Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[Admiral Yi]

So back to Square 1.

Yes.  You and the others seem to view that as a loss.  I don't see how it is.  It's not as if we're going to decomission 14 CVs and our entire B2 fleet 3 months from now.

[The Minsky Moment]

So back to Square 1.

Yes.  You and the others seem to view that as a loss.

No, I just don't view it as a gain.  And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.

[Admiral Yi]

No, I just don't view it as a gain.  And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.

Then we agree.  On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.

Now take it up with the people who are characterizing the move as a geopolitical disaster for the US.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, I just don't view it as a gain.  And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.

Then we agree.  On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.

The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be.  As a result of the President's blundering. 

[Admiral Yi]

The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be.  As a result of the President's blundering.

No disagreement with this statement.

[mongers]

No, I just don't view it as a gain.  And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.

Then we agree.  On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.

The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be. As a result of the President's blundering.

Indeed, but there are worse situations to be at the moment, like yet another war/entanglement in the middle east with unclear goals.

So the President's 'blundering', may have saved you from a rash response.  Of course in retrospect it might be seen as blundering of the worst kind or alternative a wise pause to take stock of the situation ?

[Berkut]

No, I just don't view it as a gain.  And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.

Then we agree.  On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.

The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be.  As a result of the President's blundering. 

Indeed. The status quo is that Syria used gas on their civilians after the US President said that would be intolerable, and no repercussion will come of it, and they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.

Other than that, this is a pretty good outcome.

Oh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Indeed, but there are worse situations to be at the moment, like yet another war/entanglement in the middle east with unclear goals.

So the President's 'blundering', may have saved you from a rash response.  Of course in retrospect it might be seen as blundering of the worst kind or alternative a wise pause to take stock of the situation ?

Put aside the issue of what is the best policy in the bigger scheme - interventionist or staying out.  What the President did was not an effective or sensible way of pursuing either of those policies.

[Phillip V]

http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21586292-kals-cartoon

[alfred russel]

Indeed. The status quo is that ... they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.

Wow...At that very least, I don't think that Syria knows that in the future chemical weapons against civilians is unlikely to draw any kind of response. I certainly don't know that.

[Admiral Yi]

That cartoon makes no sense.  US has not signed off on UNSC veto.

[mongers]

That cartoon makes no sense.  US has not signed off on UNSC veto.

I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa. 
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:

I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.

[Viking]

That cartoon makes no sense.  US has not signed off on UNSC veto.

I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa. 
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:

I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.

Part of the problem is that Putin (and Assad) are playning a zero sum game. Obama is trying to play a win win game. Putin and Assad are not looking for long term solutions to resolve substantive issues and differences between the nations to enable a movement to closer more productive relations, they are looking to maintain their personal prestige to re-enforce their political positions without provoking an actual detrimental response which would either demonstrate their weakness or force a humiliating surrender.

[Admiral Yi]

I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa. 
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:

I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.

Disagree.  Russia has till now made no overt moves to restrain Assad.

[Admiral Yi]

Part of the problem is that Putin (and Assad) are playning a zero sum game. Obama is trying to play a win win game. Putin and Assad are not looking for long term solutions to resolve substantive issues and differences between the nations to enable a movement to closer more productive relations, they are looking to maintain their personal prestige to re-enforce their political positions without provoking an actual detrimental response which would either demonstrate their weakness or force a humiliating surrender.

Agree, except the part about Obama's win-win.  Enforcing a ban on chemical weapons is not a win win.