I criticized President Obama’s Syria speech for, among other factors, inconsistency and confusion. However, at least he had a specific and limited aim, neutralizing Syrian chemical weapons, had sense enough to consult Congress when it became apparent that there was little public support, and was receptive to a diplomatic solution. His claim of the right to wage war without a declaration by Congress should not be accepted or ignored, but at least for now, he’s on a more useful and defensible track.
My impulse to give him some credit is prompted by a number of opinion pieces which exceed his for confusion and inconsistency. Begin with Thomas Friedman. His comments on September 10 [88] were, like Mr. Obama’s, ambivalent about intervention, but he attributed his indecision to new conditions in the Middle East: "Until 2010, the Arab Middle East had been relatively stable for 35 years," but developments since then force us "to confront some new and very uncomfortable questions." Where does the first half of that formula come from? In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait; both are Arab nations. In 2003, Mr. Friedman enthusiastically supported our invasion of Iraq because "a terrorism bubble had built up over there. . . ." We needed to
partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states - young people who hate America more than they love life.
That’s an odd sort of stability. What are the "new and very uncomfortable questions?" Not the use of gas; Iraq used it against Iran and against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.
He doesn’t want to send American troops to Syria, but that seems to be a new position on our role, not on intervention:
The only problem is that it is impossible to imagine a solution to the conflict in Syria without some outside force putting boots on the ground. Therefore you need either a midwife or a Mandela or a trusted military to referee the transition to a new order.
That is a truly strange comment. How, if someone needs to put boots on the ground, can a Mandela or a midwife "therefore" be needed?
David Ignatius thinks that "this new American caution is potentially dangerous." [89] As an antidote, he recommended that Mr. Obama read, as Ignatius has, a book about Machiavelli and learn its prescription for success, which is expressed in terms of foxes and lions.
Obama does the fox thing pretty well. He recognizes traps and generally avoids them. But he needs more lion. This means bold policy — diplomacy backed by the threat of military force. To succeed in reframing U.S. power, Obama will need to frighten the wolves on Capitol Hill and in the Kremlin . . . .
This sounds less like "reframing" American power than business as usual.
Ignatius worried that, if the President didn’t follow his advice, those wolves "will devour what’s left of his presidency." That’s exactly what one of the heavy thinkers on Townhall.com wants: "It has been a long five years, our Obama nightmare. . . . Along with the tragic economic consequences of Obama’s policies, Americans are now witnessing the dangerous effects of a left wing, inexperienced community organizer serving as Commander in Chief."[90] Mr. Obama has been wrong, our pundit declared, in Egypt, in Libya and now in Syria. "The President’s policy is a total disaster." What is the alternative? Don’t ask.
A similar appraisal of Mr. Obama’s presidency, also including domestic as well as foreign policy, came from Norman Podhoretz. "So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear . . . that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed."[91] Horrors! The man must be a communist. That was bad enough, but foreign policy was even worse. "As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence." You see, his fumbling and changes of mind were merely cover for his real plan: "The president may look incompetent on Syria. But his behavior fits his strategy to weaken America abroad."
Marc Thiessen, complaining about "Obama’s unbelievably small presidency," took the opposite tack: "We’re conducting foreign policy by faux pas. This entire episode has been driven not by deliberate strategy but by slips of the tongue." In his speech, the President should have given Assad orders and threatened, in the event of non-compliance, "a devastating military response." [92]
Jennifer Rubin dismissed the "phony scheme" concocted by Obama and Putin. To replace it, she set out a model resolution for Congress, but at that point seemed to lose track of the issue. The first clause proposed using "all necessary force against Iran" if it didn’t stop enriching uranium, and the second pledged support for efforts to overthrow the Iranian government. Clause three advocated "aid and assist Syrians, including the Syrian Free Army, seeking to live in peace with their neighbors. . . ." The fourth clause denounced Russia. Finally, in the fifth clause, she addressed the issue, more or less, and opted in tangled syntax for the military solution:
The president shall be authorized to use all means necessary to achieve the president’s stated purposes, to wit, enforcing sufficient consequences for use of WMDs, preventing the risk of future use by the Assad regime or Hezbollah and degrading the Assad regime’s ability to use, deliver and command the use of WMDs.[93]
Jackson Diehl, ever ready to set the world right, declared: "A failure to respond by the only outside power capable of making a difference only invites greater crimes and worse threats to vital U.S. interests."[94] Here we have the world policeman, or hegemon, argument. "At the root of Obama’s foreign policy dysfunction is a refusal to accept that an American president must take on the history that erupts on his watch . . ., and use his unique power to shape it." The greater crimes and worse threats were not specified. The outline of a new policy apparently must await a future column.
Those are the honorable mentions. Second prize in the competition goes to Glenn Beck, who now is against intervention. "The cost of getting involved is far too high and it’s the people of Syria are the ones [sic] who will pay the price. It will eventually cost all citizens of the globe as it will put us another step closer to World War III." Wasn’t he in favor of adventures abroad? Yes, but that was then: it "all changed for me several years ago when I began to realize this democracy building mentality was a progressive mentality."[95] As he’s made clear, progressive means evil.
First prize, although he really belongs in a class by himself, has to be awarded to Alex Jones, who offered this [96] in one of his radio rants: Weapons inspections are a globalist, collectivist plot. "[W]hat the United Nations really wants to do here, is set the precedent that they can come into any country they want, that has any type of weapons systems — and call them WMDs, and then dismantle that country's infrastructure." That’s only the beginning: "Everyone is going to be deindustrialized. Everyone is going to be put back in the stone age to be controlled, and then Obama, and the globalists, and the robber barons, they're gonna fly around in their jetcopters, and their Air Force Ones, and their red carpets like gods above us, and they're gonna get the life extension technologies." Life extension? Well, yes, and more: most of us will be eliminated, and replaced by "a new species ... of humans merged with machines."
Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions begin to look cogent.
___________________________
88. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/friedman-threaten-to-threaten.html?_r=0
89. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-13/opinions/42033699_1_president-obama- chemical-weapons-syrian-war
90. http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffcrouere/2013/09/14/our-never-ending-obama-nightmare-n1700035
91. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579062811443943666.html
92. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-unbelievably-small-presidency/2013/09/16/e01838ca-1ed3-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html
93. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/09/11/heres-a-resolution-for-you/
94. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-try-as-he-might-obama-cant-dodge-the-mideast/2013/09/15/47dda75a-1bc4-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html
95. http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/09/the-anti-war-glenn-beck/
96. Textual excerpts and a link to the broadcast are at http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/alex-jones-links-syrian-weapons-proposal-to-hum/195829
No comments:
Post a Comment