Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[JeffreyS]

John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

[carpnter]

[If_I_Loved_you]

Here is a letter that was sent to me and millions of other people. From the White House and I'm sharing it with you MJ.


The White House, Washington



Good evening --

I just addressed the nation about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war in Syria. Over 100,000 people have been killed.

In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement. But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force.

The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians -- including hundreds of children -- were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.

What happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law -- it's also a danger to our security. Here's why:

If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.

So after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act. Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress -- and when Americans stand together as one people.

Over the last few days, as this debate unfolds, we've already begun to see signs that the credible threat of U.S. military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and the Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they'd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.

That's why I've asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. At the same time, we'll work with two of our closest allies -- France and the United Kingdom -- to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

As we continue this debate -- in Washington, and across the country -- I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.

Please share this message with others to make sure they know where I stand, and how they can stay up to date on this situation. Anyone can find the latest information about the situation in Syria, including video of tonight's address, here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

[ChriswUfGator]

John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

Well yes, but did he say that before or after russia made it clear they'd intervene? Lol, that's kind of the point.

FWIW, Kerry initially ran around talking about red lines and sending in troops, this new spirit of cooperation (to the extent you can call it that) is a relatively recent development. In fact it developed at the exact moment they realized they were risking an actual war with an actual power instead of a tinpot dictator.

Look, I'm just happy we're done playing world police, at least until the next one russia or china don't give a $h!t about comes along. It's a waste of our lifeblood, we've bled trillions upon trillions of dollars we can't afford in the middle of a global recession supporting foreign military interventions we had no business bothering with in the first place. That region is notorious for being a "you break it, you bought it" scenario, since you can't just let Iran take the place over the minute we leave, you get stuck propping up friendly governments indefinitely. It's a blood-sucking quagmire that we're better off having nothing to do with.

While the way this one played out is nationally embarrassing, it's still the correct result regardless of how it happened. There are wars going on all over the place, that doesn't mean we have any business getting involved in it. This isn't WWII where somebody showed up unannounced and bombed our military base, this was someone else's conflict that had nothing to do with us.

[BridgeTroll]

John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

Well yes, but did he say that before or after russia made it clear they'd intervene? Lol, that's kind of the point.

FWIW, Kerry initially ran around talking about red lines and sending in troops, this new spirit of cooperation (to the extent you can call it that) is a relatively recent development. In fact it developed at the exact moment they realized they were risking an actual war with an actual power instead of a tinpot dictator.

Look, I'm just happy we're done playing world police, at least until the next one russia or china don't give a $h!t about comes along. It's a waste of our lifeblood, we've bled trillions upon trillions of dollars we can't afford in the middle of a global recession supporting foreign military interventions we had no business bothering with in the first place. That region is notorious for being a "you break it, you bought it" scenario, since you can't just let Iran take the place over the minute we leave, you get stuck propping up friendly governments indefinitely. It's a blood-sucking quagmire that we're better off having nothing to do with.

While the way this one played out is nationally embarrassing, it's still the correct result regardless of how it happened. There are wars going on all over the place, that doesn't mean we have any business getting involved in it. This isn't WWII where somebody showed up unannounced and bombed our military base, this was someone else's conflict that had nothing to do with us.

I for one am glad Obama and Kerry forced Putin, Assad and the UN to work together to make this a gas free conflict. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Well that's certainly another way of looking at it, and from that perspective I suppose it did work out well.

[BridgeTroll]

Well that's certainly another way of looking at it, and from that perspective I suppose it did work out well.

lol... It was the best I could come up with...

[NotNow]

Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

[JeffreyS]

Good point NN. Which is why there are options.  No cowboy diplomacy that leads to the second there is an excuse to bomb the president bombs. He has engaged here at home and abroad. So what do you know a possible solution has emerged. 

I know some think it makes us look weak to not blast the second we can but I say there will still be plenty of brown people we can hit with missiles if we need some neocon version of street cred again.

We still need to be calling our representatives to try and force a best that can be hoped for outcome because as NN said it is not done yet.

[BridgeTroll]

Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

[JeffreyS]

I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

[Cheshire Cat]

Nothing has happened yet that much is true.  My prediction is that we will see the turn over of Assad's chemical weapons and a gradual step down from there with some sort of hand spanking with regard to the use of chemical weapons via the main players and eventually perhaps through the U.N. 

In the meantime, Obama will keep "talking" about the fact that the U.S. is still in the posture of delivering missile strikes at any moment.  That should be enough of a motivator for Assad to comply.  Behind the scenes and what has not been openly discussed is the workings of some agreements about "pipe lines" that the Russians are pushing for.  Media has latched onto the "supposed" gaff made by Kerry talking about Assad turning over the chemical weapons and the U.S. would stand down.  What most folks who may not watch media as closely as others do, may have missed is the reality that the issue of the turn over of the chemical weapons had already made media print immediately after Obama and Putin met a few days back, "before" Kerry's supposed gaff.  Nothing is what it seems with the issue of Syria and there doesn't seem to be any relief in site for the Syrian people as it appears those fighting on the rebel side also come with a serious amount of baggage that directly impacts human rights and freedom.  This is a war that they must finish and the future of their country is in their hands, not ours nor should it be. 

As far as this appearing that Obama was led by Putin, that's just spin without any real knowledge or understanding of the often testy agreements brokered between Russia and the U.S. over the years.  One of the most "iffy"  took place years ago and it was a situationconsidered mishandled by a sitting president.  That was the Cuban missile crisis. Then President Kennedy was taken to task over that standoff for years.  In retrospect, it was the fact that he went to the table and brokered an agreement with the soviets that the crisis was defused.  That is what people remember and there is little discussion of the bumpy road our government traveled to get to the desired outcome.

[BridgeTroll]

I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

Hope your right JS... but we are talking about Putin and Assad

[Cheshire Cat]

I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

Hope your right JS... but we are talking about Putin and Assad

This is true, but Putin has received some of what he wanted regarding concessions on a pipeline.  He also does not want a war nor to see his buddy Assad taken down by U.S. strikes.  I think we will see the chemical weapons turned over along with the requirement that a U.N. investigative team (or other team selected by the main players) will have to inspect the facilities where the weapons where stored and manufactured.  There is nothing for Putin to gain by letting Assad keep the weapons and the flip side is it will help Putin with his self image in the world.  He gets to look all reasonable and thoughtful while getting what he want's a no cost to himself.

[JayBird]

I want to be happy for this news, after all it accomplished the goal that was set out for. However, I am having flashbacks of 1991 Iraq. Maybe it is just over analyzing paranoia.