Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[fargoth]

Granted. I'm mainly referring to the current confrontation between Obama and Putin/Assad though and the implication that this is as much about power for Obama as them. It isn't. Obama is a pacifist/isolationist and his position on this largely goes against who he wants to be/what he wants for America, so it really can't be about power for him.

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"... But he does approve all those weapon shipments - hardly a pacifist act.
He has to be a really naive guy to think that supporting these rebels is humanitarian, and I don't think he is that naive on his second term.
So it is about power for him too, but he would prefer to keep his army out of direct involvement there (as would any of the other players).
In this respect they are pretty much similar.

 

[mheslep]

... Obama is a pacifist/isolationist ...

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

 

[Nikitin]

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"...

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria. Unfortunately for him though, Cameron was unable to convince the UK MPs to join in and Obama is currently getting ridiculed while trying to gather support for the operation. Besides, why would the white house publish so much propaganda if Obama didn't want to attack Syria? No. What the west is trying to do is manoeuvre some pro-western rebel group into power just like they did in Libya (though then Russia did not protect Gaddafi).

IMO, if Obama was a strong leader he would ignore public opinion, the congress and the UN, and just bomb Assad when the iron was hot (pictures of gas-victims flooding in). Sure, there would be some dissent afterwards, but probably far far far less than if he did it now.

 

[fargoth]

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria.

I remember how NY times (at least) criticized him for not acting in a previous gas attack... I don't think the media forgot about his "red line" comment.

 

[russ_watters]

In this instant, he just painted himself into a corner by talking about "red lines"... But he does approve all those weapon shipments - hardly a pacifist act.

Individual acts that are not pacifistic don't necessarily speak to his philosophy, especially when looked at in a broader context. That was my point. Providing weapons may not be pacifistic, but it is more pacifistic (and isolationist) than joining the war with ground troops.

He has to be a really naive guy to think that supporting these rebels is humanitarian, and I don't think he is that naive on his second term.

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed.

So it is about power for him too, but he would prefer to keep his army out of direct involvement there (as would any of the other players).
In this respect they are pretty much similar.

Um...you didn't actually say what his power play is here.

 

[OmCheeto]

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

And didn't he kill Obama? Um, I mean, ok, Osama?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria.

This is false. Maybe you forgot, but I didn't and people definitely reminded him and discussed it in the media immediately after the attack, before he said he wanted to respond to it. Here's such an article:

President Barack Obama said the alleged mass chemical attack in Syria “is clearly a big event of grave concern,” he told CNN in an interview aired Friday morning. But the President was hesitant to get the U.S. more involved. Citing the ongoing human and financial burdens the U.S. still faces in Afghanistan, he was unwilling to “get involved with everything immediately” and “drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

Two years ago this month, Obama called for the ouster of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. A year ago, Obama drew what he called a “red line” saying the use of chemical weapons would change his “calculus” on the conflict, which has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the last two and a half years. Syrian opposition groups say this red line has now been crossed with this one attack Wednesday morning claiming as many as 1,300 lives in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.

Now that that moment seems to have arrived, though, the President is hedging.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/obama-blurs-red-line-in-syria/

IMO, if Obama was a strong leader he would ignore public opinion, the congress and the UN, and just bomb Assad when the iron was hot (pictures of gas-victims flooding in). Sure, there would be some dissent afterwards, but probably far far far less than if he did it now.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

My belief is in-line with Time's assessment of him as a "reluctant warrior". His positions were in many cases not feasible as policy so the actions don't always seem to fit his ideology. For example, the Afghan surge: sometimes in order to withdraw from a war you first have to win the war.

 

[nsaspook]

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed.

The CIA directly arming and training the rebels is a recent development but we have been 'facilitating' arms transfers with some very unsavoury people for a long time.
http://world.time.com/2013/05/29/libyans-arming-syrian-rebels/

 

[fargoth]

Providing weapons may not be pacifistic, but it is more pacifistic (and isolationist) than joining the war with ground troops.

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.
With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).
The US's involvement in this is not altruistic, and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.
If everyone would have kept out of this, Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed. Um...you didn't actually say what his power play is here.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

 

[jim hardy]

After seeing Assad's TV interview Monday night

I am not convinced we are supporting the right side over there.

He had a point when he said to Charlie Rose , to effect (kindly excuse I can't remember verbatim) :

As head of state what would you do when foreign hooligans come into your country and foment a violent revolution , killing people? Coddle them? Do you know of such a thing as 'soft war' ?
And why does US insist on calling them "opposition" ? Opposition engages you in civil debate, not blow up churches and behead people. Do you call the 9-11 hijackers 'opposition' ? No, you call them terrorists.
Why do you support them in my country ?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "Grand Chessboard" that Iraq was a beach-head (he likened it to Normandy) for spreading democratic and west friendly governments to the resource-rich region.
But even he seems not supportive of this.

Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

I guess Putin feels the region is important to his folks, too.

 

[nsaspook]

And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to have learned something from the past.

Our support of these groups will turn into a complete disaster if we don't get a handle on this.
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/09/12...-scene-of-utter-cruelty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1

What follows is a harrowing series of photographs of Islamic militants publicly executing, by decapitation, a young Syrian in the town of Keferghan, near Aleppo, on August 31, 2013.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First comment:

For those who have argued that use of chemical weapons mandates such an attack, what is the standard of proof required that the Syrian regime was responsible? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? More likely than not?

This is perhaps more difficult than in other cases, since the Free Syrian Army is a breakaway group from the Syrian Armed Forces, which means it is very difficult to say with certainty "only the pro-Assad forces have this particular weapon."

Undoubtedly, the best evidence is from interception of communications, which for obvious reasons will not be made public.

Second comment:

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

 

[fargoth]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security.

Apparently he's moving them around already...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-spread-chemical-weapons-around-50-sites.html
and has last year, too
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...-chemical-weapons-stirs-fear-on-capitol-hill-

 

[turbo]

This situation is a mess. One that Obama should have avoided at all costs, instead of heeding the war-hawks. In my opinion (and the opinions of a lot of US citizens) the US does not need another war in the ME, especially one in which Russia is a proxy to the target of our aggression.

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

I fear "pretend to oversee" is more likely. Where do you think Assad gets most of his weapons from anyway?

 

[nsaspook]

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

 

[Bandersnatch]

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

 

[nsaspook]

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would agree with that today but at the time his previous use and possible possession of CW and other weapons was a major talking point.

The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e. the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

[mheslep]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

I'm not sure it is fair to say that door has just now been opened. For instance, the Russians have had a military presence at the Syrian port of Tartus since the Soviet era. If the Russians want to use the pretense of they were present are were fired upon then they've had it for some time. Granted getting involved with removal of chemical weapons gives them more reason, but only for a limited time window.

The chance of an escalation with the Russians does point to the broader strategic consequences of a future US decline, that is, how that world might look. In a year 2000 world, Russia would not consider belligerent action that might involve the US. But in some future, a US with a much smaller military, or a US that has all it can handle with one engagement elsewhere, in that world perhaps a Russia calculates it can stymie the US in a case like Syria, can block the US in a 1990's Bosnia and allow Milosevic to continue the massacre.

 

[russ_watters]

First comment:

I'd call it reasonable doubt. But they don't necessarily have to make the evidence public.

Second comment:

No. A weak response is pointless or worse.

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's?

Yes, I said it in post #235

Obama backed himself into a corner here and then Putin rolled-up a barrel and threw Obama over it. There are several different possible ways this could go and all of them are bad for us or Obama, with the exception of one: Russia and Assad are honestly going to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons, with little gamesmanship. And few people actually believe that/it looks like the gamesmanship has started.

So I see that as the most likely possibility. It is a huge win for Putin and Assad.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.

Agreed.

With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).

I'm not seeing that logic at all, could you explain it?

Certainly at the very least Russia doesn't qualify as more pacifistic as the US and that's only regarding the Syria situation. Beyond that, there are a lot of conflicts/wars going on currently and recently.

The US's involvement in this is not altruistic...

You keep saying that without arguing why you think it. Again, when a country/person acts against his interest, that's a pretty good indicator that they have an altruistic motive.

... and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.

I didn't say that. You misunderstood apparently.

If everyone would have kept out of this...

Who is "everyone"? So far, the only significant actors here are Russia, Assad and some foreign Islamic fighters. The US involvement has barely started.

...Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

I don't think such things should be condoned.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

[/quote]
I wasn't aware the CIA was training rebels, but I did say "material support". Even after Obama promised to provide weapons, he didn't do it right away (I think it has started by now). Contrast that with Russia who is the major benefactor of Assad.

 

[Dotini]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

 

[OmCheeto]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

I think you may have misread the piece.

...inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.
...
...the internationally verified transfer of Syria’s chemical stockpiles to Russia, where they eventually would be destroyed.

I would imagine the [STRIKE]Soviets[/STRIKE]^* Russians already have facilities set up, as do we.

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

2001: facility completed
Sept 2004: Army began weapons disposal
Oct 2011: completed disposal
contained: 3,717 tons

It might take a couple of years to destroy. But I don't care how long it takes. I'd just like to see them out of Syria.

all bolding mine

---------------------------
* Showing my age.

 

[nsaspook]

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

We could even help Russia, we could barge the Syrian CW up the river, restart Umatilla for a few years and be sure it's gone. Now who could object to that?

I'm with you, the quicker we get it out of Syria the better.

But there is a little legal complication that needs to be addressed.
The CWC article 1 forbids transfering CW to anyone.

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;

 

[chemisttree]

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

The US method of destruction is to burn it and test everything in sight... ground, air, water, workers, surfaces. Our operations on Johnston Atoll took a long time for those reasons. The Russians treat with strong base and only analyze the soup and associated equipment. Much safer, cheaper and a whole lot quicker.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/cw.htm

 

[Dotini]

As an occasional reader of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli, I enjoyed this piece in The Guardian which considers Putin's recent acclaimed op-ed in the NY Times, and thoroughly relegates morality based foreign policy as more dangerous than policy rooted in pragmatism.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...elli-nyt-op-ed
"America's long tradition of morally guided politics was inherited from John Stuart Mill and finds its latest expression with Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, an influential scholar of humanitarian intervention. In a recent speech, she warned that inaction over Syria would remain on our conscience."

 

[OmCheeto]

Not trying to be funny here, but Al Jazeera does seem to have a sense of humor.

The end of the rebel alliance?

Tensions escalate in Syria, as self-declared jihadists say Western-backed moderates may be used against them.

Joni was dead on;

"...laughing and crying
You know it's the same release"

----------------------------
Crossing my fingers that we don't do a deathstar on ourselves...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Historian Walter Russell Mead has an interesting take on it here.

Part of the essay:

The precedent is now set that, if it has Russia’s support at the UN, a rogue regime can gas its own people and emerge in a stronger diplomatic position. Unless something changes this new status quo, the use of chemical weapons in a civil war is no longer a grave crime against humanity. It is more of a violation, like a speeding ticket. Assad has some points on his license, but he’s still at the wheel of his car.

Mead is most famous for his description of the US historical foreign policy not in term of left and right or hawks and doves, but in terms of four themes: Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian and Jacksonian camps. I don't always agree with Mead, but I do feel that there is value to examining events along those axes.

He also analyzes why President Obama failed to get public opinion and Congress behind him here. Again, an except:

By what must have seemed very natural and logical steps, President Obama’s progressive worldview led him into a logically absurd and politically unsustainable dead end. At every step along the way, he carefully and thoughtfully balanced conflicting values and points of view. He ended up proposing to violate international law to uphold universal values against a regime evil and dangerous enough to bomb but not wicked or threatening enough to overthrow. In the service of this dubious vision he announced that he would consult the Congress without being bound by its result. The President told the country that the war in Syria constitutes a security threat, but he was unable to persuade the public that his stand against the moral evil of chemical weapons would advance the security interests of the United States in a complex and ugly civil war.

The nation recoiled from the incoherence, half measures and inner contradictions of a policy too elegant, too nuanced, too delicately balanced for the rough and tumble of war. The President’s approach to international relations led him to call for a war that the country wanted nothing to do with, and has deeply and quite possibly permanently alienated that part of public opinion which is at least potentially capable of supporting military action abroad. He is now scrambling to salvage some vestige of credibility from the debacle; we wish him well in this. The American people gain nothing when their President looks weak to the world.

 

[russ_watters]

If Russia enters the war on Assad's side, it will look more like a reward than a speeding ticket.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Mead makes that point, Russ. The articles are worth reading. One of the things that will intrigue future historians is how in the process of setting a new foreign policy, one shaped by people like Samantha Powers, the US has ensured outcomes that run counter to that policy. How is it that so many people who voted for that administration opposed its policies? Or, put the other way, how is it that the administration was unable to make the case to even the people who voted for it? (CNN poll had self-identified liberals opposing a Congressional resolution for the use of force at 45-53)

 

[mheslep]

The speeding ticket analogy, or whether or not Assad is punished, relies again on the premise of the US as world policeman. US national security interests should lie first in reducing the risk of the use of chemical weapons. Removing the several tons of Assad's chemical stockpile seems to be more effective in that regard than bombing uncertain targets.

 

[nsaspook]

Assad want's a billion. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/18/syria-assad-fox-news-interview/2834687/
while the M.I.C. complains the non-war cost them 400 billion.
John Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion

 

[KWilliamsAF]

Both sides in the Syria war are extremist. Most of the Islamic moderates, Christians and secular leaders are with Assad. Russian and China will support Assad if we intervene directly in the fight. Let them work out their own problems if it can be contained. I feel for the poor civilians caught in the middle but it's their country to fix and not worth one drop of American blood.
http://www.mypixshare.net/files/img/user_uploads/displayimage.php?id=k1e22oa3dvy81244627.gif
http://www.strategyinternational.or...ism-in-syria-geopolitics-and-future-scenarios

Well said!

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98P1AJ20130927

(Reuters) - Ending weeks of diplomatic deadlock, the United States and Russia agreed on Thursday on a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that would demand Syria give up its chemical arms, but does not threaten military force if it fails to comply.
...
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday that his country was ready to help guard Syrian chemical weapons sites and destroy Assad's stockpiles but would not ship any of the chemical arms to Russia for destruction.