Bharat Rakshak

If America decides to put its plans to attack on hold, which is looking increasingly likely, it will only make that anger worse, highlighting fundamental differences between the view on the ground and that in Western capitals.

Disagreement between the U.S. and Russia, the difficulty of cleaning up chemical weapons in a war zone, and other reasons Damascus's latest promise might not be fulfilled.

Foreign-policy watchers may have experienced a collective case of whiplash today when, as the threat of punitive U.S. strikes neared, the Syrian government appeared to accept a plan to contain and destroy its chemical weapons and to sign a convention against using them.

This from a government that has blamed a years-long civil war on undefined “terrorists” and repeatedly denied having -- let alone using -- chemical weapons. Here’s the AP:

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen TV that Syria would place it chemical weapons locations in the hands of representatives of Russia, "other countries" and the United Nations. He promised that his country would also declare the chemical arsenal it long denied having, stop producing such weapons and sign conventions against them.

Though this seems on the surface like good news -- and it might end up being just that -- experts say massive obstacles remain in Western nations’ attempt to curtail Assad’s chemical weapons use.

“Nothing is over, nothing is finished,” said Robin Wright, a Middle East scholar at the United States Institute of Peace and the Wilson Center. “There are still huge questions that could unravel this moment of hope.”

Here are the three biggest issues still in the way:

1) It’s going to be really hard to find and destroy all of the weapons.
In the 1990s, the UN spent eight years attempting to uncover all of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (this is back when Saddam Hussein actually had them, and shortly after he used them to gas Kurds). But as Brookings’ Mike Doran told the Washington Post’s Max Fisher, dictators don’t always fork over their most valued weapons as eagerly as we might hope:

Back in the 1990s, we had an agreement, we had leverage, and we had a U.N. team that went around Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. But still, Saddam impeded the monitors. He lied and cheated. He played a shell game — moving stuff out the back door of warehouses while the inspectors were pounding on the front door to come in. All the while, in the United Nations, the Russians played lawyer for the defendant.

This time, it might be even harder, since there’s an active civil war going on, Assad hasn’t shown himself to be a willing partner at any other point in the conflict, and he hasn’t even admitted to having chemical weapons.

“How do you go about in a combat zone accounting for the chemical weapons program, conducting on-site destruction, and removing the stuff when combat is swirling around?” Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me.

2) The international community still disagrees on what to do about Syria.

Earlier today, Russia rejected a French plan for destroying Syrian chemical weapons because it had an enforcement mechanism. Throughout the crisis, Russia and China have obstructed all U.S. efforts to take action against Assad.

Putin also reiterated today that the plan to bring Syria’s chemical weapons under international control will only go forward if the U.S. rules out the use of force, just days after U.S. officials were lobbying Congress for authorization to pursue a strike on Syrian military targets.

Finding and collecting chemical weapons will require a large, cohesive international effort, but the UN Security Council has disagreed sharply on how to handle Syria so far.

In order for the proposal to go through, Russia might demand the U.S. stop arming the Syrian rebels, for example, something the Obama administration is not likely to agree to.

3) Assad will still have conventional weapons at his disposal, and he’s going to continue using them on civilians.

The main reason chemical weapons are banned in almost every country is that they inflict horrific, indiscriminate death, on civilians in particular, to a disproportionate degree. But Assad and his army still have plenty of tanks, missiles, artillery, and regular guns:

In fact, just after the announcement that Syria agreed to the chemical weapons ban, Brookings’ Doran tweeted a story about Putin shipping Assad additional conventional weapons to help him prevail over the rebels.

“99 percent of the people who have died in Syria were the result of conventional weaponry,” Wright said. “This is not going to end the war.”

WASHINGTON — A deal allowing President Bashar Assad to surrender Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles runs the risk of extending his stay in power and undercutting support of rebels who have been fighting his regime with U.S. support, some analysts say.

"Assad is going to come out of this stronger," said Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council official who is now a professor at Penn State.

<snip>

Analysts say the risk is that Russia and Syria will be tough negotiators who will use the talks as an attempt to build protection for Assad in return for giving up his regime's chemical weapons, attempting to trade chemical weapons for allowing Assad to stay in power.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has served as Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations and understands the institution well, Leverett said. He has a reputation as a tough negotiator.

The process of removing Assad's chemical weapons could take years, giving Assad and his Russian allies time. The destruction of Libya's main chemical stockpiles were only completed this year, nearly 10 years after Moammar Gadhafi said he would relinquish his nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles.

During that time, Assad will likely be able to continue battling rebels while dealing with weapons inspectors and attempting to consolidate his power.

"In a sense it gives the regime permission to fire as much as it wants" if it doesn't use chemical weapons, said Jeffrey White, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Defense Intelligence Agency official

<snip>

Analysts say rebels would be hard pressed to shift the balance of power without outside intervention. "They can't win on the battlefield," Leverett said of the rebels.

The two sides have been fighting more than two years in a bloody stalemate that has led to 100,000 deaths.

The removal of chemical weapons would probably not significantly hurt Assad's ability to take the fight to the opposition, which is considerably fractured and lacks the ability to coordinate attacks, analysts said.

"Assad doesn't need chemical weapons," Leverett said. "In the last few months he's been doing pretty well against the opposition."

<snip>

Jonah Blank, an analyst at Rand Corp., a think tank with long ties to the military, pointed out that the United States negotiated with Moammar Gadhafi in 2003 over the removal of chemical weapons but he was later deposed in 2011 with help from the United States.

"We struck a deal with Moammar Gadhafi (but) that did not prevent us from removing him from power," Blank said.

The total world declared stockpile of chemical weapons was about 30,308 tons in early 2010.[11] A total of 71,315 tonnes of agents, 8.67 million munitions and containers, and 70 production facilities were declared to OPCW before destruction activities began. In addition, several countries that are not members are suspected of having chemical weapons, especially Syria and North Korea, while some member states (including Sudan and the People's Republic of China) have been accused by others of failing to disclose their stockpiles.

By May 2012, a total of 50,619 tonnes or 71.10% of declared chemical weapons (of Category 1, which is the main category) had been destroyed as well as all Category 3 declared chemicals. Category 2 remained at 52% complete. More than 45% (3.95 million) of chemical munitions and containers have been destroyed. (Treaty confirmed destruction totals often lag behind state-declared totals.) Only about 50% of countries had passed the required legislation to outlaw participation in chemical weapons production.

Three state parties, Albania (included 16,678 kilograms of mustard agent, lewisite, adamsite, and chloroacetophenone), an unspecified state party (widely believed to be South Korea) and India have completed the destruction of their stockpiles. Russia and the United States, which declared the largest amounts of chemical weapons, are in the process of destruction and have processed 57% and 90% of their respective stockpiles. The deadline set for both countries of April 2012, however, was not met. Libya has started destruction and has destroyed 54.46% of its stockpile (as well as 39.64% of its Category 2 chemical weapons). Iraq has yet to start destruction. Japan and China have started in October 2010 the destruction of chemical weapons abandoned by Japan in China by means of mobile destruction units and reported destruction of 35,203 chemical weapons (75% of the Nanjing stockpile).

Expected complications with the Iraq stockpile[edit source | edit]When Iraq joined the CWC in 2009, it declared "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[15] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned. Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were previously destroyed under a United Nations reduction program after the 1991 Gulf War. Approximately five hundred degraded chemical munitions have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a report of the US National Ground Intelligence Center. These weapons contained sarin and mustard agents but were so badly corroded that they could not have been used as originally intended.

Financial support for destruction[edit source | edit]Financial support for the Albanian and Libyan stockpile destruction programmes was provided by the United States. Russia received support from a number of nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Canada; some $2 billion given by 2004. Costs for Albania's program were approximately 48 million U.S. dollars. The U.S. had spent $20 billion and expected to spend a further $40 billion.

Known production facilities (of chemical weapons). Thirteen States Parties have declared chemical weapons production facilities.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Russia
Serbia
United Kingdom
United States

1 non-disclosed state party (referred to as "A State Party" in OPCW-communications; said to be South Korea)

As of the end of March 2012, all 70 declared facilities had been deactivated and 92% (64) have been certified
as destroyed or converted to civilian use. In 2009, Iraq declared five production sites which were put out of commission by damage in the 1991 and 2003 wars; OPCW inspections were still required.

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) grilled Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria during his appearance before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. The exchange quickly got testy as the two men argued over the administration’s pending military strike against the war-torn nation accused of using chemical weapons.

After being asked if any potential military strikes should be put on hold, Kerry pointed out that the Senate already delayed the vote on its Syria resolution on Monday night. Miller argued the Senate only delayed the resolution because there weren’t enough votes to pass it. “You know that,” the lawmaker said.

“Actually, no I don’t,” Kerry replied.

“Well, I do,” Miller shot back.

“Well, I’m glad you know something. I think, this should not be a political discussion,” Kerry responded.

Miller said he was not talking politics, but telling the “truth” about why the Senate hit the brakes on the use-of-force resolution. However, his comments only further riled up the secretary of state.

“Do you want to play politics here or do you want to get a policy in place? The policy that can be put in place is to try to get this particular option of getting control of chemical weapons in place,” Kerry lectured. “If you want to undermine that, then play the politics.”


Miller then had to ask the chairman of the committee to limit the witness’ answers to the questions asked as Kerry talked over him.

When asked what he meant when he said the strike on Syria would be “incredibly small,” Kerry explained it would be small in comparison to military action in places like Iraq. “It’s not a years war,” he said.

Kerry also argued that the existence of chemical weapons in an unstable Syria threatens the security of the United States. But Rep. Miller quickly noted that North Korea has an even larger stockpile of chemical weapons and asked if the U.S. planned to strike that country as well.

“But you really don’t want answers, do you?” Kerry said after explaining that the administration is currently engaged in serious efforts to limit chemical weapons in North Korea.

“This is not the Senate. We do not filibuster here,” Miller shot back after a tense back-and-forth.

“I’m trying to give you an answer,” Kerry said.

habal wrote:Finally US has found something resembling a normal human to question Kerry.
But transforming himself into a simian, Kerry jumps from tree to tree to avoid getting caught.

Rudradev wrote:The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

partha wrote:Austinji, mind boggling display of double standards by some people in US, no? People who demonized Bush for Iraq war now want Obama to start a war in Syria because Assad allegedly gassed his people to death. It looks like they don't remember that Saddam too gassed his people to death.

pankajs wrote:Francois Hollande: David Cameron committed 'schoolboy error' on Syria

harbans wrote:Obama is playing Putin here..

Theo_Fidel wrote:

Rudradev wrote:The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Rudradev wrote:

Theo_Fidel wrote:That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Didn't I tell you all to "wait for it"?

Really interesting view of Kashmir history here by the way. The assertion being made is that India "de-fanged" Kashmir BY "democratizing" it. The underlying assumption is that Kashmir, at some point after independence, (a) was not democratized (b) had "fangs" (I presume this means "was in rebellion") (c) these "fangs" needed to be "de-fanged" BY "democratizing" it.

On the contrary, Kashmir was democratized the second Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession. At that stage there were no "fangs". The populace was quite uniformly pro-India, and even remained pro-India despite the Pakis' best efforts to foment revolt in 1965. Incidents like Hazratbal agitation, Maqbool Butt etc. were flashes in the pan. It was only in 1989, i.e. after 42 years of being "democratized", that separatist terrorism began to dominate the Kashmiri political landscape in a sustained way. What was there to "de-fang" before this?

Lemurian history, surely. Also, by the way, exactly matching the view of one Robin Raphel of the US State Dept. In 1993, an MEA babu tried to explain to her that J&K militancy problem was because of the influx of jihadis from Pakistan. Raphel responded by saying: why don't you (Indians) realize the people of Cash-mere don't want you there?

Very Lemurian response. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves Pakis of any role in sending terrorists to Kashmir, by putting the blame on India for not paying attention to the will of the people (who had enjoyed democratic governance for nearly five decades by then.)

Theo_Fidel wrote:

Rudradev wrote:The Southern Baptists of Lemuria have spoken. ^

Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria BECAUSE Bashar refuses to go. Just like the LeT infiltrating into Kashmir "because India refuses to go."

That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.

I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Rudradev wrote:Syria was a French colonial possession, so they want their influence to persist rather than be replaced by US/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Saxon proxies. After the intervention in Mali (another former French colony) went well, they feel encouraged to throw their weight around.

ramana wrote:

Rudradev wrote:Syria was a French colonial possession, so they want their influence to persist rather than be replaced by US/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Saxon proxies. After the intervention in Mali (another former French colony) went well, they feel encouraged to throw their weight around.

Not really. Syria was a League of Nations mandate territory to France after WWI.
The minortiy Alawites were cultivated/groomed by the France to take power after they got independence.

France wants to assert its rights of "droit signeur" in Syria and not let it fall into US hands.

nageshks wrote:

Karan M wrote:The Syria war has brought out the hypocrisy of the US when it comes to the ME in stark detail. They want Assad out as KSA and Israel, the two Amrikkan allies want him out. All the rest is a charade. As if the US cares about chem weapons after having supported Saddam, firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, plus nuked other countries.

Karan-ji,
I am not sure what the government of Israel thinks - they have maintained an ambivalent stance. I suspect it is the feeling that they are going to have a problem in the north no matter the outcome that keeps them ambivalent. But the Hebrew press has been divided, on the lines of the leftists (Haaretz) wanting to bomb Syria and the right (Jerusalem Post) wanting to keep their hands off the mess.

ramana wrote:Putin's gambit has saved Syria for now. But need to see how long Assad is able to stay in power and consolidate the state. This will turn the jihadis on their sponsors.

Austin wrote:As was expecting from this crises , Putin has allowed the sale of more advanced S-300VM to Iran

Russia called the terms of delivery of S-300 to Iran
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/09/11/s300/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken a policy decision, which will have to resolve the conflict between Moscow and Tehran regarding the delivery of anti-aircraft missile systems S-300. According to the newspaper "Kommersant" quoted a source close to the Kremlin, according to the decision, Russia will supply Iran with five battalions of S-300VM "Antey-2500", but on the condition that Tehran will withdraw a lawsuit against the "Rosoboronexport" for the failure of the previous contract.

According to the newspaper, Tehran is likely to agree to supply a set of "Antey-2500". Earlier, Iranian Ambassador to Russia Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi said that Moscow could offer Tehran anti-aircraft missile systems, "which are able to cover our territory in the framework of the plan" and that will suit the Iranian side on the cost and time of delivery, "we could be flexible." It should be noted that the S-300VM prohibitions under the UN and Russia to supply not covered.

Very interesting. The Russians under US pressure, previously backed off for support for IRIAF MiGs. If Putin reverses that, the Iranians may actually get some deterrence. In the merry go round world we live in, if Israel picks up techniques against S-3XX class missiles, perhaps the IAF can benefit as well.. we face a similar (though different class PMU1/2) threat with PRC.

The new S-300VM as was sold to Venezuela has a range of 350 km
http://samoletchik.livejournal.com/63876.html

Karan M wrote: Nagesh sir, the Syrian Govt is the primary supporter of Hezbollah. Getting Assad off, means one H of the two H (Hez, Hamas) which torment Israel are gone, reduced. IMHO thats the main motive they'd be happy with having Assad gone, after a fratricidal war in which Syria becomes a weak shadow of itself or a quasi US protectorate which will keep a peace with Israel, however tendentious. Having said that, I dont decry Israels strategic needs, but just pointing out how selective the US is when it comes to deciding who is good or who is bad.
PS:If you can read Hebrew, would appreciate you posting in the mil forum about any news, that you may come across, on Indo-Israel mil deals and cooperation.

VikasRaina wrote:What is France's dog in this fight I wonder.
Neither they have the power nor the stomach nor the bravery required for taming Syria and Assad. They don't even have any strategic interests in the region (I mean any more than say India or Japan or China). Is it an attempt to show that they have balls by inflating their gall bladder ?
France is trying to punch way above their weight. Maybe they too want to prove their loyalty to Massa.

Karan M wrote: Nagesh sir, the Syrian Govt is the primary supporter of Hezbollah. Getting Assad off, means one H of the two H (Hez, Hamas) which torment Israel are gone, reduced. IMHO thats the main motive they'd be happy with having Assad gone, after a fratricidal war in which Syria becomes a weak shadow of itself or a quasi US protectorate which will keep a peace with Israel, however tendentious. Having said that, I dont decry Israels strategic needs, but just pointing out how selective the US is when it comes to deciding who is good or who is bad.
PS:If you can read Hebrew, would appreciate you posting in the mil forum about any news, that you may come across, on Indo-Israel mil deals and cooperation.

How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Side With the Russians (and Assad, Sort Of)

Senate shelves resolution on military strike against Syria, deferring to diplomacy

Diplomats push ahead on plan for Syria's chemical weapons

Putin Seizes on Syria to Cement Russia Middle East Sway


How the Syria plan broke through, just in time

America exhales in relief over Syria airstrikes it didn't want

Karan M wrote:

ramana wrote:Putin's gambit has saved Syria for now. But need to see how long Assad is able to stay in power and consolidate the state. This will turn the jihadis on their sponsors.

Is this the continuation of the Shia-Sunni fight all over again?

AlQ+ FSA/ Sunnis+ Chechens + Iraqis/assorted Islamists on one side versus the Syrian Army, Iranian Army and Hezbollah on the other.

I wonder what the Russians are doing in terms of weapons, training and techniques.

Rudradev wrote:So again, I point out the coincidence. The very same argument is being made today against Assad. It's a pure strawman: automatically absolves GCC, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. of any role in sending terrorists to Syria, by putting the blame on Assad for not "democratizing."

Theo_Fidel wrote:I called you on it, that Kashmir is democratic and so is a stable situation.

Dan Roberts in Washington and Julian Borger in London
theguardian.com, Wednesday 11 September 2013 20.20 BST

Jay Carney said: 'The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant.' Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

The US has welcomed what it called "very specific" Russian proposals to secure the handover of Syria's chemical weapons before key talks in Geneva on Thursday.

Placing its faith in Moscow's leverage over its Syrian ally, the White House urged patience and said it was increasingly confident that its Kremlin partners were acting in good faith by "putting their prestige on the line".

"We have seen more co-operation from Russia in the last two days than we have heard in the last two years," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

"The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant."

The sudden thaw in White House attitudes toward Russia has met with scepticism in Washington, where many see it as an excuse for Barack Obama to avoid defeat in Congress over military action against Syria. A speech by Obama to the American people on Wednesday night was criticised by hawkish Republicans after it called for a suspension of Senate attempts to pass a resolution authorising US strikes.

But the White House insisted the Russian offer was genuine, and a direct result of the pressure it had put on Syria. "There is no question that the credible threat of US force helped bring us to this point," Carney said. "By making this proposal Russia has, to its credit, put its prestige on the line when it comes to a close ally".

Separate discussions over a UN security council resolution were taking place in New York. The talks in Geneva between John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov will not cover the wording of any resolution. But the US tried to play down a potential rift over whether it should contain the threat of military action if Syria fails to comply.

The White House hinted the Geneva talks would go on for at least two days, and refused to discuss the Russian proposal which it received on Wednesday.

"Each side will bring technical experts so I will expect this will take some time," Carney said. "There are communications ongoing and papers exchanged but we are not at the stage of putting out a public piece of paper."

The talks will need to resolve differences between western powers and Russia over whether the disarmament process should be backed by a threat of force if the Syrian government reneges on the timetable.

Diplomats also said that it was unikely that a UN security council vote would take place before the publication of a report by UN weapons inspectors on the suspected chemical weapons attack in rebel-held eastern Damascus on 21 August. That report is expected some time next week.

Meanwhile, US, British and French diplomats continued to meet at the UN headquarters on Wednesday to discuss a French draft resolution that would give Bashar al-Assad's regime 15 days to produce an "exhaustive, complete and definitive declaration of the locations, amount and types of all items related to its chemical warfare programme".

The draft, according to a copy obtained by Reuters, would then order "immediate on-site inspections of Syria's chemical, biological and related vehicles". The full security council was due to meet later on Wednesday.

The Syrian government has acknowledged it agreed with Russia that it would sign the 1993 chemical weapons convention, deliver a full declaration of its arsenal and its locations, and provide access to UN, Russian and other inspectors.

Kerry said that the US was still pushing for a UN resolution to bolster the plan and which would punish Syria if it delayed or broke off the disarmament process. But he indicated he was prepared to listen to the Russian point of view.

"We need a full resolution from the security council in order to have confidence that this has the force that it ought to have. That's our belief, and obviously the Russians are at a slightly different place. We'll have to see where we get to. I'm not going to negotiate this out in public," the secretary of state said in answer to questions on an online chat forum.

The president of France, François Hollande, also signalled flexibility on the wording of a resolution. A statement from the presidency, released after a meeting of Hollande's defence council, said: "The president emphasised France's determination to explore all avenues at the United Nations security council, in order to enable actual and verifiable control of the chemical weapons present in Syria as soon as possible."

France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, is due in Moscow next Tuesday to discuss the issue with Lavrov and may visit Beijing on Monday for talks with the Chinese government, which has been non-committal on France's draft resolution.

In a televised address to the American people on Tuesday night, Obama laid a path towards a possible diplomatic resolution to the impasse, He pledged to work directly but insisted military strikes remained a possibility.

However, in what were his most doveish remarks since his administration began briefing two weeks ago that a strike was imminent, Obama said he would wait for the United Nations inspectors to complete their report on the 21 August chemical attacks outside Damascus before taking further action. He said there were "encouraging signs" of a political resolution.

In London, officials revealed that Britain approved the export to Syria of more chemicals that could be used to make sarin, a powerful nerve agent, than had previously been acknowledged.

Five export licences were approved for the sale of more than 4,000kg of sodium fluoride between 2004 and 2010. They were on top of exports approved last year of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride under licences but subsequently revoked on the grounds they could be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of weapons.

The five licences were revealed by Vince Cable, the business secretary, in a letter to Sir Robert Stanley, chairman of the Commons committee on export controls.

Additional reporting by Paul Lewis in Washington

Rudradev wrote:
Added later: now wait for the standard Lemurian strawman "how can you compare India to a genocidal tyrant like Assad" etc. Note that my argument doesn't compare India and Assad- it merely points out that the same rhetorical justifications have been, and will be used against both India and Assad by the same people- regardless of the truth.

Theo_Fidel wrote:
I said democratize. If India resorted to one man rule the country would spin out off control as well.
The key way India de-fanged kashmir was by democratizing it over the objections of idea free, comprehension lacking right wing crowd that floats through here.

Theo_Fidel wrote: Comparing Syria to Kashmir is classic. ‘I don’t know what to say so I’m going to shoot myself in the foot’. At then pretend no one noticed. I called you on it, that Kashmir is democratic and so is a stable situation. There is no comparison between Kashmir and Syria. No amount of big word spewing is going to change this. How hard is this to understand. My opinion is stop making ridiculous comparisons and scoring own goals in the process.

Theo_Fidel wrote: Al Qaeda is infiltrating Syria because Bashar refuses to go.

Theo_Fidel wrote: Despite your spinning like a top to avoid the issue with empty headed ignorant allegations and big big words.

Theo_Fidel wrote: That is just stupid. A failure to read simple english.
.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday drew a contrast between Syrian President Bashir Assad and his late father and predecessor, and said U.S. lawmakers who recently have visited Damascus regarded him as a “reformer.”

She made the startling comment while explaining why the United States will not intervene on behalf of Syrian civilians revolting against the regime as it has done in the case of Libya.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, the interviewer, noted that the president’s father, Hafez Assad, had “killed 25,000 people at a lick” – a reference to the crushing of an Islamist revolt in the town of Hama in 1982 – and said the regime now was firing at civilians with live ammunition.

“Why is that different from Libya?” he asked.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now,” Clinton said. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

A regular visitor to Damascus is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has met with Assad at least six times, most recently last November.

Kerry was a strong supporter of the Obama administration’s decision to re-engage the Assad regime and to send an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years. He has also taken an interest in prodding Syria and Israel towards peace talks.

In a March 16 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on U.S. policy in the light of what he called “the new Arab awakening,” Kerry referred to the situation in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Oman and Lebanon.

There was not a single reference in the speech to Syria, however.

When Kerry was asked about Syria during a question-and-answer session afterwards, he voiced optimism about the direction relations were taking.

“I have been a believer for some period of time that we could make progress in that relationship,” he said. “And I’m going to continue to work for it and push it.”

“President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,” Kerry continued. “And when I last went to – the last several trips to Syria – I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

He mentioned some of the requests, including the purchase of land for the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the opening of an American cultural center, non-interference in Lebanon’s election and the improvement of ties with Iraq and Bahrain, and said Assad had met each one.

“So my judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”


Kerry said nothing about the need for internal reform in Syria.

In contrast, Kerry early this month was an outspoken advocate for the administration to act in Libya, describing Gaddafi as “a mad man bent on maintaining power” and saying the U.S. should lead the world in preventing the slaughter of more Libyan civilians.