The Americans are coming
President Obama, bless his heart, is sending John Kerry off to Moscow next week to convince the Russians that something needs to be done about Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Yesterday’s leak that the President is considering supplying weapons directly to the opposition is presumably intended to strengthen Kerry’s hand in what must be an uphill push.
The smart money is betting the Russians won’t budge. I’m not so certain, but in any event Obama is doing the right thing to pursue them. He may eventually have to act without Russian concurrence, in order to maintain American credibilty in the eyes of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. But it would be far better reach a political accommodation that ends the Asad regime with the Russians on board, so as not to endanger their cooperation in the nuclear talks with Iran or the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Obama needs Moscow for both.
Kerry’s push could get some help from unexpected quarters. Missiles were fired yesterday at a Russian civil aircraft flying over Syria. There is no reason to believe the opposition has the capability to target aircraft at an altitude anywhere near 9000 feet. If they did, they would surely use the capability against the Syrian air force. The Russians were already busy denying that they were urging Hizbollah to withdraw from Syria. Someone in Moscow has to be scratching his head and asking if Russia is on the right side in Syria.
Russia need not change its mind and come over to the opposition. Great powers rarely do that. Russia wants to convince the world it is again a great power. A wink and a nod would suffice. That’s what Moscow did in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council resolution legalizing that intervention passed after the war.
The really vital interest for Russia in Syria is to avoid a Sunni extremist takeover, which Moscow fears would infect its restive Muslim population in places like Chechnya and Dagestan. Here Obama and Putin are in the same sinking boat. What they’ve done so far has increased the likelihood of an extremist takeover in Syria, not decreased it. If Russia is serious about dealing a blow against jihad in Syria, it is becoming eminently clear that Bashar al Asad is not the guy to do it.
The Russians do not believe that Asad has used chemical weapons. I trust Kerry will be going to Moscow with a gaggle of intel analysts in tow to make the case. It will not be easy. The Russians don’t trust anything we say. Our record, from the Tonkin Gulf to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is not a great one. Let’s leave aside “Remember the Maine!”
But I think there is good reason to believe chemical weapons have been used in Syria, likely to test our reaction to their use. If we don’t react, they’ll be used a bit more, slowly erasing that (red) line in the sand.
Obama might like to just ignore the challenge, as chemical weapons are no better at killing people than conventional arms and a good deal more difficult to handle. That’s where Iran and North Korea come in. If he fails to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, how will he convince Tehran or Pyongyang that there is a credible threat of military action against their nuclear programs? That threat is vital to any possibility of diplomatic success with either of them.
This gloomy picture could change dramatically if Moscow decides it has bet on the wrong horse and decides to abandon Asad. It’s not likely, but it’s highly desirable. Obama and Kerry are right to try.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
2 thoughts on “The Americans are coming”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
I can’t understand why someone who names his blog Peacefare is so bent on getting rid of Assad – no matter how many Syrians have to die for it. I have no sympathy for Assad but this goal from the Obama government has to me always seemed pure evil. It is intervention in the internal affairs of another country, it obstructs negotiations and it makes any compromise solution impossible.
Please study the successful transitions from dictatorship to democracy like in Spain or the transition in South Africa. Never does it start with the departure of the old regime. On the contrary, you usually see as a transition a phase where the old rulers are still formally in power but allow the newcomers to introduce reforms.
As for those chemical weapons, the Obama administration itself called the evidence “weak”, so good luck convincing the Russians. In my opinion the Americans seriously harmed their position when they obstructed the UN mission to investigate the accusations of chemical weapon use in Aleppo by demanding a widening of the mission. Had they allowed that they would have created a precedent that would make future investigations easier. But after the Iraqi WMD debacle – where continuously new suggestions were developed of where they could be – no country will give a blank check for such investigations. But I suspect that the real reason of the Western position was that they considered it quite probable that the rebels had used chemical weapons. If a UN commission proved that it would expose their hypocrisy.
It’s up to a government to decide whether it goes peacefully or not. People continued to march peacefully asking for change long after Assad’s troops started killing them.
On the WMD – was there any intelligence agency in the world – including the Russians – that was not convinced that Saddam had them? Even his own generals were incredulous when it turned out that there were no secret weapons to support them after the invasion started. Saddam wanted to fool Iran, and he ended up fooling the entire world.