IMO, Syria probably won't surrender weapons. We probably won't bomb.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 04:19 PM - Edit history (2)

Added on edit: I hope everyone, on every side, will recognize this homely, unexceptional 2+2=4. Any deal requires that either a) we have a stick, or b) we offer Assad a carrot.

For domestic political reasons we do not have a stick.
And we are not going to REWARD Assad for using Sarin.

Once one accepts that logic, there is no deal in sight unless somebody acts against self-interest. But since we do not have a stick (for domestic political reasons) we and Russia find our interests aligned insofar as both sides now gain from distraction and delay. So deals will be discussed.

For a deal to happen, however, will require some substansial future change from current circumstances.

The denouement may be... nothing.

AND THAT IS OKAY.

It's not rainbow pony great, it isn't worse-than-Hitler horrible, it's just a story that will last until something more interesting comes along.

The logic of Dealing:

National leaders do not make deals unless they perceive a distinct benefit to themselves in doing so. What does Assad want? He wants to retain power and not see the dislocation/destruction of the Alywites. Okay, so any deal he takes will benefit that objective somehow.

Chemicals weapons do very little to advance those interests. Their greatest value is probably as a bargaining chip. They have very limited tactical importance. They are a good anti-civilian terror weapon, but are not likely to be a decisive tactical factor in Assad remaining in power. An air-force, on the other hand, is quite helpful to retaining power.

So Assad, given the choice, "lose either your air-force or your nerve agents," would give up the nerve agents. (The "but he's a madman" stuff is for kids. He is a sufficiently rational actor, within his set of priorities.)

If that choice was on the table he would turn his chems over to anybody who would take them. That choice is, however, not on the table, unless you think that a) Congress will pass resolution, or b) Obama will bomb without Congress. The conventional wisdom is that those are both unlikely, so if Assad will not deal. Unless...

Unless there is something in the mix that would increase his chance of staying in power.

Assad will not deal unless the USA agrees to not bomb in the future, or not arm the rebels, or some other thing that helps Assad stay in power.

The logic of the situation means that if we will not bomb (stick) then the deal needs a carrot. Assad has to be rewarded for giving up the chems... rewarded with something that helps him retain power.

I used Assad instead of Putin for walking through that because their interests are aligned. They are not the same, but Putin's chief goal is also that Assad remain in power.


So to get to "yes" the USA either has to be a credible bombing threat or effectively reward Assad for having and using chem weapons.

The first seems out politically and the second one seems unacceptable diplomatically.


So probably nobody does anything (unless/until circumstances change substantially) though with many twists and turns along the way.

However, this episode will have a positive. Assad is today, and will remain, somewhat less likely to use chemical weapons than if we had not rattled the saber.

IMO.

I am a big fan of the "Russia deal" as a phenomenon because it probably ends up leading to nothing, and nothing is, in this instance, probably better than something.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. That is not how this ends

[cthulu2016]

2. good to know.

[geek tragedy]

3. Yep, this is all about everyone pretending to want to do something but in the end

looking the other way and letting Assad get away with it.

Which is probably what should be done, without the pretense.

[cthulu2016]

4. There is a tiny silver lining to this.

Assad is less likely to gas people today than if we had not started this kerfuffle because doing so would threaten a status quo that is favorable to Assad.

And that is a good thing.

As long as a congressional vote is pending Assad is somewhat restrained, so putting the resolution on the back burner is a slight deterrence.

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. I think Assad will play games, and the strike will happen.

A resolution becomes more likely the more Assad tries to renege on his offer to get rid of the cw. With or without a resolution, the more gaming that occurs by Assad, the more support a strike will have, nationally and internationally.

I don't think Assad's actions will become smarter in the future than they have been in the past, so inevitably, he will keep doing things that cause more outrage against him.

When the strike comes I think it will be quick and effective. There will be instability afterwards but that is a given. There wouldn't magically be stability no matter what is done, or not done.

[KittyWampus]

6. it's renege… not renig. Usually don't get so anal about spelling. Hope you don't mind.

Have a great day.

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. Nope don't mind, thanks.

[FarCenter]

8. Syria will give up at least some of their chemical weapons in return for US disengagement

However, it is unclear whether the US can slow or stop the support for the Sunni Islamists coming from Turkey, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Therefore there is likely to be a continuing civil war in Syria between the Alawites and Sunnis.

By supporting the "Arab Spring" in Syria, the US has helped create a humanitarian disaster that it cannot direct or control.

[BlueCheese]

9. I think you're right.

Given that any disarmament would take years, what we'll have is the U.S. not attacking Syria while Syria disarms, pretends to disarm, or doesn't disarm. It seems that what everyone gets is a somewhat respectable exit from the crisis.