[kenberg]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-05, 10:35, said:

Ken, in reading your posts, I thought you were above this type of unsupported characterization. I always read your posts as representing a voice of reason in a Forum often lacking reason. I am disappointed.

I assume that you have not had personal conversations with President Obama or those close to him which would support your assessment of his being "far too fond of his own voice."

If Mr. Obama were indeed "far too fond of his own voice" then I would expect him to be making far more formal addresses to Congress and to the nation than he does. His major speeches have been few and far between.

As for the rest of that sentence, I would hope that President Obama has confidence in obtaining his objectives but also skepticism of his ability to get his way by merely stating what he wants. His dealings over the last 4 1/2 years with Congress and the international community should provide him with ample evidence that he can't get his way by merely stating what he wants.

Of course, to be fair, I find most politicians very difficult to listen to. Here I will confine myself to Syria. "Assad must go". Must he? I prefer that my president, whatever his name or party, not say such things lightly. We have plans? Well, he went out of his way to explain the limited nature and objectives of the strike. The use of chemical weapons is a red line? Well, maybe. But it's a vague statement. Some sort of a red line. I suppose the National Security Council has people who contemplated in advance that chemical weapons might be used. Assad has large stocks of such weapons and not much of a sense of restrant, so surely they planned for this. But it has the look of a very ad hoc operation.

The Middle East is a mess, we all know that, and no one should have high expectations of any diplomatic initiative there. It would be good for rhetoric to reflect this reality.

[Winstonm]

A viable solution: at last

Quote

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

[Chas_P]

 Winstonm, on 2013-September-05, 16:32, said:

A viable solution: at last

With Generalissimo Obama as the commanding officer on the ground?

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-05, 08:55, said:

Actually, I am not simply being legalistic. "Obligated to act to carry out Security council decisions" is quite different from "Obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". Presumably[size=2] they said what they meant when the wrote it. I seriously doubt that we, or the Soviets, or the Brits or the French, would have agreed to "obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

Well, article 25 is not the only article in the charter. There is a whole chapter (chapter VI) devoted to the pacific settlement of disputes that they all agreed to. This chapter starts with article 33 sub 1:

Quote

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

I don't think one can really say that the USA has sought a solution by negotiation, mediation, arbitration or anything similar to solve their dispute with Syria.

Rik

[blackshoe]

What dispute? We don't have a "dispute" with Syria. Obama just doesn't like what Assad is doing to his own people.

[ArtK78]

There is a principal at work here, and it has obvious broader applications.

If Assad is allowed to gas his own people, in violation of nearly universal condemnation of the use of chemical agents in warfare, what is to prevent Iran or North Korea from employing nuclear weapons?

The US cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to pass without action.

[kenberg]

I earlier asked for help in checking my memory. This time I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia....weapons_program

Don't get me wrong on this. I would like to do something about the use of chemical weapons. But I believe that historically we have let it pass without action. Well, you could say we invaded Iraq, and in fact I do recall that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was brought up at the time as part of the justification, but it was a bit late and justifications changed daily.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory, but I don't much recall anyone saying or doing much about the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in its 1980s war with Iran. I always presumed Reagan's attitude toward Iraqis and Iranians killing each other was "Remind me again why this is bad". The 80s were in fact the time of our famous "tilt toward Iraq".

Can we in fact do something good?

A mildly hopeful view from David Ignatiius
http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

A more pessimistic view from the military
http://www.washingto...b3a8_story.html

And very reluctant support from a conservative
http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html


If anyone thinks that the answer here is obvious, well I don't. I am no military genius or foreign policy genius, but really I don't think three days of cruise missiles will impress anyone with out determination. The serious support for action seems to quite honestly be pessimistic about the outcome, but insist that we must do something. Maybe so. I hope that someone smarter than I am is thinking this through.

[ArtK78]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-06, 19:39, said:

I earlier asked for help in checking my memory. This time I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia....weapons_program

Don't get me wrong on this. I would like to do something about the use of chemical weapons. But I believe that historically we have let it pass without action. Well, you could say we invaded Iraq, and in fact I do recall that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was brought up at the time as part of the justification, but it was a bit late and justifications changed daily.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory, but I don't much recall anyone saying or doing much about the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in its 1980s war with Iran. I always presumed Reagan's attitude toward Iraqis and Iranians killing each other was "Remind me again why this is bad". The 80s were in fact the time of our famous "tilt toward Iraq".

Can we in fact do something good?

A mildly hopeful view from David Ignatiius
http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

A more pessimistic view from the military
http://www.washingto...b3a8_story.html

And very reluctant support from a conservative
http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html


If anyone thinks that the answer here is obvious, well I don't. I am no military genius or foreign policy genius, but really I don't think three days of cruise missiles will impress anyone with out determination. The serious support for action seems to quite honestly be pessimistic about the outcome, but insist that we must do something. Maybe so. I hope that someone smarter than I am is thinking this through.

Citing Ronald Reagan as precedent is not a very compelling argument.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 17:33, said:

What dispute? We don't have a "dispute" with Syria. Obama just doesn't like what Assad is doing to his own people.

Even more so. If you are not supposed to attack a country that you have a dispute with do you think that you are supposed to attack a country that you don't even have a dispute with?

But I get it now. The USA don't attack other countries over a dispute. They just do it as a hobby and to make the President's resume look good.

Rik

[Trinidad]

It seems that the USA are calming down.

Kerry seems to have told his European allies that he wants to wait for the UN report before they decide on a strike against Syria. That is very sensible.

To be honest, I thought that this was Obama's reason to ask for approval from Congress. It buys the time that the UN inspectors need for their report.

And if that report concludes that Assad is responsible for a gas attack, Obama will have a large part of the world in favor of some sort of strike.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 17:33, said:

What dispute? We don't have a "dispute" with Syria. Obama just doesn't like what Assad is doing to his own people.

The U.S. has a standing dispute with Syria. Source: CFR

Quote

Syria continues to be categorized as a state sponsor of terrorism, since its first designation in 1979. According to the State Department, Syria’s government supports U.S.-listed terrorist groups and allows some of these organizations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to maintain headquarters in Damascus. The 2006 State Department Country Report says the Syrian government remains an active supporter of Hezbollah and has a covert presence in Lebanese politics.

The present dispute is with the use of chemical weapons - regardless of where the victims are located. If this dispute was a clear-cut black and white issue as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a profound problem. But the issues are more complex than +/-, and simplistic answers, although potentially right, need to be weighed against other options.

[Aberlour10]

 Trinidad, on 2013-September-07, 07:28, said:

Kerry seems to have told his European allies that he wants to wait for the UN report before they decide on a strike against Syria. That is very sensible.


Rik

According to several german media reports, he did not tell this. He promised only to report this demand of the Europeans to the National Security Council.
He is quoted here with the statement : "USA had not decided to wait."

[kenberg]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-06, 21:42, said:

Citing Ronald Reagan as precedent is not a very compelling argument.

Actually, I find it very relevant. A Washington Post headline today reads "Obama seeking clarity on Syria and beyond". Yes, clarity would be good. What was our policy, what is out policy, what will be out policy?


The use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran warn makes it clear that our policy, until perhaps now, has not been that the use of chemical weapons requires US intervention. It did not seem to require world intervention either. So it is sensible, even urgent, to ask if we are formulating a new policy under which we will always act if anyone uses chemical weapons. If we are not asserting this as a universal policy, what are we asserting? Under what conditions will we act? What is it about Syria that compels us to act in this case but leaves open whether we will act in other cases? And, certainly important, are we asserting that continued use of chemical weapons will bring about a much more overwhelming response? The metaphor of "A shot across the bow" certainly carries the suggestion that the next shot will be intended to sink the ship. Is this conclusion intended? Did Obama learn nothing from painting himself into a corner with talk about red lines?

We are, I believe, at a crucial point in assessing our role in the Mideast and elsewhere as well. In theory, we don't intervene in civil wars. But of course we do. The US, and not us alone, intervened in the Greek civil war in the 1940s. And in maybe one or two (I go for understatement here) since then. I would say that Truman is highly regarded in Greece for this, but no doubt this depends on which Greek you ask. So we intervene in civil wars, but only sometimes. Similarly, we come to the aid of civilians, but only sometimes. Rwanda comes to mind.

Clarity on Syria and beyond would be good, I hope we achieve it. So far, I don't see that we have it.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-07, 08:16, said:

Clarity on Syria and beyond would be good, I hope we achieve it. So far, I don't see that we have it.

Agreed.

Reminds me of something that came up when Constance was developing a contract management system for a large Atlanta corporation. She called attention to many ambiguities in the contracts to be managed. The head of the legal division called her in and explained that the ambiguities were intentional, to permit the lawyers to argue either side should the need arise. He would prefer that she refrain from discussing her observations on that further.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-September-07, 07:25, said:

Even more so. If you are not supposed to attack a country that you have a dispute with do you think that you are supposed to attack a country that you don't even have a dispute with?

But I get it now. The USA don't attack other countries over a dispute. They just do it as a hobby and to make the President's resume look good.

Rik

I never said that the US is "supposed" to attack Syria — or anybody else for that matter.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2013-September-07, 11:00, said:

Agreed.

Reminds me of something that came up when Constance was developing a contract management system for a large Atlanta corporation. She called attention to many ambiguities in the contacts to be managed. The head of the legal division called her in and explained that the ambiguities were intentional, to permit the lawyers to argue either side should the need arise. He would prefer that she refrain from discussing her observations on that further.

Part of a full employment plan for lawyers, no doubt.

[ArtK78]

 PassedOut, on 2013-September-07, 11:00, said:

Agreed.

Reminds me of something that came up when Constance was developing a contract management system for a large Atlanta corporation. She called attention to many ambiguities in the contracts to be managed. The head of the legal division called her in and explained that the ambiguities were intentional, to permit the lawyers to argue either side should the need arise. He would prefer that she refrain from discussing her observations on that further.

Speaking as a lawyer who deals in commercial matters, that has to be one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

[PassedOut]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-08, 06:32, said:

Speaking as a lawyer who deals in commercial matters, that has to be one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

Yes. Constance and I had been business partners well before we were married, and one of the things we worked hard on was eliminating ambiguity in contracts. So that meeting was quite surprising to her, and then when she described it, to me. Many of the ambiguities involved licensing rights that (evidently) the corporation might want to retake at some future time. The corporation has a lot more resources, legal and otherwise, than any of its licensees.

[PassedOut]

Interesting piece in the NY Times yesterday: With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas

Quote

The most detailed and highly classified cables in the WikiLeaks trove underscore that, while Syria has the ability to make chemical weapons, it relies heavily on other nations for getting precursor ingredients that can also be used for medicine.

Crucial chemicals and the missiles to deliver them have come not just from nations long allied with the Assad government, like Iran and Russia, but also from China (sometimes operating through North Korea) and a variety of Western nations, the cables and other documents show. In a few instances, American companies became players in Syria’s efforts to add to the sophistication of its stores.

One of the best-known cases in the United States involved a Waterville, Me., company once known as Maine Biological Laboratories. The company and several top executives were found guilty of allowing a series of shipments to Syria in 2001, including restricted biological agents.

That was one of several instances that involved deals with American firms, the cables show. In another case, an unidentified American company sold potassium cyanide to a Syrian pediatric hospital in 2006, but made no effort to check whether it was used for treating patients, as the Syrians had insisted was done, or instead was diverted for making chemical weapons.

A March 2006 State Department cable from the American Embassy in Damascus described how Syrians seemed to be exploiting trade with the West. “Syrian businessmen regularly report on the ease with which their fellow businessmen illegally import U.S. commodities with seeming impunity, as well as express concerns that the USG’s lack of enforcement of the economic sanctions” are “hurting those that choose to play by the rules.”

Those transactions presumably included chemicals that could be precursors for chemical warfare.

Reminds me of the chorus of a Dr. John song: Such a Night

Quote

Oh, but if I don't do it, you know somebody else will
If I don't do it, you know somebody else will
If I don't do it, you know somebody else will
If I don't do it, you know somebody else will

[kenberg]

A very depressing story, really.