• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Syria Superthread [merged]

The Russians have added the Moskva to their Med Sea Fleet.

russia__s__carrier-killer__moskva_enters_mediterranean.si.jpg


The missile cruiser, initially known to Western naval intelligence as “Slava” (Glory), was launched in 1979 and entered service in 1983. It was later renamed the “Moskva” in 1995. Designed to be carrier-killers, the cruisers of Class 1164 are equipped with 16 anti-ship launchers P-1000 Vulkan, or Volcano (SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship missiles, according to NATO classification).
 
Journeyman said:
Or the Russians could be cunning dogs, using the Med as a mere staging area for the assault on Lethbridge!  :o

Then we'll regret getting rid of our chemical weapons  ;D
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Russians have added the Moskva to their Med Sea Fleet.
The naval balance of power remains overwhelmingly on the US side.  No change to my assessment.


ObedientiaZelum said:
Then we'll regret getting rid of our chemical weapons  ;D
  "Wolverines!"
 
CTV is now reporting that the report from the UN is expected to confirm chemical weapons use by the Syrian Regime
 
Journeyman said:
Navies are used habitually to "signal" government thinking; in this case, I suggest their mere presence shows "Russia is interested."

In Soviet Russia sabre rattles you!
 
Journeyman said:
Look at the composition of the forces deployed.  The majority of the vessels are landing craft carriers -- ships designed to move 'stuff' to/from shore.  Now they could be filled with Naval Infantry just aching to do 'the shores of Tripoli' thing.  Or they could be empty and waiting to evacuate people/stuff should things turn ugly for Russian nationals ashore.

Another possibility is that they could be used to remove CW and transport them to a Russian safe haven for destruction.
 
cupper said:
Another possibility is that they could be used to remove CW and transport them to a Russian safe haven for destruction.

Yep thats what I would want my flagship to do. :P
 
Opinion piece that demonstrates just how badly the Administration was outmatched in messaging by Vladimir Putin. Now Russia is in the driver's seat, and since her interest is in supporting the Syrian Regime IOT maintain their naval facility and ability to project influence in the region, they have achieved their regional strategic goals, as well as larger strategic goals in keeping the Americans off balance and diminishing Washington's influence and ability to influence events:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579071142312470408.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Rules for Russians Putin takes a page out of Alinsky.
Article

By JAMES TARANTO CONNECT
Vladimir Putin's much-discussed op-ed in today's New York Times is a clever piece of work, but the conclusion is diabolical--and we mean that in the original sense of "devilish":

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.

That last line is a fallacy of composition. From the premise that all men are created equal, it does not follow that all countries are. But the rhetorical trick is clever. Putin (or perhaps a ghostwriter at Ketchum PR) rests his disparagement of American exceptionalism on its very basis--on the first of the "truths" that the Founding Fathers held "to be self-evident."

This is right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": "The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity." (Putin also appeals to the pope's authority.)

And the Russian president applies this rule not just to America, but to Obama, whose own ambivalence about American exceptionalism is well known:

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

Can you think of another world leader who rode similar sentiments into office? Hint: He defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Putin's piece is aimed at influencing American public opinion for the purpose of undermining the effectiveness of American power. It deviously reinforces both dovish and hawkish arguments against the administration's Syria policy. It reminds the doves that military action against Syria goes against everything they believe--and that Obama as a candidate claimed to believe. It reminds the hawks that Obama has shown no inclination or capacity to lead a serious military effort.

Washington's responses have been pitiful. "That's all irrelevant," CNN quotes a White House official as saying: "[Putin] put this proposal forward and he's now invested in it. That's good. That's the best possible reaction. He's fully invested in Syria's CW disarmament and that's potentially better than a military strike--which would deter and degrade but wouldn't get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver."

In his op-ed, Putin even disputes that the regime used poison gas. "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." He isn't committed to disarming the regime but to keeping it in power--a goal that is served by undermining whatever shred of resolve America might have had to act.

"I almost wanted to vomit," the Hill quotes the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Bob Menendez, as saying. (Alinsky frequently capitalized on the reflex for physical disgust, too, as in the 1964 O'Hare Airport plan that we noted in April.)

Sen. John McCain tweeted: "Putin's NYT op-ed is an insult to the intelligence of every American." For an example of an insult to the intelligence, consider McCain's comment last week on a Phoenix radio show--noted here Monday--that "there would be an impeachment of the president" if he put "boots on the ground" in Syria. McCain assumed his listeners were too stupid to see that this was an empty threat, and that if it were not, it would be a reckless one.

Putin doesn't take his readers for idiots, he takes Obama for a fool--a bumbling improviser who can be rolled by appealing to his vanity and his short-term political needs, and whose actions have no broader purpose. Even the New York Times editorial page acknowledges that last point: "The [Tuesday] speech lacked any real sense of what Mr. Obama's long-term or even medium-term strategy might be, other than his repeated promise not to drag a nation fed up with wars into a 'boots-on-the-ground' fight."

Yet the Times ends on a hopeful note: "At least Syria has admitted that it has chemical weapons, for the first time ever; Mr. Putin has acknowledged to the world that there must be limits on the blank checks he was writing his client state; and Russia and the United States are working toward a common strategic goal for the first time in a very long time."

So America has no strategy and is "working" with Russia "toward a common strategic goal"? The only way to reconcile those two assertions is to admit that Putin has capitalized on America's purposelessness in order to advance his own purposes. As a Times news story puts it: "Suddenly Mr. Putin has eclipsed Mr. Obama as the world leader driving the agenda in the Syria crisis."

"Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power," argues Stratfor.org's George Friedman:

In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that he doesn't have, and he has done it well.

Because America is so much mightier than Russia, the American presidency is a much stronger position than the Russian presidency. But a strong man in a position of weakness, if he is ruthless about taking advantage of his adversary's vulnerabilities, can get the better of weak man in a position of strength. Saul Alinsky understood that, and so does Vladimir Putin.

And now, the real origin of the "Red Line" remark. Smart diplomacy in action:

http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/12/obamas-red-line-was-not-a-gaffe/

Obama’s Red Line Was Not A Gaffe
By: streiff (Diary)  |  September 12th, 2013 at 03:00 PM  |  19

It is becoming part of the conventional wisdom that Obama committed a gaffe when he set a “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.”

The New York Times went so far as to report:

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

Recently, the White House spokes-urchin, Jay Carney, tried to claim Obama had not made a mistake:

“The president’s use of the term ‘red line’ was deliberate and was based on U.S. policy,” press secretary Jay Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.

As much as it pains me to say it, Jay Carney is correct and the New York Times account is totally false. The use of “red line” to describe chemical weapons use in Syria did not originate with Obama going off message, it reflected a calculated use of the term.

On August 11, 2012, ten days before Obama’s statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had a joint press conference in Istanbul.  During that press conference the following exchange happened:

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, for you, can you tell us a little bit more in detail about your meeting with the opposition activists? Did you get a better sense of whether they are really prepared to be able to be involved in leading a transition? What kind of questions did you ask them about who is actually doing the fighting on the ground? And what kind of answers did you get?

And then, for both of you, there has been a lot of talk about this common operational picture. What exactly is that common operational picture? Does it involve the potential of this corridor from Aleppo, north to the border here, turning into some kind of safe haven? And does it include anything on how to deal with the chemical weapons that everyone has expressed concern about? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: [yadda yadda] And both the minister and I saw eye to eye on the many tasks that are ahead of us, and the kinds of contingencies that we have to plan for, including the one you mentioned in the horrible event that chemical weapons were used. And everyone has made it clear to the Syrian regime that is a red line for the world, [italics mine] what would that mean in terms of response and humanitarian and medical emergency assistance, and of course, what needs to be done to secure those stocks from every being used, or from falling into the wrong hands.

It appears that where Obama deviated from script was in omitting “for the world” and substituting “for us.” Small wonder then that our answer to Metternich insisted that he had meant the world had set the red line, not him:

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

So, the red line was not a gaffe it was the considered policy of the United States. This, if anything, makes the whole incident more egregious as the nation was consciously committed to acting militarily (see Clinton’s statement about “contingencies” and “response”) in case of chemical weapons use in Syria and yet it is obvious no planning was ever accomplished in anticipation of such an event. Yet another blunder by the administration comes home to roost.
 
A breakthrough on the diplomatic front?

link

US, Russia reach deal on framework to secure Syrian chemical weapons, set possible penalties
The Canadian Press
By Matthew Lee And John Heilprin

GENEVA - After days of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia reached agreement Saturday on a framework to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014 and impose U.N. penalties if the Assad government fails to comply.

The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, includes what Kerry called "a shared assessment" of the weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures for Syrian President Bashar Assad to comply.

It was not immediately clear whether Syria had signed onto the agreement, which requires Damascus to submit a full inventory of its stocks within the next week. Russia does have a close relationship with Syria and holds influence over its Mideast ally.

"The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments," Kerry told a packed news conference at the hotel where negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. "There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime."

Lavrov added, cautiously, "We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road."

(...)

And experts weigh in on why getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons shouldn't take so long:

Reuters link

Syrian weapons destruction may not take so long - U.S. expert
Edit content preferencesDone
Reuters Susan Cornwell 16 hours ago
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the creators of the program that has helped Russia dismantle its weapons of mass destruction says the mechanics of destroying Syria's chemical weapons may be easier and quicker than some officials and experts think.

Former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, who helped establish a post-Cold War program to secure and decommission Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, says the United States has recently developed a prototype for a mobile system that can eradicate chemical warfare agents on site.

"We have developed equipment that can go out into the field on fairly short order, set up, and it can move its way through from five to 25 tons of chemical substance a day," Lugar told Reuters.


"These people talking about the fact that this (destruction of Syria's chemical weapons) might take months, years, just obviously are not aware" of the new U.S. equipment, Lugar said.

Russia proposed earlier this week that Washington and Moscow should collaborate to destroy Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. President Barack Obama put on hold plans for U.S. military strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians August 21.

In addition to the technical challenges of dismantling Syria's chemical arms, there are plenty of political and military obstacles. It is unclear if the United States will accept Russia's plan and hold off on attacking Syria, and the civil war raging there is another big hurdle to decommissioning chemical weapons.

While Moscow's overture on Syria's chemical weapons was something of a surprise, it was not a totally new idea. Lugar, a veteran disarmament campaigner, first suggested more than a year ago that the United States and Russia work together to secure Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Lugar made the proposal during a trip to Moscow in August 2012, while he was still a senator and working on an extension of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that helped secure "loose nukes" and dismantle chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union.

Lugar had not cleared the idea with the Obama administration in advance and the initial response from the Russians was cool. But he said Friday he is pleased to see the scenario being seriously examined now, despite all the challenges, and was glad that Syria had responded positively as well.

TRANSPORTABLE CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTROYERS

Weapons experts believe Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons spread across some 50 sites. The United States had 30 times that amount, and Russia 40 times as much, before they began destroying their stockpiles under the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into effect in 1997.


The new U.S. prototype for destroying chemical weapons that Lugar mentioned is called the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System, the Pentagon said. It is transportable, so it can get rid of chemical weapons on site. The chemical weapons do not have to be moved, which is a dangerous prospect anywhere, especially during war.

The system destroys chemical weapons in bulk and could not be used for materials that have been placed inside munitions - a trickier process. It is not known how much of Syria's stockpile is already inside munitions.
(...)
 
S.M.A. said:
...... and impose U.N. penalties if the Assad government fails to comply
      :rofl:

Yep, Assad will think twice now that the threat of a sharply-worded diplomatic note looms over him.  :nod:
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The Los Angeles Times report that an (unnamed) US official told them that ".... he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia ... "They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said."


And that, not getting mocked, is what passes for foreign policy in Washington in 2013.

Henry Stimson and Dean Acheson would be ashamed to be Americans.


Well, the "not getting mocked" thing seems to be a bust, at least in the Globe and Mail where Margaret Wente calls President Obama a 98 pound weakling and Brian Gable suggests he's Putin's waterboy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/xxxxx/article14052163/#dashboard/follows/
web-Satedcar14co1.jpg

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail
 
Syriasly, these countries should set their differences Assad and stop Puting sententious Barackades on a conciliatory approach.
 
Why Chemical Weapons Are Different
Blistering skin, eye damage, and excruciating deaths were just some of the reasons nations decided to ban these substances after World War I.
Ben W. Heineman Jr.Sep 9 2013, 3:01 PM ET
Article from The Atlantic is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

The current global—and Congressional—debate about whether to deploy force against Syria for its use of sarin gas on civilians will depend, in part, on whether the reasons for a post-World War I agreement banning the offensive use of chemical and biological weapons continue to be honored.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol did not focus on World War I's terrible new 20th-century technologies that made 19th-century military tactics obsolete and led to mass slaughter: advancements in barbed wire, machine guns, and artillery led to incomprehensible and horrible effects on combatants. It was the impact of gas use on both the Western and Eastern fronts that led to the prohibition on chemical and biological warfare, even though it had led to only about one percent of the deaths there. The protocol viewed gas warfare as different from the other methods of mass killing, and banned the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases" as well as "bacteriological methods."

At least three strains of reasoning were advanced by the International Red Cross, religious leaders, the military, and politicians to help mobilize public opinion in favor of a special prohibition against chemical and biological warfare.

First, there were the unique methods of killing—and the special suffering—caused by the gases of World War I, which were first used by the Germans in the battle of Ypres in 1915 and then by all the armies. Chlorine damaged ears and eyes and caused death by asphyxiation. It was subsequently replaced by phosgene, a colorless gas that damaged the lungs and caused suffocation in a delayed reaction after exposure. Mustard gas caused blistering of the outer body and internal organs, especially the lungs. Death might come only after prolonged agony. And those who survived often had serious respiratory and other health issues for the rest of their lives.

Second, there was the "indiscriminate" impact of gas warfare. It was diffused broadly in the atmosphere—and could blow back into the offensive users or affect civilian populations. This uncontrolled aspect of gas warfare led to opposition among some military leaders on all sides.

Finally, there was a fear of an unknown future. Despite the relatively small number of actual deaths and casualties from chemical warfare compared to the horrific total, there was worry about its much broader use in the future. The inhuman, terrifying images of soldiers in gas masks fed these emotional concerns.

Together, these reasons led to a special strain of public fear and loathing that prompted the collective action embodied in the 1925 protocol. It stated that such warfare "has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world." Forty nations originally agreed to the protocol. Today that number is more than 130—although the United States did not officially adopt the protocol until 1975. And Syria adopted it in 1968.

The exceptional nature of chemical and biological warfare was reflected in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997. It sought to remedy many of the defects of the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting manufacturing and stockpiling, requiring destruction of existing stocks, establishing a verification system, and establishing a special monitoring body, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. More than 180 nations have ratified the CWC—but not Syria.

Of course, the conventions by themselves do not have an enforcement mechanism. The legal route to collective action against miscreant states today requires invocation of general UN legal process. And there have been numerous other instances of chemical weapon use before Syria—from Japan against China in the early 40s to Iraq against Iran and the Kurds in the 80s.

Yet, at least in theory and often (though not always) in practice, the world community, going back at least to the 1925 protocol, has made a decision that chemical and biological weapons are morally different from conventional weapons--which, some would say, can kill just as widely, horribly and indiscriminately.

Today, of course, chemical and biological agents are classified as weapons of mass destruction. And the reasons advanced in the 1920s are much the same as advanced now by the Obama Administration in its argument to take action in Syria (although the specter of asymmetrical use by terrorists is added to use by states). Secretary Kerry has said that the deaths of more than 1,400 Syrian civilians because of chemical agents shows "the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world has long ago [agreed] must never be used." He added, "Our sense of basic humanity is offended…by this cowardly crime" involving the "world's most heinous weapons." The administration is showing films of the deaths that, per CNN, reveal "Men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background."

The decision about whether to use force against Syria turns, then, on whether the reasons advanced in support of the 1925 Geneva Protocol are still singularly important. Obviously, there are many other considerations, including effectiveness, proportionality, limits, and the broader deterrent effects of any U.S. action that might be supported by certain allies.

The "chemical and biological warfare is different" strand of argument is critical, because if the United States acts it will be doing so, at least ostensibly, for moral reasons. There are strong arguments that there is no authority in international law for U.S. deployment of military force in these circumstances. That is why the reasons behind the protocol cast a long shadow over today's debate—a debate that is now about the ethical necessity, not the questionable legality, of U.S. military strikes to punish the Syrian regime for gassing its civilians.

                                                _______________________________________

French UN draft to give Syria ultimatum
The reference to Chapter 7 has made Russia reluctant to support the draft, UN diplomats say
Reuters Published: 12:59 September 11, 2013
Article from gulfnews.com is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

United Nations: An initial French draft UN Security Council resolution would demand that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons programme within 15 days and immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or face possible punitive measures.

The elements of the draft resolution, seen on Tuesday, adds that the Security Council would intend “in the event of non-compliance by the Syrian authorities with the provisions of this resolution ... to adopt further necessary measures under Chapter VII” of the UN Charter.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter covers the 15-nation Security Council’s power to take steps ranging from sanctions to military interventions. It is the reference to Chapter 7, UN diplomats say, that has made Russia reluctant to support the initial French draft.

The draft also makes clear the council considers the government of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad is responsible for the chemical attack on August 21 that killed hundreds and for other attacks. It would demand “the immediate cessation of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities.”
 
John Kerry: U.S., Russia Reach Deal On Syrian Chemical Weapons
By JOHN HEILPRIN and MATTHEW LEE 09/14/13 06:09 PM ET EDT
Article from the Huff Post World is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

GENEVA — A diplomatic breakthrough Saturday on securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons stockpile averted the threat of U.S. military action for the moment and could swing momentum toward ending a horrific civil war.

Marathon negotiations between U.S. and Russian diplomats at a Geneva hotel produced a sweeping agreement that will require one of the most ambitious arms-control efforts in history.

The deal involves making an inventory and seizing all components of Syria's chemical weapons program and imposing penalties if President Bashar Assad's government fails to comply will the terms.

After days of intense day-and-night negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and their teams, the two powers announced they had a framework for ridding the world of Syria's chemicals weapons.

The U.S. says Assad used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the capital, killing more than 1,400 civilians. That prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to ready American airstrikes on his order – until he decided last weekend to ask for authorization from the U.S. Congress. Then came the Russian proposal, and Obama asked Congress, already largely opposed to military intervention, to delay a vote.

Obama said the deal "represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed."

"This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world," he said in a statement.

Kerry and Lavrov said they agreed on the size of the chemical weapons inventory, and on a speedy timetable and measures for Assad to do away with the toxic agents.

But Syria, a Moscow ally, kept silent on the development, while Obama made clear that "if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act."

The deal offers the potential for reviving international peace talks to end a civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and sent 2 million refugees fleeing for safety, and now threatens the stability of the entire Mideast.

Kerry and Lavrov, along with the U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said the chances for a follow-up peace conference in Geneva to the one held in June 2012 would depend largely on the weapons deal.

The U.S. and Russia are giving Syria just one week, until Sept. 21, to submit "a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities."

International inspectors are to be on the ground in Syria by November. During that month, they are to complete their initial assessment and all mixing and filling equipment for chemical weapons is to be destroyed. They must be given "immediate and unfettered" access to inspect all sites.

All components of the chemical weapons program are to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014.

"Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving," Kerry said.

For the moment, the deal may not do much to change the fighting on the ground. But the impasse in the international community over how to react could ease somewhat with the U.S. and Russia also agreeing to immediately press for a U.N. Security Council resolution that enshrines the weapons deal.

They will seek a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can authorize both the use of force and nonmilitary measures.

But Russia, which already has rejected three resolutions on Syria, would be sure to veto a U.N. move toward military action, and U.S. officials said they did not contemplate seeking such an authorization.

"The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments," Kerry told a news conference at the hotel where round-the-clock negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. "There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime."

Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that the deal sends a strong message not just to Syria but to the world, too, that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

Lavrov added, cautiously, "We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road."

In an interview with Russian state television, Lavrov said the groundwork for such an approach to Syria's chemical weapons stockpile began in June 2012 when Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico.

"Both sides expressed serious concern that it could not be ruled out that the chemical weapons which Syria possessed according to American and our information could fall into the wrong hands," Lavrov said. The presidents agreed to share information on a regular basis about Syria's arsenal, he said.

Lavrov said both Russian and U.S. officials went on to contact Syrian leaders to determine the safety of weapons storage.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the negotiations, said the U.S. and Russia agreed that Syria had roughly 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons agents and precursors, including blister agents, such as sulfur and mustard gas and nerve agents like sarin.

These officials said the two sides did not agree on the number of chemical weapons sites in Syria.

U.S. intelligence believes Syria has about 45 sites associated with chemicals weapons, half of which have "exploitable quantities" of material that could be used in munitions. The Russian estimate is considerably lower; the officials would not say by how much.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe all the stocks remain in government control, the officials said.

Noncompliance by the Assad government or any other party would be referred to the 15-nation Security Council by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That group oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria this past week agreed to join. The U.N. received Syria's formal notification Saturday and it would be in effect Oct. 14.

The weapons group's director-general, Ahmet Uzumcu, spoke of adopting "necessary measures" to put in place "an accelerated program to verify the complete destruction" of Syria's chemical weapons, production facilities and "other relevant capabilities."

The U.S. and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members with a veto. The others are Britain, China, and France.

"There is an agreement between Russia and the United States that non-compliance is going to be held accountable within the Security Council under Chapter 7," Kerry said. "What remedy is chosen is subject to the debate within the council, which is always true. But there's a commitment to impose measures."

Lavrov indicated there would be limits to using such a resolution.

"Any violations of procedures ... would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures," Lavrov said. "Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions."

Kerry spoke of a commitment, in the event of Syrian noncompliance, to "impose measures commensurate with whatever is needed in terms of the accountability."

The agreement offers no specific penalties. Given that a thorough investigation of any allegation of noncompliance is required before any possible action, Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh.

Kerry stressed that the U.S. believes the threat of force is necessary to back the diplomacy, and U.S. officials have Obama retains the right to launch military strikes without U.N. approval to protect American national security interests.

"I have no doubt that the combination of the threat of force and the willingness to pursue diplomacy helped to bring us to this moment," Kerry said.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who are among Obama's sharpest foreign policy critics and support greater U.S. assistance for Syria's rebels, said the agreement will embolden enemies such as Iran.

"What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement: They see it as an act of provocative weakness on America's part," they said in a joint statement. "We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California credited the president's "steadfast leadership" for "making significant progress in our efforts to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." She also credited Obama's "clear and credible" threats to use force against Syria for making the agreement possible.

U.N. inspectors were preparing to submit their report on the chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that he expected "an overwhelming report" that chemical weapons were indeed used.

A U.N. statement said Ban hoped the agreement will prevent further use of such weapons and "help pave the path for a political solution to stop the appalling suffering inflicted on the Syrian people."

Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, said Saturday's development was "a significant step forward." Germany believes that "if deeds now follow the words, the chances of a political solution will rise significantly," Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said.

The commander of the Free Syrian Army rebel group, Gen. Salim Idris, said in Turkey that the Russian initiative would "buy time" and that rebels will continue "fighting the regime and work for bringing it down."

He said that if international inspectors come to Syria in order to inspect chemical weapons, "we will facilitate their passages but there will be no cease-fire." The FSA will not block the work of U.N. inspectors, he said, and the "inspectors will not be subjected to rebel fire when they are in regime-controlled areas."

Idris said Kerry told him by telephone that "the alternative of military strikes is still on the table."

 
57Chevy said:
All components of the chemical weapons program are to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014.
Huff Post World

Syrian weapons destruction may not take so long: U.S. expert
By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:42pm EDT
Article from Reuters is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

(Reuters) - One of the creators of the program that has helped Russia dismantle its weapons of mass destruction says the mechanics of destroying Syria's chemical weapons may be easier and quicker than some officials and experts think.

Former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, who helped establish a post-Cold War program to secure and decommission Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, says the United States has recently developed a prototype for a mobile system that can eradicate chemical warfare agents on site.

"We have developed equipment that can go out into the field on fairly short order, set up, and it can move its way through from five to 25 tons of chemical substance a day," Lugar told Reuters.

"These people talking about the fact that this (destruction of Syria's chemical weapons) might take months, years, just obviously are not aware" of the new U.S. equipment, Lugar said.

Russia proposed earlier this week that Washington and Moscow should collaborate to destroy Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. President Barack Obama put on hold plans for U.S. military strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians August 21.

In addition to the technical challenges of dismantling Syria's chemical arms, there are plenty of political and military obstacles. It is unclear if the United States will accept Russia's plan and hold off on attacking Syria, and the civil war raging there is another big hurdle to decommissioning chemical weapons.

While Moscow's overture on Syria's chemical weapons was something of a surprise, it was not a totally new idea. Lugar, a veteran disarmament campaigner, first suggested more than a year ago that the United States and Russia work together to secure Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Lugar made the proposal during a trip to Moscow in August 2012, while he was still a senator and working on an extension of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that helped secure "loose nukes" and dismantle chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union.

Lugar had not cleared the idea with the Obama administration in advance and the initial response from the Russians was cool. But he said Friday he is pleased to see the scenario being seriously examined now, despite all the challenges, and was glad that Syria had responded positively as well.

TRANSPORTABLE CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTROYERS

Weapons experts believe Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons spread across some 50 sites. The United States had 30 times that amount, and Russia 40 times as much, before they began destroying their stockpiles under the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into effect in 1997.

The new U.S. prototype for destroying chemical weapons that Lugar mentioned is called the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System, the Pentagon said. It is transportable, so it can get rid of chemical weapons on site. The chemical weapons do not have to be moved, which is a dangerous prospect anywhere, especially during war.

The system does not destroy chemical weapons in bulk, so it could not be used for materials that have been placed inside munitions - a trickier process. It is not known how much of Syria's stockpile is already inside munitions.

The new system converts the chemical warfare agents into compounds not useable as weapons, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. She said it was built to destroy bulk chemical agents "wherever they are found," but added that there were no current plans to use the new system in Syria.

The system was designed and built by staff at the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center.

Lugar, who served more than three decades in the Senate, traveled to Russia many times as part of the Nunn-Lugar program established with former Senator Sam Nunn in the 1990s. The program was extended earlier this year, although it was pared back, with Russia assuming the costs and completing some tasks without U.S. help.

On one trip to Russia in 2005 Republican Lugar took along Obama, who was a new Democratic senator at the time. Lugar said Obama got excited about seeing dangerous warfare agents first hand.

"We went into a laboratory in which there was ... deadly material," Lugar said. "I wouldn't know whether to characterize it as a chemical weapon or a biological weapon, just locked up in the iceboxes as they used to do there. And I can remember vividly that Barack was fascinated by this."

(Additional reporting by David Alexander and Phil Stewart; Editing by Bill Trott)
 
I can't shake how often it falls into a pastiche of bad television plot lines. "Syria the Intervention" is so poorly written it reads like bad internet fan fiction.

America has been funding, arming and training the rebels for quite some time. Suddenly when it looked like Assad was winning they needed to bomb him. The various plans looked like it would be a very deliberate attempt to make things a stalemate again. So would it be a fair assessment to say America(and Israel and Saudi) wants them to kill each other till Syria is completely demolished as a power in the region. I do have some issues with the fact that 90%+ of the people there are completely innocent and will bear most of the cost of this policy. This started as an Arab Spring style uprising exacerbated by the worst drought in generations. Interesting how quickly world powers adapted to use such populist events to their own strategic benefit.

This could have been Cyprus if we still had a functional UN.
 
From Refugees of the Syrian civil war (Wikipedia)
September 2013;
Swedish migration authorities ruled that all Syrian asylum seekers will be granted permanent residency in light of the worsening conflict in Syria. The 8,000+ already in Sweden are granted the right to bring their families as well.
                                                              _______________________________

Syrian refugee crisis worsens
NHK World is shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

An influx of Syrian refugees is becoming more visible in European countries amid the intensifying civil war in Syria.

Syrians continue to flee despite Saturday's US-Russia deal on a framework to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control.

The United Nations said 2 million Syrians have already fled their homeland. The figure is 10 percent of Syria's population.

530 Syrians in boats landed in Italy on Friday and Saturday. 360 were rescued by the Italian coast guard.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says 3,300 Syrians have escaped to Italy in the past 40 days. The spokesperson says some people agreed to sell their organs to pay for their journeys.

The UN thinks Italy, Greece and other European countries are likely to become destinations for Syria's refugees as Lebanon and other neighboring nations will soon be unable to accept more displaced Syrians.
Sep. 15, 2013 - Updated 15:17 UTC
 
Back
Top