Well what do you know?
The compromise draft resolution, seen by Reuters, makes the measure legally binding but provides for no means of automatic enforcement with sanctions or military force. Originally, the United States, Britain and France had wanted the resolution to state explicitly that it was under Chapter 7.
The only reference to enforcement in the draft is a threat that if Syria fails to comply with the resolution, the council would impose punitive measures under Chapter 7, which would require a second resolution that Russia could veto.
A U.S. State Department official hailed the deal as a "breakthrough."
It's like the Germans proudly proclaiming a "breakthrough" during Operation Bagration.
Well, that's hyperbole, of course. But the notion that this is a diplomatic breakthrough on our part is nonsense.
Are we really proclaiming that the "legally binding" nature of the resolution is important when only a couple weeks ago the administration's fanboys were boasting that our unilateral threat of ("unbelievably small") strikes compelled Assad to blink? Really? The deal that a so-called scared Assad regime agreed to now requires a toothless "legally binding" but not "reality binding" resolution to be effective?
Russia got what they wanted--no automatic enforcement under Chapter VII.
What really scares me is the thought that our foreign policy people actually think they are doing great.
