Why is President Obama playing into the Russians' hand?

The international community doesn’t have an answer / solution to the problem so everyone is very happy to step away from having to act.

The US would lose either way… if they bomb or not. This way at least the UN are still standing and all the lives lost are still on Assad and the other criminals in Syria, not on the US,

I’m not sure that Obama is. I think that he got cornered into doing something by his own speeches and by John McCain and others. So this suggestion, which was Kerry’s (and picked up by the Russians) is a reasonable alternative to shooting missiles.

Of course, the Obama haters are going to spin this any way they want, but the current initiative allows everyone to disengage from a dangerous precipice.

Ya really wanna bomb the syrians, dontcha?

Absolutely agree with @elbanditoroso. This was a no-win from the start and going to war with Syria—and make no mistake, that’s exactly what it would be—would be disastrous.

” The Russians have wanted a warm water port in the Mediterranean area for as long as they have had a navy. ”

No, they have wanted an oceanic warm water port and the Med. port is just a consolation prize. The Syrian port could be easily blocked, even though they still want it, but try blockading the Atlantic or Pacific coast.

You read way too much into this!

@elbanditoroso ” I think that he got cornered into doing something by his own speeches ”

This strikes me as the most likely reason for his actions as well, and I think it’s a very feeble one. What office is he running for, exactly? Who cares if he has to swallow that stupid “red line” phrase, and say he changed his mind? I don’t believe for one moment that he thinks attacking Syria is a good idea.

@glacial – if you’re going to quote me, quote the whole line, not just the words that fit your argument.

I think you’re arguing the wrong point. It’s not whether Obama is saying things to be re-elected- of course not.

It’s a question of making a believable statement to the world. If the US makes a threat and doesn’t carry it out, then it makes the US look weaker and ambivalent, and US credibility diminishes. Which means that in the next international incident, whatever it is, the US won’t be believed.

If the US is seen as backing down, it is a LONG TERM issue for the US as a country, not just for Obama but also for Clinton and her administration.

I think that Obama boxed himself stupidly into a corner on this one, there is very little support and I’m not quite sure what purpose, in limited bombing but it does seem like something must be done on humanitarian grounds. If the Russians help get him off the precipice and the chemical weapons can be monitored or controlled, more power to them. I do not want us to take unilateral action but I do feel something must be done.

Because Putin has him in his pocket, on this issue at least.

@elbanditoroso Well, sure, but it isn’t just about being able to make credible threats. If the US starts a war (or whatever you’re calling military actions these days) and can’t win it, or can’t afford it, then it doesn’t just make the US look weaker, it makes the US weaker. That’s not a guess – it has happened, and we can all see the effects. It has to be the more important determinant.

I think that Americans put a lot more stock in American credibility than people outside the US do. From an outside perspective, we see a lot of bluster, and much less substance.

Honestly, Assad has more credibility than the US.

Let’s look at this from a different perspective.
US wants Assad out of the way.
Provides arms to his enemies but not willing to provide too much more.
Somebody uses chemweaps in Syria.
With questionable proof, US blames Syrian Admin.
President waves his sabre at Syria and makes threatening noises
President then puts onus on Congress (as it should be) to act.
Congress balks and stalls for time.
Presidents man plants idea for a face saving plan with Syrian ally, Russia.
Russia bites, and presses Assad to accept compromise of UN control of these weapons.
Chemweaps threat is somewhat abated without US military involvement.
Russia & US have acted positively together to help bring about the reduction of a threat.
US saves face (important to US politicians)
Russia gets credit for a positive move (important to Russian politicians)
Assad and the FSA still get to kill each others people.
Syrian civilians marginally safer.
US & Russia pat each other on the back and wonder if perhaps they can reach accords on other areas of contention.
US public goes back to watching Monday Night Football.

@elbanditoroso got it right. Be careful of what yo wish for or, more specifically, what you say that you wish for. Kerry made an offhand remark that he never imagined the Syrians would take seriously. The Russians and then the Syrians called his bluff. Smart move by the Russians.

There are no winning situations when a tyrant kills his own people and the uses human shields when the international community comes poking around. There are only a series of worse options.

@LostInParadise why would you consider a solution that does not require bombing a failure?

I have no illusions about the level of moral of Russia and Putin, but the UK sold key chemicals to make sarin nerve gas to the Syrian regime ten months into the civil war.

As far as I understand, Obama could sign an executive order to attack without congressional support. If he wanted war, nothing would be easier.

@oratio I think Obama wants support for any action and is looking for an out. It makes him look weak but better that than a bad military action. I also think he doesn’t want it to be his party’s action.

Who knows whether the Russians and the US diplomats have been in secret talks about this plan? I would think it very likely that they have and good on them if so.

@LostInParadise

I don’t think Kerry made that remarks as a mistake. It was intended to do exactly what it did adn I woudld not be surprised if the reporter was coached to ask the question.

My take is that te US got bitten in the bum by their ‘red line’ policy. That red line wasn’t a threat, it was a promise and a pacifier. It promised Assad that he would not be attacked unless he’d use chemical weapons and pacified those that wanted the US to be aggresive.

I don’t know who used the chemical weapons in Syria, but I believe that, if it was Assad, he did by mistake. He had the most to lose with it, since he was (and is) perfectly capable of killing a lot of (his) people without these weapons and as long as he didn’t use them, people would leave him at his business.

Syria has become such a big mess, there is no easy way to fix it from tvhe outside and the world knows it. So does Assad.

Obama has been desparately seeking a way out. He couldn’t get international support, they hung him out to dry. So he tried congressional support but it didn’t look like that was going to happen either. Now he’s stuck with a war of his own making. Russia is the least likely candidate to bail him out but it serves thier purpose. Putin is the good guy and Obama is the bad guy. What could be better.Sure, Obama looks foolish but it is certainly better than any other option he has.

@rojo, @whitenoise, Chemical weapons have as much to with fighting Syria as it did for fighting Iraq, which is to say it is a pretext. Obama and Kerry were caught off guard. Expect arguments over whether the Syrians are providing full disclosure about the locations of their chemical weapons.

@Jaxk I don’t really agree with your contention that Obama looks foolish but agree 100% that is a better option than any other.

@Jaxk
I think Obama’s problem wn’t congress not going along. Congress seemed to go along.

If congress would have blocked, Obama could blame them for not supporting the war and step back from Syria.

@Jaxk @whitenoise

this is one issue that (believe it or not) is NOT about US politics and blaming one party or another – this is a foreign policy issue with international consequences.

By voting NO, Britain already took itself out of the running as a serious player on the international scene.

Is this what is desired for the US?

@elbanditoroso Why do you say that Britain has taken itself out of the running and what exactly is a serious player? Why do you think the US is trying to do the same thing? And, for that matter, why do you think it is such a bad thing for either one of them to do?

I think, @elbanditoroso, that you and I don’t fundamentally disagree.

When I said he hoped for congress to stop him, then he could still be coming out in control…

As a president as well as a country. The US has little to gain from intervening. Thereis no viable alternative right now corthe Assad regime and the US should definitely think twice about boots on the ground in that area of the Middle East.

@elbanditoroso What an extremely strange view you hold, “serious player” what a fucking joke.
Britain voted out because we have zero appetite for sabre rattling & flexing our military muscle as & when we please. Unlike the belligerent yanks, or is that beyond your intellectual range.

The object is to get Assad to stop using chemical weapons on the Syrian people not to win a diplomatic pissing match.the fact is that the US is the only true super power left in the world Russia is not even second fiddle to the US.Syria makes their own sarin and bought the precursor chemical from the Brits.believe me sarin is not difficult to make. they don’t buy it from the Russians.you can buy the precursor chemicals to make sarin at walmart .this reminds me of one of the predictible loaded right wing questions over at askville.why don’t we just save some time, cut to the chase and say Obama Bad!

@ucme – you’re reacting by looking it yourself from the inside. Of course you’re going to respond the way you did.

But if I am another country – say Italy or Poland or Somalia or even Belize – and the PM of Britain says “we pledge our support”, how will other countries view that statement? They’ll remember that Cameron said one thing and his parliament did quite another, essentially tying his hands.

So a pledge of support from the PM is worthless. And other countries now know that.

@elbanditoroso

Well other countries now know that The UK actually is a democracy.

I also think the previous war, where the UK and other nations were fraudulently manipulated into supporting didn’t help.

I guess that in the past people in the world learned not to trust American presidents saying they have proof of…..

@elbanditoroso
@ucme is right, you know?

@ragingloli – i’m less than positive of that. But I’ll certainly concede that he is sure he is right.

Obama didn’t seem at all comfortable to me when advocating attacking Syria. For one thing it was too reminiscent of the attack on Iraq for another he didn’t have the country behind him. He was in an awful position that seemed likely to irreparably damage his reputation. The Russians have let Obama off the hook but it is a win win situation for both parties and, even better, Syria has promised to destroy its chemical weapons.

I know i’m right because the US will come out of this, once again, looking utterly foolish, self imposed arbiters of an ever so grateful tinpot nation.
If they had any sense at all they’d listen to the will of the people & concentrate on issues such as the economy.

@flutherother I’m in agreement with you.