Tags: Syria | Syria | War | Obama | Kerry

War By Euphemism

Friday, 06 Sep 2013 11:22 PM

By Rich Lowry

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi shared with reporters the other day her conversation with her 5-year-old grandson.

She recounted how he asked her whether she supported "war" in Syria. Before telling the rest of the story, she paused to note the precocious tyke's overly aggressive language.

"Now, he's 5 years old . . . and he's saying 'war,'" she explained. "I mean, we're not talking about war, we're talking about an action here."

From the mouth of babes. The child has a better grasp of the connection between words and reality than his grandma. But, no doubt, he will grow out of it. By the time he becomes an elected Democratic official supporting some military intervention or other, he will have learned the necessary argot of euphemism and denial.

Secretary of State John Kerry is a master at it. In his opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said, "Let me be clear: President Obama is not asking America to go to war."

Despite his reputation, Secretary Kerry is rigorously consistent — he's anti-war when he's opposing a war and testifying against it in Congress, and he's anti-war when he's supporting a war and testifying for it in Congress.

All of this wordplay is profoundly unserious. The last time I checked, Jane's Defence Weekly doesn't set aside a special category for the BGM-109 Tomahawk as a "weapon of action." When you initiate hostilities against another country, when you blow up its buildings and military equipment and kill its officials and military personnel — as will almost certainly happen here — you are committing an act of war.

The unwillingness to admit as much speaks to the haze of ambivalence hanging over the proposed Syria strikes that goes to the very top.

President Barack Obama can maintain an ironic detachment from almost everything: his own administration, his own country and now his own war. In Stockholm, he said: "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line." He further explained: "My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress' credibility is on the line."

You can understand what he's getting at — there is an international norm against the use of chemical weapons that long predates President Obama, and the country's credibility is at stake, not just his own — while still marveling at his evasiveness. No one forced Obama to make his red-line warning to Syria; he did it all on his own.

As for the international "community," quite a few of its members will be perfectly happy to see Bashar Assad suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Obama is clearly uncomfortable exercising American leadership. It forces him into all the same expedients that he once criticized, when it was George W. Bush resorting to them.

Leading means not letting balky allies define the limits of your actions. When Britain backed out of Syria, the president persisted. How times have changed. It used to be that if dozens of foreign countries signed onto a U.S. military intervention, but not France, we were "going it alone."

Now, if we have a military coalition consisting exclusively of France, we are leading the world.

It means refusing to make a fetish of the United Nations. As soon as he took office, the president gave an achingly naive speech to the General Assembly in which he promised "a new chapter of international cooperation." What did the president get for his good intentions? Nothing. He won't even bother trying to get the U.N.'s blessing for a Syria intervention.

It means, when necessary, turning to force. Not because you are a "cowboy." But because sometimes it is the only way to punish enemies and secure the nation's interests.

And it means communicating a sense of purpose and resolution. If Bush always did this, perhaps to a fault, Obama's mixed feelings are too flagrantly on display. His administration can't even call what it is proposing by its real name.

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:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

Let Justice Take Its Course in Ferguson

Friday, 15 Aug 2014 11:41 AM

The Ferguson police have done themselves no favors in what is now, inevitably, a no-holds-barred public-relations war. . . .

Executive Amnesty Won't Help Beleaguered Obama

Friday, 08 Aug 2014 09:47 AM

It's certainly true that the president is much further left than he'd ever admit, but the deepest truth about Obama is t . . .

Europe's Jew Hatred Reaches New Levels

Tuesday, 05 Aug 2014 08:38 AM

Welcome to the New Europe, where the street thugs have learned a lot from the Old Europe . . .

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