Kerry's Careless Words May Save Obama

Tuesday, 10 Sep 2013 12:03 PM

By Rich Lowry

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Now that John Kerry is the secretary of state, his gaffes can launch major diplomatic initiatives.
 
A reporter in London asked what Syrian President Bashar Assad could do to avoid war. Kerry responded: "He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it without delay, and allow the full and total accounting. But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done."
 
The State Department quickly noted that the secretary was merely making a rhetorical point. But the Russians immediately embraced the Kerry flourish as a serious proposal. It was "welcomed" by Damascus and spoken of warmly by the U.N. secretary-general and the British and French governments.
 
In her highly anticipated remarks on the Syria crisis, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said action on the Kerry gaffe-turned-plan would be an "important step." In his briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney triumphantly noted that there wouldn't have been so much diplomatic progress absent the "credible threat" of force.
 
Never mind that Kerry punctuated the launch of his unintended Syria peace plan with the words "it can't be done." In a storm, any port will do, and during a catastrophic meltdown of an administration's case for war, so will any diplomatic fig leaf.
 
Not all of Kerry's gaffes in London rose to the level of game-changing diplomacy. He said the strike on Syria would be "unbelievably small." Surely, Kerry was making another one of his rhetorical points, that compared with, say, Dresden or "Shock and Awe," the strike on Syria would be a much more circumscribed affair. But "unbelievably small" is not a rallying cry.
 
An anonymous administration official resorted to an analogy to children's cereal. As USA Today paraphrased his explanation: "If Assad is eating Cheerios, we're going to take away his spoon and give him a fork. Will that degrade his ability to eat Cheerios? Yes. Will it deter him? Maybe. But he'll still be able to eat Cheerios."
 
A military strike to change Assad's options in breakfast flatware is even less stirring than Kerry's assurance of unbelievable smallness. At the beginning of what is supposed to be the administration's full-court press for a strike, it has done more to open itself to mockery than to persuade, more to set back its case than to advance it.
 
Part of the problem, besides simple incompetence, is that the administration has dual, and conflicting, audiences. The president's political base wants a strike to be as symbolic as possible, while the rapidly diminishing number of Republican supporters want it to be as robust as possible. Please one side and you alienate the other.
 
And then there's the mismatch between rhetoric and means. The natural language of American warfare is highly moralistic and a little apocalyptic, which is why our enemies are always compared to Adolf Hitler. John Kerry said that Assad has joined Hitler in using poison gas. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the Holocaust in his case for bombing.
 
But if we are really confronted with such evil, why do we seek merely to "degrade" Assad's capability before watching him continue his slaughter by means we find less outrageous?
 
The case for a strike comes down to a matter of national credibility that is more likely to move Henry Kissinger than the public. Voters are not in the mood for any more Middle Eastern entanglements, so the administration is performing before a hostile crowd. It's always easier to look at the top of your communications game when you are not up against a howling head wind of public opposition.
 
If he's not already, the president may soon wonder why, with the Syria vote, he built a pyre, threw his presidency on it, and asked Congress to decide whether to light a match.
 
Considering the gravity of the possible defeat before him, any escape hatch can look attractive, even one provided by his secretary of state's careless words.
 
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review and author of the new bestseller “Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream — and How We Can Do It Again.” He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and a variety of other publications. Read more reports from Rich Lowry — Click Here Now.
 
 

© King Features Syndicate

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

Hamas Peace Plan Is to Wipe Out Israel

Friday, 25 Jul 2014 09:33 AM

Each civilian death in Gaza is a tragedy, but who is ultimately responsible? . . .

Ukraine Desperately Needs Our Support

Tuesday, 22 Jul 2014 08:28 AM

In the wake of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Obama has been the nation's forensic investigator-in-chief. . . .

Obama's Overreach Pits Him Against Supreme Court

Friday, 18 Jul 2014 08:16 AM

President Barack Obama styles himself a wit, and some of his best material lately has to do with his abuse of his powers . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved