Vladimir Putin, "A Plea for Caution From Russia": The Kremlin Celebrates

There is a raucous celebration underway at the Kremlin today, following publication of Putin's guest op-ed entitled "A Plea for Caution From Russia" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0) by The New York Times.

Over the past several weeks, after losing support from the UK for his "limited" strike against Syria's Assad regime, President Obama's hesitance and meandering have earned him scorn from even traditional Middle East allies. As reported by a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. ties in Persian Gulf at risk as Obama allows space for Russian-Syrian plan" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-gulf-relations-at-risk-as-obama-allows-space-for-russian-syrian-plan/2013/09/11/71a065f8-1b0d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html) by Loveday Morris:

"The United States risks damaging relations with Persian Gulf states as it warily embraces a Russian initiative for Syria to relinquish its chemical arsenal, analysts say, with Sunni monarchies fearful that the U.S. pullback from military strikes will bolster President Bashar al-Assad and the influence in the region of his ally Iran.

Disappointment at the decision could further cool relations with gulf countries already frustrated by a lack of U.S. leadership on Syria during the 21 / 2-year-long conflict there. Increasingly sharp statements from the normally imperturbable gulf nations reflect the growing sense of unease."

Israel, which is facing a showdown with Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons development program, has lost all faith in Obama's promises not to allow Khamenei to acquire an atomic bomb. In this regard, Obama told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in 2012, "As President of the United States, I don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), but the Israelis don't believe him anymore.

The left leaning New Republic is currently running an article by Julia Ioffe entitled "The Syria Solution: Obama Got Played by Putin and Assad" (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114655/obama-syria-policy-octopus-fighting-itself).

The New York Times? After allowing Putin, today, to rub Obama's nose in the White House's diplomatic blundering, The Times, attempts to soften the blow by spreading the blame in an editorial entitled "Diplomacy as Deterrent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/diplomacy-as-deterrent.html):

"But the diplomacy could provide more of an immediate deterrent against further chemical attacks than the threat of an attack, and far more of a deterrent in the longer run. Russia will continue to make seemingly unreasonable demands until a deal is finally signed and is unlikely to admit that the Syrian regime carried out the gas attack. But Congress and Mr. Obama should be careful about setting hard deadlines or drawing any more red lines."

Excuse me, but what did Congress have to do with Obama's "red line"? It was all the president's doing!

Putin's guest New York Times op-ed? Putin (actually, a ghostwriter) correctly states:

"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."

But then Putin tosses in a flagrant lie, softened by purported concern for Israel:

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored."

Observing recent US overseas failures, Putin observes that US military intervention has proven futile:

"But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Putin's conclusion, in which he ridicules Obama's reference to American exceptionalism:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

"Growing trust" with Obama? What he really means is growing contempt for the US president's feckless conduct.

Or stated otherwise, Putin makes a compelling case for the proposition that community organizers do not come away with the skill set necessary to be Commanders in Chief.

Game, set, match, Putin.

Jimmy Carter, "The World Now Has a Chance to End War in Syria": A Reserved Room in Hell

Do you remember Jimmy Carter's convivial 2008 meetings in Damascus with his buddy Bashar al-Assad and various leaders of Hamas (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/carter.hamas/)? Well, this narcissist, still seeking the limelight, is back with more advice.

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The world now has a chance to end war in Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jimmy-carter-the-world-now-has-a-chance-to-end-war-in-syria/2013/09/11/d83cdd60-1981-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z3), Carter writes:

"The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.

. . . .

If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.

. . . .

Despite the claims and counterclaims that have surrounded the chemical attack near Damascus on Aug. 21 and an unknown number of earlier attacks, the issues are now clearly defined. The main goals of condemning the use of these outlawed weapons and preventing their further use can still be realized by concerted international action."

Does Carter acknowledge that the Assad regime used sarin against civilians? No way. Instead, Carter cites "division among world leaders about who is responsible for the atrocity."

A "successful international effort," "concerted international action," and "convening the Geneva peace conference" to end the conflict and prevent future use of chemical weapons by Assad? Yeah, Russia, China and Iran are sure to see to that.

My understanding is that Satan is reserving a very special place in hell for Jimmy.

Thomas Friedman, "Threaten to Threaten": That Should Have Putin Trembling . . . Not

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled  "Threaten to Threaten" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/friedman-threaten-to-threaten.html), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is daft enough to assign even a modicum of credibility to Putin's proposal to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control:

"A new situation has been created in the last two days by the Russian offer — embraced by Obama, all of our major allies and China, but still only vaguely accepted by Syria — for Syria to turn over its stockpiles of poison gas to international control. Let’s have no illusion. There’s still a real possibility that the Russians and Syrians are just stalling and will fudge in the end, and even if one or both are serious, there are formidable logistical and political obstacles to securing Syria’s chemical weapons swiftly and completely. Part of me wonders: Has anybody thought this through?

But all of me wants to acknowledge that if a Syrian surrender of poison gas were implemented — still a big if — it would be a good end to this near-term crisis. The global taboo on poison gas would be upheld, and America would not have to get embroiled in a shooting war in Syria.

In that context, I think it is worth Obama and Congress threatening to schedule a vote to endorse Obama’s threat of force — if the Syrians and Russians don’t act in good faith — but not schedule a vote right now. (That was essentially the president’s message in his speech last night.) By 'threatening to threaten,' Obama retains leverage to keep the Syrians and Russians focused on implementing any agreement — but without having to test Congress’s real willingness to let him fulfill that threat. Because, if it failed to pass, the Russians and Syrians would have no incentive to move."

Well, the "new situation" is that the Russians and Syrians have no incentive to move, because they are fully aware that Obama, finally able to climb down from his tree, has no intention of returning there.

Implementation of the surrender of Assad's stockpiles of chemical weapons? The chances are zero. As reported in a Washington Post article entitled "Securing Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal would be formidable task, experts say" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/securing-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-will-be-formidable-task-experts-say/2013/09/10/d20a74a2-1a53-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html?hpid=z2) by Joby Warrick and Loveday Morris:

"As diplomats wrangled over competing plans for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, arms-control experts warned Tuesday of the formidable challenges involved in carrying out such a complex and risky operation in the midst of a raging civil war.

U.N. teams dispatched to Syria for the mission would be attempting something new: finding and safeguarding a long-
hidden arsenal in a country that has long stood outside key international arms-control agreements — all while exposed to crossfire from Syria’s warring factions.

Although the mission might be worth the risks, experts say, it would be costly and time-
consuming, especially if the goal included the physical destruction of what is estimated to be thousands of chemical warheads and rockets as well as hundreds of tons of liquid toxins kept in bulk storage throughout Syria.

'It is doable, and potentially a great idea, but let’s not be naive,' said Jean Pascal Zanders, a Belgian arms-control researcher and writer for the Trench, a blog focusing on weapons of mass destruction. 'If you can get around the legal and logistical questions, securing the stocks might be relatively easy to achieve. But if you add destruction of the munitions, you have to think in terms of years.'"

Or as stated by Friedman's own newspaper in an article entitled "Chemical Disarmament Hard Even in Peacetime" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Disarmament.html) by William J. Broad and C. J. Chivers:

"Spread far and wide across Syria, the chemical weapons complex of the fractured state includes factories, bunkers, storage depots and thousands of munitions, all of which would have to be inspected and secured under a diplomatic initiative that President Obama says he is willing to explore.

But monitoring and securing unconventional weapons have proved challenging in places like Iraq, North Korea and Iran — even in peacetime. Syria is bound up in the third year of a bloody civil war, with many of the facilities squarely in battlefields.

'I’m very concerned about the fine print,' said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. 'It’s a gargantuan task for the inspectors to mothball production, install padlocks, inventory the bulk agent as well as the munitions. Then a lot of it has to be destroyed — in a war zone.'"

'What I’m saying is, ‘Beware of this deal,’' Dr. Smithson added. 'It’s deceptively attractive.'"

"Deceptively attractive"? Dr. Smithson is being polite. As I already said, it's not going to be implemented.

Nevertheless, Friedman is full of compliments for his beloved president:

"So give Obama credit for standing up for an important principle in a chaotic region. But also give the American people some credit. They’re telling our leaders something important: It’s hard to keep facing down Middle East Hitlers when there are no Churchills on the other side."

Yup, Obama sure as heck stood up to Putin . . . not. More like stand-up comedy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/maureen-dowd-who-do-you-trust-obama-and.html). Aghast at the prospect of having to do anything at all to effect his "red line," Obama folded at the first opportunity,

Indeed, "It’s hard to keep facing down Middle East Hitlers when there are no Churchills on the other side," particularly when our side is led by Chamberlains community organizers.

Maureen Dowd, "Who Do You Trust?": Obama and Kerry's Rendition of "Laurel and Hardy"

"To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question."

- President Barack Obama, Address on Syria, September 10, 2013

Over the past two weeks, we've watched Barack Obama and John Kerry turn US foreign policy into a Laurel and Hardy routine. Fortunately for America, the West Wing had the good sense to keep Obama's "bumbling" (I'm being kind) Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, away from center stage in order to prevent this farce from becoming a Three Stooges episode. Joe Biden, who fancies himself a presidential candidate in 2016, was smart enough to keep his mouth shut so that this would not become a Marx Brothers revival.

Yesterday, Obama bombed, and the critics are unanimous in labeling Obama's speech regarding Assad's use of sarin gas against civilians a flop. But heck, Obama is only a community organizer trying to play the role of Commander in Chief. Cut the man some slack!

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Do You Trust?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd doesn't cut Obama any slack at all.  Dowd writes:

"Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about 'a red line for us' — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

. . . .

The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over 'every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community' and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an 'unbelievably small' effort.

. . . .

Even as Democrats tiptoed away from the red line, eager to kick the can of Sarin down the road, their own harsh rhetoric haunted them. Kerry compared Assad to Hitler last week, and Harry Reid evoked 'Nazi death camps' on the Senate floor Monday."

But you should never base your theater going choices on the opinion of only one reviewer. Let's have a look at what the Washington Post's middle-of-the-road Dana Milbank had to say in an opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Syria muddle" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-kerrys-not-so-clear-sailing-on-syria/2013/09/10/142fe5da-1a52-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z3):

"At 9 p.m. Tuesday, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had 'asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force.'

This contradicted what his secretary of state, John Kerry, had said in testimony to Congress just 11 hours earlier. 'We’re not asking Congress not to vote,' Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. 'I’m not asking [for] delay,' he added later.

Kerry can be forgiven for being at odds with the president. The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold."

All of which is not to say that the performance by Obama and Kerry did not elicit laughter. As reported by CBS (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/10/syrian-foreign-minister-accepting-russias-proposal-pulls-the-rug-from-under-the-feet-of-american-aggression/):

"'Yesterday we held a round of very fruitful negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he put forward an initiative regarding chemical weapons. Already in the evening we accepted Russia’s initiative,' Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said, according to Russia Today, adding that this move is to 'pull the rug from under the feet of American aggression.'"

Actually, Walid al-Muallem botched his line. He was meant to say that this move is intended to "pull the wool over the eyes of Washington," but accidents in the theater of the absurd do happen.

Bottom line: It's hard to imagine that this inept comedy routine is going to run for another three and a half years until a new comedian replaces Obama in the Oval Office.

This just in: Anthony Weiner has announced that he will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016! President Weiner? That should keep them rolling in the aisles of Congress . . .

New York Times Editorial, "A Diplomatic Proposal for Syria": Obama Desperate to Climb Down from His Tree

Obama is desperate to climb down from his tree, and The New York Times, always ready to put out the flames for his administration, is, in this instance, happy to provide a ladder.

In an editorial entitled "A Diplomatic Proposal for Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-diplomatic-proposal-for-syria.html?_r=0), The New York Times endorses a Russian proposal for "international control" over Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and its "subsequent destruction." The Times claims:

"The removal and destruction of stockpiles of weapons would ensure greater safety for the Syrian people."

No arguing with that, but what about "international control" over the removal? Can we realistically expect the likes of Russia, China, Iran, Sudan and Venezuela to faithfully supervise such "control"?

"Subsequent destruction"? Such destruction could easily prove open-ended, particularly when we're talking about a war zone. And if it doesn't happen almost immediately, does anyone really expect that Obama, chastened by the UN, the Arab League and the US Congress, will climb back up his tree? Believe me, he's happier on the links, puttering with his balls.

The New York Times declares:

"To have any measure of credibility, Mr. Assad will need to allow monitors into the country immediately. That would be a gesture to the world that his government will abide by international laws against chemical weapons use. The Russians will have to work closely with the United States and the United Nations to create a plan to catalog and verify Syria’s chemical weapons and set forth a specific timetable for the removal and destruction of those weapons under international auspices.

Russia and the United States should propose a formal resolution by the United Nations Security Council — of which both are members — to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, support this plan and put its full authority behind carrying it out, as well as establish consequences if Syria reneged. It would be impossible to destroy the entire stockpile instantly, but that task must be done with care and speed because those weapons cannot be allowed to fall into other murderous hands in the conflict."

First, mass murderer Bashar al-Assad doesn't have the slightest "measure of credibility." Moreover, if the Russian proposal should even get that far, he can be expected to play cat and mouse with anyone responsible for overseeing such an agreement, in much the same way that Iran plays with IAEA inspectors.

Second, regarding the issue of implementation of such a scheme, Max Boot observes in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/09/kerrys-unserious-proposal/#more-832882):

"Even if we knew where all the stockpiles were, removing them and destroying them–presumably a process that would have to occur outside the country–would be an enormous undertaking that could easily involve thousands of foreign workers along with thousands, even tens of thousands, of soldiers to protect them. It is hard to imagine such an undertaking occurring in wartime; few if any nations will risk their troops on the ground in Syria to make the process possible and Syria’s government would be unlikely to grant them permission to do so."

Is Russia's proposal ridiculous? You bet, but Obama wants down from that tree!

The Times concludes:

"The diplomatic proposal creates at least a pause in the action. It could mean that the United States would not have to go it alone in standing firm against the Syrian regime. And it could open up a broader channel to a political settlement between Mr. Assad and the rebels — the only practical way to end this war. It could also be a boon for Mr. Obama, personally, because he could take credit for pushing Syria and Russia into making this move."

Yup, that Obama is one heck of a tough negotiator and has established his decisiveness, credibility and backbone around the globe . . . not.

Game, set, match, Putin.

John Kerry, "Unbelievably Small": The Proposed Strike Against Assad or the Obama Administration's Cojones?

Say it's not so . . .

John Kerry has now held a press conference in London and declared (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry):

"We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

Maybe the Obama administration would care to deliver to Assad a paper detailing the timing of the strike and the ordnance to be used?

Welcome to Amateur Hour.

John, please sit down and shut up before you hurt yourself.

David Frum, "Four Questions for Backers of Syria Mission": Four Answers

There can be no mistaking CNN's opposition to a US strike against Syria's Assad regime and its refusal to proffer contrary opinions.

Last Monday, CNN published an absurd online opinion piece entitled "A U.S. strike would be self-wounding" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/kapil-komireddi-us-strike-would-be-self.html) by someone named Kapil Komireddi, who claimed that there was an "absence of conclusive evidence linking the Assad regime" to the August 21 sarin attack that killed almost 1,500 Syrian civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Yes, this is the same claim being being made by Vladimir Putin.

On Thursday, CNN was back with an equally ridiculous opinion piece entitled "Syria strike would put peace further out of reach" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/patrick-regan-syria-strike-would-put.html) by Patrick Regan, "a professor of peace studies and political science at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies." The premise of Regan's essay was that a "significant amount of research," including his own, demonstrated "that military interventions from outside states lengthen and make bloodier civil wars," and that the Obama should instead seek a negotiated settlement. Yeah, no one has tried to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian overlords. What a crock!

Today, CNN is giving top billing to an opinion piece entitled "Four questions for backers of Syria mission" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/frum-syria-four-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_c1), by David Frum, a "contributing editor at The Daily Beast." Frum asks with regard to a US strike against Assad:

1. What will it accomplish?
2. What comes next?
3. What will it cost?
4. Is there another way?

"What will it accomplish?" Simple. Following such an attack, it would be hoped that Assad would refrain from using sarin gas, which on August 21 killed nearly 1,500 civilians, more than 400 of them children.

"What comes next?" Yes, in all likelihood the Syrian civil war will continue, but again, we can only hope that Assad will refrain from future use of chemical weapons, particularly against civilians. Is this not a legitimate objective in and of itself?

"What will it cost?" Frum argues, "If [the president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and other top officials] commit to resolving the Syrian civil war, inevitably they give second shrift, or third shrift, or worse to many other concerns of arguably greater importance to the region and the world." Who said anything about commitment "to resolving the Syrian civil war"? Obama would "commit" to putting an end to the use of sarin gas against civilians.

"Is there another way?" Of course, but it takes two to tango. Are Assad and Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei willing to engage in meaningful negotiations? Thus far, they have shown no signs of willingness to stop the slaughter.

Near the end of his piece, Frum observes:

"What has gone well, by contrast, is the U.S. campaign of economic pressure on Iran. Who would have dared predict in 2002 that Iran would still lack a nuclear weapon 11 years later and without a U.S. military attack? Yet so it has happened."

Has US economic pressure halted the Iranian effort to build a nuclear weapon? Although the Iranian economy is in tatters, the answer is no. How soon will Iran have a nuclear bomb? As observed by Reuters in January (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE90D0NV20130114):

"Iran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear bombs by mid-2014, and the United States and its allies should intensify sanctions on Tehran before that point is reached, a report by a group of U.S. nonproliferation experts said."

See also a July 31, 2013 UPI report (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/31/Report-says-Iran-expected-to-have-nuclear-bomb-capability-by-mid-2014/UPI-22771375265338/) stating:

"Iran is expected to achieve 'critical capability' in mid-2014, with sufficient uranium to build a nuclear bomb, a Washington think tank report says.

The report was published Tuesday by the Institute for Science and International Security."

And so, congratulations to all: It has taken Iran longer than previously thought to build a nuclear weapon, but you would need to dig your head deep into the sand in order to avoid observing that its first atomic bomb is just around the corner. Israel, which has been repeatedly threatened with annihilation by Iran, does not have that luxury.

Kudos to CNN and Frum, a distant cousin of . . . Paul Krugman, for this benighted opinion piece.

Enough said.