Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

You have every reason to be skeptical considering what history has shown us.  I think most people are at this point and like you, folks simply want the best conclusion to this mess with regard to any actions taken by the U.S.  I hope our country will continue to support the refugees and the sick and injured among them.  That is the most compassionate and helpful thing we can do in such an awful situation. 

[ChriswUfGator]

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...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

[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...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

[ChriswUfGator]

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...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Op-Ed from Putin himself in the NYT yesterday:

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 1527 Comments

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[civil42806]

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...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

Look at this way we all win, no attack from us.  Putin and Assad pretend to negotiate.  Dear Leader makes more speeches and we all pretend its settled.  Assad goes back to shooting and blowing people up and we are all good.  The first 99000 were cool with us and the international community the last couple of thousand not so much.  Well maybe not for the Syrians

Upshot is no one cares what happens in Syria, the whole theater we went through was a joke and no one should let dear leader speak without a script gets his butt in a corner and we have to deal with this.  Keep him on the rubber chicken circuit and we will all be better off

[civil42806]

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...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

The oxygen starvation problem is an f-22 issue not aware of an issue with the F-35, but haven't been tracking that.

[BridgeTroll]

Our current stable of aircraft are superior to most of the sovie... er... russian inventory.

Back on topic... Right on schedule... lol...

http://media.cagle.com/91/2013/09/19/137674_600.jpg

Syria may miss first deadline in U.S.-Russia chemical arms deal

The ambitious agreement is challenged as indications arise that the Syrian government will not submit a toxic-stockpile inventory this weekend.

By Shashank Bengali and Paul Richter
September 18, 2013, 4:56 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The ambitious U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, hit its first delay Wednesday with indications that the Syrian government will not submit an inventory of its toxic stockpiles and facilities to international inspectors by this weekend's deadline.

The State Department signaled that it would not insist that Syrian President Bashar Assad produce the list Saturday, the end of a seven-day period spelled out in the framework deal that Washington and Moscow announced last weekend in Geneva.

Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that "our goal is to see forward momentum" by Saturday, not the full list. "We've never said it was a hard and fast deadline."

It wasn't clear whether Syrian officials needed more time to complete a formal declaration of their chemical arms, or whether the disarmament deal itself was in trouble.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry had described the date as the first of several "specific timelines" that would indicate whether Syria is committed to the deal that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had worked out.

"We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing," Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow "no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance."

Senior Obama administration officials had praised Russia for persuading Assad's government to relinquish its lethal chemical arsenal, one of the world's largest, by mid-2014 in a deal to avoid U.S. missile strikes in retaliation for the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that the U.S. says killed more than 1,000 people.

But Moscow's ability or willingness to push its ally in Damascus to meet the first deadline in the deal now is being questioned.

Kerry and Lavrov sought last weekend to portray the two powers as united. The gap between them, however, has become more apparent and is threatening to snarl efforts to craft a United Nations Security Council resolution that lays out how Syria is to meet its obligations.

The resolution needs to be complete before the first steps can be taken to impound and either remove or destroy Syria's arsenal. Diplomats said Western countries split with Russia in a meeting Tuesday over Western demands for tough enforcement of the agreement.

Diplomats hope to complete the resolution by Friday, but if they fall short the work may be delayed further next week because of the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international body based in The Hague, is expected to take several days to complete its analysis of the Syrian "initial declaration," and then will submit its report to the United Nations.

Gary Samore, who was President Obama's top arms control advisor until February, said the declaration is key because "it will provide an early test of whether this process is ever going to get off the ground."

Samore, now research chief for the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said he believes Russia is pushing Syria to comply. He also said, "Assad is going to try to hide some portion — maybe 10%, maybe 30% — whatever he thinks he can get away with."

Western diplomats close to the deliberations at the U.N. are wary that the Syrians may try to "cheat and retreat," as Saddam Hussein's government did for years in Iraq, to stymie U.N. weapons inspections.

"We're not going to lose a lot of faith in the Syrians, because we're not starting out with a lot," said one diplomat, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Western diplomats said they wanted to avoid a mistake of the U.N.'s battle with Hussein by starting out with an enforcement mechanism strong enough to prevent the Syrians from avoiding their obligations.

The Russians and Americans are sharply split over the use of the U.N.'s Chapter 7, which authorizes punitive actions, in any resolution. Russia has argued that it should be included only as a possible avenue for future action, while the United States, Britain and France want it conveyed automatically if there is noncompliance.

Russia also amplified its claims that rebels seeking to overthrow Assad, not the Syrian government, fired rockets filled with deadly sarin gas Aug. 21, and described a U.N. report on the incident as "politicized" and "one-sided."

U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky defended the report Wednesday, calling it "indisputable" and "thoroughly objective." Independent groups have analyzed data in the report and concluded that the rockets were fired from government-controlled areas into territory held or contested by rebels.

U.S. officials say they have seen no evidence that chemical weapons are stored or being used in areas held by the opposition.

Some experts argued that the one-week timeline was too generous. Robert M. Gates, former Defense secretary under George W. Bush and Obama, said this week that Assad should have been given a 48-hour ultimatum.

"It should be an easier task on the part of the Syrians compared to the Iraqis," said Charles Duelfer, who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[civil42806]

Our current stable of aircraft are superior to most of the sovie... er... russian inventory.

Back on topic... Right on schedule... lol...

http://media.cagle.com/91/2013/09/19/137674_600.jpg

Syria may miss first deadline in U.S.-Russia chemical arms deal

The ambitious agreement is challenged as indications arise that the Syrian government will not submit a toxic-stockpile inventory this weekend.

By Shashank Bengali and Paul Richter
September 18, 2013, 4:56 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The ambitious U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, hit its first delay Wednesday with indications that the Syrian government will not submit an inventory of its toxic stockpiles and facilities to international inspectors by this weekend's deadline.

The State Department signaled that it would not insist that Syrian President Bashar Assad produce the list Saturday, the end of a seven-day period spelled out in the framework deal that Washington and Moscow announced last weekend in Geneva.

Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that "our goal is to see forward momentum" by Saturday, not the full list. "We've never said it was a hard and fast deadline."

It wasn't clear whether Syrian officials needed more time to complete a formal declaration of their chemical arms, or whether the disarmament deal itself was in trouble.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry had described the date as the first of several "specific timelines" that would indicate whether Syria is committed to the deal that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had worked out.

"We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing," Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow "no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance."

Senior Obama administration officials had praised Russia for persuading Assad's government to relinquish its lethal chemical arsenal, one of the world's largest, by mid-2014 in a deal to avoid U.S. missile strikes in retaliation for the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that the U.S. says killed more than 1,000 people.

But Moscow's ability or willingness to push its ally in Damascus to meet the first deadline in the deal now is being questioned.

Kerry and Lavrov sought last weekend to portray the two powers as united. The gap between them, however, has become more apparent and is threatening to snarl efforts to craft a United Nations Security Council resolution that lays out how Syria is to meet its obligations.

The resolution needs to be complete before the first steps can be taken to impound and either remove or destroy Syria's arsenal. Diplomats said Western countries split with Russia in a meeting Tuesday over Western demands for tough enforcement of the agreement.

Diplomats hope to complete the resolution by Friday, but if they fall short the work may be delayed further next week because of the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international body based in The Hague, is expected to take several days to complete its analysis of the Syrian "initial declaration," and then will submit its report to the United Nations.

Gary Samore, who was President Obama's top arms control advisor until February, said the declaration is key because "it will provide an early test of whether this process is ever going to get off the ground."

Samore, now research chief for the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said he believes Russia is pushing Syria to comply. He also said, "Assad is going to try to hide some portion — maybe 10%, maybe 30% — whatever he thinks he can get away with."

Western diplomats close to the deliberations at the U.N. are wary that the Syrians may try to "cheat and retreat," as Saddam Hussein's government did for years in Iraq, to stymie U.N. weapons inspections.

"We're not going to lose a lot of faith in the Syrians, because we're not starting out with a lot," said one diplomat, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Western diplomats said they wanted to avoid a mistake of the U.N.'s battle with Hussein by starting out with an enforcement mechanism strong enough to prevent the Syrians from avoiding their obligations.

The Russians and Americans are sharply split over the use of the U.N.'s Chapter 7, which authorizes punitive actions, in any resolution. Russia has argued that it should be included only as a possible avenue for future action, while the United States, Britain and France want it conveyed automatically if there is noncompliance.

Russia also amplified its claims that rebels seeking to overthrow Assad, not the Syrian government, fired rockets filled with deadly sarin gas Aug. 21, and described a U.N. report on the incident as "politicized" and "one-sided."

U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky defended the report Wednesday, calling it "indisputable" and "thoroughly objective." Independent groups have analyzed data in the report and concluded that the rockets were fired from government-controlled areas into territory held or contested by rebels.

U.S. officials say they have seen no evidence that chemical weapons are stored or being used in areas held by the opposition.

Some experts argued that the one-week timeline was too generous. Robert M. Gates, former Defense secretary under George W. Bush and Obama, said this week that Assad should have been given a 48-hour ultimatum.

"It should be an easier task on the part of the Syrians compared to the Iraqis," said Charles Duelfer, who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I'm shocked!  Do you possibly mean that they may not meet the deadlines?

[BridgeTroll]

Im sure it is just a simple misunderstanding... after all Stali...er...Putin has given assurances... 

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah it does seem like the more things change the more they stay the same when it comes to the ole soviets.

[Cheshire Cat]

An agreement has been hammered out by the U.N. regarding the surrender and destruction of all chemical weapons owned by Syria.  The agreement is expected to be passed by a full 15 member committee today.  The agreement as drafted is legally binding, however the chapter seven permission regarding putative action against Syria should they fail the agreement will likely come in a secondary agreement.

To my view, this is the way the issue should be handled with all parties at the table and with U.N. oversight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/security-council-agrees-on-resolution-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The agreement hammered out after days of back-room negotiations, is a compromise among the United States, its allies and Russia about how to enforce the resolution, which would eliminate Syria's chemical arms program.

But the deal, when approved by the 15 members of the Security Council, would amount to the most significant international diplomatic initiative of the Syrian civil war. It would also be a remarkable turn for President Obama, who had been pushing for a military strike on Syria just a few weeks ago before accepting a Russian proposal to have Syria give up its chemical arsenal.

Western diplomats said the resolution would be legally binding and would stipulate that if Syria failed to abide by the terms, the Security Council would take measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, the strongest form of a council resolution. Such measures could include economic sanctions or even military action. But before any action could be taken, the issue would have to go back for further deliberations by the Security Council, on which Russia, like the other permanent members, holds a veto.

"This resolution makes clear there will be consequences for noncompliance," Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, said Thursday night.

In an earlier Twitter message, Ms. Power said the resolution established a "new norm" against the use of chemical weapons. Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said in another post that the resolution agreed to by the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — the five permanent members of the Security Council — would be "binding and enforceable."

The diplomatic breakthrough on Syria came as Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said progress had been made toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute between his country and the West, suggesting it could happen in a year.

Mr. Zarif spoke optimistically after emerging from what he called a "very substantive, businesslike" meeting at the United Nations with representatives of the big powers. He also met face to face with Secretary of State John Kerry in one of the highest-level discussions between the estranged countries in years.

The entire 15-member Security Council began to discuss the Syria resolution agreed to by the permanent members of the Security Council on Thursday evening.

A vote on the resolution could come as early as Friday, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters here Thursday night, as long as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, votes on its own Syria measure early Friday. A formal vote on the measure will not take place until the international organization that monitors compliance with the international treaty banning chemical weapons drafts procedures for inspecting and eliminating Syria's vast arsenal of poison gas.

The Syria resolution was a major milestone for the United Nations after years of largely unproductive discussions in the Security Council over the civil war in Syria, which has killed more than 100,000.

Just three weeks ago, the Obama administration grew openly frustrated at the inability to win Russian support for military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 people. Ms. Power complained then, "There is no viable path forward in this Security Council."

Now, the council has agreed to a provision in the resolution stating that "the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security."

Syria, the resolution states, "shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other states or nonstate actors."

The measure notes that "in the event of noncompliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic," the Security Council can decide to "impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter."

While Western diplomats were praising the new resolution, much will depend on how it is ultimately put into effect in a nation that is caught in a bloody civil war.

According to the resolution, the director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the watchdog organization that polices the international treaty banning chemical weapons, or the secretary general of the United Nations would report any violations to the Security Council.

The council would then discuss what measures to impose for Syria's noncompliance.

American officials have said they were pleasantly surprised by the completeness of the Syrian government's declaration of its chemical weapons program, which was presented on Friday.

But far more formidable challenges lie ahead.

By November, international monitors are to inspect all of Syria's declared sites, and equipment to produce and mix chemical weapons is to be destroyed, according to a so-called framework agreement that was negotiated by the United States and Russia this month and that is to be enforced by the new Security Council resolution.

Syria's entire arsenal is to be eliminated by the middle of 2014, according to that accord, a process that Mr. Assad has said could take a year.

Skeptics worry that the process may become drawn out, as it was during the 1990s, when the United Nations sought to inspect Saddam Hussein's arsenal in Iraq. Syrian compliance, they fear, may be only partial, and the Russians, they worry, may use their veto power in the Security Council to buy the Assad government more time.

Proponents of the measure say Russia may be cooperative because it shares the West's concern about maintaining zero tolerance for chemical weapons use.

The diplomatic maneuvering over Syria came amid another drama at the United Nations.

Mr. Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, emerged smiling from a meeting with six world powers late Thursday afternoon as American and European officials announced that negotiations on "details" would be worked out in Geneva next month.

The meeting, led by the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, took place with the five permanent members of the Security Council, along with Germany. Mr. Kerry's separate meeting with Mr. Zarif lasted 30 minutes.

Ms. Ashton said she envisioned an "ambitious timetable" of next steps that would be discussed when the group meets in Geneva next month. The details, she said, will address what Iran needs to do, how soon, and how the international community can verify whether Iran is keeping its word. "Twelve months is a good time frame to think about implementation on the ground," she said.

"It was a substantial meeting," she told reporters here, "a good atmosphere, energetic."

Her attempts in the past to negotiate a settlement with Iran, including a European proposal for a nuclear deal, had not been fruitful. She said Thursday that Iran could choose to respond to her last proposal or submit a new one.

"The purpose of today was to set the tone and the framework," she said.

Mr. Zarif said Iran hoped to reach a détente "in a timely fashion" that would preserve its right to enrich uranium and convince the world that it is for civilian use. "Now we see if we can match our positive words with serious deeds," he said.

He said the "endgame" would be the lifting of all sanctions "within a short period of time."

Somini Sengupta and Rick Gladstone contributed reporting.

[BridgeTroll]

Thank god for the UN! 

[Cheshire Cat]

Along those lines BT.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/26/226423567/even-as-it-criticizes-the-u-n-the-u-s-relies-on-it-too

Even As It Criticizes The U.N., The U.S. Relies On It, Too

[Cheshire Cat]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/26/226578728/u-s-official-russia-agrees-to-resolution-on-syria  (click link for full story)

Russia, along with the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, have agreed on a resolution concerning Syria's chemical weapons, the U.S. said today.

The draft resolution, a senior State Department official said in a statement, calls for oversight of Syria's surrender of chemical weapons and calls for "consequences" if Bashar Assad fails to comply