Syrian Gov't Agrees To Russian Chem-Weapon Turnover Plan 362
CNN reports that at least for now we may be able to set aside the question of whether and under what authority the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria, a question that's dominated the news for the last few weeks. From the report:
"Facing the threat of a U.S. military strike, the country's leaders Tuesday reportedly accepted a Russian proposal to turn over its chemical weapons. ... The development, reported by Syrian state television and Russia's Interfax news agency, came a day after the idea bubbled up in the wake of what appeared to be a gaffe by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. It quickly changed the debate in Washington from 'Should the U.S. attack?' to 'Is there a diplomatic way out of this mess?' Syrian Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday his country had agreed to the Russian proposal after what Interfax quoted him as calling 'a very fruitful round of talks' with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday. Details of such a transfer have yet to be worked out, such as where the arms would go, who would safeguard them and how the world could be sure Syria had handed over its entire stockpile of chemical weapons."
Re:Sounds promising (Score:1, Informative)
Let's not act like Russia and Syria couldn't have been together on this from the beginning. Russia has proven rather adept at making America come across as the fool we are, recently. Just think back to the fake story about the Brazilian president's plane being ordered to land because of Snowden, by the USA? . . . that never happened, if you listen to the actual audio (which, strangely, no news organization ever bothered to play).
As an American, I find it all rather amusing. Finally time for us to look as stupid and impotent as we actually are.
Re:So now what's the new conspiracy theory? (Score:2, Informative)
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons
They said no such thing. The fact that Syria has chemical weapons was never in doubt.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
In a further development, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
So according to Russia, at least, this didn't come out of nowhere. It's been planned for a little bit. The reporter may have even been a planted question, a trial balloon for the official announcement.
Re: Sounds promising (Score:5, Informative)
It is, in fact, accurate. A lie is a false statement told knowingly with intent to deceive. A false statement told unknowingly is merely a mistake. Repeating a particularly significant false statement without verifying its truthfulness is a big mistake, of course, and at a certain point, you might even conclude the person is guilty of willful ignorance, at which point it might arguably be considered a lie, but as a general rule, without the intent to deceive, a false statement is not a lie.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-cbs-reporter-margaret-brennan-responsible-for-current-proposal-on-syria/ [mediaite.com]
Is CBS Reporter Margaret Brennan Responsible for Current Proposal on Syria?
by Andrew Kirell | 12:09 pm, September 10th, 2013 VIDEO
It was one of those moments for which every journalist strives. A simple question posed to a public figure led to a major shift in policy.
When CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan asked Secretary of State John Kerry if there is anything Bashar al-Assad‘s Syrian regime could do or offer that would stop a U.S. military strike, she likely did not expect for Kerry to respond with the “hypothetical” heard ’round the world.
“He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week,” Kerry responded, seemingly in jest. “Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Obviously it can’t be done and is not worth considering, right? After all, the State Department clarified that his statement was a “hypothetical.” Except, later that day, Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark became the foundation for a major Russian proposal: Assad hands over his chemical weapons stockpile to the international community and the U.S. military strikes.
Hours later, President Obama conceded to NBC News that this new Russian proposal-via-offhand-Kerry-remark could represent “a significant breakthrough,” signaling a shift in U.S. policy from trying to obtain congressional approval for military strikes to a U.N. Security Council resolution involving the overturning of chemical weapons.
While major questions remain as to whether Syria could realistically hand over chemical weapons stockpiles while in the midst of a bloody civil war; or whether this proposal represents a stalling by all sides until the next Assad “red line”-crossing; this much is clear: A single question from a tough-minded journalist provoked a bumbling remark from a major policy official — a remark that has, for the time being, significantly altered the course of this ongoing tension and effectively delayed the use of American military assets against the Syrian regime.
Take note, aspiring journalists.
Watch Brennan’s history-making exchange with Kerry below, as captured raw by CNBC:
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I'm no rocket expert. But there's a diagram in the linked report of the remnants of the 330mm rocket, and it makes a pretty convincing case that the rocket was loaded with chemical weapons and not with explosives.
Jane's did an analysis and basically concluded that the rockets could be chemical, Fuel Air Explosive, or conventional explosive with equal plausibility without any reason to conclude one was more likely than the other. FAE and some conventional explosives can evaporate/dissipate thus the hollow area that humanrights watch is claiming is chemical -can equally likely be the fuel for a fuel air explosive or a conventional explosive.
http://www.janes.com/article/26414/syrian-military-allegedly-used-makeshift-rockets-in-chemical-attack [janes.com]
Re:Sounds promising (Score:2, Informative)
If you look at the map of Syria, what you see is that all Assad has left is a crescent-shaped piece in the northwest of the country between Damascus and Aleppo. The only link between them is a highway, and the rebels were threatening to cut that highway link. The chemical attack was precisely targeted to push the rebels back from that highway so Assad could continue to maintain lines of supply and maneuver between Damascus and Aleppo. The attack also reopened the highway between Damascus and the airport.
Occam's Razor applies here: from a military standpoint, it makes perfect sense for the Assad regime to have made this carefully-targeted attack; from a military standpoint, it makes no sense for the rebels to make the attack at this place given that it is where they were about to sever the last link between Assad's two remaining strongpoints and keep him cut off from the airport.
The map is here, and this one tracks well with maps from multiple other sources. Aleppo is north and off the map, but you can see the highway leading to it; the airport is off the map to the southeast and you can see the road leading to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghouta_chemical_attack_map.svg