Month: September 2013

Bouie tours the fever swamps:

Yes, there’s no hard confirmation that Assad gave the order to use sarin gas against civilians. Still, each of these theories is easily debunked with the available evidence. The United States, for instance, isn’t alone in its conclusions: France, Germany, and the Arab League also agree that Assad’s regime was behind the attack. Indeed, to believe that the rebels are responsible is to ignore the extent to which the Syrian military possesses the materials for chemical weapons, to say nothing of the logistical complexity of setting up the attack and a subsequent cover-up.

As for the idea that President Obama is behind the attacks? The only thing I have for you is common sense. In order to pull off a conspiracy of that size, Obama would have to have the absolute loyalty and cooperation of hundreds—if not thousands—of people. He would also have to be an evil genius on par with some of the worst people in history. Even his most devoted opponents can agree that this is wildly implausible—the stuff of Alan Pakula political thrillers, not reality.

But conspiracy theories have never been about plausibility. More than anything, they reflect our uneasiness with the modern world, its complexity, and often its capriciousness. And at times, they’re a natural consequence of past actions. Given the circumstances of the war in Iraq — where high-level officials, up to and including the president, misled the public — it’s not a surprise that some people are paranoid about the situation in Syria.

But eschewing conspiracy theories does not mean abandoning skepticism of all self-serving accounts of what happened. The motive for such a brazen attack has yet to be cleared up definitively. We should never dismiss the possibility of divisions within Assad’s regime, mistakes, miscalculations, misunderstandings, and so on. A new analysis from German intelligence services, for example, has found intercepts that suggest that Assad repeatedly refused requests to use chemical weapons:

The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs.

I’m haunted by the simple fact that almost no one believed that Saddam was bluffing about his WMD arsenal before we went to war. It seemed impossibly naive to believe that. But it was true.

Josh Marshall makes smart points about the Syria situation:

Don’t look at the offer but the trajectory of events it puts in place. Russia coming forth with this proposal puts in motion a chain of events which totally reshuffles deck internationally in a way that is much more favorable to the US and to the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons capacity. The Russians (and Chinese) Security Council veto has always been the key variable in this drama. But Russia has proposed this course. The White House quickly floated it past UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He wants to bring this before the Security Council. So that will happen. And it will be extremely difficult for the Russians to veto it.

The key to understand is that this starts a UN Security Council process that probably won’t be vetoed (the Chinese being the wildcard). Soon you’ll have some sort of force on the ground in country inspecting and securing these weapons or knocking at the door of an isolated and recalcitrant Syrian regime.

It is, if it transpires, a huge victory for the US. Yes, it means we have to relinquish ownership of all this and let Russia take the credit – and all the blowback domestically and internationally that might entail. Expect a whole slew of “Munich” stories; a chorus singing the A-word (appeasement); and the usual derision of Obama from the loony right. The great thing about this president is that he doesn’t care how the short-term optics look or how the news cycle plays as long as the result is one he wants. The process toward that goal is inherently messy, but what matters is the result.

The key development of this week is clearly the UN Security Council finally taking this on – led by Russia and backed by China. The credible threat of military force made that breakthrough possible. If it succeeds, Obama will have created a new template for global affairs – one that retains the US as the critical actor, but that also allows for other great powers to assume more responsibility.

This is not a repeat of Bush; it is, rather, the liquidation of the Bush-Cheney mindset, entrenched in the UN and potentially in the Congress. If and when the dust settles, the moment that is currently being seen as Obama’s low-point in foreign policy may eventually be seen by historians as his signature achievement. We don’t know that yet – and much can still go wrong. But this is potentially transformative in America’s engagement with a post-Cold War, post-Iraq War world.

Michael Crowley claims that it is “likely to fail”:

Last year, the Pentagon estimated that securing the dozens of sites at which Syrian chemical weapons are thought to be stored could take up to 75,000 U.S. troops. A much smaller number (of what would almost certainly will be Russian, and/or United Nations personnel) should be required here, given the presumed cooperation of the Syrian government; they won’t have to shoot their way in. But it’s still a mighty task that could require many hundreds, if not thousands, of trained professionals — plus ample security to protect them: remember that U.N. inspectors were fired upon in Syria earlier this month. “It is a daunting task to get a hold of all these weapons,” deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken told CNN Monday afternoon, “and you probably need a cease-fire.” The odds of that seem awfully small, not least because it would require the fanatical Islamist fighters of al Nusra to agree.

Jeffrey Goldberg also throws cold water:

All Assad has to do to forever stave off a punitive strike is to keep promising that he’s in the middle of giving up his chemical weapons. (No one, by the way, has addressed the fate of his biological weapons.) This is a process that could go on for months, or even years. Yes, that’s right — we might be reading stories soon about United Nations weapons inspectors roaming Syria (a war zone, it should be noted) in a hunt for missing WMD. There are hundreds of tons of chemical munitions in Syria, and very few people think Assad would part with all of them. Why would he? Chemical weapons are a major deterrent to those outside Syria who seek his demise.

Here’s what I’d say in response. Our fundamental interest is in upholding the norm against chemical weapons and ending their use in Syria. Even if the process Jeffrey describes were to take the length of time he suggests, would it not nonetheless do the trick? Would Assad actually use chemical weapons again now that his key patron, Russia, has put its weight behind the Chemical Weapons C0nvention, is in charge of implementing it, and is on record as saying chemical weapons use is intolerable?

The formula for WMD disarmament is pretty simple: the reformed government hands over all it’s got, the stockpiles are checked, the weapons completely destroyed. Russia is now committed to this – and although the process would be possible, as long as Assad still has total control over the weapons, it should be feasible. As for the danger of delay, think back to Iraq.

Do we really believe we were right not to simply keep pressing for more inspections rather than going to war when we did? Delay would not have been fatal then, despite the hawks’ (i.e. my) rhetoric at the time, and it would not be fatal now. Maybe if we stopped rehashing the tired, lazy conceits of zero-sum politics (see this classic from Politico), we could focus on what the US actually wants to achieve as an end-result, and focus like a laser on it.

But skepticism – profound skepticism – toward the Russians and Syrians on this maneuver is certainly valid. The practicalities need to be explored, the deadlines clear, the consequences obvious. And delaying the Congressional vote is no big deal. It makes perfect sense for the US to wait and see if the Russian proposal pays off. If it doesn’t, if the deal falls apart, and if there is another use of chemical weapons by Assad, the case for striking may well be much stronger.

Yes, this is all very unsatisfying – but often tangible success is unsatisfying. You want satisfaction? Jump from a helicopter in front of a banner calls “Mission Accomplished.” You want to achieve your goals? It’s OK to look weak or to cede credit to others. As long as you get what you want.