Quantcast

«

»

Sep 09 2013

New development in Syria

It could be a feint, it could be a delaying tactic, or Syria may have just blinked. Apparently Russia has been talking to their buddy Assad and dangled a non bombing alternative. Here’s the gistt:

WSJ — Syria said it welcomed a Russian proposal that it hand over chemical weapons to be destroyed, without saying whether it would comply, as a suggestion by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gained traction.

Mr. Kerry said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government could prevent U.S. military action in response to what the U.S. said was a chemical-weapons attack on Aug. 21 by handing its chemical weapons to the international community. Syria has denied using chemical weapons and blamed Syrian rebels for the attack.

That has a lot of potential. It’s something the UN can get behind, it’s something our own allies could probably be persuaded to support, and it would probaby not only get wider support in the House and Senate than anything else, it would increase support for what’s being debated now.

Sure, old man McCain and his neocons pals will have a sad that nothing will be exploded. There will certainly by a few Republicans scrambling around throwing anything negative they can think of at the WH walls to see if something sticks. It would be entertaining to say the least to watch Teaparty clowns snap their necks trying to do a 180, from non interventionist to suddenly whining about the US not getting to hit the Syrians. But if a legit deal like this were to be worked out, the damage to Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons could well be greater than anything a single missile strike would likely accomplish, and for the macho men among us, we will have forced his hand with the threat of a US military strike.

9 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    machintelligence

    This is a good example of the virtue of taking the time for the situation to develop. Everyone could come away looking good. It would also tend to inhibit the rebels, if they have captured some chemical weapons, from making use of them.

  2. 2
    Reginald Selkirk

    and it would probaby not only get wider support in the House and Senate than anything else

    That depends on whether Obama backs it. If he does, there is no way the House Replublicans will get on board. That seems to be their guiding star: whatever Obama is for, they are against.

  3. 3
    Marcus Ranum

    It’d be fun if the Syrians said they’d hand over their WMD for destruction as long as we matched them pound for pound with ours.

  4. 4
    Kaintukee Bob

    @Marcus: The US, by and large, would be fine with that. It would barely make a dent in our ‘deterrent’ stockpile.

  5. 5
    grumpyoldfart

    I doubt the Syrians have blinked. I think they’re telling each other, “We’ll get away with this, no worries.”

    The only retaliation will be harsh words.

  6. 6
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Damn. That is, actually, not a bad solution to the issue. And it could lead to a potential future in which those who maintain stocks and end up in civil war/insurrection must turn them over to the UN, or something. I don’t know. But it’s an actual positive response to the use of chemical weapons, that makes it harder to have it happen again.

    If they can make it happen, I would support this idea as an international response (under the UN label) to the situation that is much better than lobbing in some explosives and hoping to hit bad guys.

  7. 7
    sovereignjohn

    Our US President told Libya if it gave up their weapons we won’t invade Libya. They gave up their weapons and with no weapons we invaded relatively easier. It’s a scam. I’m a liberal but this fake liberal President GW0bama is a right wing conservative republican warmonger. Dear Syria, there is no trusting POTUS GW0bama or his cronies

  8. 8
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    We did not invade Libya, unless you count a few selected airstrikes and humanitarian aide as part of an international effort invading.

  9. 9
    psweet

    I’m not sure what the Congress could do to stop it, even if they don’t support it. They can authorize military action, but I don’t think they can direct the President to carry it out.

Leave a Reply