U.S. 'diplomatic' plan still about military strikes; not intended to replace that military option

[bigtree]

_____________________________

tweeted by, Ezra Klein ‏@ezraklein 1h
The "Kerry option" gives Obama a new argument he can use to persuade Congress to vote "yes." That's a big deal: http://wapo.st/13FSJbq


- The “Kerry option” gives wavering members of Congress another excuse to vote “no”. Any senators who want to vote against the force authorization without completely abandoning the administration have a new excuse: They don’t want to authorize force until this promising diplomatic solution is fully explored.

- It also gives the Obama administration a new argument to persuade Congress to vote “yes.” Prior to today, there was no option that either Russia or Syria were particularly worried about the U.S.’s “unbelievably small” war. That’s over. “Even if Russia’s proposal is just a bluff, it shows that President Obama’s threat has backed Moscow into a bit of a corner, and has forced Russian officials to at least pretend to negotiate seriously for the first time in a long time,” writes Max Fisher.

The Obama administration can now go to wavering members of Congress and argue that they need the authorization of force in order to have maximum leverage while pursuing this diplomatic option. And members of Congress can argue that they’re simply voting to give the Obama administration that leverage. Is all this a bit reminiscent of the bankshot arguments that ultimately passed the authorization for the war in Iraq? Yep. But remember, those arguments worked.

The Kerry Option at least gives Obama the opportunity to make a new argument in tonight’s primetime speech.You could see him previewing it to NBC News. “What we’re seeing is that a credible threat of a military strike from the United States, supported potentially by a number of other countries around the world has given them pause and makes them consider whether or not they would make this move,” he said. Now he can go before the American people and claim his policy is working and simply needs to be continued.


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/wonkbook-will-russia-bail-obama-out/
___________________________________

What good is a diplomatic initiative which still seeks authorization for military strikes? This is more like an ultimatum than it is a diplomatic proposal. If Assad abandons support for Russia's proposal, and a resolution is in place which authorizes military strikes, that will be a clever one-two step dance into war by the administration.

That will guarantee little more than just warring. Formally coupled with an authorized threat of force, this diplomatic initiative will be nothing more than a trigger to war against Syria.

As Abe Lincoln once remarked: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"



BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 24m
Secretary of State John Kerry says US cannot wait long for Russian proposal on #Syria chemical weapons to work http://bbc.in/1b1cSxa

[KoKo]

1. Kerry was testifying just now to House Intel Commitee

and he was pretty much giving the same warlike speech which upsets many of us.

One odd thing is that he started it off by saying "Assad's use of napalm." Now that was new. It was supposed to be Sarin but now it's NAPALM? Must be some new evidence he's gotten.

I listened for awhile but then had to get some work done. I guess he's supposed to keep at it trashing Assad as a "thug" and keep the pressure on but he's just so OTT he's hard to watch or listen to these da.

[bigtree]

2. it's amazing to see just how earnestly these Democrats are seeking this authorization to use force

. . . not that it's widely assumed that our party is devoid of such ambitions abroad for our nation's defenses.

The manner in which they have hawked their perspective on the need for military action against Syria has left me with zero room to agree with the Obama foreign policy; at least as far as Syria is concerned. It doesn't appear that there's any right-wing ploy, promise, or persuasion too abhorrent for them to reenact and offer from the drive and litany of justifications provided for the Bush-era wars.

[KoKo]

7. It's hard to know how it will turn out....

and...that some hope that PBO has finally figured out...who is giving him information and maybe is having a "rebellion" against them.

I'm not hopeful that's the case...but, I'm hopeful that with so much "rot" being revealed that it's escaped the sewers and is running down the streets these days....that something will CHANGE.

If he can be part of that..."More Power to Him." If he can't ...then we've gotta worker hard to find those who will...and it's go to be more than a President... Needs to be Grassroots from those who now know what's going on ...from the bottom up.

So much is still not know about how this will turn out. I keep thinking "2 Steps forward and 3 Steps Back ....but, one day it will even out for a change in course for USA back to "WE, THE PEOPLE!"

[blm]

3. Until it is signed, sealed and delivered they have to keep pressure on.

That is the only way to get follow through.

[bigtree]

4. that's the hook to get a force authorization

. . . what happens with a stalled or rejected proposal?

The administration seems awfully certain about the prospect of their military strikes altering Assad's behavior. Nothing happens (in their view) without the introduction of our military into the defense of one side in Syria's civil war. None of this will happen in a vacuum, and, nothing guarantees that the subsequent militarism will be geared toward any diplomatic initiative at all.

The Obama administration's embrace of Russia's proposal is a very convenient vehicle for their military appeal.

[KoKo]

6. Chapter Seven of UN Charter....France to Seek Tough UN Resolution

“1. The UN condemns the “chemical massacre” committed on 21 August “by the Syrian regime”

2. The Syrian regime “shed all light” on its chemical weapons programme without delay, placing it under international control and dismantling it

3. Syria must put in place a complete procedure to allow full inspections of chemical weapons and must become party to the chemical weapons convention

4. There would be extremely serious consequences if these obligations were violated

5. The “authors” of the 21 August chemical attacks must face legal sanctions via the international criminal court”


-----------
Syria conflict: France to seek tough UN resolution on chemical weapons
Resolution will require Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control or face 'extremely serious consequences'

Laurent Fabius said France would float the resolution as early as Tuesday evening. Photograph: Jacques Brinon/AP

France will on Tuesday night propose a resolution to the UN security council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons programme, place it entirely under international control and dismantle it, or face "extremely serious consequences".

The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said France had reacted with "interest but also with caution" to the Russian proposal that Syria place its weapons under international control.

Paris, still wary of falling into a trap or "diversionary" tactic, had therefore decided to push immediately for a UN resolution under chapter 7 of the UN charter which would make "concrete" the notion of the Syrian regime opening up its chemical weapons arsenal for inspection and dismantlement, Fabius said.

The French proposal came as the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow and Damascus were working on a plan in consultation with the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Ban said he would urge the security council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria's chemical weapons to internationally controlled sites inside the country where they could be destroyed.

The director general of the OPCW, Ahmet Üzümcü, pointed out that the chemical weapons convention "was based on zero tolerance for chemical weapons", suggesting a selective approach would not be acceptable.

Syrian state television quoted Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halki as saying President Bashar al-Assad's government backed the initiative, confirming what his foreign minister had earlier told the speaker of the Russian parliament.

"We held a very fruitful round of talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday, and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening we agreed to he Russian initiative," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem told the Interfax news agency. He added Syria had agreed because this would "remove grounds for American aggression".

Keen to regain the initiative on the Syria weapons issue after Moscow's proposal, France stipulated the five conditions of the resolution that would be put to the 15-nation UN body as early as Tuesday night. Fabius said the resolution would condemn the "chemical massacre" committed on 21 August "by the Syrian regime".

It would demand that the Syrian regime "shed all light" on its chemical weapons programme without delay, placing it under international control and dismantling it. Syria must put in place a complete procedure to allow full inspections of chemical weapons and must become party to the chemical weapons convention. There would be extremely serious consequences if these obligations were violated.

Finally, "the authors" of the 21 August chemical attacks must face legal sanctions via the international criminal court (ICC).

It was not clear whether Russia would go along with a chapter 7 resolution, as it would open the door to punitive measures possibly including force. Furthermore, Russia and China have continually resisted the Syrian conflict being referred to the ICC for investigations of war crimes.

Asked if the UN initiative meant the option of military force was now officially off the agenda, Fabius said Paris would explore the possibility of full Syrian chemical weapons control in good faith but with caution, and "all options are still on the table".
This Won't Fly:

“1. The UN condemns the “chemical massacre” committed on 21 August “by the Syrian regime”
2. The Syrian regime “shed all light” on its chemical weapons programme without delay, placing it under international control and dismantling it
3. Syria must put in place a complete procedure to allow full inspections of chemical weapons and must become party to the chemical weapons convention
4. There would be extremely serious consequences if these obligations were violated
5. The “authors” of the 21 August chemical attacks must face legal sanctions via the international criminal court”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/syria-conflict-france-un-resolution-chemical

[joshcryer]

10. Yep, and Obama must continue saber rattling.

[bigtree]

5. /

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. IIRC -

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

there was language in the authorization that O sought that was so broad it might give new Presidential powers of war. If they still seek the authorization and Congress approves, I will NOT be a happy camper.

[bigtree]

9. agreed