Kerry/Lavrov and the UN may have created a plan that allows a resolution of the bloody civil war [View all]

This was clearly done with Obama's blessing. I watched some of the press conference on this - Kerry's part mostly - and it is really complicated, but it seems to give a path way for moderate rebels to join the political process that will ultimately produce both a new constitution and new elections.

What is fascinating is watching the reactions - and noting the similarities to the discussions on Iran. Here is a link to a blog written by someone at Brookings. Scroll down to the the second post - that starts by praising Kerry. It is pretty patronizing - referring to the Iran negotiation as "controversial". he then likes Kerry's work in Afghanistan, but then gets to his real intent -- arguing against what Obama/Kerry have agreed to on Syria. (Giving away that, like Iran, this new work on Syria, IS not the neocon/neo liberal agenda.) Then scroll back to the top and read his new post -- where he brings in the attacks in Paris to be should be used as 911 was.) http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/11/13-kerry-counterproductive-syria-strategy-ohanlon

Yet, another op positions the plan as if it came out of the Paris attacks -- even though the plan is essentially what both the Obama administration and Russia proposed at the last meeting with more details worked out -- but with many remaining. Many on DU, positioned it as the US caving to Russia --- Here's the thread -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1260440

I would suggest that this may be Obama/Kerry taking advantage of fact that neither face reelection and there are no midterms coming up. Hillary Clinton has already divorced herself from Obama on Syria, so there is no reason to think their efforts to end the fighting will reflect badly on her -- though if it works, then we can expect that she will claim that she was part of the Obama administration.

I think of the claims that we "owe" our rebels our greater involvement (when the first involvement was pushed by the same people!) a case of throwing good money after bad -- only worse as it costs lives, theirs and ours. I responded on the thread, but realize that the entire topic is unlikely to get much attention - as both the Democrats and Republicans may need time to determine their position. Because Obama needs no consent to move forward on this -- and, like Iran, it is an international effort -- this lack of visibility might be a good thing. (Note that NONE of the Democrats even mentioned the effort in their answers on Paris. I am kind of surprised O'Malley didn't -- it could fit well with his other (intelligence/law enforcement comments. HRC is doubling down on the fact that she wanted to be more aggressive on Syria - so she is more likely to listen to the neo cons than Kerry/Obama on this possible path out.)

At any rate, I found listening to Kerry (as usual) more reassuring than anyone on the stage last night as they spoke of foreign policy. For one, we know what motivates him - and it is peace. (edited to add - here's the link to the text of Kerry's statement - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249515.htm , the video is on State.gov front page. )