Obama thrilled at destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile

[Recursion]

Source: FirstPost

US President Barack Obama has lauded the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, which was carried out on board a US Navy ship on the Mediterranean Sea, and urged Damascus to fulfill its commitment to destroy its remaining production facilities.

"Today we mark an important achievement in our ongoing effort to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpile," Obama said in a statement.

"The most lethal declared chemical weapons possessed by the Syrian regime were destroyed by dedicated US civilian and military professionals using a unique American capability aboard the M/V Cape Ray and they did so aboard that US vessel several weeks ahead of schedule," he said.

This is a major milestone in the international community's efforts under the leadership of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to rid the Syrian regime of its chemical weapons, Obama said.

Read more: http://www.firstpost.com/world/obama-thrilled-destruction-syrias-chemical-weapons-stockpile-1670057.html

---

One of the few pieces of good news out of Syria. Also an example of the right way to go after WMDs...

[jakeXT]

1. Kerry:"...he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

When asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered:

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

The State Department later said Kerry had been making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility of Assad turning over chemical weapons, which Assad denies his forces used in the August 21 poison gas attack.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSBRE9880BV20130909

I would love to hear more about the behind the scenes workings of this deal

[karynnj]

5. The OTHER half of the quote is every bit as significant -- if not more so

The question was what could Syria do to avoid a limited targeted strike. Kerry's answer was very clear - give up the chemical weapons. He then adds, what you quote.

However, note the part the Obama administration controls - ie what would end their possible strike - is clear and obviously connected to the STATED REASON for the potential attack. Go back and look at WHY Obama and Kerry said action was needed - it was because Assad used chemical weapons. Look at what they said their goals were - to make it less likely that Assad would feel free to use them again. From that, it is obvious that Kerry was stating an obvious solution.

Now, why the addition suggesting it was impossible. The reason is that this had been raised by Obama's team many times - even before the August use of CW. They had pushed Putin to force Assad to do this - with no success.

At the point Kerry said this, it was not obvious that Russia would change it's position. I suspect that part of the reason they did was the statement made it obvious that the US position REALLY WAS about using chemical weapons - and not McCain's real interest to bomb Syria into regime change. (Remember also that McCain was already furious with Kerry for constantly describing what they intended to do as very limited.

Then consider that when Russia did respond, Kerry did say that IF THIS WAS REAL it would be better as it would eliminate the chemical weapons (at least partly) which was more than a limited strike would do.

In addition, go back and look at the initial Kerry/Lavrov negotiations -- and you will see that their solution met all the criterion that Kerry spoke of up front. Then look at the fact that they "saved" the compromise again at the UN when both the Russian and American UN ambassadors tried to make the deal more to their liking.

This is both an important accomplishment of Obama's foreign policy -- and likely one of the few identifiable examples of where things would have been different with a President Hillary Clinton or even more differently, a President McCain. (Yes I KNOW Clinton's book tries to claim some credit for this -- while explicitly minimizing any credit to Obama or Kerry. However, very few people actually believed that Kerry/Lavrov plan could succeed.) I think many here angered by Kerry's defense of a targeted strike to respond to the chemical weapons attack refuse to see that the SAME values motivated his working to eliminate the chemical weapons. Given the Clinton interview, I doubt we would have ended in the same place had Clinton still been Secretary of State. (If for no other reasons than she already was advocating for more help to the rebels and she likely would have not risked the likely failure of both negotiating this and implementing it. The more idealistic Kerry could NOT, in good conscience, refuse to give it a chance.)

[jakeXT]

6. Keeping the civil war going and sugercoat the rebels wit the Elizabeth O'Bagey analysis was the plan

they decided on. But I'm not sure what bombing it into some kind of Libya would've done for the ME (Israel&Iraq)

Kerry And McCain’s Source For Moderate Syrian Rebel Claim Fired For Fraud

But the piece had also come under fire for misrepresenting her affiliations. Originally the op-ed only listed O’Bagy, 26, as only “a senior analyst” at the ISW, later adding a clarification that disclosed her connection to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.

“In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition,” the WSJ added in its clarification.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/11/kerry-and-mccains-source-for-moderate-syrian-rebel-claim-fired-for-fraud/

Mr. McDonough, who had perhaps the closest ties to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria. Accompanying a group of senior lawmakers on a day trip to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in early June, Mr. McDonough argued that the status quo in Syria could keep Iran pinned down for years. In later discussions, he also suggested that a fight in Syria between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda would work to America’s advantage, according to Congressional officials.

But debate had shifted from whether to arm Syrian rebels to how to do it. Discussions about putting the Pentagon in charge of the program — and publicly acknowledging the arming and training program — were eventually shelved when it was decided that too many legal hurdles stood in the way of the United States’ openly supporting the overthrow of a sovereign government.

Instead, Mr. Obama decided to make the rebel training program a “covert action” run by the C.I.A. He signed a secret finding allowing the agency to begin preparing to train and arm small groups of rebels in Jordan, a move that circumvented the legal issues and allowed the White House to officially deny it was giving the lethal aid.

Besides the legal worries, there were other concerns driving the decision to make the program a secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html?ref=world&_r=1&pagewanted=all&utm_content=buffer5bb71&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&

[Cha]

2. Thank you, President Obama! We're thrilled, too!

[malthaussen]

3. I'd be more thrilled if we disposed of ours...

... especially the ones being used nightly in Ferguson.

-- Mal

[Fred Sanders]

4. The world thanks you, sir, the American media is busy trying to start a race war to bother to report

[peoli]

7. Dumped in the middle of the ocean?