Skip to main content

Over at the New Republic, John Judis has published a piece in which he infers from Kerry's comments Obama's "true intentions."

Judis ultimately opines that there is "coherent strategy," though one slightly different from what has been reported.  

The main takeaway is that the military campaign is not merely meant to punish Assad or deter him and others from using chemical weapons, but also to affect the balance of power in Syria with the intention of leading to a political settlement.

The point of this diary is not to commend or disapprove of the strategy, but just to point it out (at least as implied by Kerry). Below the fold are the observations from Judis that I found particularly interesting (and less well reported).

I encourage you all to read the entire piece, but here are my snippets:

The goal of the military campaign, combined with aid to the opposition, would not be to defeat Assad. Instead, the war would be ended by an international negotiation in which Russians would play a very important role. Such a deal would eliminate any role in Syria’s future for jihadist elements, but it might include a role for allies of Assad, if not for Assad himself.
The Republican hawks on the committee seemed to envision a clear victory by the Free Syrian Army over Assad, but Kerry repeatedly said that the administration’s goal was a “negotiated settlement” that was based on the Geneva agreement of June 2012 that included the U.S. and Russia. “[T]he president is convinced, as I think everybody is, that there is no military solution, that ultimately, you want to get to Geneva, you want a negotiated settlement, and under the terms of Geneva One, there is an agreement which the Russians have signed onto, which calls for a transition government to be created with the mutual consent of the current regime and the opposition,” Kerry told Senator Jeanne Shaheen. “And that transition government will establish the rules of the road for the Syrian people to choose their new government.”
Several senators urged Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey to skewer the Russians for their threatened veto on the Security Council, but Kerry kept insisting that the Russians were essential to a future agreement on Syria. “Russia does not have an ideological commitment here. This is a geopolitical transactional commitment,” Kerry told Risch. “And our indications are, in many regards, that that's the way they view it, there may be more weapons to sell as a result of weapons sold, but it's not going to elicit some kind of major confrontation. Now, let me go further: They have condemned the use of chemical weapons, the Russians have. The Iranians have. And as the proof of the use becomes even more clear in the course of this debate, I think it is going to be very difficult for Iran or Russia to decide against all that evidence that there is something worth defending here.”
There was one area where Kerry seemed to tailor his words to his audience. Asked about the Syrian opposition and about fears that by getting rid of Assad, the administration would bring Islamists to power, Kerry portrayed the moderate elements in the opposition as being entirely in command. Asked by Senator Ron Johnson about al Qaeda’s role in the opposition, Kerry replied, “The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of Syria. And that's very critical.”
Kerry’s view of the opposition is probably closer to the more pessimistic view of which Dempsey expressed in a letter last month to Rep. Eliot Engel—one of Syria and the opposition riven by “historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues.” And he hinted as much when he described to Shaheen the alternative to a negotiated settlement. “The alternative is that you stand back and do nothing and Syria in fact implodes, becomes an enclave state, there are huge ungoverned spaces, al-Nusra, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, others become more of a threat to our friends in the region, and the region becomes much more of a sectarian conflagration.” The administration’s strategy assumes that in the absence of a negotiated settlement, the war would result finally in a partitioned Syria in which jihadists would enjoy a haven. And in pressing for authorization of a military strike against Syria for using chemical weapons, the administration is not merely aiming to punish Assad, but to bring Syria closer to a negotiated settlement.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Dropping bombs in the hope of a negotiated (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, hubcap, limpidglass, gustynpip

    settlement is a long shot.  The bombing campaign against Serbia, which lasted about 10 weeks, got them to withdraw from territory.  In this instance, there is no territory to withdraw from, but rather a civil war over who will have power.  So it's more like Vietnam, where the bombing lasted 8 years.  And we know how well the bombing worked in bringing about a negotiated settlement there.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:18:05 AM PDT

  •  Kerry calling Assad "Hitler of the Year" (0+ / 0-)

    seems to indicate Judis is full of it.  That precludes any further negotiation.

  •  Assad Gassed His Own People (0+ / 0-)

    He will never be trusted by his people again.  No, Assad had hundreds of chances to negotiate for peace in the last two years.  Instead he chose the last option of a dictator who has no plans ever to surrender and who thinks he can do whatever he wants by gassing his own people.  Turkey and Jordan want him gone.  The UN should quit protecting Assad and declare that the US has the right to go in and punish him.  I have always been on the side of the UN, but they are making a terrible error in backing Syria.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:34:35 AM PDT

    •  By Syria, you mean Assad? Because I think (0+ / 0-)

      we all back Syria.  If so, please explain how the UN is backing Assad.

    •  Yes. The rebels declared that they will never (0+ / 0-)

      negotiate with "the butcher" well before the chemical attacks happened. But that's emotional battlefield bravado.

      The rebels have suffered recent defeats, they're exhausted, they're beset by extremists on their flanks, and their people are facing winter in refugee camps.

      They are also utterly dependent on foreign aid for ammunition and supplies. They can be persuaded to join a cease-fire and negotiate with Damascus.

      Those negotiations will undoubtedly include demands that the Assad brothers to go... if they haven't already been toppled by a coup.

      A negotiated peace is the best chance to prevent "ethnic cleansing" of the Shia and Alawi communities, to keep the chem weapons under the control of military units, to return refugees to Syrian territory and to begin reconstruction sooner rather than later.

      I don't have a crystal ball. Neither does the President, but I do believe that this is his intention.

      I also believe that if circumstance will not allow this plan to succeed, he's capable of walking away from the conflict rather than escalating it.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site