The Syrian Equation

As I read about the developments regarding a US-led intervention in Syria, a theory started popping up. First in blogs and then, in newspapers and on television, people started to suggest that Obama never really wanted to go ahead with a unilateral strike on Syria. The theory argued that going to congress and asking for them to vote on a strike was a stall tactic while the administration worked in the background with Russia to form a diplomatic solution. Theoretically, Obama was confident enough that congress would not cut short their recess and come back to D.C. to vote. He was also, apparently, confident enough that there would be fairly strong opposition within the US House against his suggestion of military action against Syria. Furthermore, he was confident enough that Russia and the US were close enough to an agreement that it would be reached before congress voted and that he could, himself, ask for the vote to be postponed.

Initially, I have to say, I was very skeptical that this was all part of the plan. Obama seemed so urgently bent toward hitting Syria I was ready to divorce him, in a way. He sounded exactly like Bush even though I voted for him because he was the anti-Bush. It just seemed like too big of a gamble on Obama’s part. It seemed like a reckless scheme. In fact, even though my thoughts on it have changed, I still think it was a reckless, scary plan.

As I have read more about the recent developments, especially following Secretary Kerry’s suggestion last week that the US might call off military action if Syria gave up all of their chemical weapons, I started to see the possibilities. Kerry’s suggestion was initially reported as a gaffe and that this solution was not being considered by the White House. But actually, it was first discussed between Obama and Putin at last year’s G20 meeting. At that point in time, Russia was not receptive to the idea, but times have changed, Assad has used his weapons, and Russia might have been feeling a little heat from the international community regarding their unwavering support of Syria’s dictator because Obama and Putin had a discussion at this year’s G20 about a diplomatic solution to this crisis, putting into motion more serious discussion between the two countries about what could be done to avoid an intervention in Syria.

I still do believe what Kerry said was unplanned, even though the plan was underway in the background. And, for Obama, I am wondering if it even mattered how congress voted. I don’t think it did. First, because timing-wise the White House seemed confident enough that they would know Russia’s intent before congress took a vote. Thus, they could let congress know to go ahead with the vote or they could tell congress to postpone the vote because an alternative solution had presented itself. Obviously, the latter happened. But had an alternative solution not been found and congress voted yes, then Obama, I am guessing, would have stalled a little longer to build a larger coalition before striking Syria, while in the meantime a diplomatic solution involving Russia would have, theoretically, been found. And had congress voted no, I believe Obama would have observed their wishes by not moving forward with military action in Syria.

The current solution is complicated and, perhaps, includes a moderate dose of optimism as one of its primary ingredients. Surely, the Syrian rebels do not approve of it and they feel the international community is letting Assad off the hook. From their viewpoint, that might very well seem to be true, but I think the international community is understandably weary of jumping to a military solution when an international norm has been violated. Last time, the international norm being violated was, allegedly, undeclared development of nuclear and chemical weapons in Iraq. As far as the US goes, one solution took the spotlight and it was bright enough to wash out any diplomatic solutions or patience, for that matter. Many nations jumped on board and soon the ship was foundering, with one country after another abandoning ship. Forgive the international community if they aren’t ready for another regime-change experiment in the Middle East, even if the current dictator has killed 100,000+ of his own people.

Videos from Syria

The graphic videos showing the aftermath of the chemical weapons attack in Syria have been released. These are the videos that senators, congressmen, and women have been shown by the White House as a part of Obama’s efforts to convince the US Congress to support action against Assad. You can view clips of them here at CNN. They really are no more disturbing than the videos I have already seen on blogs and other news sites, so I don’t understand why CNN thinks this is a big story.

I could not be more honest, these videos do not change my mind about the decision our Congress and President Obama need to make. There are images and videos of violence carried about by Syrian rebel groups against pro-Assad Syrians all over the web.

Here is a video of FSA fighters with 15 men, apparently Assad supporters. At first we see the men alive and then the same men are “mysteriously” found with gunshot wounds and throats slit. Warning, the video is graphic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKMsHdoR-eY 

There’s this 60 Minutes story, which aired in October. It shows a conservative rebel leader whose troops gun down Assad prisoners. Watch it here.

And there’s this article and photo from the cover of the New York Times yesterday.

Lastly, and perhaps the most damning or graphic, is this video, which shows FSA fighters, ones we would be helping, shoot prisoners on the ground.

There is no doubt, Assad has killed more people than the FSA and other rebel groups have killed in this war so far, but there is plenty of blood on the hands of the rebels who also have very questionable motives or “final solutions” if they are in fact victorious.