AQAP in Yemen is strong enough to mount major military offensives against the Yemeni government, as well as putting together terrorist acts significantly more sophisticated than "truckload of guys with rifles."
We're not talking about "major terrorist attacks" when it comes to al Shabab. We're talking about plain old, ordinary terrorist attacks. These people can't project power into the United States, or even Europe.
Look, it's very sad and disturbing that a dozen guys with rifles can kill lots of people in a mall, but it's not 9/11. It's not even putting a bomb on a plane.
It's something any sufficiently-motivated car full of rednecks can do, if they're brainwashed enough. This isn't AQ, or AQAP. It's barely November 17.
"maintains a rural base in Somalia" translates to "hiding out in the countryside" and "can't even establish itself as a power in freaking Somalia."
retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts is a fairly low bar.
Basically, you just described the Manson Family, except they were at least able to "maintain a rural base" in California.
There was a time that Al-Shabab had enough contacts and clout to be worth American attention, but that time has pretty much passed. They're a desperate group getting their butts handed to them by a multinational African force, committing desperate acts for attention. It's probably just about time to take them off the Christmas card list.
As it has lost power in the capital and lost access to a key port, retaining only an impoverished rural power base, the group has become even more extreme
The word "shabab" wouldn't, by any chance, translate to "Republican," would it?
Sarcasm can be tough to pick up on in a text-only formal.
I believe Mr. Bodden is referring to the Israeli government's habit of describing their troops' use of force as "defending themselves," regardless of circumstances, such as the time they "defended themselves" against the people whose aid ships they stormed.
The question of how American foreign policy actions influence other powers' internal politics is a meaningful one, and deserves a more serious response than your continued embittered railing about That Guy You Hate On The Internet.
You spent the last month defending a chemical war criminal and accusing his victims of complicity in their own deaths.
Why you think it's a good idea to bring that subject up is beyond me. Frankly, in your shoes, my response would be more like "My God, what I have become?" rather than taking every opportunity to advertise your sickness to the world.
I seem to recall a certain well-respected expert on Middle Eastern politics and culture explain that the sanctions regime and standoff with the United States would strengthen the Iranian hardliners, rally the Iranian public towards confrontational politics, and isolate the reformers.
It seemed like a reasonable prediction at the time. What happened?
The notion that the destruction of al Qaeda through the drone campaign is something Obama would need to "offset" could only come from the most isolated of bubbles.
Rouhani’s campaign revolved around the same ideas he is professing now as a president.
A campaign that ended with his Rouhani's electoral victory this past June.
But, or course, the American media's take is that Rouhani's recent statements and apparent desire for dialogue are the result of the Syria chemical weapons crisis and/or the diplomatic resolution that resulted.
US policy towards Israel is largely determined by Tel Aviv, but if US policy towards Iran was similarly outsourced, then where is that Iranian bombing campaign I've been told for the past five years was just around the corner?
If Nethanyahu wanted to tell Obama what the conditions for US-Iranian talks would be, he shouldn't have spent the last five years disrespecting Obama and rubbing his face in settlement activity.
This analysis suffers from treating "the US" as a single entity with a unified political outlook, instead of recognizing the different factions in our foreign policy thinking.
There are certainly those in the US who would pursue the course you describe. Fortunately, none of them are in the White House.
I think American-Irananian rapprochement is inevitable. The Iranian people are the American people's most natural allies in Southwest Asia. My the end of this century, an American-Indian-Iranian alliance will be as important as NATO was in the 20th.
It's only a matter of there being a moment when both countries have leaderships ready to seize the opportunity, and this just might be that moment.
Transit stations that have free parking for solar/battery-powered cars. The cars hook up to recharging stations during the day, and after the batteries are fully powered-up, they begin sending power back into the system - power that is used to help propel the trains.
The radicals comprise the most effective offensive fighting force on the rebel side. Wherever the rebels gain victories, you find Al-Nusra or other hardline fundamentalist elements in the vanguard.
There was a time when that was true, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Just before Assad's forces loosed chemical shells against non-radical forces in Goutha, forces they has been unable to dislodge through conventional means, they drove forces lead by the Nusra Front out of Homs.
I don’t much care about who, what, when, where. What I care about is the U.S...
It's been apparent for quite some time that the people pushing the crackpot conspiracy theory don't actually care about the truth, and were merely saying whatever was convenient for their political agenda. In the language of the famed Downing Street Memo, they were fixing the intelligence around the policy.
This is probably something worth keeping in mind when considering what these people have to say in the future.
And why won't the UN release the sarin shells' long form birth certificate?
After the Iraq War Pundits were finally forced to acknowledge that they had been utterly wrong about the Iraqi WMD question, their fallback position was "I was wrong for the right reasons, while you were right for the wrong reasons, so really, I was right."
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.
The 140mm munitions that were used in the chemical warfare massacre are a specialized type designed to break apart in in mid-flight, thus lending another dimension to the term "crack-pot theory."
Professor, would there be any way for your site to start displaying an icon of a pot with a crack in it beside the comments of people who spent the last month blaming the victims of the chemical warfare attack for their own deaths?
Something you learn when you argue with libertarians: when somebody who does not want the government to accomplish something insists that it is impossible for the government to accomplish that thing, you shouldn't take them very seriously.
From JT McPhee's computer, all those people look alike, so there must be no way for the people on the ground to tell the difference, either.
Since American aid has been targeted towards the Syrian opposition, and the CIA has been actively working to prevent the Gulf States' weapons from ending up with the al Qaeda terrorists, he clearly means the former.
It is a bit amusing to watch people who've spent years insisting that al Qaeda is not al Qaeda if it's in the Arabian Peninsula flip-flop so dramatically, and describe everyone fighting the Assad regime as Osama bin Laden's twin brother.
Try John McCain and Lindsey Graham; that is, the people who were calling for direct US intervention for years before the chemical weapons attack, and continue to call for it today.
Whether you thought the case for force in response to the chemical attack was strong or not, it was a very different case from that which has been made by the Iraq hawks for the past 2-1/2 years.
George Bush and the PNAC thought they could topple the Saddam Hussein regime and install a cooperative puppet, as if a large, oil-rich Middle Eastern country in the 21st century was pretty much the same as a Central American nation in the 1950s.
Let's not make this all about Summers. Janet Yellen, the likely next Fed Chair, is a great deal more than Not Larry Summers. For example, she led the pushback against the racist Big Lie that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial meltdown.
It is a great mystery why Barack Obama even considered rewarding Summers
Not that much of a mystery. Summers has powerful friends and patrons in Washington who needed to be mollified. Given his interest in the position, for Obama to ignore him entirely would have been seen a snub - a well-deserved snub, by a costly one nonetheless.
Sorry to burst your carefully-constructed bubble, Brian, but the information in the UN report pins the blame definitively on the Assad regime.
The munitions used, including 140 mm and 330 mm shells designed to come apart in mid-flight, are not used by the rebels.
The trajectories of the armaments lead back to government-controlled areas.
I have to say, the bit about the munitions full of chemical weapons being designed to break apart in flight adds a whole new meaning to the term "crack-pot theory."
It's certainly true that Syria's chemical arsenal was an important deterrent and expression of national power, but it seems rather mistaken to insist that that was all it was for the regime, given its recent (and, apparently, ongoing) use throughout the civil war.
My idea of "deft handling of foreign policy" is, indeed, quite different from yours.
Mine revolves around the pursuit of concrete ends, and has very little to do with the sort of language one might use when discussing a fashion show or an erectile dysfunction medication.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are at odds (for instance, disarming Assad of his chemical weapons benefits the rebels), but they are certainly distinct.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the deal includes restrictions on aid to the rebels (nor on Russian aid to the regime, which is much larger).
The deal is no American bombing in exchange for locking down Assad's chemical weapons. Assad and Putin are, indeed, not stupid; that is a good deal for them, given how devastating American air strikes could have been for Assad's regime, and they are too smart to pass it up by over-reaching.
"that weakens the US’ stature internationally even more than the Iraq and Afghan Wars or drone strikes could have, that really marks a low point for post-Cold War America."
OK, just so we're perfectly clear: this is worse for American's international stature than the Iraq War.
Once the chemical attacks happened, dealing with the threat of proliferation and the erosion of the global norm surpassed the Syrian Civil War itself as a foreign policy goal for the administration. Note that they never threatened military intervention before that, and tailored their threats and the design of the proposed campaign towards degrading and deterring chemical warfare, not assisting the rebels.
It is true that regime change has been a foreign policy goal (now a second-tier one), but even on that front, this episode doesn't leave Assad in a more secure position. It leaves him without his chemical weapons to use in the civil war, and the US is backing the rebels even more than before August 21 (though the aid may not be enough to tip the balance by itself, it has nonetheless increased).
Your second paragraph reads like a political talk show guest spinning during a campaign. Those aren't reasons or facts; they're lines from a political ad.
Well, no, it's not clear. There are some people who use such terminology to describe one minority faction of the opposition (that is, people concerned with truthfulness), and others who use that term as a pejorative to describe the entire opposition (the Assad regime, the Russians, gullible and not particularly principled American leftists). And you haven't exactly cleared up which definition you're using.
the militant jihadists and their backers are worse off, because they were hoping that with military attacks against airfields and Army installations they would move forward and topple Assad
The question was, how are they worse off than they were on August 20th, the day before the chemical attacks? Not, how have they fallen short of achieving their fondest desires? You haven't exactly cleared this up, either.
Imagine an alternate history in which George Bush uses coercive diplomacy to get the UN Inspectors back into Iraq in late 2002/early 2003, while continuing to concentrate his military effort on finishing off the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.
I don't know if another Democrat would have been elected for 20 years. A few years later, a contained, constrained Saddam Hussein sees the Arab Spring protests spread to Iraq.
The results are a strike has been averted and Assad is strengthened. Putin has gained stature and Obama appears equivocal and amateurish.
This is a strange way to describe Obama's accomplishment of his primary foreign policy goal without firing a shot.
The criminal pulled a gun. The police aimed at him and said "Stop or I'll shoot." The criminal's friend says, "You'd better do as they say." The criminal drops his gun, so they don't shoot him.
The police shooting has been averted. Perhaps the criminal's friend has gained stature, but it is not obvious to me that the police have lost any, or that the criminal has been strengthened.
If the chemical weapons capability was so meaningless to Assad, why did he maintain it?
Why did his forces use it?
While the world is clearly better off without Assad's chemical weapons, it is not at all clear why Assad himself is. He seemed to like them quite a bit, and consider them to have value. Remember that not only have his forces deployed them against the rebels, but they have also used them as their massive-retaliation threat against competing regional powers like Saddam-era Iraq and Israel.
If Putin thought the strikes were off the table because of Congressional opposition, why would he have offered the deal instead of standing firm behind Assad?
The defeat for the hawks (defined, as in the post, as those who wanted American involvement all along) have been dealt a defeat, but if Russia and Syria do not follow through, they could end up with a victory after all.
Russia's "win" is better described as "cutting their losses." Their client state, who they were defending from charges of having and using chemical weapons just a week ago, is now being stripped of its chemical arsenal. This leaves them weaker against the rebels, as well as removing the retaliatory arsenal that made them a regional power (meanwhile, the US has only increased its support for the Arab Spring faction of the rebels since this crisis began). Russia itself is now responsible for the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.
It is true that Russia looks statesmanlike for offering this way out; at the same time, rather than protecting their client by themselves, they have confirmed their second-tier-power status by identifying themselves, in word and deed, as part of the BRICS group, and citing the collective action of that bloc for their success.
Russia can only appear to have gotten a win out of this crisis if your analysis goes back only to early September, when the American strikes were assumed to be imminent, and treat that as the status quo. If you look back further, to the day before the chemical attacks, Russia has deftly cut its losses.
When examining the outcome from a US perspective, you find that achieved its primary foreign policy goal in Syria - the prevention of chemical warfare and proliferation, and the strengthening of the chemical weapons norm - without firing a shot, while also increasing its support of the anti-Assad rebels.
Finally, I'd say that the moment of the US not being a sole superpower came years ago, when the failure of the Iraq War prevented the rest of the 'Axis of Evil' strategy. The American role in the Libya operation, as a cooperative supporting player in both the vision and execution of the policy, demonstrates this new role in the world. That the situation in Syria has been contested for the past two years further demonstrates that the U.S. isn't playing the hyperpower role it used to. The outcome of the chemical weapons crisis didn't produce this situation; that was the situation when it began.
Putin has a lot of nerve bringing up the failure of the League of Nations. It didn't fail because someone acted to address a problem without going through the League. It failed because Haille Salessie went the League, begging it to live up to its duty to do something about the Italian chemical warfare attacks on his country, and the League did nothing - which is exactly what Putin has been using his Security Council veto to replicate in Syria.
While we're wishing...maybe the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons will provide some impetus for Israel and Egypt to sign the Convention and come clean.
Your analysis of the effectiveness of chemical weapons seems to overlook something that should have been made obvious by the regime's August 21st attacks: they are very useful in an urban insurgency, especially one in which the local civilian population is considered the enemy, and especially as terror weapons.
The threat of Syrian chemical warfare isn't so much that it would be used in a Syrian military attack against the United States, but that it could cause proliferation, or fall into the hands of al Qaeda (or, the proliferation could cause someone else's weapons to fall into the hands of al Qaeda).
"Which incidentally does not explain why the USA is against imposing the chemical weapons convention on the whole of the Middle East.
Can you guess why?"
Because nobody else is gassing people?
You do understand the difference between a guy having a rifle in his closet, and a guy bringing his rifle into a theater and shooting people, right?
I would be wonderful if the whole Middle East was chemical weapon free. Right now, however, we've got a more significant problem than chemical weapons sitting a warehouse somewhere: we have one - one, and only one, no matter how much you hate Israel - government using them to massacre people, including children, by the hundreds.
Gee, what could possibly make anyone consider that more important?
The Carter Doctrine, as stated by Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
OK, professor, but, what about the children? What about the humanitarian cost? What about the medicines?
Just to clarify the matter: are you coming out and endorsing such measures, and the humanitarian costs they entail, in response to actual chemical weapons use?
That description of the military situation is out of date, Ericrunner.
As of mid-August, FSA forces trained in Jordan and equipped by the west had reentered the country and were putting pressure on the regime south of Damascus - which just happens to be the location of the chemical attacks.
It's war crime to carelessly expose civilian populations to any weapon.
But that's exactly what makes the definition of chemical weapons more than just a semantic point: poison gas clouds cannot in any way be used in a manner that doesn't carelessly expose civilian populations to them. There is just no way of knowing when the wind is going to change. Everything in the area that the sarin ends up gets "hit."
This is why nuclear, chemical, and biological agents gets grouped together: because they work with an area effect, and cannot be controlled and directed in a manner consistent with the laws of war.
It's difficult to describe an action proposed and endorsed by the Arab League, authorized by the UN, and carried out mainly by the French and British, as an exercise in American Exceptionalism.
There was never a serious question about who launched the attack.
It's the equivalent of the "controversy" over Obama's birth certificate. Anyone can say they believe in a reasonable idea, but to publicly commit yourself to some really implausible, outlandish, and ridiculous really demonstrates your commitment to the team.
Do you really ask whether Timothy McVeigh and the KKK have legitimate grievances that we should act upon?
Does the deliberate mass murder of civilians always cause you to respond this way, or is it only when carried out against Americans by non-Americans that you assume some legitimacy to their cause?
But as the Professor explains, al Qaeda terrorists like Atta are not merely extremists. They are not fundamentally like other people in the Middle East, only more so. They are basically different in how they view the world.
It's not "Al Qaeda is to Middle Eastern Muslims as the Symbionese Liberation Army is to American liberals."
It's "Al Qaeda is to Middle Eastern Muslims as the Manson Family is to American liberals."
Not an more violent, extreme version, but a bizarre little cult off to the side.
Or so we’re told by the mandarins and their lackeys. I choose to believe reality.
"US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin discussed the idea of placing Syrian chemical weapons under international control at last week's G20 summit in Saint Petersburg, Putin's spokesman said Tuesday."
Oh, and that's a Russian web site. Somebody is, indeed, determined to let is agenda regarding Obama's public image interfere with his understanding of how the deal came about.
And so, to sum up, the achievement of Obama's primary foreign policy goal in Syria is not a success for the administration because RANDOM BAD STUFF 'BOUT AMERICA.
The problem with your theory, Steerpike, is that the "blindsided" Obama administration was discussing this proposal with the Russians at the G20 summit over a week ago.
A development which occurred only after they began threatening force.
To describe the accomplishment of Obama's primary foreign policy goal in Syria, by the Russians, at the expense of Assad, as a setback for Obama and a win for Putin takes some serious blinders.
"Oh, you were only talking about that limited set, “al Quaeda forces.” Is there a McCainDetector that distinguishes one bearded dude with an AK or RPG and a copy of the Qu’ran yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” over and over from another, so readily?"
Do all those people look alike to you, or what?
I've been posting those same links for weeks, by they way, by way of explaining why Assad's forces did, indeed have a motive for using chemical weapons, and knocking down your silly conspiracy theory about the FSA gassing itself.
If this path to avoid war succeeds, watch Kerry take and others give him credit for it.
Except that, once again, this proposal was already in the works when Kerry made his comment. He did not invent the idea at that conference, and the Russians didn't seize on it as a result of his comment.
In this case, Bill, the administration's policy for two years has revolved around supporting the Arab Spring faction of the FSA, and trying to weaken the Islamists.
I think you, and Obama, have the right of this, from a national-interest perspective: the major consideration is preventing al Qaeda or affiliates from taking over the country, or getting ahold of its chemical weapons.
That the rebels, who just saw their comrades die from Assad's chemical munitions, would refuse to allow the UN to seize and destroy the regime's chemical stockpiles is not immediately obvious.
Yes, the sort of diplomacy that results in "International We Love Kittens Day."
The type of diplomacy that results in a war criminal warlord and his patron giving up their chemical stockpiles in the middle of a civil war, however, is very rarely backed by appeals to the better angels of our nature.
In a further development, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
That shed a different light on Secretary of State John Kerry’s mention of the plan at a news conference in London on Monday. That had previously been characterized by spokesman Jen Psaki as an off-the-cuff “rhetorical argument.”
There is no possible way to confirm that Assad has relinquished all of his chemical weapons (who’s to say that Assad won’t be able to hide away a fraction of their CW somewhere?).
UNSCOM did a very good job of this in Iraq during the 1990s.
It's always amusing to me to watch people respond to the Obama administration's achievement of their long-stated policy ends by insisting that they've been incompetent, and sure got lucky.
Yesterday: So US policy is to join with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to encourage a second front at Deraa with anti-al-Qaeda fighters a la sons of Iraq ...The chemical attack in Ghouta seems likely a military response to these Jordan-trained, Deraa-based guerrillas coming up into Rif Dimashq. The Obama administration’s plans for a missile strike in response to the chemical attack is part of the southern, “Sons of Syria” strategy comes because that strategy cannot succeed if the regime is allowed to use chemical weapons to level the playing field.
Today: Without a US or Western bombing campaign, the Syrian regime is likely just strong enough to hold on for years. The rebels’ advance of last spring has stalled and in some places been reversed.
So, which is it? Is the recent rebel advance something that the regime needs chemical warfare to fight off? Or was there no recent rebel advance, only fought off with the use of chemical weapons, and the regime won't have a "level playing field" without them?
Or one might consider the facts, even when they are terribly inconvenient for what JT McPhee wants to believe.
BTW, among the many things you haven't bothered to learn about this conflict is that American policy has been designed around weakening the very Islamist factions you (momentarily) feign concern about.
Bill,
AQAP in Yemen is strong enough to mount major military offensives against the Yemeni government, as well as putting together terrorist acts significantly more sophisticated than "truckload of guys with rifles."
We're not talking about "major terrorist attacks" when it comes to al Shabab. We're talking about plain old, ordinary terrorist attacks. These people can't project power into the United States, or even Europe.
They're, quite literally, the bush league.
"major terrorist acts"
Look, it's very sad and disturbing that a dozen guys with rifles can kill lots of people in a mall, but it's not 9/11. It's not even putting a bomb on a plane.
It's something any sufficiently-motivated car full of rednecks can do, if they're brainwashed enough. This isn't AQ, or AQAP. It's barely November 17.
"maintains a rural base in Somalia" translates to "hiding out in the countryside" and "can't even establish itself as a power in freaking Somalia."
retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts is a fairly low bar.
Basically, you just described the Manson Family, except they were at least able to "maintain a rural base" in California.
There was a time that Al-Shabab had enough contacts and clout to be worth American attention, but that time has pretty much passed. They're a desperate group getting their butts handed to them by a multinational African force, committing desperate acts for attention. It's probably just about time to take them off the Christmas card list.
As it has lost power in the capital and lost access to a key port, retaining only an impoverished rural power base, the group has become even more extreme
The word "shabab" wouldn't, by any chance, translate to "Republican," would it?
The world's largest wind farm, in California, has a capacity of over 1300 megawatts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center
This is not a niche market anymore.
Sarcasm can be tough to pick up on in a text-only formal.
I believe Mr. Bodden is referring to the Israeli government's habit of describing their troops' use of force as "defending themselves," regardless of circumstances, such as the time they "defended themselves" against the people whose aid ships they stormed.
And exactly whose opinion will be the most significant to an American President in judging his legacy?
JT,
The question of how American foreign policy actions influence other powers' internal politics is a meaningful one, and deserves a more serious response than your continued embittered railing about That Guy You Hate On The Internet.
JT,
You spent the last month defending a chemical war criminal and accusing his victims of complicity in their own deaths.
Why you think it's a good idea to bring that subject up is beyond me. Frankly, in your shoes, my response would be more like "My God, what I have become?" rather than taking every opportunity to advertise your sickness to the world.
Seriously, take some time for some introspection.
It doesn't seem like a terribly good bet that hardliners were given a boost, given that they did worse than usual. "Fortunately" isn't an explanation.
I seem to recall a certain well-respected expert on Middle Eastern politics and culture explain that the sanctions regime and standoff with the United States would strengthen the Iranian hardliners, rally the Iranian public towards confrontational politics, and isolate the reformers.
It seemed like a reasonable prediction at the time. What happened?
The notion that the destruction of al Qaeda through the drone campaign is something Obama would need to "offset" could only come from the most isolated of bubbles.
Rouhani’s campaign revolved around the same ideas he is professing now as a president.
A campaign that ended with his Rouhani's electoral victory this past June.
But, or course, the American media's take is that Rouhani's recent statements and apparent desire for dialogue are the result of the Syria chemical weapons crisis and/or the diplomatic resolution that resulted.
The "unreasonable" John Kerry who negotiated the peaceful resolution to the Syrian chemical weapons problem?
Please note that the alliance I postulated was American-Indian-Iranian, not just American-Iranian.
US policy towards Israel is largely determined by Tel Aviv, but if US policy towards Iran was similarly outsourced, then where is that Iranian bombing campaign I've been told for the past five years was just around the corner?
If Nethanyahu wanted to tell Obama what the conditions for US-Iranian talks would be, he shouldn't have spent the last five years disrespecting Obama and rubbing his face in settlement activity.
This analysis suffers from treating "the US" as a single entity with a unified political outlook, instead of recognizing the different factions in our foreign policy thinking.
There are certainly those in the US who would pursue the course you describe. Fortunately, none of them are in the White House.
I think American-Irananian rapprochement is inevitable. The Iranian people are the American people's most natural allies in Southwest Asia. My the end of this century, an American-Indian-Iranian alliance will be as important as NATO was in the 20th.
It's only a matter of there being a moment when both countries have leaderships ready to seize the opportunity, and this just might be that moment.
I saw an interesting proposal once:
Transit stations that have free parking for solar/battery-powered cars. The cars hook up to recharging stations during the day, and after the batteries are fully powered-up, they begin sending power back into the system - power that is used to help propel the trains.
The radicals comprise the most effective offensive fighting force on the rebel side. Wherever the rebels gain victories, you find Al-Nusra or other hardline fundamentalist elements in the vanguard.
There was a time when that was true, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Just before Assad's forces loosed chemical shells against non-radical forces in Goutha, forces they has been unable to dislodge through conventional means, they drove forces lead by the Nusra Front out of Homs.
Just because you haven't been briefed by the DCI, John H, doesn't mean nobody else has.
I don’t much care about who, what, when, where. What I care about is the U.S...
It's been apparent for quite some time that the people pushing the crackpot conspiracy theory don't actually care about the truth, and were merely saying whatever was convenient for their political agenda. In the language of the famed Downing Street Memo, they were fixing the intelligence around the policy.
This is probably something worth keeping in mind when considering what these people have to say in the future.
And why won't the UN release the sarin shells' long form birth certificate?
After the Iraq War Pundits were finally forced to acknowledge that they had been utterly wrong about the Iraqi WMD question, their fallback position was "I was wrong for the right reasons, while you were right for the wrong reasons, so really, I was right."
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.
The 140mm munitions that were used in the chemical warfare massacre are a specialized type designed to break apart in in mid-flight, thus lending another dimension to the term "crack-pot theory."
Professor, would there be any way for your site to start displaying an icon of a pot with a crack in it beside the comments of people who spent the last month blaming the victims of the chemical warfare attack for their own deaths?
Something you learn when you argue with libertarians: when somebody who does not want the government to accomplish something insists that it is impossible for the government to accomplish that thing, you shouldn't take them very seriously.
From JT McPhee's computer, all those people look alike, so there must be no way for the people on the ground to tell the difference, either.
And yet, Bill, those humanitarian hawks are not out there calling for direct intervention in Syria, while the neo-con hawks are.
All of which is to say, there are meaningful differences.
Since American aid has been targeted towards the Syrian opposition, and the CIA has been actively working to prevent the Gulf States' weapons from ending up with the al Qaeda terrorists, he clearly means the former.
It is a bit amusing to watch people who've spent years insisting that al Qaeda is not al Qaeda if it's in the Arabian Peninsula flip-flop so dramatically, and describe everyone fighting the Assad regime as Osama bin Laden's twin brother.
Try John McCain and Lindsey Graham; that is, the people who were calling for direct US intervention for years before the chemical weapons attack, and continue to call for it today.
Whether you thought the case for force in response to the chemical attack was strong or not, it was a very different case from that which has been made by the Iraq hawks for the past 2-1/2 years.
George Bush and the PNAC thought they could topple the Saddam Hussein regime and install a cooperative puppet, as if a large, oil-rich Middle Eastern country in the 21st century was pretty much the same as a Central American nation in the 1950s.
Madness. Madness and hubris.
Let's not make this all about Summers. Janet Yellen, the likely next Fed Chair, is a great deal more than Not Larry Summers. For example, she led the pushback against the racist Big Lie that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial meltdown.
It is a great mystery why Barack Obama even considered rewarding Summers
Not that much of a mystery. Summers has powerful friends and patrons in Washington who needed to be mollified. Given his interest in the position, for Obama to ignore him entirely would have been seen a snub - a well-deserved snub, by a costly one nonetheless.
Sorry to burst your carefully-constructed bubble, Brian, but the information in the UN report pins the blame definitively on the Assad regime.
The munitions used, including 140 mm and 330 mm shells designed to come apart in mid-flight, are not used by the rebels.
The trajectories of the armaments lead back to government-controlled areas.
I have to say, the bit about the munitions full of chemical weapons being designed to break apart in flight adds a whole new meaning to the term "crack-pot theory."
Forgive me for doubting you, Amir.
One encounters some crazy *%#^ in the Informed Comment threads.
It's certainly true that Syria's chemical arsenal was an important deterrent and expression of national power, but it seems rather mistaken to insist that that was all it was for the regime, given its recent (and, apparently, ongoing) use throughout the civil war.
Bill,
My idea of "deft handling of foreign policy" is, indeed, quite different from yours.
Mine revolves around the pursuit of concrete ends, and has very little to do with the sort of language one might use when discussing a fashion show or an erectile dysfunction medication.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are at odds (for instance, disarming Assad of his chemical weapons benefits the rebels), but they are certainly distinct.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the deal includes restrictions on aid to the rebels (nor on Russian aid to the regime, which is much larger).
The deal is no American bombing in exchange for locking down Assad's chemical weapons. Assad and Putin are, indeed, not stupid; that is a good deal for them, given how devastating American air strikes could have been for Assad's regime, and they are too smart to pass it up by over-reaching.
"Get on with?"
The United States has destroyed approximately 95% of its chemical weapons.
"that weakens the US’ stature internationally even more than the Iraq and Afghan Wars or drone strikes could have, that really marks a low point for post-Cold War America."
OK, just so we're perfectly clear: this is worse for American's international stature than the Iraq War.
Than the Iraq War.
Why is it that some of these analyses leave out the US role in instigating this phony “civil war” / actual proxy war almost 3 years ago ?
Because the Arab Spring actually happened, and wasn't a CIA plot.
Crackpot conspiracy theories aside.
Obama's primary foreign policy goal in Syria, I mean.
Kerry initially offered the proposal
Mark, do have a source for that? You aren't talking about Kerry's "off the cuff" statement at the press conference, are you?
Once the chemical attacks happened, dealing with the threat of proliferation and the erosion of the global norm surpassed the Syrian Civil War itself as a foreign policy goal for the administration. Note that they never threatened military intervention before that, and tailored their threats and the design of the proposed campaign towards degrading and deterring chemical warfare, not assisting the rebels.
It is true that regime change has been a foreign policy goal (now a second-tier one), but even on that front, this episode doesn't leave Assad in a more secure position. It leaves him without his chemical weapons to use in the civil war, and the US is backing the rebels even more than before August 21 (though the aid may not be enough to tip the balance by itself, it has nonetheless increased).
Your second paragraph reads like a political talk show guest spinning during a campaign. Those aren't reasons or facts; they're lines from a political ad.
If this is satire, it is the driest, wittiest example I have seen in quite some time.
The definition “militant jihadists” is clear.
Well, no, it's not clear. There are some people who use such terminology to describe one minority faction of the opposition (that is, people concerned with truthfulness), and others who use that term as a pejorative to describe the entire opposition (the Assad regime, the Russians, gullible and not particularly principled American leftists). And you haven't exactly cleared up which definition you're using.
the militant jihadists and their backers are worse off, because they were hoping that with military attacks against airfields and Army installations they would move forward and topple Assad
The question was, how are they worse off than they were on August 20th, the day before the chemical attacks? Not, how have they fallen short of achieving their fondest desires? You haven't exactly cleared this up, either.
Imagine an alternate history in which George Bush uses coercive diplomacy to get the UN Inspectors back into Iraq in late 2002/early 2003, while continuing to concentrate his military effort on finishing off the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.
I don't know if another Democrat would have been elected for 20 years. A few years later, a contained, constrained Saddam Hussein sees the Arab Spring protests spread to Iraq.
I don't know if you did it on purpose, but leaving Egypt with an obviously blue background filled in with red after the fact is just perfect.
The results are a strike has been averted and Assad is strengthened. Putin has gained stature and Obama appears equivocal and amateurish.
This is a strange way to describe Obama's accomplishment of his primary foreign policy goal without firing a shot.
The criminal pulled a gun. The police aimed at him and said "Stop or I'll shoot." The criminal's friend says, "You'd better do as they say." The criminal drops his gun, so they don't shoot him.
The police shooting has been averted. Perhaps the criminal's friend has gained stature, but it is not obvious to me that the police have lost any, or that the criminal has been strengthened.
If the chemical weapons capability was so meaningless to Assad, why did he maintain it?
Why did his forces use it?
While the world is clearly better off without Assad's chemical weapons, it is not at all clear why Assad himself is. He seemed to like them quite a bit, and consider them to have value. Remember that not only have his forces deployed them against the rebels, but they have also used them as their massive-retaliation threat against competing regional powers like Saddam-era Iraq and Israel.
The biggest losers are the militant jihadists and their Saudi and Qatari backers
It's not clear if you are referring here to the anti-Assad forces in their entirety, or only to the foreign-jihadist faction.
Either way, in what sense are they worse off than they were on August 20, before the chemical weapons massacre?
If Putin thought the strikes were off the table because of Congressional opposition, why would he have offered the deal instead of standing firm behind Assad?
The defeat for the hawks (defined, as in the post, as those who wanted American involvement all along) have been dealt a defeat, but if Russia and Syria do not follow through, they could end up with a victory after all.
Russia's "win" is better described as "cutting their losses." Their client state, who they were defending from charges of having and using chemical weapons just a week ago, is now being stripped of its chemical arsenal. This leaves them weaker against the rebels, as well as removing the retaliatory arsenal that made them a regional power (meanwhile, the US has only increased its support for the Arab Spring faction of the rebels since this crisis began). Russia itself is now responsible for the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.
It is true that Russia looks statesmanlike for offering this way out; at the same time, rather than protecting their client by themselves, they have confirmed their second-tier-power status by identifying themselves, in word and deed, as part of the BRICS group, and citing the collective action of that bloc for their success.
Russia can only appear to have gotten a win out of this crisis if your analysis goes back only to early September, when the American strikes were assumed to be imminent, and treat that as the status quo. If you look back further, to the day before the chemical attacks, Russia has deftly cut its losses.
When examining the outcome from a US perspective, you find that achieved its primary foreign policy goal in Syria - the prevention of chemical warfare and proliferation, and the strengthening of the chemical weapons norm - without firing a shot, while also increasing its support of the anti-Assad rebels.
Finally, I'd say that the moment of the US not being a sole superpower came years ago, when the failure of the Iraq War prevented the rest of the 'Axis of Evil' strategy. The American role in the Libya operation, as a cooperative supporting player in both the vision and execution of the policy, demonstrates this new role in the world. That the situation in Syria has been contested for the past two years further demonstrates that the U.S. isn't playing the hyperpower role it used to. The outcome of the chemical weapons crisis didn't produce this situation; that was the situation when it began.
You mean the Barack who negotiated the cease-fire Gaza?
Perhaps you would have preferred a statement.
Priorities, I guess.
Why, it's almost as if the use and threat of force can have different outcomes in different situations.
In a Juan Cole comment thread, an off-topic shout of YEAH BUT ISRAEL is the functional equivalent of assent.
+1 for "crackpot conspiracy theory"
Putin has a lot of nerve bringing up the failure of the League of Nations. It didn't fail because someone acted to address a problem without going through the League. It failed because Haille Salessie went the League, begging it to live up to its duty to do something about the Italian chemical warfare attacks on his country, and the League did nothing - which is exactly what Putin has been using his Security Council veto to replicate in Syria.
While we're wishing...maybe the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons will provide some impetus for Israel and Egypt to sign the Convention and come clean.
Prediction: 2-4 days before we see this threat echoed on left-wing American blogs.
Odd thing to say, given that the diplomatic solution only became possible after the threat of force was made.
Your analysis of the effectiveness of chemical weapons seems to overlook something that should have been made obvious by the regime's August 21st attacks: they are very useful in an urban insurgency, especially one in which the local civilian population is considered the enemy, and especially as terror weapons.
The threat of Syrian chemical warfare isn't so much that it would be used in a Syrian military attack against the United States, but that it could cause proliferation, or fall into the hands of al Qaeda (or, the proliferation could cause someone else's weapons to fall into the hands of al Qaeda).
If other countries believe in it, then it ceases to be exceptionalism.
"Which incidentally does not explain why the USA is against imposing the chemical weapons convention on the whole of the Middle East.
Can you guess why?"
Because nobody else is gassing people?
You do understand the difference between a guy having a rifle in his closet, and a guy bringing his rifle into a theater and shooting people, right?
I would be wonderful if the whole Middle East was chemical weapon free. Right now, however, we've got a more significant problem than chemical weapons sitting a warehouse somewhere: we have one - one, and only one, no matter how much you hate Israel - government using them to massacre people, including children, by the hundreds.
Gee, what could possibly make anyone consider that more important?
Brian,
WP causes harm by setting fires, not by its chemical properties.
I thought you would check the link; I also thought you would understand it.
The Carter Doctrine, as stated by Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
I'm not entirely sure how this applies to Syria.
OK, professor, but, what about the children? What about the humanitarian cost? What about the medicines?
Just to clarify the matter: are you coming out and endorsing such measures, and the humanitarian costs they entail, in response to actual chemical weapons use?
That description of the military situation is out of date, Ericrunner.
As of mid-August, FSA forces trained in Jordan and equipped by the west had reentered the country and were putting pressure on the regime south of Damascus - which just happens to be the location of the chemical attacks.
It's war crime to carelessly expose civilian populations to any weapon.
But that's exactly what makes the definition of chemical weapons more than just a semantic point: poison gas clouds cannot in any way be used in a manner that doesn't carelessly expose civilian populations to them. There is just no way of knowing when the wind is going to change. Everything in the area that the sarin ends up gets "hit."
This is why nuclear, chemical, and biological agents gets grouped together: because they work with an area effect, and cannot be controlled and directed in a manner consistent with the laws of war.
A little light reading for those who like to base their position on fact:
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/annex-on-chemicals/b-schedules-of-chemicals/
It's difficult to describe an action proposed and endorsed by the Arab League, authorized by the UN, and carried out mainly by the French and British, as an exercise in American Exceptionalism.
There was never a serious question about who launched the attack.
It's the equivalent of the "controversy" over Obama's birth certificate. Anyone can say they believe in a reasonable idea, but to publicly commit yourself to some really implausible, outlandish, and ridiculous really demonstrates your commitment to the team.
Juan Cole now supports the US putting sanctions on Middle Eastern countries for their weapons stockpiles?
Someone tell the Iranians.
It's amazing how many long-cherished principles have been thrown out the window by the doves in this debate.
No, white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon under the CWC. It is not defined as such, nor included in the Schedules of chemical weapons.
Do you really ask whether Timothy McVeigh and the KKK have legitimate grievances that we should act upon?
Does the deliberate mass murder of civilians always cause you to respond this way, or is it only when carried out against Americans by non-Americans that you assume some legitimacy to their cause?
No, I'm pretty sure Eisenhower freed the slaves.
But as the Professor explains, al Qaeda terrorists like Atta are not merely extremists. They are not fundamentally like other people in the Middle East, only more so. They are basically different in how they view the world.
It's not "Al Qaeda is to Middle Eastern Muslims as the Symbionese Liberation Army is to American liberals."
It's "Al Qaeda is to Middle Eastern Muslims as the Manson Family is to American liberals."
Not an more violent, extreme version, but a bizarre little cult off to the side.
Or so we’re told by the mandarins and their lackeys. I choose to believe reality.
"US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin discussed the idea of placing Syrian chemical weapons under international control at last week's G20 summit in Saint Petersburg, Putin's spokesman said Tuesday."
http://www.expatica.ru/news/local_news/putin-obama-discussed-syria-chem-plan-at-g20-kremlin_273541.html
Oh, and that's a Russian web site. Somebody is, indeed, determined to let is agenda regarding Obama's public image interfere with his understanding of how the deal came about.
And so, to sum up, the achievement of Obama's primary foreign policy goal in Syria is not a success for the administration because RANDOM BAD STUFF 'BOUT AMERICA.
I don't think the rest of the readership finds these types of comments particularly interesting, JT.
The problem with your theory, Steerpike, is that the "blindsided" Obama administration was discussing this proposal with the Russians at the G20 summit over a week ago.
A development which occurred only after they began threatening force.
To describe the accomplishment of Obama's primary foreign policy goal in Syria, by the Russians, at the expense of Assad, as a setback for Obama and a win for Putin takes some serious blinders.
No, Brian, there was never a time when the CIA was backing the Nusra Front.
It takes a very imperialist mindset to write the people of Syria out of their own revolution.
"Oh, you were only talking about that limited set, “al Quaeda forces.” Is there a McCainDetector that distinguishes one bearded dude with an AK or RPG and a copy of the Qu’ran yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” over and over from another, so readily?"
Do all those people look alike to you, or what?
I've been posting those same links for weeks, by they way, by way of explaining why Assad's forces did, indeed have a motive for using chemical weapons, and knocking down your silly conspiracy theory about the FSA gassing itself.
If this path to avoid war succeeds, watch Kerry take and others give him credit for it.
Except that, once again, this proposal was already in the works when Kerry made his comment. He did not invent the idea at that conference, and the Russians didn't seize on it as a result of his comment.
In this case, Bill, the administration's policy for two years has revolved around supporting the Arab Spring faction of the FSA, and trying to weaken the Islamists.
I think you, and Obama, have the right of this, from a national-interest perspective: the major consideration is preventing al Qaeda or affiliates from taking over the country, or getting ahold of its chemical weapons.
That the rebels, who just saw their comrades die from Assad's chemical munitions, would refuse to allow the UN to seize and destroy the regime's chemical stockpiles is not immediately obvious.
I think he means Libya.
Yes, the sort of diplomacy that results in "International We Love Kittens Day."
The type of diplomacy that results in a war criminal warlord and his patron giving up their chemical stockpiles in the middle of a civil war, however, is very rarely backed by appeals to the better angels of our nature.
Also, it was proposed a year ago. More than a year, actually.
According to the White House, the US and Russia discussed it in June 2012 at that year's G20 summit.
But it didn't go anywhere, because why would it? There was nothing to focus Putin and Assad's minds on the merits.
Not only is the CIA not arming al Qaeda forces in Syria, but they are actively working to prevent third-party arms from getting to them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
And if Assad's force felt the need to use chemical warfare two weeks ago, how much worse with their position be without them?
Russia confirms that they did:
In a further development, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
That shed a different light on Secretary of State John Kerry’s mention of the plan at a news conference in London on Monday. That had previously been characterized by spokesman Jen Psaki as an off-the-cuff “rhetorical argument.”
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20416189-obama-agrees-to-un-discussion-of-russia-proposal-on-syria-chemical-weapons?lite
There is no possible way to confirm that Assad has relinquished all of his chemical weapons (who’s to say that Assad won’t be able to hide away a fraction of their CW somewhere?).
UNSCOM did a very good job of this in Iraq during the 1990s.
It's always amusing to me to watch people respond to the Obama administration's achievement of their long-stated policy ends by insisting that they've been incompetent, and sure got lucky.
Why wasn’t this solution proposed a year or more ago by any of the hundreds of politicians or Obama or any of the think tanks?
Because there was no credible threat of force that would make the proposal remotely desirable for Assad or Putin.
You know what really brought this about?
The successful isolation of Putin by Obama at the G20.
Germany has signed on: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-germany-westerwelle-idUSBRE9860A720130907
Note that the statement was put out while the US and Russia were discussing this proposal.
Yesterday: So US policy is to join with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to encourage a second front at Deraa with anti-al-Qaeda fighters a la sons of Iraq ...The chemical attack in Ghouta seems likely a military response to these Jordan-trained, Deraa-based guerrillas coming up into Rif Dimashq. The Obama administration’s plans for a missile strike in response to the chemical attack is part of the southern, “Sons of Syria” strategy comes because that strategy cannot succeed if the regime is allowed to use chemical weapons to level the playing field.
Today: Without a US or Western bombing campaign, the Syrian regime is likely just strong enough to hold on for years. The rebels’ advance of last spring has stalled and in some places been reversed.
So, which is it? Is the recent rebel advance something that the regime needs chemical warfare to fight off? Or was there no recent rebel advance, only fought off with the use of chemical weapons, and the regime won't have a "level playing field" without them?
He is already taking credit for Putin’s move, saying it would not have come about without his own saber-rattling.
And this is wrong...why? Because Russia had come down so hard on Assad before for his chemical attack?
Credible diplomacy is backed by credible force.
This post is like watching a suspect brag that he and good cop really put one over on the bad cop.
Pay more attention to the words I use, Bill. I wrote "the Iraq War Pundits, who got the question of Iraqi WMDs so very wrong, deserved to be."
And I notice that you STILL won't answer the question.
I'm starting to doubt your sincerity in pushing this conspiracy theory. You know who won't say he hopes liars are discredited, don't you?
He's only the President, Bill. He sorta counts a bit more.
Wow.
This pearl-clutching certainly does look strained in light of recent developments.
Or one might consider the facts, even when they are terribly inconvenient for what JT McPhee wants to believe.
BTW, among the many things you haven't bothered to learn about this conflict is that American policy has been designed around weakening the very Islamist factions you (momentarily) feign concern about.