Comment on: U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms (NYT, Sept. 14, 2013)

See following for NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?ref=global-home


What was originally portrayed as a "gaffe" by Sec. Kerry may well turn into a hallmark of successful international action against a "rogue state".

Even the most fierce proponents of military strikes against Syria conceded that such strikes would do little or nothing to actually get rid of Syria's chemical weapons or prevent them from using them again in the future (even taking as a "fact" that the government is responsible for all the use of chemical weapons).

Now with Russia, and very likely the UN, fully engaged in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, the likelihood of actually preventing further use is much higher. To be sure, the implementation of the agreement poses immense problems, but we now have Russia, Syria's most ardent supporter, engaged in this task together with the rest of the world community, and failure to accomplish the stated goal will be just as much an embarrassment to Russia.

I was, and am, totally opposed to unilateral military strikes against Syria - the notion that we would be engaging in "humanitarian" action against the atrocity of killing people with chemical weapons by killing people with conventional weapons always seemed someway delusional to me.

I do admit, however, that the seeming success of what I would like to call the "Kerry initiative" seems to have been made possible, at least partly, by the real threat of US military strikes. But given the abject failure of US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, I would still be opposed to unilateral (or some phony "coalition of the willing") military strikes against Syria.