[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But you assertion that everybody but you is a complete dolt when it comes to foreign policy is going to get a response from me.[/quote]
That is not my assertion. What I said is that there are many people around here (as around anywhere) without basic knowledge of the general workings and specific details of international affairs. You’ve made, over the course of this argument, a series of claims that plainly evidence my analysis.
Among these claims are the following:
–That Assad may have used up all of his weapons.
–That the Syrians are giving their stockpile to Russia.
–That the September 2013 weapons destruction agreement had nothing to do with the threat of American force.
These are all egregiously false–not flawed, not problematic…false. As in, not true. They betray an obvious, fundamental ignorance of things that are not interpretations or arguments, but are instead simple, inarguable facts. I have alerted you to this multiple times, and you have literally ignored it.
Now, on to the substance of your argument:
[quote]
But none of that changes the fact that the ‘red line’ was in regards to use of chemical weapons. The Syrians used them and we did nothing. What was the point of that threat if you don’t follow through? [/quote]
As I have explained, you are choosing a facile and fantastical narrative over reality. If things had gone as you seem to wish they’d gone–Obama warns against the use of chemical weapons, they’re used, Obama does nothing, and nothing changes–then your argument would be reasonable, and I would have come into this thread in order to agree with you. But the facts stand in your way. What happened is this:
-
Obama warns against the use of chemical weapons.
-
They’re used at Ghouta.
-
The U.S., in concert with France and other (mostly Western) powers, signals its intention to launch punitive strikes on Syrian targets, contingent upon investigators’ confirmation of the attack.
-
It becomes clear that that confirmation is forthcoming, and, as the West prepares to strike, Russia and Syria scramble to offer a deal in order to avert an attack. They offer the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile and Syrian accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
-
The U.S. accepts the deal.
Now, your argument resides between steps 4 and 5. Remember that diplomacy and war are each made of choices between alternatives. They consist of things gotten and things conceded. Between steps 4 and 5, Obama had the choice of either refusing the Russo-Syrian deal and launching his limited punitive airstrikes, or of accepting the deal and dispossessing a beleaguered and war-torn state overrun by fundamentalist jihadi terrorist militias–a state whose future is the very archetype of uncertainty–of a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. He chose the latter.
I repeat myself: Foreign affairs is a matter of making the choices that entail the greatest benefit to American security and interests. This is exactly the choice that was made in September, 2013. After Ghouta, the rational choice of greatest benefit was to strike. Once the Russo-Syrian offer to surrender the chemical weapons stockpile came rushing in in a bid to avert such a strike, the rational choice of greatest benefit was to accept the deal.
So: The rational choices were made, the benefits were gotten, and an important concession was won. A stockpile of chemical weapons is, instead of being locked up in a war-torn jihadist haven, being turned into sand in Finland. All because the Russians and Syrians gave in in a bid to avoid an imminent American strike. This is what power is meant for, and this is what the threats are meant for.
By the way, a “red line” can absolutely entail the dispossession of a state’s armaments under the threat of military force. Look back at Obama’s unspecific comments: He said that a Ghouta-like event would represent a red line and “change [his] calculus.” It did. So, even by the facile and illegitimate measurement you’re using, you don’t have any argument whatsoever–the calculus changed, we moved to strike, and we took things from Syria that they didn’t want taken from them. The change in calculus won an extremely important concession. Things went exactly as they should have.
Edited[/quote]
The finite points of how and where the weapons are really do not matter to the larger point that Assad used chemical weapons and obama did not respond.
And further you trying to tell me that when the Assad regime says that the Russians, not the U.S. was the impetus for eliminating what they eliminated you don’t trust what Assad says. However, when it comes to the listing of the location and contents of the chemical weapons stores in Syria you now trust that Assad gave up everything willingly and honestly? Please… So Assad was lying about the Russian intervention, but he’s telling the truth about his chemical weapons stores? We can all sleep better because for once, Assad got all honest about that?
The Russians may have taken the treat seriously, but the Syrians did not. The Syrians did not respond directly to the Kerry threats, the Russians are the ones who responded and they engaged Syria. Syria is not afraid of U.S. threats. They have no reason to be. But they are afraid of losing Russian support. Without Russian support, Assad is gone. Assad will do what they say. What does he care what the U.S. thinks?
And who knows why Syria gave up what they gave up, but rest assured it’s not all of it, unless you believe Assad’s regime. They provided the list and there is no way to independently verify that they are all gone. Assad’s the one who provided the list.
Did Syria give up it’s entire stock pile? It’s highly doubtful. But believe what you want.
And no matter what, it still wasn’t the ‘red line’ regarding use of chemical weapons.
And it also begs the question, why was the administration only concerned with disarming the chemical stock pile only after it was used? Why wasn’t the pressure put on before they were used?
Why issue the threats of you don’t back them up? “We really mean it this time!” Does not mean much at all.
