The Syria seduction

Cal Thomas's picture

Expecting Syria to live up to an agreement between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for the cataloging, inspection, removal and eventual destruction or sequester of chemical weapons is a subtle seduction.

Why would a dictator like Bashar al-Assad relinquish his most potent weapon in the midst of a civil war? President Obama and his sycophants claim it was the threat of military action against Syria that focused Assad’s mind. That hardly seems credible after Kerry’s promise that any U.S. missile strike would be “unbelievably small.”

Tyrants have a poor record of living up to agreements. One hates to resurrect Adolf Hitler, but the Munich Agreement of 1938 serves as one of many examples. The agreement gave Nazi Germany the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, as long as Hitler agreed not to attempt to annex any other land. Hitler broke the pact in 1939 when he invaded Poland.

Also in 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression treaty known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, ensuring that the Soviet Union would stay out of the European war. That lasted until 1941 when Hitler invaded Russia.

At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin promised free elections in Poland, but soon broke that promise, leading to the Cold War.

People whose only scruples are keeping themselves in power are not about to honor agreements that could take that power away. Assad has been called a “war criminal.” He fits the definition, having reportedly slaughtered more than 100,000 Syrians, allegedly including more than 1,400 with chemical weapons. Millions more have fled the country. Assad has no future outside Syria, other than exile, a jail cell or the gallows.

It is conceivable Assad might move some of his chemical weapons to hiding places in other countries, or within Syria. Could the United States through satellite technology and other means discover such subterfuge, as it did when Soviet missiles were detected entering Cuba 50 years ago?

Perhaps, but remember that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his Kurdish population. After the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraqi forces were evicted from Kuwait, Saddam put on a public display in which at least some of his chemical weapons arsenal was destroyed.

In 2003, when President George W. Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq on the pretext that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was attempting to acquire more, none were found. Do we really believe Hussein destroyed them all?

According to a report in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, reprinted in Sunday’s Jerusalem Post, Syria moved “20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq.”

If true, that would have been the day after the agreement between the U.S. and Russia was announced. The Iraqi government denies it is assisting Syria in hiding chemical weapons. Who can be believed in the murky Middle East?

“Trust, but verify” was the slogan used by the Reagan administration when it came to promises made by the Soviet Union. That mantra should be updated in any dealings with Assad, as well as Iran: “Don’t trust and verify.”

The Obama administration is attempting to sell this deal with Russia as if it were on a par with the surrender documents ending World War II. As evil as those regimes were, the cruel dictators in the Middle East are at least their equals. That is why they can’t be trusted to live up to any promise not in their own interest.

Unless, of course, they are forced to do so through more international pressure than they are currently receiving and with a credible military option that is something larger than “unbelievably small.”

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] © 2013 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
By definition America is a Terrorist State

...

Washington Examiner wrote:

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."

Yes President Obama has the authority... But... do you have a problem with it?

I do..

America has a long history of cozying up to despotic groups.. Bin Laden was once an "Ally" too.

So why are we repeating the same old mistakes over and over and over?

My guess is we keep doing the same thing expecting different results.. Now what was that definition of insanity again?

So are you OK with aiding Terrorist and by definition becoming a Terrorist State? Do you care that these animals killed over 3000 Americans just 12 short years ago and we have a President that is arming them and giving aid just a few days away from the anniversary of that incident?

Folks it is called TREASON... and Obama needs to be charged and impeached.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
S. Lindsey

I totally agree with you. Obama is in way over his head and is looking for a way out of this mess. But his actions to date could have a bad result in the long run. Just as it did in the past.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
G35 for once I am almost at a loss for words....

...that this President would send arms to the very people that MURDERED 3000 Americans and then the rest of the Sheeple just keep munching on the grass...

Where is Jeff C, Gort, Dm and all of the other usual suspects...? Their silence is deafening...

Forget trying to get them to condemn the actions of our Government in Benghazi... Where are they on the over 300 stinger missiles that has gone missing that Stevens was looking for?

Hypocrites all....

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, are you hanging up

SLindsey, are you hanging up your Neocon hat? Have we finally discovered a county you didn’t want to invade? Are we witnessing your transformation from Global Warrior, to the Global Worrier!

Your lack of jingoism is truly amazing, keep up the good work!

See you in the funny papers red nose.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
S. Lindsey, Gort

Way to Gort. If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35Dude, you call that an

G35Dude, you call that an attack? I thought I praised SLindsey ‘,…for his good work.” Did you miss that part?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
How do you feel about arming Al Queda there Gort?

You ok with that... you must be because I saw nothing in your little rant to say you don't.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, If you’re for it,

SLindsey, If you’re for it, than I’m against it because, there’s no point of the Syrians going through the pain of a civil war only to have it taken away from them by armed terrorist militia elements like Al Qaeda among others. President Obama should do ‘background checks’ before he hands over any weapons, eh?

If you’re against it, then I’m for it because, every school boy knows the more guns we have in the hands of its citizens, the safer it will be for everyone. (According to you and the NRA anyway.)

You make the call !

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So with snark and sarcasim you again dodge the questions...

Not really surprised most Progressives fail to actually explain their beliefs simply because
doing so would clearly show how screwed up you really are..

So let's try it one more time there Gort and please try to focus... I will even put the question
in bold and caps so maybe while moving your lips to read you can figure it out....

DO YOU WANT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (That's us Gort)TO SUPPLY WEAPONS TO "REBELS" THAT HAVE
TIES/LINKS AND FIGHTERS ATTACHED TO AL QUEDA?

Part two...

IF YES, THEN WHY DO YOU FEEL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (That's us again Gort)SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN ANOTHER CIVIL WAR SINCE YOU
WHERE SO AGAINST IT WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT?

You know it is sort of like the question I finally got you to answer on spending... It took me 3 or 4 times
but I finally got you to say we can spend forever so I might have to ask this one more then once too...

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, I already gave you

SLindsey, I already gave you my answer on arming insurgents in Syria. My opinion on ‘if’ we should get involved in the civil war in Syria is this.

As a member of the “bleeding hearts society,” (and human race,) my natural inclination is to avoid war. However now that I read, you personally are against it, convinces me, more and more, it’s probably the right thing to do.

Besides, there is no “if” about it, we’re already involved. We have allies in the area and “cutting and running” would look bad to our friends and encourage our enemies in the region, would it not?

Now you answer me a question. When did you first start getting these emotional feeling to become the ‘Jane Fonda’ of the modern era?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So Gort you ARE for arming Al Queda...

... you know that group that killed over 3000 Americans. Ok... wow... that does explain alot about you...

Thanks for your honesty... I guess

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, you can say it but

SLindsey, you can say it but we both know what a notorious liar you are.

Thanks for the friendly exchange of words, see you in the funny papers.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well Gort ole Buddy....

You didn't deny it so......

The fact is we had a clear choice. That choice was to support a rebel faction that was fighting the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda...but ... WE DID NOTHING.

We allowed the "Brotherhood" to hunt them down and murder them.

Eygpt Now wrote:

A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.

These are the people our President wants to support. These same Terrorist have burned hundreds of Christian Churches and killed hundreds of Christians... yet you and those like you will gladly cuddle up with them just because your Messiah says so..

Sycophants like you is what is hurting America.

You can't see that your blind devotion to a MAN is stopping you from using that stuff you call brains.

Then again maybe you do see and approve. Like I said, you support arming Al Qaeda so apparently are ok with us getting back into bed with those same Terrorist that perpetrated 9/11.

...and that my dear Gort makes you one sick bast*rd.

Recent Comments