Wednesday, September 11, 2013

A Sorry Excuse For Leadership

John Podhoretz

John Podhoretz

Feckless Obama embarrasses the nation

In an effort to comprehend President Obama’s policy toward the use of chemical weapons in Syria — which now involves our pretending that Russia will disarm a country it has been arming nonstop for 55 years — please journey with me to a time before recorded history, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
That would be back, back, back­ ­. . . to one week ago Saturday.
From scrolls unearthed by archaeologists and translated from cuneiform, we know that Barack Obama said on that day, Aug. 31, that he would take military action against the tyrannical Assad regime in Syria to punish its use of the chemical weapon sarin against its own people.
But although Obama acted as if this were a very important matter indeed, there remain a few curious facts scholars cannot account for.
For example, one hieroglyph of a television with an empty chair in front of it suggests to scholars that Obama First delivered this message to his fellow Americans at 1:15 in the afternoon on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend, when only shut-ins and lunatics are inside.
Another hieroglyph, depicting a putter and an airplane, suggests to scholars that instead of beginning to work on securing congressional approval for his military action, Obama immediately high-tailed it to a golf course before bolting the country for a five-day trip abroad.
A third picture shows an angry mob outside the White House while a face seems to be peeking out from behind a curtain. Scholars speculate that this symbolizes a decision by Obama to greet increasing public resistance to action in Syria with an announcement that he would deliver an address to the nation . . . in, oh, a couple of days.
By that point, polls were showing three-fifths of the American people were opposed to military action, and their opposition was growing by the minute. This led his secretary of state to assure everyone that whatever the United States did would be “unbelievably small,” even as he compared Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to Hitler.
Whip counts suggested the House of Representatives would vote the measure down, despite politically selfless endorsements from the two Republican leaders in the House. There were indications the president could not even get 50 votes in the US Senate, which is controlled by his own party.
That same day, which is to say Monday, the secretary of state — you remember him, screaming, “Evidence,” “Hitler,” “unbelievably small” — was asked a question at a press conference. What if Syria handed in its chemical weapons? Well, he said with some disbelief, if Syria did that, then that would be good, but . . .
Enter the Russians, the very regime Obama had stiffed last week on his jaunt abroad because it was opposing him on Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “Hey, what a great plan! We’ll get the weapons from Assad!”
To which every sane person said, Yeah, sure. In the middle of a civil war, you will a) secure the weapons and b) remove them from the country when c) you, Russia, don’t give a fig whether he has them or not.
But, after a few moments’ consideration of the possible escape hatch Obama had been provided here, his deputy national security adviser declared the Russian “proposal” was one that had to be taken “very seriously.”
And in a few hours’ time, Obama was telling interviewers that “absolutely” there would be no strike if Syria gave up its chemical weapons.
And so a roundelay that began with the president announcing his decision to launch a military strike at a time of his choosing to punish Assad for having used chemical weapons suddenly turned into the president and his desperate acolytes thinking they could take a victory lap!
“Thanks to Pres. Obama’s strength,” tweeted House Democratic honcho Nancy Pelosi, “we have a Russian proposal.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted, “Kind of amazed I’m saying this, but the White House may really be about to win on Syria.”
Ah, yes, winning. Which is to say, being humiliated, acting weak, behaving in vacillatory fashion, making a mockery of your office, destroying your country’s credibility, making your own words look desperately foolish, and ceding foreign policy to the Machiavellian machinations of a gangster regime in Moscow.
That’s what you call “winning” when what you mean by “winning” is “losing.”
Jimmy Carter can rest easy now. There’s another Democratic president worse at foreign policy than he ever was.

Putin's Life Raft

 The President kept if brief (thank goodness) because he had very little to say. I don't have the votes, so let's postpone the vote. While the President very cogently laid out why Assad's atrocity does have real consequences, he did not lay out how a small military strike would send the right message. Putin is calling the shots and that is not a place where we want to be. 

Even if there is an agreement it is going to take weeks to set up the protocols for the inspectors. And not to mention there is a civil war raging in Syria. This isn't the NFL where the officials can  call a time out to review the play.

 

Dazed and Confused

If your foreign policy has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong.

91158895
President Obama is either a master foreign-policy strategist or making it up as he goes along.
Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
Give President Obama credit: He has done such a good job of acting unpredictably in the lead-up to his proposed military strikes on Syria that no one knows what he will do next. He has successfully confused ally and enemy alike. Sun Tzu would be proud.
But President Obama cannot take all the credit for sowing confusion. Secretary of State John Kerry also has the unique distinction of becoming the first chief American diplomat whose offhand quip at a press conference launched a last-minute, global diplomatic initiative to disarm a murderous dictator. Kerry never thought that he was making a bold bid to avert military strikes that his president’s party and public had no interest in supporting. He simply suggested that if Bashar al-Assad handed all of his chemical weapons over in a week, that might stave off an impending U.S. attack—and of course, Assad wasn’t going to do that. The State Department rushed forward to clarify that Kerry wasn’t floating an actual proposal—he was just speaking rhetorically. You know, riffing. To say that the Obama administration is freelancing when it comes to foreign policy is an insult to freelancers.

Still, Vladimir Putin knows an opportunity when he sees it. The Kremlin pounced on Kerry’s diplomatic spitballing. So now, everyone—the French, the British, the Chinese, the Obama administration—is hoping that the Russians can craft a verifiable plan for Assad’s regime to hand over its chemical stockpile. For the West, a price can be exacted from Assad, while the dangerous unpredictability of military strikes can be avoided. Meanwhile, Russia and China can keep their man in Damascus.
The sigh of relief from Capitol Hill was audible last night when Obama said that the Russian plan offered a potential breakthrough. Incredibly, Obama had turned to Congress to support his planned strikes—something presidents almost never do—when he didn’t have anything approaching a lock on the votes. It would have been a clever way of forcing Congress to share the blame for acting or not acting in Syria, if it weren’t for the fact that having his foreign policy neutered by Congress would be such a debilitating defeat. If the president thought his own party had his back, he was mistaken. No one believes that the House of Representatives (and maybe even the Senate) was going to sign off on the authorization of force in Syria. But Putin’s late-breaking gambit has prevented Democrats from having to eviscerate their own president’s foreign policy. Putin is providing President Obama political cover that even his own party wouldn’t supply.   
But if your foreign policy has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong. That’s where President Obama finds himself today. Putin is providing Obama an out he couldn’t find for himself.
Of course, Syria has not yet pledged to hand over its chemical weapons. If it does, it would truly be one of the happiest accidents of this entire episode. (Whatever the administration says about its threatened use of force, this outcome was unforeseen.) Never mind that the United States has no idea where Assad has squirreled away his chemical munitions. For now we will engage the likely fiction that Assad will self-disarm his most potent weapon for ensuring his future survival—the only thing a dictator craves—because it allows all sides to stand down. The argument will now turn to how credible the Russian plan truly is, whether any agreement can be backed by a future use of force, and whether Assad will comply.
If Putin’s maneuver doesn’t pan out, Obama’s foreign policy will still likely fall victim to the vicissitudes of a dictator. Because one message is already clear in Damascus: The Obama administration will do everything in its power to do nothing at all. If Assad finds himself up against the wall, he will likely gas his fellow Syrians again. Maybe he will reduce the scale and scope, but it is doubtful that he will abandon the weapons. How will President Obama respond then? It is hard to say. Because no one knows what the president is doing. At least he has the element of surprise.