Russia and Its Syrian Client Regime Grab the Political Ball Out of Obama's Hands and Run With It

So let's review: Last year, U.S. President Barack Obama warned the Assad regime currently reducing Syria to rubble not to use chemical weapons. (Kill people any other way you like.) This spring, Assad tested Obama's “resolve” to enforce that so-called “red line” with a small chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas of Syria. (Scroll down and see my earlier essays on this site.) Obama reacted by talking as if he was Assad's defense lawyer.

Having tested the waters and found them to be fine, Assad escalated in August and launched a large chemical attack on a suburb of Damascus taken over by the rebels. The U.S. Government claims 1,429 civilians, including several hundred children, died in that attack. (The numbers are in dispute, but Doctors Without Borders, which supplies hospitals in the area of the attack, put the death toll in the hundreds. Either way, it was a larger attack than earlier ones. This time, too large for the Obama regime to sweep under the rug.)

Obama seemed compelled to do something this time. Assad and his Russian backers absurdly claimed (and continue to claim) that the rebels gassed their own territory, a ridiculous, obscenely cynical allegation. (Aside from the ludicrous claim that they'd kill their own people, they don't have poison gas, certainly not in the quantity involved, or the expertise and delivery systems. and probably not gas masks and decontamination equipment they'd need for themselves. The alleged motive was to provoke U.S. intervention, which given the rebels' disillusionment after two and a half years of the U.S. refusal to even provide them with small arms, is a risible conspiracy theory.)

It looked like this time Obama was actually going to exact a price from Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry gave a morally indignant, podium-pounding (figuratively speaking) speech promising U.S. military retribution for this latest Assad atrocity committed in defiance of U.S. warnings. Everything Kerry said was valid, if unfortunately hypocritical given past U.S. actions in the world. No matter. That shouldn't stop the U.S. from doing the moral and humane thing when it can, if it so chooses. Doing wrong doesn't bar one from ever doing right.

And then Obama pulled the rug out from under his own Secretary of State.

Obama went for a walk on the White House lawn and decided to punt. He'd ask Congress to authorize a military strike before actually doing anything. (But, he later claimed, he still had the right to attack even if Congress said “You May Not” to him.)

Then a reporter asked Kerry a routine question: what would it take to stave off a U.S. attack on the Assad regime's military and other state assets?

He'd have to turn over all his chemical weapons in a week, Kerry answered. But he isn't going to do that, Kerry added, trailing off.

Assad's Russian protectors astutely spied an opportunity in Kerry's unrehearsed remarks, and leapt on it.

Hey, that's a great idea! they said. Assad will turn over his chemical weapons, and you won't bomb him!

Except that it will take more than a week. And we have to work out the details. And we're going to lie about how big his arsenal is. And Assad is going to start setting conditions. And And And.

[Newsflash: now in Geneva the U.S. and Russia have announced a “framework”- not yet agreed to by Assad- that goes as follows: Assad provide a list of his chemical arsenal- what could go wrong with that? He's trustworthy, right? He's the guy who just said the rebels gassed themselves, and the 80% of the population rebelling against him are all terrorists, so why wouldn't you believe him?- next week. In November he lets international inspectors in (he just loves those international inspectors, like the UN ones whose convoy his thugs sniped at while they tried to get to the site of his last chemical weapon attack- and by the middle of next year yields control of his chemical weapons. And he won't hide any, or make more, I'm sure. He's an honorable fellow, after all, not a murderous, sadistic thug. And- oh boy!- Obama just repeated that he still reserves the right to strike, so watch out, Assad! No monkey business now!] [1]

Meanwhile, step by step, Obama has been climbing down from his insistence that military strikes were on the way. Now moving those cruise-missile-toting warships into the eastern Mediterranean looks like just a big bluff.

As for that Congressional permission slip Obama wanted (which would show “we are united,” and soo democratic to boot, Obama told us), Congress seemed set to reject Obama's attempt to co-own with him a military strike on Syria by voting for a resolution backing military “action.” That would have left him with the choice of going ahead with an attack anyway (defeating the whole purpose of asking Congress to vote and begging the question of the relevance of Congress' approval if the President is going to do what he wants anyway) or not attacking and appearing even more toothless vis a vis the Assad regime than before, with the attendant hit to U.S. “credibility” (how afraid others' have to be of U.S. power and the trustworthiness of U.S. pledges, promises, and threats). So just in the nick of time, the Russians and the Assad regime rode to Obama's rescue, by offering to (protractively) negotiate a voluntary handover of Assad's apparently sizable chemical arsenal. (Estimated at hundreds of tons. By the way, the U.S. and Russia are already arguing over the size of the arsenal. Get out your pillows and prepare for a long nap while this “diplomacy” leisurely wends it way down an endless path to nowhere.) So no Congressional vote at all. (That gets Congress off the hook for its undermining of U.S. “credibility.”)

Why do I get the sense that Obama is breathing a big sigh of relief that he doesn't actually have to make good on his latest hollow threat to retaliate against the Assad regime for using chemical weapons?

I don't think I'm the only one who intuits that. Bashar al-Assad, the sadistic and murderous tyrant of Syria, has apparently taken Obama's measure and senses how badly Obama does NOT want to strike his regime.

In mere days, Assad has gone from anxiously awaiting that often-threatened (if only by implication most of the time) U.S. military strike and frantically shuffling military assets around, to positively exuding confidence, even smugness, as he lays out his conditions for turning over the sarin and whatnot. For example, according to the New York Times, Assad is demanding that the U.S. cease arming the rebels (which it has barely done anyway) AND ceases and desists from threats of attacks on his regime AND refrain from any preparations for attacks. In short, completely remove “the military option” from “the table,” in U.S.-speak.

Furthermore, the Times reported: “Mr. Assad, sounding relaxed and confident, hinted in his interview [on Russian television] that the Russian proposal - which requires Syria to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention – could become a lever for endless negotiations and delays...” Gee, how could anyone have seen THAT coming? Just so there's no misunderstanding, Assad the Awful helpfully pointed out that “It doesn't mean that Syria will sign the documents, fulfill the obligations, and that's it.” (Hint hint: Endless Runaround Up Ahead.) [2]

After all, he's doing the U.S. a BIG FAVOR by letting them off the hook with a way they can avoid having to bomb his military assets. I mean, come on, U.S., you can't expect to get something for nothing!

One of Assad's propaganda rags, the Syrian state-owned “news”paper Al Watan actually gloated in a headline on September 12^th: “Moscow and Damascus pull the rug out from under the feet of Obama.” [3]

That's it pal, rub it in. You're lucky I'm not the President; I'd bomb you just for that.

One of the conditions Assad set in return for the Big Favor he's doing the U.S. by allowing Obama to not bomb his means of mass murder is that Israel first has to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. (After that, expect him to demand that Israel give up its nuclear arsenal. And then maybe that the Jewish state dissolve itself. And then we'll see about those chemical weapons you Americans keep nattering on about- maybe.)

Obviously Assad is going to milk all the concessions he can from the U.S., using Obama's desperation to avoid making good on his threat to launch an attack (which Obama spoke of as if it was a certainty just weeks ago, until he stopped) as a lever to extort little surrenders, one after another.

Yet the rebels Obama has once again left in the lurch did a Kerry and loyally hailed the latest Obama “pivot:”

“We had hopes, it was a dream, and now it's gone and we feel disappointed. We should completely cut off our relationship with him – Obama has completely lost his credibility,” said a bitter rebel brigade commander, Moaz al-Yousef. [4]

Oh wait, he wasn't hailing Obama. But hold on a second, the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has long urged military action to rein in Assad, thought Obama's latest cop-out was a wise move, as it would allow Assad to buy time for “new massacres,” he said. [5]

Hmmm, guess Erdogan didn't think Obama punking out yet again was a good idea. Well, there must be someone who thinks starting out on an endless path chasing a mirage of Assad disarming himself is a

good idea.

Yeah, Assad and his allies think so.

Funny thing though, all the Americans who opposed the U.S. taking out some of Assad's means of mass murder, including establishment politicians, media yakkers, and lefties allergic to American power (and ONLY to American power) aren't hailing what many of them habitually claim is the “solution,” namely diplomacy, now in the form of what is sure to be an endless “process” of arguing about the size of Assad's nerve gas arsenal, who should control custody, how to dispose of it, and what the U.S. (and Israel) have to give Assad in return (the price tag, subject to constant upward revision) – in short, with Assad all the while making new demands and setting new conditions. Guess the “give peace (and talking) a chance” crowd know this isn't going to remove the chemical weapons. The fact that they aren't backing this charade with any enthusiasm exposes their bad faith.

So here we go, heading down the chimerical road of Assad giving up his chemical weapons without a fight, chasing a mirage, trying to catch that rainbow on the horizon. Will this be remembered as Obama's Folly?

Here's some advice: set some strict deadlines, and enforce them with punitive military strikes. No excuses, no haggling. In short, act like the “world's only superpower” you love proclaiming yourselves to be. Either that, or you better pipe down and don't draw any “red lines” in the future.

Oh why am I bothering!

1] Notice the “creative diplomacy” here. U.S. and Russia disagree about the size and composition of the Assad chemical weapons arsenal? Assad will tell us what he has, with his very own list! Problem solved! And now the U.S. will be in the position of pressuring the Russians to pressure their ally and client Assad to abide by the deal, a far cry from directly threatening military force on him. It'll be a lot of wheedling and urging and goading and whining to get the Russians to get the Syrian regime to stop the foot-dragging and stalling and lying and concealing and dilatory tactics and cough up the poisons. What an ordeal the Obama regime is signing up for, trading this for weakening Assad by degrading his military. Instead of the U.S. punishing Assad, Assad will be punishing the U.S. It's masochistic. Why would you put yourself in such a position?

And in case you were wondering, a “framework” is an outline of an agreement, not an actual signed deal. And the Syrian regime hasn't agreed to anything. We'll see if Russia tells him he's on his own if he doesn't go along.

2] “Listing Demands, Assad Uses Crisis To His Advantage,” New York Times, September 13^th, 2013, p. A1.

3] Ibid.

4] Op cit.

5] Op cit.