We watched Storage Wars last night instead of the President's address on Syria, but we read the transcript and we give it a B. Hit the right marks, soaring rhetoric kinda phoned-in. So now let's commence the giving of mad Syria props because the new narrative is that they solved it with
You raise some good points. Certainly, there has been back-channel negotiation going on about Syria, probably ever since the civil war started. And I think your theory, that it was only after the larger chemical attack that there was sufficient evidence to convince everyone necessary that it was the government and not the rebels at fault, is a plausible explanation for the timing.
You appear to contradict yourself by saying "Obama blew it in thinking he could bully Assad with the threat of force...", as well as "This was nothing but a textbook case of good cop/bad cop which required Obama to beat the war drums incessantly to play our role...". You may be thinking of different time frames, but the different time frames were only weeks apart.
This suggests to me that the serious negotiations happened during the past few weeks, and that this wasn&#039;t some master-plan spanning many months. I&#039;ve commented before that I think the President was a little bit lucky -- by this I don&#039;t mean &quot;blind luck&quot;, but rather some of the circumstances. Most notably, the fact that Putin has at least as high an interest in containing and securing any viable chemical weapons as we do. Also, that Russia doesn&#039;t benefit from turmoil in their own client states. They want Assad to prevail, of course, but he was already doing that with conventional weapons. This &quot;concession&quot; may actually end up making him look less evil than he is. It will be interesting to see if there is a <i>quid pro quo</i> regarding conventional support of the rebel factions.
Shorter version: I agree that this is an example of (secret) diplomacy, and not blind luck, but I think it was a good bit more short-term and <i>ad hoc</i> than you appear to. (Also, I just have trouble believing that the Kerry statement was staged, simply because it was too damned cinematic for my taste. But then, I rarely watch movies or teevee, so maybe this is how we do, these days).
I agree- this all came together in the last few weeks. I think the diplomacy started long ago, but the way out didn&#039;t coalesce until relatively recently. And yes, Putin&#039;s interests do indeed coincide with the west&#039;s re: chemical weapons- I&#039;m relatively sure Obama was aware of that and used it as part of the leverage. Russia has their own militant Islam problem and they don&#039;t need this nonsense showing up in say, Chechnya. Also too, Assad buys back some of his credibility on the international stage and I bet Putin used that as part of his arm twisting. Re: the comment about Obama blowing it, I was referring to his drawing that red line way back in 2012. Some may argue that he was planning on Russian help even then, but I find that hard to believe, so in that sense he got us caught up in something that has spiraled out of control because there never was adequate leverage on our part to bully Assad directly.
Re: any quid pro quo- I&#039;m guessing there has been shitloads of it from all parties involved- Assad surely got promises from Putin to cooperate, the Russians got promises from us and vice versa- I wouldn&#039;t even be surprised if something as off the wall as our promise not to boycott Sochi was on the table. We&#039;ll probably never know all the cards that were played. My main reason for thinking Kerry played his part is that A) he is passionately committed to reducing WMDs, B) it was necessary for someone to appear to be the stooge and he is loyal and C) they have already floated the &quot;just kidding, it wasn&#039;t really a gaffe&quot; to help Kerry (and to a certain extent Obama) save face- although it could be argued that they&#039;d tell that lie to cover their asses even if it was a gaffe.
Thanks for the clarification on the &quot;red line&quot; bit. I withdraw my comment about contradicting yourself. I agree that wasn&#039;t the sharpest bit of foreign relations O has ever practiced. OTOH, having to deal with that has had some effect on moving us to the present situation, may it actually come to fruition. You never know.
If, by chance, I haven&#039;t been clear, I think the Administration is very alert, and tenacious, regarding the use of diplomacy to actually accomplish stuff. But a little luck doesn&#039;t hurt. It&#039;s the taking advantage of it that is important.
We&#039;ll learn about Kerry&#039;s remark in a few years. I&#039;d actually be happy if it was staged, because that would be so cool. I just don&#039;t believe it.
If you have a hard-on for arming the rebels, then the state of affairs we stumbled into is preferable to what we&#039;d have achieved by a credible threat to strike in June.
Maybe Russia&#039;s chemical weapons policy is somewhat like Wayne LaPierre&#039;s <a href="http:\/\/www.theonion.com\/articles\/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352\/" target="_blank">school shooting policy</a>. Or maybe it was more that back in June, the evidence <a href="http:\/\/articles.washingtonpost.com\/2013-06-20\/world\/40091001_1_chemical-weapons-obama-administration-rebel-claims" target="_blank">wasn&#039;t strong enough</a> to move Putin, who even last week was saying the evidence the more recent attack was chemical weapons <a href="http:\/\/www.wptv.com\/dpp\/news\/national\/house-syria-hearing-live-video-stream-john-kerry-chuck-hagel-at-house-foreign-affairs-committee" target="_blank">wasn&#039;t &quot;obvious&quot; enough for him</a>.
I&#039;m still not sure why you continue to insist that it must be dumb luck or incompetence when you admit you have no evidence beyond what we all have seen. You can speculate that Kerry gaffed, but it&#039;s just as plausible that his remarks were intentional, though meant to appear off the cuff, given that we know that back channel diplomacy has been going on far longer than first acknowledged.
IMHO I find it highly unlikely that Russia would jump on a random comment out of the blue and within hours start making definitive statements regarding a solution. Frankly, that is light speed in the diplomatic world and I can&#039;t believe that they managed to weigh all the myriad angles and the repercussions their response may have in such a short time, especially since it would necessarily involve consulting with Assad. While a plausible argument can be made about the Administration&#039;s initial response, the idea that the recent developments were some sort of luck or stumbling is absurd.
When I heard about the events as they unfolded, it was like a giant light bulb going off- it was quite obvious that a back channel game had been going on for weeks, if not longer, and we were now witnessing the delicate dance of diplomacy in real time. Why didn&#039;t Obama do this earlier? Probably because he couldn&#039;t, not that it never occurred to him. What you and many others seem to forget is that there are many other dynamics at play beyond how this affects the US. Russia has relationships with many other countries and an image worldwide to maintain. Obama blew it in thinking he could bully Assad with the threat of force because Syria is fully aware of its status as a client state of Russia. The idea of us being able to bully them is as ludicrous as the idea of Russia being able to bully Israel, our client state- it&#039;s ain&#039;t gonna happen.
At this point any competent leader would realize that the game is to force Putin&#039;s hand, not Assad&#039;s, and that game has a whole bunch of different rules. I&#039;m sure that Obama was smart enough to include an &quot;unless&quot;, some sort of an escape hatch, with his ultimatum. Without one, there could be no diplomacy. The trick involves finding the proper leverage to get Russia to make Syria take the deal. I&#039;d be willing to bet that a whole bunch of it was delivering proof to Putin- and more importantly our allies, that not only were those chemical weapons used, but Assad was responsible for their use. It is one thing to know this, it&#039;s quite another to be able to convince someone who would rather not believe it. To claim that the administration should have been able to pull this off earlier just because they had announced on June 13th that WE were convinced is rather unfair.
The real battle was convincing Putin that the cost of supporting a client state that had crossed that red line outweighed the cost of losing face by not supporting them. I&#039;m betting that this involved convincing the various G-20 nations to put the screws to Putin and explain to him how bad this is for business and I imagine that the G-20 meeting was quite lively behind closed doors. But these sort of efforts take time- months seems far more reasonable than the comical made-for-tv drama we saw unfold in the blink of an eye the other day. That very swiftness is the proof that the behind the scenes negotiations had already been completed and what we were now witnessing was the choreography of putting it in motion.
Kerry didn&#039;t gaffe, he read his lines from the script. There was no way Assad would listen to us; Russia had to twist their arms. But Russia couldn&#039;t be seen as bending to our will either by acceding to our demands or by floating this deal in an apparent effort to appease us. That&#039;s why Kerry was called upon to put the idea on the table in the way that he did, so Russia could step up and play the role of the deal making superpower.
This was nothing but a textbook case of good cop/bad cop which required Obama to beat the war drums incessantly to play our role- something he continues to do. The key was convincing Putin that we would actually follow through with the threat, as well as the pressure from other nations not to let this spiral out of control into a superpower showdown. Those other nations may not have the stomach to publicly support a strike, but you can bet they&#039;d be willing to twist Putin&#039;s arm until he called Assad to heel. But the idea that all of this could be done in a matter of days or even weeks is as silly as the idea that the little drama we just witnessed with its sudden turn of fortune was any more real than professional wrestling. It was all a show for the rubes that let all parties involved save face while we got essentially what we wanted. The actual process was long and grueling, requiring finding that leverage to get Putin to act and then coming up with a way to implement it to everyone&rsquo;s satisfaction.
exactly- a little more blunt and succinct than I was, but yeah- what you said. To believe that scenario happened the way we have been lead to believe defies credibility.
It&#039;s a series of accidents and clusterfucks and a little two-stepping and a lot of Russia being dicks and some behind-the-scenes hustling and face-saving. What the fuck ever. That&#039;s just diplomacy. And if there&#039;s no war or missiles, who cares?!
You raise some good points. Certainly, there has been back-channel negotiation going on about Syria, probably ever since the civil war started. And I think your theory, that it was only after the larger chemical attack that there was sufficient evidence to convince everyone necessary that it was the government and not the rebels at fault, is a plausible explanation for the timing.
You appear to contradict yourself by saying &quot;Obama blew it in thinking he could bully Assad with the threat of force...&quot;, as well as &quot;This was nothing but a textbook case of good cop/bad cop which required Obama to beat the war drums incessantly to play our role...&quot;. You may be thinking of different time frames, but the different time frames were only weeks apart.
This suggests to me that the serious negotiations happened during the past few weeks, and that this wasn&#039;t some master-plan spanning many months. I&#039;ve commented before that I think the President was a little bit lucky -- by this I don&#039;t mean &quot;blind luck&quot;, but rather some of the circumstances. Most notably, the fact that Putin has at least as high an interest in containing and securing any viable chemical weapons as we do. Also, that Russia doesn&#039;t benefit from turmoil in their own client states. They want Assad to prevail, of course, but he was already doing that with conventional weapons. This &quot;concession&quot; may actually end up making him look less evil than he is. It will be interesting to see if there is a <i>quid pro quo</i> regarding conventional support of the rebel factions.
Shorter version: I agree that this is an example of (secret) diplomacy, and not blind luck, but I think it was a good bit more short-term and <i>ad hoc</i> than you appear to. (Also, I just have trouble believing that the Kerry statement was staged, simply because it was too damned cinematic for my taste. But then, I rarely watch movies or teevee, so maybe this is how we do, these days).
Excellent point. But are we sure Reagan didn&#039;t have something to do with this negotiation?
This <i>is</i> going to be a potential source of political quotes.
I agree- this all came together in the last few weeks. I think the diplomacy started long ago, but the way out didn&#039;t coalesce until relatively recently. And yes, Putin&#039;s interests do indeed coincide with the west&#039;s re: chemical weapons- I&#039;m relatively sure Obama was aware of that and used it as part of the leverage. Russia has their own militant Islam problem and they don&#039;t need this nonsense showing up in say, Chechnya. Also too, Assad buys back some of his credibility on the international stage and I bet Putin used that as part of his arm twisting. Re: the comment about Obama blowing it, I was referring to his drawing that red line way back in 2012. Some may argue that he was planning on Russian help even then, but I find that hard to believe, so in that sense he got us caught up in something that has spiraled out of control because there never was adequate leverage on our part to bully Assad directly.
Re: any quid pro quo- I&#039;m guessing there has been shitloads of it from all parties involved- Assad surely got promises from Putin to cooperate, the Russians got promises from us and vice versa- I wouldn&#039;t even be surprised if something as off the wall as our promise not to boycott Sochi was on the table. We&#039;ll probably never know all the cards that were played. My main reason for thinking Kerry played his part is that A) he is passionately committed to reducing WMDs, B) it was necessary for someone to appear to be the stooge and he is loyal and C) they have already floated the &quot;just kidding, it wasn&#039;t really a gaffe&quot; to help Kerry (and to a certain extent Obama) save face- although it could be argued that they&#039;d tell that lie to cover their asses even if it was a gaffe.
Oh god no I skipped them. But I may have to wait a loooong time for Netflix
Thanks for the clarification on the &quot;red line&quot; bit. I withdraw my comment about contradicting yourself. I agree that wasn&#039;t the sharpest bit of foreign relations O has ever practiced. OTOH, having to deal with that has had some effect on moving us to the present situation, may it actually come to fruition. You never know.
If, by chance, I haven&#039;t been clear, I think the Administration is very alert, and tenacious, regarding the use of diplomacy to actually accomplish stuff. But a little luck doesn&#039;t hurt. It&#039;s the taking advantage of it that is important.
We&#039;ll learn about Kerry&#039;s remark in a few years. I&#039;d actually be happy if it was staged, because that would be so cool. I just don&#039;t believe it.
If you have a hard-on for arming the rebels, then the state of affairs we stumbled into is preferable to what we&#039;d have achieved by a credible threat to strike in June.
Maybe Russia&#039;s chemical weapons policy is somewhat like Wayne LaPierre&#039;s <a href="http:\/\/www.theonion.com\/articles\/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352\/" target="_blank">school shooting policy</a>. Or maybe it was more that back in June, the evidence <a href="http:\/\/articles.washingtonpost.com\/2013-06-20\/world\/40091001_1_chemical-weapons-obama-administration-rebel-claims" target="_blank">wasn&#039;t strong enough</a> to move Putin, who even last week was saying the evidence the more recent attack was chemical weapons <a href="http:\/\/www.wptv.com\/dpp\/news\/national\/house-syria-hearing-live-video-stream-john-kerry-chuck-hagel-at-house-foreign-affairs-committee" target="_blank">wasn&#039;t &quot;obvious&quot; enough for him</a>.
<i>Really, we were just tapping our feet while Russia came around;</i>
More likely, they finally convinced Putin that everyone in Syria was gay.
&quot;My my my myyyyyyyyyyy Sharia!&quot;
I&#039;m still not sure why you continue to insist that it must be dumb luck or incompetence when you admit you have no evidence beyond what we all have seen. You can speculate that Kerry gaffed, but it&#039;s just as plausible that his remarks were intentional, though meant to appear off the cuff, given that we know that back channel diplomacy has been going on far longer than first acknowledged.
IMHO I find it highly unlikely that Russia would jump on a random comment out of the blue and within hours start making definitive statements regarding a solution. Frankly, that is light speed in the diplomatic world and I can&#039;t believe that they managed to weigh all the myriad angles and the repercussions their response may have in such a short time, especially since it would necessarily involve consulting with Assad. While a plausible argument can be made about the Administration&#039;s initial response, the idea that the recent developments were some sort of luck or stumbling is absurd.
When I heard about the events as they unfolded, it was like a giant light bulb going off- it was quite obvious that a back channel game had been going on for weeks, if not longer, and we were now witnessing the delicate dance of diplomacy in real time. Why didn&#039;t Obama do this earlier? Probably because he couldn&#039;t, not that it never occurred to him. What you and many others seem to forget is that there are many other dynamics at play beyond how this affects the US. Russia has relationships with many other countries and an image worldwide to maintain. Obama blew it in thinking he could bully Assad with the threat of force because Syria is fully aware of its status as a client state of Russia. The idea of us being able to bully them is as ludicrous as the idea of Russia being able to bully Israel, our client state- it&#039;s ain&#039;t gonna happen.
At this point any competent leader would realize that the game is to force Putin&#039;s hand, not Assad&#039;s, and that game has a whole bunch of different rules. I&#039;m sure that Obama was smart enough to include an &quot;unless&quot;, some sort of an escape hatch, with his ultimatum. Without one, there could be no diplomacy. The trick involves finding the proper leverage to get Russia to make Syria take the deal. I&#039;d be willing to bet that a whole bunch of it was delivering proof to Putin- and more importantly our allies, that not only were those chemical weapons used, but Assad was responsible for their use. It is one thing to know this, it&#039;s quite another to be able to convince someone who would rather not believe it. To claim that the administration should have been able to pull this off earlier just because they had announced on June 13th that WE were convinced is rather unfair.
The real battle was convincing Putin that the cost of supporting a client state that had crossed that red line outweighed the cost of losing face by not supporting them. I&#039;m betting that this involved convincing the various G-20 nations to put the screws to Putin and explain to him how bad this is for business and I imagine that the G-20 meeting was quite lively behind closed doors. But these sort of efforts take time- months seems far more reasonable than the comical made-for-tv drama we saw unfold in the blink of an eye the other day. That very swiftness is the proof that the behind the scenes negotiations had already been completed and what we were now witnessing was the choreography of putting it in motion.
Kerry didn&#039;t gaffe, he read his lines from the script. There was no way Assad would listen to us; Russia had to twist their arms. But Russia couldn&#039;t be seen as bending to our will either by acceding to our demands or by floating this deal in an apparent effort to appease us. That&#039;s why Kerry was called upon to put the idea on the table in the way that he did, so Russia could step up and play the role of the deal making superpower.
This was nothing but a textbook case of good cop/bad cop which required Obama to beat the war drums incessantly to play our role- something he continues to do. The key was convincing Putin that we would actually follow through with the threat, as well as the pressure from other nations not to let this spiral out of control into a superpower showdown. Those other nations may not have the stomach to publicly support a strike, but you can bet they&#039;d be willing to twist Putin&#039;s arm until he called Assad to heel. But the idea that all of this could be done in a matter of days or even weeks is as silly as the idea that the little drama we just witnessed with its sudden turn of fortune was any more real than professional wrestling. It was all a show for the rubes that let all parties involved save face while we got essentially what we wanted. The actual process was long and grueling, requiring finding that leverage to get Putin to act and then coming up with a way to implement it to everyone&rsquo;s satisfaction.
Godammit, some of us are waiting for Netflix to catch up!
ah zippy. if you don&#039;t write for foreign affairs (or something) you should.
exactly- a little more blunt and succinct than I was, but yeah- what you said. To believe that scenario happened the way we have been lead to believe defies credibility.
Seriously Angry Beavers.
Oh Faux, you never fail to amuse
It&#039;s a series of accidents and clusterfucks and a little two-stepping and a lot of Russia being dicks and some behind-the-scenes hustling and face-saving. What the fuck ever. That&#039;s just diplomacy. And if there&#039;s no war or missiles, who cares?!