Syria, America and Putin's Bluff

[Muzh]

Geopolitical Weekly
Monday, September 9, 2013 - 17:15

By George Friedman

In recent weeks I've written about U.S. President Barack Obama's bluff on Syria and the tightrope he is now walking on military intervention. There is another bluff going on that has to be understood, this one from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power. In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that that he doesn't have, and he has done it well. For him, Syria poses a problem because the United States is about to call his bluff, and he is not holding strong cards. To understand his game we need to start with the recent G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Putin and Obama held a 20-minute meeting there that appeared to be cold and inconclusive. The United States seems to be committed to some undefined military action in Syria, and the Russians are vehemently opposed. The tensions showcased at the G-20 between Washington and Moscow rekindled memories of the Cold War, a time when Russia was a global power. And that is precisely the mood Putin wanted to create. That's where Putin's bluff begins.

A Humbled Global Power

The United States and Russia have had tense relations for quite a while. Early in the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up in Moscow carrying a box with a red button, calling it the reset button. She said that it was meant to symbolize the desire for restarting U.S.-Russian relations. The gesture had little impact, and relations have deteriorated since then. With China focused on its domestic issues and with Europe in disarray, the United States and Russia are the two major -- if not comparable -- global players, and the deterioration in relations can be significant. We need to understand what is going on here before we think about Syria.

Twenty years ago, the United States had little interest in relations with Russia, and certainly not with resetting them. The Soviet Union had collapsed, the Russian Federation was in ruins and it was not taken seriously by the United States -- or anywhere else for that matter. The Russians recall this period with bitterness. In their view, under the guise of teaching the Russians how to create a constitutional democracy and fostering human rights, the United States and Europe had engaged in exploitative business practices and supported non-governmental organizations that wanted to destabilize Russia.

The breaking point came during the Kosovo crisis. Slobodan Milosevic, leader of what was left of Yugoslavia, was a Russian ally. Russia had a historic relationship with Serbia, and it did not want to see Serbia dismembered, with Kosovo made independent.

There were three reasons for this. First, the Russians denied that there was a massacre of Albanians in Kosovo. There had been a massacre by Serbians in Bosnia; the evidence of a massacre in Kosovo was not clear and is still far from clear. Second, the Russians did not want European borders to change. There had been a general agreement that forced changes in borders should not happen in Europe, given its history, and the Russians were concerned that restive parts of the Russian Federation, from Chechnya to Karelia to Pacific Russia, might use the forced separation of Serbia and Kosovo as a precedent for dismembering Russia. In fact, they suspected that was the point of Kosovo. Third, and most important, they felt that an attack without U.N. approval and without Russian support should not be undertaken both under international law and out of respect for Russia.

President Bill Clinton and some NATO allies went to war nevertheless. After two months of airstrikes that achieved little, they reached out to the Russians to help settle the conflict. The Russian emissary reached an agreement that accepted the informal separation of Kosovo from Serbia but would deploy Russian peacekeepers along with the U.S. and European ones, their mission being to protect the Serbians in Kosovo. The cease-fire was called, but the part about Russian peacekeepers was never fully implemented.

Russia felt it deserved more deference on Kosovo, but it couldn't have expected much more given its weak geopolitical position at the time. However, the incident served as a catalyst for Russia's leadership to try to halt the country's decline and regain its respect. Kosovo was one of the many reasons that Vladimir Putin became president, and with him, the full power of the intelligence services he rose from were restored to their former pre-eminence.

Western Encroachment

The United States has supported, financially and otherwise, the proliferation of human rights groups in the former Soviet Union. When many former Soviet countries experienced revolutions in the 1990s that created governments that were somewhat more democratic but certainly more pro-Western and pro-American, Russia saw the West closing in. The turning point came in Ukraine, where the Orange Revolution generated what seemed to Putin a pro-Western government in 2004. Ukraine was the one country that, if it joined NATO, would make Russia indefensible and would control many of its pipelines to Europe.

In Putin's view, the non-governmental organizations helped engineer this, and he claimed that U.S. and British intelligence services funded those organizations. To Putin, the actions in Ukraine indicated that the United States in particular was committed to extending the collapse of the Soviet Union to a collapse of the Russian Federation. Kosovo was an insult from his point of view. The Orange Revolution was an attack on basic Russian interests.

Putin began a process of suppressing all dissent in Russia, both from foreign-supported non-governmental organizations and from purely domestic groups. He saw Russia as under attack, and he saw these groups as subversive organizations. There was an argument to be made for this. But the truth was that Russia was returning to its historical roots as an authoritarian government, with the state controlling the direction of the economy and where dissent is treated as if it were meant to destroy the state. Even though much of this reaction could be understood given the failures and disasters since 1991, it created a conflict with the United States. The United States kept pressing on the human rights issue, and the Russians became more repressive in response.

Then came the second act of Kosovo. In 2008, the Europeans decided to make Kosovo fully independent. The Russians asked that this not happen and said that the change had little practical meaning anyway. From the Russian point of view, there was no reason to taunt Russia with this action. The Europeans were indifferent.

The Russians found an opportunity to respond to the slight later that year in Georgia. Precisely how the Russo-Georgian war began is another story, but it resulted in Russian tanks entering a U.S. client state, defeating its army and remaining there until they were ready to leave. With the Americans bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, no intervention was possible. The Russians took this as an opportunity to deliver two messages to Kiev and other former Soviet states. First, Russia, conventional wisdom aside, could and would use military power when it chose. Second, he invited Ukraine and other countries to consider what an American guarantee meant.

U.S.-Russian relations never really recovered. From the U.S. point of view, the Russo-Georgia war was naked aggression. From the Russian point of view, it was simply the Russian version of Kosovo, in fact gentler in that it left Georgia proper intact. The United States became more cautious in funding non-governmental organizations. The Russians became more repressive by the year in their treatment of dissident groups.

Since 2008, Putin has attempted to create a sense that Russia has returned to its former historic power. It maintains global relations with left-wing powers such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba. Of course, technically Russia is not left wing, and if it is, it is a weird leftism given its numerous oligarchs who still prosper. And in fact there is little that Russia can do for any of those countries, beyond promising energy investments and weapon transfers that only occasionally materialize. Still, it gives Russia a sense of global power.

In fact, Russia remains a shadow of what the Soviet Union was. Its economy is heavily focused on energy exports and depends on high prices it cannot control. Outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, life remains hard and life expectancy short. Militarily, it cannot possibly match the United States. But at this moment in history, with the United States withdrawing from deep involvement in the Muslim world, and with the Europeans in institutional disarray, it exerts a level of power in excess of its real capacity. The Russians have been playing their own bluff, and this bluff helps domestically by creating a sense that, despite its problems, Russia has returned to greatness.

In this game, taking on and besting the United States at something, regardless of its importance, is critical. The Snowden matter was perfect for the Russians. Whether they were involved in the Snowden affair from the beginning or entered later is unimportant. It has created two important impressions. The first is that Russia is still capable of wounding the United States -- a view held among those who believe the Russians set the affair in motion, and a view quietly and informally encouraged by those who saw this as a Russian intelligence coup even though they publicly and heartily denied it.

The second impression was that the United States was being hypocritical. The United States had often accused the Russians of violating human rights, but with Snowden, the Russians were in a position where they protected the man who had revealed what many saw as a massive violation of human rights. It humiliated the Americans in terms of their own lax security and furthermore weakened the ability of the United States to reproach Russia for human rights violations.

Obama was furious with Russia's involvement in the Snowden case and canceled a summit with Putin. But now that the United States is considering a strike on the Syrian regime following its suspected use of chemical weapons, Washington may be in a position to deal a setback to a Russia client state, and by extension, Moscow itself.

The Syria Question

The al Assad regime's relations with Russia go back to 1970, when Hafez al Assad, current President Bashar al Assad's father, staged a coup and aligned Syria with the Soviet Union. In the illusion of global power that Putin needs to create, the fall of al Assad would undermine his strategy tremendously unless the United States was drawn into yet another prolonged and expensive conflict in the Middle East. In the past, the U.S. distraction with Iraq and Afghanistan served Russia's interests. But the United States is not very likely to get as deeply involved in Syria as it did in those countries. Obama might bring down the regime and create a Sunni government of unknown beliefs, or he may opt for a casual cruise missile attack. But this will not turn into Iraq unless Obama loses control completely.

This could cause Russia to suffer a humiliation similar to the one it dealt the United States in 2008 with Georgia. The United States will demonstrate that Russia's concerns are of no account and that Russia has no counters if and when the United States decides to act.

The impact inside Russia will be interesting. There is some evidence of weakness in Putin's position. His greatest strength has been to create the illusion of Russia as an emerging global power. This will deal that a blow, and how it resonates through the Russian system is unclear. But in any event, it could change the view of Russia being on the offensive and the United States being on the defensive.

Putin made this a core issue for him. I don't think he expected the Europeans to take the position that al Assad had used chemical weapons. He thought he had more pull than that. He didn't. The Europeans may not fly missions but they are not in a position to morally condemn those who do. That means that Putin's bluff is in danger.

History will not turn on this event, and Putin's future, let alone Russia's, does not depend on his ability to protect Russia's Syrian ally. Syria just isn't that important. There are many reasons that the United States might not wish to engage in Syria. But if we are to understand the U.S.-Russian crisis over Syria, it makes sense to consider the crisis within in the arc of recent history from Kosovo in 1999 to Georgia in 2008 to where we are today.

Stratfor

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

[GQBlues]

Great article.

I think at the present time, nukes aside, Russia's military is not even on par with Saddam's might during its heydey. I still believe Putin did a masterful political maneuver, like the article alluded to, by exerting his presence even more so than Obama over this latest event while the global audience stood and watched. I am not exactly sure why this administration fell prey into that ploy.

I have a sneaky suspicion the Russians always knew where and how much WMDs Syria has. The ought to, they helped put it there.

Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt, this latest US pie-on-the face (reference to Obama's declaration about Asaad having crossed the red line speech and Kerry's unbelievably small silliness) will undoubtedly have a lingering negative effect against the US's global leadership. They got some countries to sign in to declare its alliance to the cause, only to bow down to Putin's *idea*.

Putin masterfully became that little kid who couldn't and stood tall over the big bully who wasn't anymore.

[BillyB]

 
Putin is looking good with the international community since they and President Assad accepted his proposal of removing all chemical weapons from the country. Putin gets credit for saving lives and keeping an important business partner in power.
 
I wonder what Obama's speech is going to look like tonight. He wasted too much time asking for people's permission and it made him and America look weak to the point Russian got brave and said they would supply more weapons to Syria and Iran said they would come to Syria's aid.
 
My wife asked if Assad even was guilty of using chemical weapons on his people. I told her it's bad if he did and even worse if he was so irresponsible in letting it get in the hands of civilians or terrorists to use. He needs to be punished to deter this kind of behavior from him or any country in the future. If an American president used that kind of stuff on it's civilians, I'd wish some country would punish that president. If Putin has his way, Assad gets his toys taken from him instead of getting spanked.
 
 

[lordtiberius]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100234866/flailing-obama-slumps-to-lowest-ratings-of-his-presidency-as-us-voters-see-him-as-a-weak-and-indecisive-leader/

Flailing Obama slumps to lowest ratings of his presidency, as US voters see him as ‘a weak and indecisive leader’

On Tuesday night President Obama will deliver one of the most important political addresses of his presidency, trying to convince a war-weary American public to support his call for military intervention in Syria. Having casually drawn a red line in the sand on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama’s own credibility – not that of the United States – is on the line. But he faces an uphill struggle to win over public opinion, and is almost certainly heading for a heavy defeat on Capitol Hill, where opposition is mounting among Members of Congress.

The scale of the challenge for Mr. Obama is encapsulated in a new poll released by Fox News (conducted by both Democratic and Republican pollsters), which shows the president’s approval rating falling to 40 percent, the lowest level of support in his presidency (on par with December 2010). Obama’s disapproval stands at 54 percent, the highest negative rating he has received since taking office.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/10/Russian-parliament-Gloats-as-Putin-Checkmates-Obama-Over-Syria

Russian Parliament Gloats as Putin Checkmates Obama Over Syria


by John Nolte  10 Sep 2013, 7:29 AM PDT 86 

Monday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry made what an administration official called a "major goof" with a never-going-to-happen hypothetical that suggested Syria could avoid American airstrikes by surrendering their chemical weapons. Even the State Department walked Kerry's statement back. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately seized upon Kerry's flub, and now a member of the Russian parliament is gloating over Putin's checkmate of Obama.

Watching one administration bungle after another unfurl, Alexi Pushkov , the chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, is publicly mocking Obama. Via Twitter, Pushkov wrote that this mess “knocks the ground out from under Obama’s plans for a military strike.”

Kerry's flub played right into the Russians hands; and by breaking weak, stepping back from his own red line, and embracing Kerry's hypothetical proposal during a round-robin of network interviews Monday night, President Obama chose to repeat Kerry's mistake. Russian President Vladmir Putin now looks like the world's peacemaker and Syria can dig in and drag this out forever as the West tries to figure out how to secure and destroy a thousand tons of chemicals weapons without putting "boots on the ground" in the middle of a civil war.

The real win for Syria and Russia, though, is that when this diplomatic quagmire is all over, Assad remains in power. This, after Obama said he must go.

As I write this, Assad is already taking advantage of the Putin/Kerry monkey wrench. For the first time since the talk of America military action began, today Syria resumed its bombing attacks against the rebels.

From Obama's off-script red line comment last year to Kerry's off-script second red line yesterday, the only thing driving American foreign policy regarding Syria are administration blunders.

Today, even Israel is laughing at us.

[BillyB]

by John Nolte  10 Sep 2013, 7:29 AM PDT 86

Today, even Israel is laughing at us.

I think Israel is worried we are the guys that got their back if something bad goes down on them. If a dictator can use chemical weapons on his own people and his only  punishment is a "demand"  to hand over the rest of the chemical weapons, then it's an example for Iran or North Korea to do things to their own or other people because there's a good chance they get away with it, since there are few in this world that has any fight left in them.

[lordtiberius]

Israel cannot fight a war longer than a couple of months.  It has no logistical capabilities.  It has no independent source of oil that fly its jets and fuel its tanks.  Also Israel's military capabilities are questionable given its rebuke Syro-Iranian backed Hezbollah gave them in 2006

[Muzh]

Great article.

I think at the present time, nukes aside, Russia's military is not even on par with Saddam's might during its heydey. I still believe Putin did a masterful political maneuver, like the article alluded to, by exerting his presence even more so than Obama over this latest event while the global audience stood and watched. I am not exactly sure why this administration fell prey into that ploy.

I have a sneaky suspicion the Russians always knew where and how much WMDs Syria has. The ought to, they helped put it there.

Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt, this latest US pie-on-the face (reference to Obama's declaration about Asaad having crossed the red line speech and Kerry's unbelievably small silliness) will undoubtedly have a lingering negative effect against the US's global leadership. They got some countries to sign in to declare its alliance to the cause, only to bow down to Putin's *idea*.

Putin masterfully became that little kid who couldn't and stood tall over the big bully who wasn't anymore.

Actually, I saw it slightly different.
 
Obama got fcuking lucky because I think he is way over his head here. Someone with real political wits like Reagan or Clinton and this would have been a very different story.
 
Bottom line is that there are people still clinging to the old Soviet Russian military might to stand up to the US and it is just not there.
 
Between you and me, the world is lucky that we have an effective succession system for the CINC. Right after the Soviet implosion was a time where the neocons wanted to tweak the way we do business so a 'strongman' would lead the world into United World of AmeriKa. Thank you Jefferson.

[mendeleyev]

Monday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry made what an administration official called a "major goof" with a never-going-to-happen hypothetical that suggested Syria could avoid American airstrikes by surrendering their chemical weapons. Even the State Department walked Kerry's statement back. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately seized upon Kerry's flub, and now a member of the Russian parliament is gloating over Putin's checkmate of Obama.

Nolte wrote a fine piece but missed a key detail: the idea of surrendering chemical weapons was neither the brain child of Hussein or Kerry. It was one of the many suggestions that came from Friday's dinner discussion amongst G20 leaders in Saint Petersburg. Putin suggested Hussein think about it and he must have mentioned it to Kerry because the SOS isn't that smart on his own.

Lavrov did pounce the minute the tall midget let it fly. Kerry's problem is that he loves to talk, far past his intellectual capacity to think.

[Muzh]

Nolte wrote a fine piece but missed a key detail: the idea of surrendering chemical weapons was neither the brain child of Hussein or Kerry. It was one of the many suggestions that came from Friday's dinner discussion amongst G20 leaders in Saint Petersburg. Putin suggested Hussein think about it and he must have mentioned it to Kerry because the SOS isn't that smart on his own.

Lavrov did pounce the minute the tall midget let it fly. Kerry's problem is that he loves to talk, far past his intellectual capacity to think.

I'm sorry Mendy, which Hussein are you referring to?

[lordtiberius]

I'm sorry Mendy, which Hussein are you referring to?

 

Nolte wrote a fine piece but missed a key detail: the idea of surrendering chemical weapons was neither the brain child of Hussein or Kerry. It was one of the many suggestions that came from Friday's dinner discussion amongst G20 leaders in Saint Petersburg. Putin suggested Hussein think about it and he must have mentioned it to Kerry because the SOS isn't that smart on his own.

Is this the work of John O. Brennan?

[calmissile]

Nolte wrote a fine piece but missed a key detail: the idea of surrendering chemical weapons was neither the brain child of Hussein or Kerry. It was one of the many suggestions that came from Friday's dinner discussion amongst G20 leaders in Saint Petersburg. Putin suggested Hussein think about it and he must have mentioned it to Kerry because the SOS isn't that smart on his own.

Lavrov did pounce the minute the tall midget let it fly. Kerry's problem is that he loves to talk, far past his intellectual capacity to think.

+1

[mendeleyev]

I'm sorry Mendy, which Hussein are you referring to?

When it comes to Barack I enjoy using his patronymic. 

[GQBlues]

Actually, I saw it slightly different.
 
Obama got fcuking lucky because I think he is way over his head here. Someone with real political wits like Reagan or Clinton and this would have been a very different story.
 
Bottom line is that there are people still clinging to the old Soviet Russian military might to stand up to the US and it is just not there.
 
Between you and me, the world is lucky that we have an effective succession system for the CINC. Right after the Soviet implosion was a time where the neocons wanted to tweak the way we do business so a 'strongman' would lead the world into United World of AmeriKa. Thank you Jefferson.

Just in the past 12 hours, we've laid witness to a "move, counter, and counter" with France getting into the thick of it. The US cautiously accepts with a caveat, the Russians object. You just knew they would.

What this is doing is, while all these crap is going on the *stand ready, stand down, stand ready* directives is costing millions by the minute. Even then, if military strike is ultimately the end justification for this crisis, it'll still be far cheaper than spending the money to capture and destroy that much stockpile. Syria's supposed chemical weaponry is not an easy task, nor a cheap thing to 'destroy'.

This never really belonged to Asaad to begin with so why not have someone else 'claim' it back and still keep his head intact. Unfortunately for him, that was never in the contract.

Russia's military conventional force is antiquated at best. Putin knows that full well. But one has to be cautious of a cornered cat nonetheless. However, Obama is in a very precarious position, too. He is on the eve of the Congressional Fiscal  debate, on the first year of his second term with the healthcare quagmire looming it's ugly head at this time. Far too much to chew on, all things considered, at this time. Many DC think tank seem to believe that when hammer does come down there will be no retaliatory response, either politically or militarily. It'll be just the usual useless condemnation parade proclamation.

The Snowden case is proving to be a bigger deal than what we may have given it credit for.

I agree about our electoral system. Unfortunately, especially of late, replacing Beavis with Butthead doesn't make life any easier these days.

[Belvis]

Russia's military conventional force is antiquated at best.

Lol, Georgia's president Saakashvili liked to repeat the same words before August 2008.
But of course, Russia has no intentions to prove her capabilities in action. Syria for Russia is the remote battle field against islamic extremism which poses the real problem at Caucasus. So Putin will support Assad regime because the victory of islamic opposition will endanger russian borders. His position takes points as in domestic politics as among countries discontented with USA domination in the region, and it costs almost nothing for Russia for now in money terms. To be honest, it produces some benefits out of elevated oil price, however the economics is not the driving factor, stability at Caucasus is.

[Shadow]

Putin is looking good with the international community since they and President Assad accepted his proposal of removing all chemical weapons from the country. Putin gets credit for saving lives and keeping an important business partner in power.
 
I wonder what Obama's speech is going to look like tonight. He wasted too much time asking for people's permission and it made him and America look weak to the point Russian got brave and said they would supply more weapons to Syria and Iran said they would come to Syria's aid.
 
My wife asked if Assad even was guilty of using chemical weapons on his people. I told her it's bad if he did and even worse if he was so irresponsible in letting it get in the hands of civilians or terrorists to use. He needs to be punished to deter this kind of behavior from him or any country in the future. If an American president used that kind of stuff on it's civilians, I'd wish some country would punish that president. If Putin has his way, Assad gets his toys taken from him instead of getting spanked.

There is zero evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, or even that the weapons used were from his arsenal.

The question that is asked here is that according to Obama a red line is crossed when checmical weapons are used (unless Turkey uses them to stop demonstrations). So what is Obama going to do to the rebels if it becomes clear they were the ones using the weapons ?

[lordtiberius]

His case for war falls apart if Assad did not order their use.  His case for war ALSO falls apart if Assad never uses them in the future.  Am I wrong?

[Faux Pas]

There is zero evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, or even that the weapons used were from his arsenal.

The question that is asked here is that according to Obama a red line is crossed when checmical weapons are used (unless Turkey uses them to stop demonstrations). So what is Obama going to do to the rebels if it becomes clear they were the ones using the weapons ?

Nothing. Unlikely it will ever become clear who actually used the weapons. Syria is one big clusterf**k at this point. The opportunity to find out was eliminated with Obama and Kerry running their collective big mouths. It is the terrorist groups he hopes to aid. There is nothing Obama can do that will fall within the confines of the U.S. Constitution but, that hasn't stopped him so far

[Muzh]

When it comes to Barack I enjoy using his patronymic. 

Boy, you are really disappointing me here. I thought higher of you staying above the fray. 

Just my two cents FWIW

[Muzh]

His case for war falls apart if Assad did not order their use.  His case for war ALSO falls apart if Assad never uses them in the future.  Am I wrong?

Yes.

See "Iraq."

[fathertime]

Nothing. Unlikely it will ever become clear who actually used the weapons. Syria is one big clusterf**k at this point. The opportunity to find out was eliminated with Obama and Kerry running their collective big mouths. It is the terrorist groups he hopes to aid. There is nothing Obama can do that will fall within the confines of the U.S. Constitution but, that hasn't stopped him so far

Well, generally speaking through propaganda, the American people have been convinced that Assad used the weapons...there probably is no real evidence it was him...the 'rebels' could have made it look like him, which makes more sense to me..
Fathertime!

[Muzh]

Well, generally speaking through propaganda, the American people have been convinced that Assad used the weapons...there probably is no real evidence it was him...the 'rebels' could have made it look like him, which makes more sense to me..
Fathertime!

Goodness gracious. Where was this logic and patience 10 - 12 years ago?

As the way it should be.

[Shadow]

Well, generally speaking through propaganda, the American people have been convinced that Assad used the weapons...there probably is no real evidence it was him...the 'rebels' could have made it look like him, which makes more sense to me..
Fathertime!

That is a difference with Europe, where people remember the past and remain largely unconvinced by propaganda. This lead to Cameron losing the vote for permission to assist.
Where the governments try to follow the course set by Obama, the public understands that Assad is much less of an extremist as any replacement would be.

[BillyB]

There is zero evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, or even that the weapons used were from his arsenal.

The debate isn't about whether or not Assad used them, it's whether or not should he be punished for it. USA presented evidence to the UN. No country is protesting very hard against the evidence. It's pretty clear who made the call to use chemical weapons and then bomb the area to get rid of that evidence. Keep in mind, it was civilians that were targeted, not military soldiers. The last thing the rebels need is the civilians turning on them and supporting Assad.
 

So what is Obama going to do to the rebels if it becomes clear they were the ones using the weapons?

Obama should punish Assad even more if he were to let his chemical weapons get in civilians hands or even worse, terrorists hands.
 
Most of the world don't support punishing Assad because they believe we have no business over there. Most people don't understand the business over there can come to your home by way of terrorists. People aren't responsible for public safety but governments are and those governments should take action on Assad. Either he killed his own people or allowed his chemical weapons to get out of his hands. Even if he gives them up today, he will reacquire chemical weapons again and obviously he is capable of using them again or letting them get in the hands of people who hate you.

[Shadow]

The debate isn't about whether or not Assad used them, it's whether or not should he be punished for it. USA presented evidence to the UN. No country is protesting very hard against the evidence. It's pretty clear who made the call to use chemical weapons and then bomb the area to get rid of that evidence. Keep in mind, it was civilians that were targeted, not military soldiers. The last thing the rebels need is the civilians turning on them and supporting Assad.
 

You mean that the rebels have not killed, murdered and tortured civilians that support Assad? Get your head out of your ass.

Obama should punish Assad even more if he were to let his chemical weapons get in civilians hands or even worse, terrorists hands.
 

His weapons ? How about the weapons supplied by the CIA to the rebels?
How about the ones they received from Turkey?

Seems you are still as gullible as ever.

Most of the world don't support punishing Assad because they believe we have no business over there. Most people don't understand the business over there can come to your home by way of terrorists. People aren't responsible for public safety but governments are and those governments should take action on Assad. Either he killed his own people or allowed his chemical weapons to get out of his hands. Even if he gives them up today, he will reacquire chemical weapons again and obviously he is capable of using them again or letting them get in the hands of people who hate you.

Sure. Bomb Assad just because someone decided to start a rebellion against him.
And while you are busy bomb Turkey as well, as people are protesting there. And Egypt. And Bahrein. And Iraq. And Afghanistan.

Hell just nuke the whole Middle East.

[BillyB]

You mean that the rebels have not killed, murdered and tortured civilians that support Assad? Get your head out of your ass.

Don't get upset. Not everyone against Assad is a rebel, some are terrorists. You're lumping all Syrians who simply want freedom and a peaceful life with murders, rapists, and terrorists. That is wrong and twists how you view the situation. I got news for you. In every American war, or any war in history for that matter, there are rapes, murder, and torture but a few people's actions doesn't dictate the goal of the war. Assad on the other hand is in charge and his military will do what he says whether to fight clean or dirty.
 

His weapons ? How about the weapons supplied by the CIA to the rebels?
How about the ones they received from Turkey?

Shadow, FACT, the world is not a pretty place. After WW2 America didn't do much to stop Communism. We liberated China, Vietnam and Korea for example and the Soviets armed the right people and turned them against us. Eastern Europe went Communist.
 
If you don't arm friends, you'll have no friends. I'm sure lots of countries in Europe have American military hardware. Is that a bad thing? You survive better than most people in the world today and have the freedom to speak your mind yet you don't understand some of the reasons, even the ugly ones, that make that possible. Some of the rebels want what you want. Freedom. You've had it so long you forgot how valuable it is.
 
All throughout history there are dictators and countries that want to take over other countries. It will never end. Those countries who consists of pacifists or refuse to fight to curb the behavior of tyrants don't exist in history very long. For the time being, they're lucky America is around. There's no doubt in my mind we will come to help you more than you will come to help us.