The price of a Russia deal could be too high. Or not.

[cthulu2016]

If we fail to come to some Syria chem weapons disarmamant deal I will not be automatically blaming Obama for not being sufficiently commited to peace. Russia and Syria will not be offering anything out of a deep reservoir of goodness. They, like the USA and all other countries, act in terms of advancing their interests.

A deal Russia would accept would look like this:

a) Syria abandons chemical weaponry entirely

b) America guarantees it will never act militarily against Assad

"a" is easy to define. "b" is not. Is arming rebels 'acting militarily'? How long is 'never?" Does Russia keep supplying Syria with arms? What if Assad lines up 500 civilians and cuts their heads off with knives? Bombs rebels encampments over the border in Jordan? Etc..

Our ostensible objective is chemical weapons, but since we are arming and training rebel fighters and have a policy of 'Assad must go" (in general agreement with the Arab league) we do have a "side" in this civil war that is the opposite of Russia's side in this civil war.

Chemical weapons are not very important militarily. (That's why it was possible to were ban them in the first place—banning them didn't much affect anyone's security because they are not very important militarily.) Assad giving up chemical weapons does not hurt him much. A little, but not a lot.

On the other hand, the USA being "hands off" on Syria would help Assad a lot, and if our allies were also hands off (Jordan, Turkey) Assad could probably put down the rebellion and stay in power for a long time.

Any deal that Russia will take will be a deal that has the effect of rewarding Assad for the August 21st chemical weapons barrage. A deal that makes it likelier that he will remain in power.

Staying in power is a lot more interesting to Assad than having chemical weapons, and he would gladdy trade the weapons for a better hold on power.

And we will not accept anything that has the effect of rewarding Assad for gassing a bunch of people.

That does not, however, mean that we will bomb Syria any time soon, or ever. This thing will probably drag on until it peters out. Obama does not want any part of this. It is too unpopular, and he wasn't all that excited about the interventionist Syria policy in the first place. (That is to say, he was less agressive on Syria than Hillary, Rice, etc..)

So the likeliest outcome is no US strikes any time soon (without some striking new development), and the USA stepping up our existing intervention in the civil war in the form of training, arms and supplies. (And probably intel.)

IMO.

[JoePhilly]

1. So the President was doing too much, until he was doing to little.

[cthulu2016]

2. Your idea that the world is all about Obama is stunted in the extreme.

If you read and thought, rather than playing some World of Warcraft variant where you fight over whether some stranger loves Obama enough, you would recognize that the OP is more a defense of Obama's rational reluctance to leap into a Russian morass than anything your "side" is offering.

Can you even grasp that most people bitterly disagreeing with this OP will be the anti-war contingent you despise?

Did you even read it?

The OP was written for adult readers with an interest in international affairs.

There are plenty of other posts where you can indulge your paranoid fantasies about how mean everyone is to Obama, but by dragging that little internet game into this thread you are appearing ridiculous, and making DU suck.

[JoePhilly]

3. I read your OP ... you are saying the deal isn't going to be a good deal.

Aren't you?

For the last 3 weeks, we've had endless OPs predicting the impending war that the President was about to start.

Now we see a new set of predictions emerging, about how the diplomatic deal (a deal that was never going to happen because the President wasn't really in charge anyway), isn't a good deal at all.

Most of the same folks who were absolutely sure about the impending war (and about the President's evil motives), are now very sure about how this deal will actually play out ... and according to them, the deal will play out badly.

Ironically, many of them have been unable to imagine that our US diplomats, and their counterparts around the world (including in Russia) have been working on contingencies regarding Syria for many months now.

Apparently, they think Putin was sitting on the toilet at the G20 when the idea to ask Assad to give up his chemical weapons came to him.

How will this deal play out ... I'm not sure ... but I have learned not to take predictions made on DU very seriously. Given the track record.

[cthulu2016]

5. I am defending Obama's presumed stance that

some deals that would make Syria chem-weapons free are still not good enough deals to take.

If Obama rejects ANY deal there will be people saying he just wants war, but there are plenty of deals that would not be worth it, and that he or any president would be right to not take.

I am not criticizing "the deal" because there is no such deal that we are privy to.

If a deal is characterized as "Syria gives up chem weapons, and we don't bomb them" and Obama rejects it, some people will go ape-shit, but no deal anyone is really talking about will be as simple as that characterization.

Putin is not a nice person. He will not offer anything that doesn't have some poison pills. Depending on the details, a deal could be a no-brainer, or be clearly unacceptable, while sounding somewhat similar in broadest outline.

And if Obama is pilloried for failing to accept a bad deal that effectively rewards Assad I will be defending him.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. you're all over the map on your Obama opinions

oh well. I guess that's why we have message boards. So people can emote nonsensically in real time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Do you mean the crisis hasn't been averted as I have been informed by many on this board?

I am not a huge fan of the chess/checkers analogy but I think it is an appropriate analogy in this instance.

[cthulu2016]

7. I think the crisis has run out of steam. Is that averted?

I see some (many, really) scenarios where there is no deal, but also no bombing strikes.

A deal is an uphill climb.
Bombing, given Congress' likely stance, is an uphill climb.

It isn't "one of the other" anymore, IMO.

The whole thing might go on the back burner until the next crisis makes people forget about it.

Assad will probably be less likely to use chems (and tighten his control if he didn't order it directly), so that's cool.

[Xyzse]

8. To tell the truth, perhaps it is best to get out of a side.

Concentrate on the primary objective which is chemical weapons.

I do not like Assad, but that government has provided stability which is sorely needed in that area.

I agree that the regime is opressive, much like many other governments in that area.
However, I have to consider how it used to be a comparatively tolerant secular regime till all the problems happen.

Assad's regime provided protection to different religions, such as the Catholics and others in that country.

Punks like McCain doesn't think through beyond the initial actions. I can only accuse him of shortness of vision and lack of comprehension.

I can't really weigh in on Syria too much since I must admit to not having enough information. Still, by Obama's red line remark, he painted himself to a corner.

So, to concentrate on the primary objective, it can take the form of many different ways.
Financial Sanctions on banks that hold Assad's funding.
Surgical Strikes targetting Syrian Government military facilities.

It must not go beyond the letter of saying "this is due to the use of chemical weapons".

Inspections still must be done, as well as the turnover of said weapons to international control and disposal.

My view on this is subject to change... I just don't think we should be taking sides any more than we have, unless the rebels coalesce in to a coherent working alternative.