Comment on: "The Syrian Pact" NYT Editorial, Sep. 16, 2013

For original editorial, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?ref=global

This is one of these rare but fortunate happenstances in international politics, where a supposed gaffe by Sec. Kerry set in motion negotiations to REALLY prevent further use of chemical weapons (which a US military strike would NOT have done). This "gaffe" gave Russia/Putin an opportunity to become involved, and invested in the process, which in turn allows the UN to become active.

Overall this piece is a perfect summary both of the benefits and opportunities, but also the difficulties of this effort.

It is, however, disturbing that even this very enlightened editorial does not seem to get beyond the myopic, which is to say US-centric, view of international affairs.

"Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."

Mr. Putin's position is labeled as "cynical", but unemotional reflection should show that is is no more cynical than the US position. We just heard that the CIA is delivering weapons to "the rebels", and the US was perfectly happy bombing Syria, i.e. killing people, while admitting that this would not stop future use of chemical weapons. We, the US have been content to stand by and see the killings with conventional weapons, all the while looking for an acceptable reason to supply more support, including weapons deliveries to the rebels. Why is that any less "cynical" than Putin's actions?