obama,’ as some dems and some in the MSM are now attempting to do!
That’s not an assured scenario and I’m guessing that the Obama Administration thinks they can get as many drags from the pipe as they want. To my eye the president’s declining approval rating suggests that isn’t so but, again, the administration probably doesn’t see it that way.
Really? They couldn’t even get a first drag though. I think they knew good and well how badly they handled this, how they had painted themselves in a corner, and figured it was better to get out of the corner without blowing people up in the process. Got to give credit where due for that, I suppose.
I think its more probable than not that the Russian proposal is a delay tactic. The Administration probably believes that as well in its heart of hearts. They bypassed the Security Council on the grounds that Russia was being obstinate and would use the process to delay. There is no way to know for certain without taking them up on their offer, but we can stand by Kerry’s exact language (“every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week”), which I agree with him would be impossible. We apparently are asking for more details from the Russians on how specifically they would achieve this, and we should expect that the response, when it arrives, will fall short of what Kerry said. Then the question will be the extent to which we compromise with ourselves. I agree with Michael Doran, front-load a lot of compliance to determine whether the proposal is legitimate and if we don’t get every last dram of chemicals, it probably does not matter because they’ll just make some more anway.
The concern I have on these negotiations is that removing the chemicals may simply be impossible. You cannot negotiate performance of impossibilities, it nullifies the agreement. This is a description of the technical difficulties the United States had in destroying its chemical weapons:
Multiple factors account for the protracted delays. First, the job itself is simply very difï¬cult and complex. The weapons are old and extremely hazardous (both because of the toxic chemicals themselves, and because of the explosives in most units); some of them are quite fragile, corroded or alreadyleaking; and in some instances, the liquid chemical has partially solidiï¬ed into congealed “heels†that resist ordinary treatment algorithms. The disassembly
and destruction processes must be conducted under rigidly controlled conditions in a hermetically sealed environment, to preempt any unwarranted excursions of lethal agents. The various destruction technologies are all novel, not previously proven (or even invented), and few ï¬rms are qualiï¬ed to undertake the massive design, construction and operation requirements. In many instances, there is simply no way to “bake this cake faster†. . .”
Train Wreck: The U.S. Violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (pdf)
Heh. I’m one lucky SOB. I work out of the house. I’ve got the Stones blaring on my system. Enduring.
Then I’ve got a muted TV. I see Kerry. Poor bastard. “Unbelievably small.” That must be what he’s really thinking about his boss, and asking, “what am I doing, professionally embarrassing myself doing this Keystone Cops routine?” I became my own boss to avoid this pure shit.
So it’s all a giant coincidence? We threaten to attack and Syria gives up its chemical weapons and the two things, while occurring in sequence and in a very short period of time, are not connected? I don’t think that makes any sense. Obviously the threat propelled events.
Red:
I have literally no idea what you’re babbling about.
Dave:
You’re of the opinion that the Russians can’t hold two goals in mind at the same time? I think that’s at odds with the idea of Putin as a pretty bright player. I think he’s perfectly capable of looking ahead and asking himself whether he wants a client who might do something stupid like give Hezbollah access to chemical munitions. A chemical-free Syria is absolutely in Russia’s interest.
Nor do I think it’s unlikely that Putin would dislike having us bitch-slap his pet thug while he stood around with his hands in his pockets. I give Putin credit for having a somewhat broader view than simply maintaining Assad. Putin wants to play with the big boys.
A previous comment is in moderation.
Jan:
You need to come to grips with what for you is a sad fact: if this deal holds, Obama just got everything he wanted, and more, at a cost of zero dollars and zero American lives.
Did he plan it in some vast brilliant conspiracy? No, of course not. He stumbled into it. That happens sometimes. Sometimes you just get lucky. Like when Mitt Romney was born rich, or when a bartender just happened to tape him saying something stupid and doomed him. Luck happens.
As an American I’m pleased. As an attenuated Jew who maintains affection for Israel I’m happy. As a citizen of the world I’m happy. And as a student of philosophy I’m happy to see this lesson in the unpredictability of life taught in such a way that even Drew might get it.
if this deal holds
@Michael- you do realize that Putin has already demanded that the threat of force be completely removed from the table? Where does that leave the deal, if the threat of force is the only reason (by your reading) that they came to the table?
It leaves it right where it should be. Of course the Russians would demand that as a condition. Wouldn’t we?
We say, “Do X or we shoot.”
They say, “Okay, we’ll do X, but don’t shoot.”
We say, “Obviously if you do X we won’t shoot, why would we?”
They say, “Okay, let’s make it an actual written deal.”
“We say, “Fair enough.”
My understanding is that their version of the deal is:
We say, “Do X or we shoot.â€
They say, “Okay, we’ll do X, but don’t shoot.â€
We say, “Obviously if you do X we won’t shoot, why would we?â€
They say, “Great, but if we don’t do X you can’t shoot either.”
And we say, “Um, OK, I guess.”
@michael reynolds
If you think that President Obama has outfoxed Putin, you have lost your mind. Other than the President’s acolytes, nobody considers that a possibility. Putin has shown President Obama to be the class “know-it-all” – all talk and no action.
I do not have time to go into a detailed refutation of your points in several comments, but I will note that I have been right so far, including most Middle East issues. Furthermore, this is not a partisan attack. I am one of the most respectful commenters in regards to President Obama.
Russia does not give a shit about terrorists getting WMD. A WMD attack gives Putin the opportunity to “clean house”. As a scholar of history, you know how this works. You need to discard the US perspective when analysing non-US countries.
As to the threatened US attacks, President Obama has been shown to be the “weak horse”. Russia has supported and shielded its client state for two years, and this will continue for many years to come. This is not considered being a “paper tiger” by most of the world.
By the standards of most non-US people, what was proposed was a joke. The rest of the world, especially in the nasty parts, does not respect a “pinprick” or “shot over the bow” attack. They expect a full powered punch to the face.
What happened was simple, Russia exploited the situation. Syria’s chemical/biological weapons are of little to no use to them. As I predicted, the world will stand by as Assad kills 100,000’s of his people. The WMD’s may speed up things, but they are far more trouble than they are worth. He really cannot use them, and if he gives them up, he can slaughter as many people as he chooses.
Russia wins because they brought Syria into compliance, and a compliant Syria can continue to purchase munitions to kill people. In addition, Russia’s military bases are further secured.
President Obama can claim this was his plan, but other than his supporters, he was a non-entity.
You need to come to grips with what for you is a sad fact: if this deal holds, Obama just got everything he wanted, and more, at a cost of zero dollars and zero American lives.
Michael,
This is less about what Obama wants at the moment, than genuinely looking at the workability of what is being proposed. These negotiations, if you can stretch the term that far, have been mind-blowing, and half-a**ed.
PD and Cstanley have made astute points concerning the criteria Putin is now assembling — about force being completely removed from the table, and about the reality of cleaning out these chemicals really happening, in the allotted time given by Kerry. Plus, what about the plants N Korea helped construct to make these chemicals, as well as the technicians supplied to give Syrian guidance? Has this been addressed?
It just seems to me that fairy dust is being sprinkled on this deal too fast. Because, all of a sudden a crisis sloppily put aside for years, that is now growing more complex by the day within the chaotic framework of civil war saturated by Islamists, has suddenly become so simple and wonderful.
I personally am beginning to see the whole thing as a giant hustle and distraction — something that will make the U.S. look even sillier than it already does.
I hope I’m wrong, though, Michael, and that you continue to be pleased and happy. (and that is not sarcasm, but truly felt)
CS: You seem to assume that the negotiations are all done. You also seem to assume that Russia has no interest in getting chemical weapons out of the ME. I think both assumptions are wrong. This isn’t zero-sum, we and the Russians both profit.
Tasty: Where exactly did you see me suggest that Obama had ‘outfoxed’ Putin? Was it when I wrote that we had stumbled into this? You’re debating a fantasy opponent.
Jan:
Yes it is very hard to clear nerve gas etc… Which is why it’s a good thing that the Russians seem willing to do it. They have experience. No one who has paid any attention to the issue of CBW had any illusions on that score.
Where did this start? Obama drew a ‘red line’ in what he saw as support of an international norm against CBW. Right? Now if we get to an agreement with the Russians they effectively become the guarantors of Syrian behavior. Do you think Putin is telling Assad he’s free to use chemicals that Putin has agreed cant be used? Do you think Putin wants to be explaining to the world that it was just kidding? Just playing games? Or impotent to control his vassal. How would that accomplish any reasonable Russian goal?
If Putin is a pragmatist, why would he want to strike a deal that would elevate him to statesman status and then let Assad blow it up? Especially when keeping chem weapons away from Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is very much in his interest?
Now, maybe Putin is dumber than I think, but he’d have to be pretty dumb to be left looking like a guy whose word is worthless, and who failed to achieve an easy improvement in his country’s security. Remember: Obama is gone in three years, and Putin expects tone running things for decades.
Obama has spent the last two years avoiding the conflict in Syria. Good with me. Syria used chem weapons and Obama threatens to bomb then. That worried me. Now, Syria is giving up its chem weapons and we dont even have to spend the cost of a few Tomahawks? Good with me.
Also, I am not in the least worried about the “looking weak” concerns. Everyone knows we still have the big military, and we love to use it. What happened during this “crisis” wont matter when it comes to the next deal, whatever that is. The looking weak folks spend too much time thinking like junior high kids.
Steve
“Red:
I have literally no idea what you’re babbling about.”
Of course you do, Michael. Playing dumb is unbecoming.
Testy, are we? Because this incompetent dope is exactly what I’ve been saying for years? And you can’t resort to “racism” or “Damned Republicans?”
Because even all the usual suspects on the left are saying same.
Bummer.
Steve:
I agree. So far the United States has buried the Nazis, the Japanese Imperialists, the Communists and emerged as the world’s sole superpower, the only nation on earth capable of projecting massive conventional force beyond our borders, and yet at any given point millions of Americans are terrified of being seen as “weak.” Insecure little boys.
“And you can’t resort to “racism†or “Damned Republicans?—
Temperament counts for a lot. With Bush or McCain in office, we would have attacked Syria already. With Romney, probably the same since he had the same advisers. With Obama we got a guy who is not rash. By jawing rather than warring, we ended up where we wanted to go, at least for most of us.
On the racism bit, which I avoid on principle, and think Michael uses too much, I have to say I am starting to wonder. I maintain a number of email discussion groups. One is mostly with a bunch of self declared Tea Party guys. A bunch of investment banker types, lawyers, physicians and such. They are largely gold bugs, think Zero Hedge is written on clay tablets and not a computer and cannot think of a single thing Obama has done that they agree with. They constantly send me references about the criminal Black Caucus. Trayvon was a thug and Zimmerman a saint (really). They describe Obama as arrogant, surly, lazy and an affirmative action beneficiary. Lately, they have started calling Obama the typical angry black male. Racist?
Well, not like the folks I work with in coal country. I dont know if it is the poverty, the alcohol or all the oxy floating around. They pull no punches and clearly see the world through a racial and ethnic prism. At least once a month I get to hear “we may be poor but at least we didnt let the n%ggers in”. Or, my grandmother still doesnt want us to date the Irish. Or, the Welsh get the good jobs and the Germans and Irish get screwed. Or, the Jews run the country.
We have come a long way, but are not as far as some think.
Steve
Red:
I’ll take your word for it that you understand money. Beyond that you’re completely uniformed about pretty much everything. Like I said, you’re Superdestroyer or Eric Florack with a bank account.
By the way, genius, the “talking points” are supposed to be that Obama secretly planned all this. Which is the opposite of what I said. And also, my position which, you’d recall if you ever actually paid attention, was “weakly opposed” to intervention.
But you don’t pay attention because you’re really not very bright and have never for a second been able to look past the color of Obama’s skin.
@michael reynolds
After re-reading your comments more slowly, I was confusing your comments with others I have seen. Except during the campaign before a presidential election (6 mos max), I dislike criticizing any president about foreign policy, but I have seen many people claiming this was a brilliant move by President Obama.
For the record, Congress should authorize the AUMF. As to the actual military action, I think it will be worthless, but he is the president.
I apologize, and in the future, I will read more closely. I do not like having people ascribe opinions to me, and I try not to do it to others.
Steve:
It’s also possible that I’m just very tuned-in to language choices and what they reveal. Pretty much none of my brain has been assigned to math, (no, really: none) it’s all on the language end.
The way an out-of-place number on a balance sheet will jump out at Drew? Or the way Schuler would hear an off note in an opera or detect a logical lapse? I do that with words. The words used, the words avoided, the words that I know were the second or third choice, the pauses and repetitions, the rhythm, the voice, all of that is very easily decipherable to someone who spends his entire life with words.
Everyone thinks they understand language because we all use it, but there’s a difference between a professional and even a talented amateur. And yes, that sounds dickish of me but I’m not claiming some unique ability, any decent professional writer can do it. There’s a reason I never lie to my wife: she’s a better writer than I am and I don’t have the talent to reliably outwit her. (Really kind of a drag.)
Honestly, it’s not hard. The hard part actually is having to spend your life pretending not to hear things for the sake of maintaining peace. That’s acting, which is not my best skill.
I don’t think anyone should declare victory on Syria yet. The parties tentatively agreed to a concept, that is all. It’s not clear whether that commitment is a real or not, nor is it clear what “buts” will come out during detailed negotiations.
That said I’m happy that Kerry stumbled into something that turned the attack off, at least for now.
I agree, Andy. That’s why I commented over at OTB that it was good news, if true, and we’ll need to wait and see.
I’m also reminded of Churchill’s wisecrack that “jaw-jaw was better than war-war”.
I remain puzzled that the Obama Administration hasn’t taken its case to the Security Council, as our treaty obligation requires us to do. If they’re right, the worst it will do is reveal how isolated Russia is. Of course, if they’re wrong, it will reveal how isolated we are.
“have never for a second been able to look past the color of Obama’s skin.”
Nah, Michael, that’s not right. Drew’s not a racist. His problems with Obama have zero to do with the man’s color and everything to do with Drew’s seeing the world through (not very well thought out) libertarian prism. He’s an equal-opportunity anti-leftist (as he understands leftism). The color of the target on his ire and disdain is an accident (in the Aristotelian sense).
Not to bring in a ‘reality downer’ to the jubilation exuded over this last minute plan B concocted, however, here is one opinion saying that there’s almost no chance this Russian plan for Syria’s chemical weapons will work.
It seems that once the joyous smiles of victory dissipate, you’re left with the grunt work of finding, isolating, dismantling these chemicals, many of which are old and unstable. Then add into this taxing mix the vulnerability posed for workers tasked with this project, especially when the environment around them is an ongoing hostile civil war. I didn’t realize it, but Libya is still in the process of destroying it’s mustard gas and other WMDs. Nine years later, though, they are barely half way done. And, supposedly Syria has more to dispose of than Libya!. In the meantime, there is this other stumbling block to consider:
Russia and the U.S. are already at loggerheads in simply writing up an agreement of terms for this deal. How are they going to weather years of implementation, if initial negotiations are this rough and tenuous?
Lastly, the Pentagon modeled what it would take for the U.S. to address these chemical weapons, two years ago. And, in much calmer, less onerous times, they projected that a force of 75,000 American boots on the ground would be needed to make it happen. How are the American people going to respond to so many boots on the ground, when everyone is promising no boots on the ground?
I think a few years back our intervention would have been productive and worthy. However, at this late date, we seem to have crossed another red line — one of too much delay causing such well-meaning actions to evolve into a mission impossible scenario.
BTW, Elizabeth O’Bagy, the one who gained so much notoriety and pundit referencing, after her WSJ piece was used to make Kerry’s case for the Syrian attack, is running into some credibility problems of her own.
Dave,
Didn’t see what you wrote at OTB, have not visited there in several days.
I also agree with you about the security council.