• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons [W:122]

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Coming on the heels that WH aides are indicating that Obama wants to strike Syria because it will be "politically crippling" if they don't, Sec State John Kerry screwed the Administration by leaving an opening in the attack narrative. Russia pounced.....

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons - CNN.com
As Syria said Monday that it supported a proposal to hand over control of its chemical weapons, a key question loomed: Is a diplomatic solution in sight?

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told reporters in Moscow that his nation "welcomes" a proposal by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during talks on Monday: put Syria's chemical weapons under international control to avert a U.S. military response over an alleged poison gas attack last month.

"I declare that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes Russia's initiative, on the basis that the Syrian leadership cares about the lives of our citizens and the security in our country," Moallem said. "We are also confident in the wisdom of the Russian government, which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people."

The comments came after Secretary of State John Kerry discussed a similar scenario, but the State Department said later Monday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could not be trusted to relinquish his country's chemical stockpiles.


Chuck Todd said:
They're very worried, and if you look at this public relations campaign that's gone on over last 48 hours, and the next 48 hours... They're very concerned, Matt, because it's not just that they believe they need Congress on this and they want to punish Assad and all of the Syria policy, but they realize a loss like this could be politically crippling to him all over Washington, on all the different battles he's got coming in the next six months.
 
If this happens? If Syria acquiesces? To think that The White House can't spin this into victory is naive.

I don't see how Mags.....not when Putin was the one who brought it to Obama. Moreover it has been Putin saying let the UN investigators determine what took place. Plus he is siding with Ban Ki Moon and the UN on the issue of use of force and Military action.

Also if approved.....who's people will be sent in on the ground to hold those Chems Facilities? Who's people are then in the middle of a Civil war and can be targeted? Who can be attacked and even made to look like Al Nusra and the Rebels did it.

How long would those people have to be there.....to guard, destroy, and hold? Months on end. Boots on the ground and UN approved too.

3qx5gn.jpg
 
Its good to hear that there is some steps taken for illegal foreign military intervention. Syrian people and their decision should be responsible for their freedom.
 
Everybody's going to spin this to make it look like their side won.

The fact is...if this gets chemical weapons off the table and unable to be used...everybody wins.
 
I have no idea why there is such a fixation on the US "not looking weak" as a result of this thing in Syria. And apparently that has to do with whether or not we bomb them. What a weird idea. Does anyone really think that Canada is going to invade us and think is easy pickings? Is the world going to suddenly forget our massive stock of nuclear weapons and the fact that we are the only country that has ever used them? It's seriously a problem if we do something that Russia thought was a good idea before we did? What kind of madness is going on here?
 
I have no idea why there is such a fixation on the US "not looking weak" as a result of this thing in Syria. And apparently that has to do with whether or not we bomb them. What a weird idea. Does anyone really think that Canada is going to invade us and think is easy pickings? Is the world going to suddenly forget our massive stock of nuclear weapons and the fact that we are the only country that has ever used them? It's seriously a problem if we do something that Russia thought was a good idea before we did? What kind of madness is going on here?

Not supporting military intervention in Syria(or Libya before it), but US foreign policy has been "speak softly and carry a big stick" since Teddy Roosevelt.

It loses its effect when you are just talking to talk.
 
Not supporting military intervention in Syria(or Libya before it), but US foreign policy has been "speak softly and carry a big stick" since Teddy Roosevelt.

It loses its effect when you are just talking to talk.

I'm pretty sure that the last ten years has seen enough of the US beating the snot out of people (usually killing innocent civilians) that people aren't suddenly going to forget about the stick. We have nothing to prove. Even if we don't use that power, no one is going to forget that we have it for generations to come.
 
Coming on the heels that WH aides are indicating that Obama wants to strike Syria because it will be "politically crippling" if they don't, Sec State John Kerry screwed the Administration by leaving an opening in the attack narrative. Russia pounced.....[/url]

To leave flexibility for different approaches that accomplish the same goals is not a "screw up" in diplomacy. It is premature to know whether this framework will be effective.

In any case, Russia is looking out for its interests in Syria and it has a clear conception of those interests. With the available opportunity, President Putin developed the initiative on account of his clear focus on Russia's interests in Syria. He wants to preserve Russia's strategic naval base and it was an open question whether Russia would cede it were the Assad dictatorship toppled. Russia has backed a diplomatic process that could include an agreed political transition in Syria, but has been clear that there be no preconditions. In other words, President Assad would have fair opportunity to have input.

Had the air and missile strikes occurred, Russia would have been faced with the question of how to avoid the battlefield's being tilted toward the anti-Assad movement. Russia would have had to increase arms deliveries, possibly even some of its more sophisticated systems. Russia would also have looked to reduce cooperation with the U.S. on a broad spectrum of issues. In doing so, Russia would have incurred costs, as well.

The mechanism, if it works, would avoid those post-strike measures and their related costs and it would allow Russia strong opportunities to protect its interests in Syria. Numerous risks exist. President Assad could fail to act in good faith. U.S. pro-war advocates such as Senators McCain and Graham could find ways to "blow up" the possible chemical arms agreement before it is concluded and implemented. The anti-Assad forces might also try to thwart it. The U.S. could grow impatient, as implementation will almost certainty require far more than a week's time.

That the framework could help pull the U.S. President out of a dilemma was perhaps an added inducement for its being offered, but the major push was concentrated on a clear conception of Russia's interests. President Putin has never demonstrated much regard for sentimentalities and good feelings. Hence, an interest-based explanation is likely the only reasonable one. In the larger picture, if this framework reduces the probability of chemical attacks (it won't eliminate it, as the anti-Assad forces have likely used such weapons, as well), that will be a positive outcome. All who signed onto it would receive credit for that outcome.
 
Not supporting military intervention in Syria(or Libya before it), but US foreign policy has been "speak softly and carry a big stick" since Teddy Roosevelt.

It loses its effect when you are just talking to talk.

One has to know when to wield the stick. The stick should be utilized only when critical U.S. interests or strategic allies are at risk. IMO, neither Libya nor Syria meet that test.
 
I don't see how Mags.....

Here's a possible scenario of how the White House could gain credit if the framework proves successful (a big "if" and robust verification would be required):

The White House could argue that no such outcome was possible until the U.S. threatened to use force. With the U.S. threatening to use force, that provided the kind of leverage that had been missing. Faced with the possible threat and perhaps concluding that the outcome could cause it to lose its battlefield advantage (air power and missile systems), the regime decided to trade off its chemical weapons to minimize the damage to its battlefield prospects. Thus, the U.S. goal of eliminating chemical weapons use in Syria was achieved.

That the U.S. tactics were remarkably sloppy, that the President had essentially created his own dilemma with his "red line" that ran beyond international norms, and that the rebels would likely still possess some unknown quantities of chemical weapons would be largely irrelevant. The White House would focus on the goal that was achieved and it would be sufficiently large that it would be viewed as a success. Of course, the White House's messaging could be poor, as it has been on numerous Mideast issues, so its public relations effort could fall flat.

For now, it's too soon to know whether the Russian initiative will succeed. Much work will be required and full implementation will almost certainly take more than a week. Will the U.S. have patience? Will there be a set time beyond which the U.S. would conclude whether or not the framework had a good chance of success? There are many uncertainties.
 
Here's a possible scenario of how the White House could gain credit if the framework proves successful (a big "if" and robust verification would be required):

The White House could argue that no such outcome was possible until the U.S. threatened to use force. With the U.S. threatening to use force, that provided the kind of leverage that had been missing. Faced with the possible threat and perhaps concluding that the outcome could cause it to lose its battlefield advantage (air power and missile systems), the regime decided to trade off its chemical weapons to minimize the damage to its battlefield prospects. Thus, the U.S. goal of eliminating chemical weapons use in Syria was achieved.

That the U.S. tactics were remarkably sloppy, that the President had essentially created his own dilemma with his "red line" that ran beyond international norms, and that the rebels would likely still possess some unknown quantities of chemical weapons would be largely irrelevant. The White House would focus on the goal that was achieved and it would be sufficiently large that it would be viewed as a success. Of course, the White House's messaging could be poor, as it has been on numerous Mideast issues, so its public relations effort could fall flat.

For now, it's too soon to know whether the Russian initiative will succeed. Much work will be required and full implementation will almost certainly take more than a week. Will the U.S. have patience? Will there be a set time beyond which the U.S. would conclude whether or not the framework had a good chance of success? There are many uncertainties.

Mornin DS :2wave: Yes.....like I stated. It will certainly entail Boots on the Ground to stockpile and destroy those Chems. NATO troops too. Look who makes up the bulk of that. ;)
 
Coming on the heels that WH aides are indicating that Obama wants to strike Syria because it will be "politically crippling" if they don't, Sec State John Kerry screwed the Administration by leaving an opening in the attack narrative. Russia pounced.....

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons - CNN.com

VOILA!!! Case closed, handled DIPLOMATICALLY and without direct military intervention. Any questions???

P.S. AARGHHH! You beat me to it. LOL I was going to post this as soon as I saw it. Good job. :)
 
Now the problem of actually doing it. First, it'll take weeks if not months to get the UN involved, develop a plan, vote on the plan and get UN troops assembled and ready to go into Syria. Second, how do they secure something Assad has previously claimed didn't exist and may be spread out in multiple areas in a country with an active civil war? Third, how can the U.S. "verify" such a plan by Moscow and Syria when we know that neither has any motive to help the U.S.? And lastly, how can we verify this isn't just a ruse to delay military action (e.g., "rope a dope") in the region to give more time to Syria, make our President look bad (which I think has already been done partly by Obama and partly now by Putin) while making Russia look like the adult / peace negotiator?

I'm not so quick to say "case closed"; in fact it's pretty far from being closed in my view.
 
Mornin DS :2wave: Yes.....like I stated. It will certainly entail Boots on the Ground to stockpile and destroy those Chems. NATO troops too. Look who makes up the bulk of that. ;)

It would, unless Russia is willing to do the proverbial heavy lifting with international observers verifying compliance. It would be a difficult and complicated exercise even if the President Assad agrees to whatever terms are devised.
 
Apparently the Syrian's agreed to the Russian proposal.

Syrian Foreign Minister : the initiative of the Russian Federation on chemical weapons should prevent U.S. plans
The Syrian leadership is taking this initiative, came from the belief in the desire of the Russian side to prevent the war, said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.

MOSCOW, Sept. 10 - RIA Novosti: International control of chemical weapons in Syria must "cut the ground from under the feet of US", which are preparing an aggression against Syria, said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem during a meeting with the speaker of the State Duma Sergei Naryshkin.

"We agreed with the Russian initiative, based on the fact that she has to cut the ground from under the feet of the U.S. aggression against our country" - said Muallem.

He noted that the Syrian leadership is taking this initiative, came from the belief in the desire of the Russian side to prevent the war. He also noted that the position of those who seek peace achieves a much stronger position than those who want war. He called the talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as productive.
According to him, the failure of U.S. congressmen to meet with the Russian delegation to discuss the situation in Syria shows the weakness of their position.

Naryshkin said that the Russian proposal to put under international control of chemical weapons which is available on the territory of Syria and the Syrian government's consent - is "affirmative action and, of course, it makes the opposing parties to go towards us" He noted that Russia opposed any military operation involving foreign troops in Syria that bypasses the UN. Also Russia, he said, has always been and remains a consistent supporter of compliance with international law.

The White House has accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of the use of chemical weapons against the opposition and civilians near Damascus on August 21. U.S. President Barack Obama said he made the decision to start a military operation in Syria without the sanction of the UN Security Council, but has requested the approval of Congress.

Syrian authorities deny allegations of weapons of mass destruction. Russia on Monday offered to send chemical weapons in Syria under international control - this proposal was supported by the Syrian authorities and the opposition initiative called unacceptable. Washington has expressed interest in the Russian proposal.



Used Google translate, with minor alterations by moi to make it actually readable.
The link to the original source in Russian: Ria Novosti


Cheers,
Fallen.
 
I have no idea why there is such a fixation on the US "not looking weak" as a result of this thing in Syria. And apparently that has to do with whether or not we bomb them. What a weird idea. Does anyone really think that Canada is going to invade us and think is easy pickings? Is the world going to suddenly forget our massive stock of nuclear weapons and the fact that we are the only country that has ever used them? It's seriously a problem if we do something that Russia thought was a good idea before we did? What kind of madness is going on here?
The weaker we look, the more it emboldens our enemies.
 
The way I see it, Putin saved Obama's bacon!:3oops:
 
Everybody's going to spin this to make it look like their side won.

The fact is...if this gets chemical weapons off the table and unable to be used...everybody wins.
This post is 100% truth. This seems like the best option available to us. Get rid of the offending weapons, no Americans (presumably) get hurt.

I do think it is quality evidence that Assad was the one to use chemical weapons and that Russia knew it.
 
If this happens? If Syria acquiesces? To think that The White House can't spin this into victory is naive.

How is it spin and not genius? Letting Assad stew about what the U.S. might do to him was pure genius. Bush would have "shocked and awed" him before he had the chance with less than satisfactory results as was usual with him. What is most amazing is that Kerry gave Russia the idea.
 
Coming on the heels that WH aides are indicating that Obama wants to strike Syria because it will be "politically crippling" if they don't, Sec State John Kerry screwed the Administration by leaving an opening in the attack narrative. Russia pounced.....

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons - CNN.com

The best thing that could happen. America gets to stay out and save face at the same time. The government won't be forced to advance an agenda that is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Americans. Russia takes the weapons away and its their problem. If Assad uses Chemical weapons again, Russia losses all credibility whatsoever and a true international consensus would be created to go after that guy that would probably take less than a day.
 
Back
Top Bottom