A Remarkable Achievement

[kentuck]

IF the President and SoS can get Syria's chemical weapons identified, gathered, and destroyed, it could be the greatest achievement by a US President since President Carter's Camp David Accords, or at least, since Clinton's military victory in Kosovo.

Those that are critical of this process are not looking at the big picture. The solution was not with bombing Syria - it was with diplomacy all along.

But how does the UN maneuver around the "rebels" involved in the Syrian Civil War? Will they travel around to the chemical sites in their marked white vehicles? Will they have military support when they move the chemical weapons or will they be destroyed on site? There are a lot of issues that must be addressed before this crisis is resolved.

It has been a long time since I can recall such a diplomatic effort as this? We have been a big hammer and the entire world looked like a nail. This is so unusual in scope that it seems incredible.

However, we should keep one thing in mind. The Republicans in the US Congress and Senate did nothing to help this President. Instead, they were looking for obstacles to put in front of him as he tried to resolve this difficult crisis. They deserve no credit whatsoever.

I never believed that the President wanted to strike Syria militarily but I do believe the threat of force was convincing to both Assad and the Russians and caused them to respond the way they did. I think we should all pull for the President to be successful in this endeavor.

[gopiscrap]

1. Hope you're right

[bigtree]

2. did you forget what would have happened if the president had gotten his way

. . . from the start?

Pulling for the president is fine. Just don't lose sight of the fact that he arrived here because Britain said 'no' first, then our legislature and the American people signaled 'no' as well to his plan for military strikes.

We're not going to avert strikes on Syria by just cheering on a president who insists he has the authority to strike Syria - attack a nation which hasn't directly threatened us or any of our allies - no matter what Congress and the American people say.

God bless that he listened. Goddamn that he took us there (and still holds out the possibility of military strikes).

[kentuck]

4. I don't think the President planned on using military force.

But it was necessary to have the threat of force and that Syria and Russia believe it. If you noticed, he did not pursue the "military option" once Russia and Syria agreed to a diplomatic solution. If he had wanted to strike militarily, he would not have brought it to the Congress at all.

As for pulling for the President, I pull for him when I think he is doing something right and I criticize him when I think he is wrong. I don't think we need to pull for him on everything or to criticize him on everything? There are too many people here that do that, in my opinion.

[bigtree]

6. I read that

I think you're dead wrong. I think he brought it to Congress because the Brits and the American people telegraphed a defeat for him on the question.

I still remember that he sent Ambassador Powers to the UN to tell the world he believed diplomacy had been 'exhausted' with regard to Syria.

Don't trivialize my pov by pasting some DU nonsense onto it about wanting to 'criticize him on everything'. Give people more respect than that.

[kentuck]

7. That's your opinion.

I disagree.

[bigtree]

10. I'll live with that.

[leftstreet]

3. The 'Achievement' would be the POWER of public opinion

Cameron, Obama, Kerry, Putin, Assad...all minor players who COULD have come up with a disarmament plan at any time

We the global people said NO

[kentuck]

5. Well, that is true...

But we need leaders to get rid of the chemical weapons. In my opinion, the President has stepped up to the plate.

[trumad]

9. plus...

This could be the start of better relations between Russia and the US.

[warrior1]

8. well said

[MH1]

11. Let's not think that the Republicans are done putting obstacles in Obama's path

I'm sure they are STILL more interested in how they can turn the Syria situation to make Obama look as bad as possible, than how they can help achieve any positive outcome for Syrians or Americans (or anyone other than themselves).

And let's not forget that the MIC would still love to create more demand for their product.

I think we have a very positive turn of events here but I'm only very cautiously optimistic - there are a lot of ways this could still go bad, and a lot of people who will benefit if it does.

[kentuck]

12. I imagine they will push McCain's call to give more arms to the "rebels"...

so they can disrupt any peace process that might be happening?

[UTUSN]

13. 'tain't over till it's over, holding my breath. I've been puzzled since PootyPoot used the word

"partner" (re the U.S.) in the SNOWDEN/GREENWALD Affair. And now-whatever-this-is in the face of the wingnut scrum of yakkers this week touting how they claimed that Pooty had taken ascendancy over OBAMA/KERRY. What to make of it all.

[kentuck]

14. That is why I say "IF"...

The wingnuts are claiming that Putin has taken ascendancy. I think Putin had a very weak hand in trying to defend Syria. Especially after the world discovered that his "guy" had used poison gas on his own people. And he knew he could not defend Syria if Obama decided to fire the missiles. Obama's hand was much stronger than Putin's , in my opinion.

[UTUSN]

15. I can't believe Alex WITT/MSNBC just hosted two jerks (Reuters & WaPo) repeating

the wingnut crap about OBAMA not getting a big win out of this, still weak, no big deal because ASSAD will stay, blah blah.

[Rex]

17. Remember when McLame poo poo'd all over the capture of OBL?

The Repukes will NEVER credit Obama with a single thing positive! Bunch of crybabies.

[malaise]

23. +1,000

The neo-cons have been royally fugged

[Rex]

26. They cried into their milk so much

that it is now 2%.

[Rex]

16. He will be the first POTUS not to use gunboat diplomacy

in a long time. A trend I would LOVE to see more of! We can use diplomacy to fix problems, NOT bombs.

[Flatulo]

20. Unfortunately, diplomacy only works when there is a credible threat

of force.

[Rex]

21. True, but if it works first then we are all better off for it.

And it should always be the first option.

[Flatulo]

22. Agreed. Just thinking that Assad would not have agreed

if it was Upper Volta on the other side of the table.

Still, it fascinates me that weapons can be more effective by not using them.

[cantbeserious]

18. Let's Not Count The Chickens Before They Are Hatched - Remember Iraq - UN Inspectors Had Challenges

eom

[LittleBlue]

19. Thank God the British parliament voted against war

and our congress wouldn't pass a war bill.

[morningfog]

25. Exactly. It was the Parliament who delayed the rush to war,

our Congress then halted it. That gave room for diplomacy.

[morningfog]

24. I agree with your conclusion, but not on the process.

If this all works out, which it is looking good now, the final outcome will be hailed. And rightfully so.

I don't agree that Obama didn't want to use force. He did want to. Kerry wanted to. Public opinion stood strongly in the way. It caused enough of a delay, that there was room for diplomacy.

It started in the UK. If the Parliament had not voted no, strikes would have taken place before the G20. Further, this solution does not meet all of the objectives proffered by the Administration.

This outcome, though, with US military off the table, is the best outcome.

[Uncle Joe]

27. Furthermore if the rebels have chemical weapons and I believe they do,

will they be subject to inspections and giving up their chemical weapons as well?

If the rebels balk at this, that could be a problem.

There really needs to be a ceasefire and power sharing negotiations between the parties.

As you are, I hope all involved are successful in bringing about a positive, peaceful outcome.

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.