British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

[tinwë]

You have every reason to be skeptical, but at least two things have already really happened. One, Syria has not been bombed (by us), which seemed like a forgone conclusion just a few days ago and is now increasingly unlikely to happen. And two, Syria has, as of today, formally asked to join the chemical weapons convention, which is significant in part because it means that they have for the first time admitted that they actually have chemical weapons. But also because the convention itself has a fairly simple (in theory) process - the government has thirty days to declare their stockpile of weapons. After that inspectors go in and verify and other member have an opportunity to contest the declaration and ask for further inspections. Then the fun part of destroying the weapons starts.

Nobody thinks any of this will be easy. The country is in a civil war for Pete's sake. However, one of the other consequences of this action is that it is now much more unlikely that the Assad regime will launch another chemical weapons attack (which has been the primary goal of the US's actions the last few weeks) and it is also now at least somewhat less likely that those weapons would end up in the hands of rebels or terrorists if Assad falls.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Kerry has already categorically stated that the "standard process" with its 30 day delay is not acceptable, where as Lavrov insists that it is. But the real sticking point is the Russian insistence that the U.S. forswear the use of force, even if the Syrians do not end up complying. If this were a real offer and the Syrians (and their Russian sponsors) really planned to give up their chemical weapons, that would not be an issue. This whole thing strikes me as a cynical Russian ploy and that the end result is that it will leave Obama no choice but to go forward with strikes, regardless of what Congress says.

[tinwë]

Perhaps. I don't put much weight on John Kerry's "categorical statements", and I'm sure at least some of the rhetoric coming from both sides is just the usual political posturing, however there is at least one reason to think that compliance with the convention is at least possible and that's the fact that the Russians don't want those weapons to end up in the hands of the rebels any more than we do. The chemical weapons convention may be their best hope of insuring that doesn't happen.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do wonder whether this whole thing has been planned from the beginning, and Obama has actually been manipulating the situation from the get-go. Let's look at the facts. We know that for a year he has been pushing Putin behind the scenes to get Syria to declare its chemical weapons and surrender them to international control, for eventually elimination. We know that he uncharacteristically went out on a limb last August with his red line comment. And we know that the whole process of threatening to use military action and then turning around and surprisingly asking for Congress approval (when he had to know it was unlikely to come), while still stubbornly insisting that he had the authority to proceed with strikes even if they rejected authorization has been unusual, to say the least. And then we had Kerry's seeming off-hand comment about Syria turning over its chemical weapons, which gave Putin the opportunity to seem to take the lead, when in truth this was exactly what Obama wanted in the first place.

[tinwë]

That would be impressive indeed, but the one flaw I see is this: the final push to Assad and Putin both seemed to be the imminent threat of US military intervention, and that didn't come until after Assad had actually gassed his own people, including women and children. I can't believe Obama would have made such a callous calculation.

Of course the supreme irony here will be if Assad's chemical weapons attack actually leads to a strengthening of his position and legitimizing of his rule as the one who turned over Syria's chemical weapons, an outcome that seems likely if this course plays out.

But the only score that matters right now is this:
US bombs dropped on Syria = 0
Additional chemical weapons attacks by Assad = 0

I'm afraid that's the best we can hope for in the short term.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I certainly am not suggesting that President Obama somehow tried to trick Assad into gassing his own people, but I think it is possible that he (like lots of us) considered it unfortunately very likely to happen. Indeed, it had happen before the August attack, just not as blatantly. Once the August attack had occurred, I think it is possible that he calculated that the best thing to do would be to try to maneuver Putin and the Russians into taking the lead in the effort to get the Syrians to turn over their chemical weapons by making a credible (and uncharacteristic) thread of U.S. military action.

[tinwë]

That's a possibility, but if true then John Kerry should win the Acadamy Award for Most Deceptive Performance In A World Crisis for the way that he appeared to stumble unwittingly into suggesting that a US attack could be averted by giving up the chemical weapons. Or maybe they just didn't tell him .

Edit to add: I apologize if some of my comments seem flippant in light of the human tragedy that is going on in that part of the world, but it is the only way I am able to talk about it without just seizing up with fear and disgust.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, we know that Obama and Putin had talked about it just a couple of days before Kerry's apparent stumble. So I think that it really is likely that either Kerry was acting ... or they didn't tell him.

[tinwë]

Ah, ok then. I really wasn't aware of any such talks between Obama & Putin, at least as far as averting a US strike by giving up the chemical weapons. Must have missed that news cycle. But it does make one wonder about Kerry's role in all of this.

In the end I still take Jon Stewart's side in all of this, namely that it doesn't matter how it happened as long as it happened.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And the latest that I have seen is that administration officials are acknowledging that a UN resolution is not going to authorize the use of force, and it is just a question of trying to reach a compromise with Russia on what consequences it would include if Syria fails to make good on its promises. And, of course, the administration was prepared to go forward with force without a U.N. resolution any way. At least so they said.

I now think that an agreement will be reached. The next question after that is whether there is any possibility that such an agreement can help reignite talks to resolve the Syrian civil war altogether. That would be the best result.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And ... an agreement has been reached, at least between the U.S. and Russia. It remains to be seen whether Syria will agree, and whether it will be agreed upon by the U.N. Security Council. But it looks promising.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[Primula Baggins]

Anything that isn't a new war looks promising to me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More than just "not a new war." Also the prospect of taking horrible weapons out of the hands of someone who has proven that he is willing to use them. And maybe even the prospect of ending an existing war. I know that Americans are and should be most concerned about not unnecessarily getting involved in a war that does not directly threaten them, but finding a diplomatic solution to the horrible Syrian conflict would be a very good thing.

[Primula Baggins]

Absolutely. If this breakthrough stands and is implemented, and if it leads to an openness to negotiation. The reaction of some of the insurgent leaders doesn't give me much hope for that. But then I never thought we'd get this far without any bombs falling.

It's not much of a punishment for Assad, but it might deter other powers with these weapons from using them.

[nerdanel]

But the only score that matters right now is this:
US bombs dropped on Syria = 0
Additional chemical weapons attacks by Assad = 0

I'm no foreign policy-maker, but I am a pragmatist, and the things I care about are, in descending order of importance:
- Loss of some number of additional lives - from both chemical weapons and American military action - averted
- Others' extreme pain and suffering - from both chemical weapons and American military action - averted
- American resources conserved

To the extent that the US's relations with various other countries will improve if it is not perceived to have taken unilateral military action without international consensus, then I would consider those improved relations to be another positive. Who scores the most political points either domestically or internationally is, as contended by Jon Stewart, essentially irrelevant relative to the above factors.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Absolutely. If this breakthrough stands and is implemented, and if it leads to an openness to negotiation. The reaction of some of the insurgent leaders doesn't give me much hope for that. But then I never thought we'd get this far without any bombs falling.

Me neither. You can see in this thread how quickly I went from pessimism to optimism. My hope for negotiations is that if the U.S. and Russia and other international players put pressure on both sides to go to the table and negotiate seriously, it might happen despite the negative reaction of the insurgent leaders. There is a lot of common interests between the U.S. and Russia to get it done in a way that prevents radical Islamists from getting a stronghold in Syria.

It's not much of a punishment for Assad, but it might deter other powers with these weapons from using them.

From what I have heard, the U.N. weapons inspectors report that is due out as soon as Monday is likely to make it clear that the Assad government was responsible for the attack. That might change the equation some.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, not everyone is happy about the deal reached to have Assad turn over his chemical weapons. Any guesses as to who are the two most unhappy people in America?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/s ... html?hp=f1

[tinwë]

Nel, that was just me being flippant again - I really did not mean for the word score to be interpreted as "political points". I have already said that I agree with Stewart that I doesn't matter who did it as long as somebody did it. That said I agree with your assessment, although I have to assume that additional lives are still being lost since the civil war I still going on. Hopefully Voronwë is right and the negotiations between the US, Russia, the UN and Assad with lead to further peace talks with the insurgents.

I have to say through that I honestly believe that we would not be at the point of negotiating any of this right now if the rest of the world, particularly Russia and Assad, had not believed that we were on the verge of a unilateral attack. And like you I do hope that the various other countries you mention think better of us now that we have, for the time being, not unilaterally attacked, but to a certain extent I think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. In this it was better that we almost did, even if it better still that we didn't (yet).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not convinced that we were ever on the verge of attacking, despite what Obama said. It appears to me to have been a bluff, that worked to perfection (similar to when I threaten to file a lawsuit in a case that I have no intention of actually doing so, in order to compel the bad guys to reach a deal). I don't really care what other countries think of us, or what John McCain and Lindsey Graham think, or what Bill Maher, Noam Chomsky, or yes, even Jon Stewart, think. The level of superficial thinking that I have seen recently, on both sides of the so-called political aisle, is mind-blowing.

[Infidel]

The fact is, when the Constitution was written, it was Congress who had the power to declare war and/or issue letters of marque. Congress later abdicated that responsibility to such a degree that there has not been a Congressional Declaration of War since WWII. Every military action since has been initiated by the President and later rubber-stamped by Congress. Congress then sits and howls about Presidents not consulting them before taking action and usually it's the party not in the White House doing most of the howling but, at the end of the day, no Congress has made any legitimate effort to restore the power to declare war to Congress.

That is odd. I seem to have some vague recollection of Bush 41 getting Congressional approval before Desert Storm. I also have some vague recollection of Bush 43 getting Congressional approval before Afghanistan and before Iraq.