"This is not a game. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. Finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn't take place."The Russians and Syrians are beginning with the assertion that it cannot be done under threat of airstrikes from the U. S.
It seems to me that the compromise position should be: There will be no airstrikes from the U.S. as long as Kerry's criteria are met. Getting there will be difficult.
On the other hand, look where we are compared to last week.
(1) Even if nothing comes of this Russian-Syrian offer, they have both acknowledged that Syria does possess chemical weapons. (2) It's hard to avoid seeing this as the direct result of the threat of airstrikes by the U.S. (3) It vindicates President Obama's position and his way of getting there. (4) Russia and the U.S. are now cooperating; and, if Syria should default on its agreement, Russia will be our ally instead of our opponent. (5) We have the basis for an improved relationship between us and Russia.
All of that adds up to a major accomplishment that didn't seem possible just one week ago.
What Republicans called dithering and weakness now looks like agility and willingness to change as events change. Obama now looks prudent and smart, compared to the stubborn, misguided certitude and inflexibility of George Bush.
Ralph
So, if this works, it takes care of chemical weapons. But that is a very small part of the problem with Assad's government.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the conventional weapons that have killed up to 100,000 and displaced millions? Is that just going to continue as we look away.
Will compliance with this give a semblance of approval for everything else?