Russia to the rescue?

Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry began to test Syria's top leader by insisting that Syria release the data on it's chemical weapons arsenal, (Syria just admitted to having the arsenal after years of never confirming nor denying.) As an American citizen I was a bit disturbed that Syria had this arsenal of weapons and they were willing to use them should the need arise. Kerry's demand came as he began talks with Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov on a plan to acquire and dispose of Syria's chemical weapons. The fact that the Russia submitted this plan is a bit suspicious given that they have backed Syria... why now, why not submit the plan at the beginning of the civil war? While earlier last Thursday Syrian president Bashar al-Assad announced that his country had formally applied to become a signatory on the chemical weapons treaty. I find this suspicious did Russia send a message to Syria telling them to comply or their aid would be cut off? Did Russia threaten Syria with throwing them to the wolves and not defending them? It makes me very wary as to what Moscow is up to. Having seen pictures and videos of the innocent men, women, and children dying... crying out for family, taking their last labored breath it leaves me heartbroken and wondering why didn't Russia step in sooner. Back to business though, according to the treaty Syria would need to submit a report filled with the types, amounts and where their weapons are. Mr. Kerry said that normal procedures were too slow in this case. After talks began Mr. Lavrov emphasized that this plan would eliminate any need for an American airstrike on Syria. So in the end I guess Russia is coming to the rescue but is it too late?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world/middleeast/united-states-and-russia-far-apart-as-kerry-arrives-in-geneva-for-syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all

Let's Get Syrious.

I was shocked when I went on YouTube and watched the mortifying videos of Syrian children dying, suffering, foaming at the mouth, and howling in pain as they laid there taking their last breathes. While the innocent continue to die, Obama continues to say the same things he's said for the last several weeks as the civil war gets bloodier, and as President Bashar al-Assad breaks international laws with the use of chemical weapons. Watching these videos with my own two eyes has given the understanding that if we don't strike and if the Syrian government refuses to relinquish their weapons, cold bodies will continue to be stacked as the US does nothing except watch it happen. Obama says that the Russian intiative "has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force." Well I for one don't give a fuck about the "potential" of it removing them, I want them removed and so should every other citizen of the world. Obama has made several moral cases for invading Syria and yet sits there and asks congress to hold off voting on the issue until a non forceful plan is drawn up. This article brings up a good point by stating that Obama has yet to answer three questions that should be answered immediately. Obama, how long is he willing to wait for congress? Obama, how do we know that Russian's plan is credible? Obama, what are we going to do if it isn't credible? I for one want these questions to be answered immediately, and want children to stop being massacred  not tomorrow, not next week, NOW. Obama needs to step up to the plate and start acting like the president of the United States or else people should start blaming him for not using the strongest military in the world to stop the bloodshed of innocent human beings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Other Motives at Play in Military Action Against Syria

            Despite the recent Russian-lead move to seek out a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria, the United States continues to prepare for armed conflict in the region. While plans for multiple surgical air and missile attacks appear to be on hold for the time being, the U.S. has begun to arm rebel groups in Syria.

            In an editorial published in The Nation on September 10, staff writer Michael T. Klare postulated that “…even if [Syrian] President Bashar al-Assad agrees to demands for the swift destruction of his chemical arsenal under international supervision, the White House will insist on its prerogative to employ force in the even of cheating or backsliding by the Syrians.” A major question that arises in the face of a growing international move toward diplomacy with Syria, as well as growing domestic opposition to military action both in Congress and among the general public: Why the continued insistence of use of military force? Ostensibly, a U.S. attack in the area would work to discourage the Assad regime from future use of its chemical weapons arsenal as well as crippling its ability to do so. However, those in favor of a military solution have defended their stance with a myriad of other reasons including the reaffirming of America’s credibility as a super power (both as a warning symbol to the would-be Assads of the world, and as a symbol of protection to its allies across the globe), the aiding of rebel forces in the area, and others.

            Klare writes that there are other more subtle interests motivating those in favor of military action, namely the “perceived need to protect America’s geopolitical interests in the Middle East.” To be more precise, this deals with a need to protect crude oil deposits in the area. Absent separate space for a semester-long course on 20^th century American foreign policy specifically in the Middle East, essentially the U.S. had no real geopolitical or strategic interest in the region until after World War II, when oil was discovered in the area and it became a fundamental interest.

            Acknowledged or not, dominance of energy sources remains a fundamental interest of the United States, and I would argue at the very least, no action is taken the Middle East without consideration of that interest. Now, this is not to make a simplistic and somewhat lazy argument that all U.S. actions in the area can and should be seen only through the lens of dependence on foreign oil. Klare does not make that argument, and neither will I. Klare argues that America’s geopolitical mission in the Middle East has come at too high a cost, and has degraded our image in the world instead of enhancing it. He acknowledges President Obama’s plan to focus greater emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, something the President calls, “the pivot to Asia.” However, he argues that despite his best efforts, Obama is inescapably tied to the legacy of his predecessor, and the country’s history in the Middle East. He finally argues that essentially the long term implications of our geopolitical actions in the region will not yield positive consequences for any party involved and that we, as a country, should seek to extricate ourselves from the region – an act that cannot be done without abandoning the “strategic imperatives that have governed American foreign policy in the region for so many years and fashion a new set of guiding principles.”

            I agree with Klare. The only way to change foreign policy in the region is to re-examine the premises that govern it and always have. I do not think a full extrication of U.S. involvement in the region can or more importantly should be sought. Whether we like it or not, isolationism and all its arguments are part of an extinct, irrelevant ideology. We are part of a world community of nations now, and for the sake of mutual survival and prosperity, we must continue to monitor each other openly. It must be known that there are actions that cannot be allowed to be taken whether its Syria gassing its citizens with Sarin, or the unchecked and unwarranted settling of Israeli citizens on the West Bank, the proliferation of Taliban or al Qaeda influence anywhere, or most horrifically the growing prospect of a nuclear Iran. 

Why the Push for Syrian Intervention is About More than Just Assad