| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty September 16, 2013 Hey, Relax, Everybody! Obama, Kerry, Putin, and Assad Say Syria's Fixed! Today and in the coming days, we'll see President Obama and his surrogates insisting that the deal on Syria represents one of the greatest foreign-policy accomplishments of his presidency. And they're right — but not in the way that they think. In terms of policy, it's a disaster. Assad is left unpunished, other than turning over weapons he wasn't supposed to be able to have anyway. His cooperation is not guaranteed, and is in fact unlikely. Assad has gone from Hitler's successor a few days ago to the only guy who can ensure the chemical weapons get turned over.
| Join Rich Lowry in DC on September 18 |
| | But the American people — left, right, and center — spoke clearly on Syria: We don't care what happens over there, just don't get us sucked into another war in the Middle East. And by acquiescing to a Russian plan designed to fail, Obama avoided war. So politically — really, the only measurement that matters to this administration — he wins. Considering how disastrous the military option appeared, maybe that really is the better choice. Jeffrey Goldberg, over at Bloomberg: This limited Western victory might feel like a moral and strategic defeat, for two reasons. One: Our allies across the Middle East, having seen the U.S. promise to help remove Assad and then not follow through, will further doubt American steadfastness and friendship and will reorient their policies accordingly, with some adverse consequences for the U.S. Two: This plan probably won't work. Assad is a lying, murdering terrorist, and lying, murdering terrorists aren't, generally speaking, reliable partners, except for other lying, murdering terrorists. In any case, disarmament experts say that this process, properly carried out, would take years and years to accomplish, but of course they really don't know how long this might take because no one has ever tried to locate and secure hundreds of tons of chemical weapons on an active battlefield, particularly one in which Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are vying for supremacy. But for now, the president has underscored the international norm governing the use of chemical weapons, and he has done what the American people say they wanted -- staying out of the conflict. He may not be a clear winner in this drama, like Assad and Putin are, but compared to Congress -- in particular its reflexively isolationist, self-destructive Republican caucus -- he looks like Churchill. Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, points out an inconvenient fact for the Obama administration's victory lap: Moscow is not even complying with a commitment to eliminate its own chemical weapons. A State Department assessment in January reported that Russia has provided an "incomplete" list of its chemical agents and weapons to be destroyed. It has also missed deadlines to convert former chemical-weapon production plants. Why would we expect Moscow to help enforce similar restrictions against Syria? . . . Based on the experience of the past four years, the Russians, like the Iranians, are well aware that pretending to go along can buy time until the Obama administration becomes distracted with another issue. The U.S. should be prepared for the diplomatic effort on Syria to fall flat and have more effective alternatives ready. Here's how the plan is playing on the ground: Air strikes, shelling and infantry attacks on suburbs of Damascus through yesterday morning offered evidence in support of opinions from both Assad's Syrian opponents and supporters that he is again taking the fight to rebels after a lull following the August 21 gas attack that provoked the threat of US action. "It's a clever proposal from Russia to prevent the attacks," one Assad supporter said from the port of Tartous, site of a Russian naval base. "Russia will give us new weapons that are better than chemical weapons," he added. "We are strong enough to save our power and fight the terrorists." Rebel fighters have expressed disdain for US President Barack Obama after he backed away from striking over alleged chemical weapons attacks, saying the world does not care about Syria. "America told the world it would bomb Syria and then, when the time came, it got scared," said Abdelqaderi Asasheh, operations chief of the Liwa Al Tawhid brigade in Aleppo. Then again, just in case you're feeling bad for the rebels . . . Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists in Syria say they are targeting members of the Alawite community in the country, adding that they massacred dozens of Alawites in three Homs villages last week. On Sunday, the terrorist group claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attacks in which at least 30 Alawites, including several women, children and elderly men, were shot dead in cold blood. Syria went from a horrific bloodbath that didn't interest the world, to a horrific bloodbath that included chemical weapons, to a horrific bloodbath that did interest the world . . . and it will soon go back to being a horrific bloodbath that doesn't interest the world. It's like that old Arab proverb: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on." New Reports Confirm State Department Management Even Worse Than You Thought You stink, U.S. State Department. You really stink. Staffers at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. held their own private ceremony Wednesday to commemorate the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya after finding out the agency would not be organizing a formal, official memorial service. The Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack left four people dead, including the American Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and Sean Smith, an information management officer in the department's foreign service. A State Department staffer who worked with Stevens in Libya and asked not to be named told TPM there were about 20 to 25 staffers at the memorial. The informal gathering was put together after staffers inquired and learned the department would not be holding an official event to mark the anniversary. The event was held in the lobby of State Department headquarters at a memorial plaque bearing the names of Stevens, Smith, and other foreign service officers who have lost their lives while on duty. CBS News's Sharyl Attkisson reports that the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee will release their review this week of the State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigation surrounding the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks. According to the official House Oversight Committee report, the ARB downplayed security decisions made by senior officials at the State Department, especially that of Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, and instead blamed four subordinates who, in some cases, "had little to no" responsibility for the key events. In some cases, "the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior [State] Department officials," reads a draft of the report obtained by CBS News. "Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi." The House report critical of the ARB points to Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy as having authorized the temporary nature of the Benghazi compound, which left State Department diplomatic security "struggling" to provide adequate resources. Furthermore, State Department witnesses told the House committee that Kennedy approved the exemption of the Benghazi special mission from State Department physical security guidelines; that it was Kennedy's decision to send home the 16-man military security team the Defense Department had offered to provide at no cost to the State Department; that disagreements over security went to Kennedy for arbitration; and that Kennedy was very involved in staffing, budget and travel related to Libya. "The ARB downplayed Kennedy's role in the decision-making that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi," reads the House Oversight Committee report. The House Oversight Committee report suggests there may be a conflict of interest in having the ARB rely so heavily on the State Department that it's investigating for staff and resources. For example, Under Secretary Kennedy supervised the selection of the Benghazi ARB staff; and the State Department appointed four of the five members of the Board. Gee, who saw that coming? Just Who Is Influential on the Right? Over at Townhall, John Hawkins lists his — or Townhall's — list of the most 25 influential people on the right for 2013. (Hey, there are three and a half months left in this year! Formulating the 2013 list now cuts off anybody who has a great autumn!) Hawkins doesn't specify how he or Townhall measures "most influential" — is it a matter of having largest audience, or being able to steer and direct the most financial resources, or being the most trusted and respected among the grassroots, etc.? Is it being the policy wonk or mind that folks on the right turn to when a thorny issue arises? And is there any limit to how far you can you be on the spectrum and still be considered "the Right?" Without that sense of what the criteria is, Hawkin's Top 25 are, in order, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Greg Gutfeld, Jim DeMint, Matt Kibbe, Scott Walker, Charles Krauthammer, Mitch McConnell, Brent Bozell, Rick Perry, Grover Norquist, Rand Paul, Wayne LaPierre, Mark Levin, John McCain, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers, John Roberts, Sean Hannity, John Boehner, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh. His honorable mention list is Sheldon Adelson, Roger Ailes, Michele Bachmann, Tucker Carlson, Todd Cefaratti, Dick Cheney, Chris Chocola, Ann Coulter, Jonathan Garthwaite, Darrell Issa, Bobby Jindal, Amy Kremer, Mike Lee, Jenny Beth Martin, James O'Keefe, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Perkins, Judson Phillips, Tim Phillips, Reince Priebus, Glenn Reynolds, Marco Rubio, Christopher Ruddy, Sal Russo, Antonin Scalia, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Sowell, Dustin Stockton, Erik Telford, Joe Wierzbicki. (Pausing for the inevitable, "hey, wait a minute, what about . . ." thoughts.) I don't mean to criticize anyone on that list, but . . . how is Roger Ailes, the guy who runs Fox News Channel, merely an honorable mention? And if Megyn Kelly is taking over the 9 p.m. slot, and keeping most, all, or building upon Hannity's current 1.6-1.8 million viewers, wouldn't she be moving to at least the honorable-mention rankings? Paul Ryan doesn't even make the honorable-mention list? Never mind his role as the running mate last year, he only chairs the budget committee, in a year that will be dominated by budget fights. No House Majority Leader Eric Cantor? Senator Tom Coburn? You think when John Bolton talks foreign policy, folks on the right don't stop and listen? If Liz Cheney isn't on this year's list, she'll almost certainly be on next year's. You may laugh, but . . . Tim Tebow? Certainly he's someone whom a lot of the conservative and,, in particular, Christian grassroots admire and respect, and he can pack in 30,000 people when he speaks at a church. And while I'll avoid a predictable complaint about the many fine folks from National Review's ranks who belong on a list of the Right's most influential . . . no Mark Steyn? Really? But people love lists. And they drive traffic. ADDENDA: The Atlantic's Health Editor, James Hamblin, M.D., joyously tears apart Michelle Obama's new "drink more water" initiative: "If you're wont to insist on chanting about defunding a national health initiative, consider this one. I know we're just trying to "keep things positive," but missing the opportunity to use this campaign's massive platform to clearly talk down soda or do something otherwise more productive is lamentable. Public health campaigns of this magnitude don't come around every day. This one squanders both money and precious celebrity Twitter endorsements. Keeping things positive and making an important point are not mutually exclusive, you fools." NRO Digest — September 16, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . . Editor's Note:
Get the latest news at www.nationalreview.com | 
Comments
Post a Comment