Charlie Rose

Gelles  04/26/2013 09:36 AM Report

Policing Syria under a major peace initiative seems out of reach from where we are. Would Russia be satisfied with and America partner and a guaranteed warm water port? They would if they trusted America.

Would America be satisfied with a Russian partner and a future inclusion of China and India in a deal to prevent great wars and endless tyranny? We would if we trusted Russia.

So what is the problem?

The problem is a lack of trust that Obama is uniquely capable of bringing about. But he will have to be blunt about his objectives. A treaty with Israel to defend Israel would be a sensible part this package. Russia would join to make it clear a future Holocaust and slaughter of Jews is out of the question.

None of the above seems imminent. But the issues are not opaque.

Gelles  04/26/2013 09:22 AM Report

REMant worries that America may become too active too soon in opposing Russia in Syria. He sees red lines as a trap we have to get out of.

He has a point.

The problem seems to be that Russia is there and they are willing to risk the death of millions just to confront America in the Middle East.

The solution is to send Biden to Russia to get a deal that protects Russia and America from unintended consequences.

Why is Obama reluctant to join Russia and America in a common peace offensive that will police Syria and prevent further disintegration's of Middle East civilization.

This interview with Rogers helps much in the direction we ought to be moving.

REMant  03/21/2013 12:20 PM Report

Real discussion, my posterior! This guy is hawking the old "no-fly zone" gambit, or worse, suggesting we launch cruise missiles against the regime ourselves. These friends to mankind are trying to resurrect discredited WMD hysteria, and take advantage of the president's hopes for disarmament. Some intelligence. Either he's been brainwashed, or he's a complete loss to humanity.

I don't think the fact that this charge is being made as the president appears for news conferences in Tel Aviv should be lost sight of, either. It's Israel supporting these claims, too. And I would not be surprised, that, if any were used, Mossad used them.

Yesterday, Bashar Ja'afari, Syria's UN ambassador, told reporters the regime was requesting Ban Ki Moon to "form a specialized, independent and neutral technical mission to investigate the use by the terrorist groups operating in Syria of chemical weapons yesterday against civilians in the town of Khan al-Assad in Aleppo." He noted the Syrian government had already warned the UN that rebels might use chemical weapons and then try to blame the regime, as in many other such instances past two years, which have faked reports of this sort.

"The Syrian government, if it has such weapons, will never use them against its own population," Ja'afari said. He also noted that his regime was party to myriad UN treaties on weapons of mass destruction and that it had previously proposed a ban on WMD throughout the Middle East - a measure BTW apparently blocked by this country in Israel's interest.

The Russians echoed the claims of Syrian officials, tho expressing concern of the charge, and accused the rebels of using ammunition "containing a poisonous substance" that killed at least 16 and wounded another 100.

The US has already spent $500 million to support the rebels and House Democrats are asking for $150 million more, in part for weapons. We have been training them in Jordan for some time.

In 2007 Wesley Clark reported a Pentagon plan to invade not only Iraq and Somalia, but Libya and Syria and three other countries as well, so I am not at all certain this entire episode hasn't been contrived as the regime has repeatedly charged.