By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Chemical weapons are evil, but you could also say they're
a curse. They have a talismanic power to bend and distort U.S. foreign policy.
You can ask George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
In 2003, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
gave a lengthy interview to Vanity Fair that caused a huge uproar, largely
because the magazine shamefully distorted what he was trying to say. Wolfowitz
explained that within the Bush administration there were a lot of arguments for
why we should invade Iraq. Some had to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was
a state supporter of terrorism. Some had to do with how Hussein treated his own
people. Others emphasized alleged links between the regime and 9/11. And so on.
Each of these arguments had proponents and opponents,
Wolfowitz explained. The result was that "we settled on the one issue that
everyone could agree on": weapons of mass destruction.
The problem with focusing solely on a single issue turned
out to be disastrous for the administration, given that the WMD never
materialized. It should have been clear to everyone that few important
decisions in life boil down to a single issue.
Something similar has happened to the Obama
administration.
"I'm less concerned about style points; I'm much
more concerned about getting the policy right," President Obama told ABC's
George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, in response to the widespread criticism that
his foreign policy has been a hot mess of late.
It's a fair point, even if a bit hypocritical for a
president who goes by the moniker "No Drama Obama."
The last few weeks have had more drama than a
"Desperate Housewives" franchise during sweeps week. Still, if in
some Mr. Magoo-like way the administration has blindly blundered into a policy
victory, that's preferable to smoothly sticking the landing on a policy
failure.
The question, however, is: What policy?
In his ABC interview, the president repeatedly said that
his goal is to do something about chemical weapons: "And what I've said
consistently throughout is that the chemical weapons issue is a problem. I want
that problem dealt with.
"That's my goal," he declared. "And if
that goal is achieved, then it sounds to me like we did something right."
That is a huge bait-and-switch.
Until the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus
suburbs, the administration was not primarily concerned with chemical weapons.
It was concerned with doing whatever it could -- short of intervening
militarily -- to see to it that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad either step
down or be forced out. In 2011, Obama said: "For the sake of the Syrian
people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside." And, a year
later: "I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost
legitimacy, that he needs to step down." And in May at a news conference
with the Turkish prime minister: "We both agree that Assad needs to go.
... That is the only way we're going to resolve this crisis. And we're going to
keep working for a Syria that is free from Assad's tyranny."
That goal is now dead. The new Putin-Obama compact is a
boon to Assad in that it brings him into the so-called international community
America has spent the last two years trying to kick him out of. This
"represents an astonishing victory for the Assad regime," writes
Bloomberg's Jeffrey Goldberg (no relation). So long as Assad only massacres his
own people -- including children -- with old-fashioned weapons, he's immune to
international force. Worse, Assad is now our partner because getting his WMD is
now more important than getting rid of him. We've gone from siding with the
rebels to acting like a boxing ref with no investment in who wins so long as
neither side strikes any low blows.
Obviously, in reality, the Obama's short-term goal was to
avoid getting into an unpopular war precipitated by his own ill-considered
statements or being humiliated by a congressional no vote precipitated by his
decision to punt the issue to Capitol Hill. But what made that goal achievable
was the curse of chemical weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment