Your Syria Scorecard!

Follow your favorite columnists as America debates war.

National Journal
Matthew Cooper
Sept. 12, 2013, 2 a.m.

With the Syr­i­an mess chan­ging daily if not hourly, it’s hard to keep track of where im­port­ant fig­ures stand on this grave mat­ter. The pres­id­ent and many mem­bers of Con­gress seem to have em­braced the idea of giv­ing Dam­as­cus a chance to turn over its chem­ic­al mem­bers. With some time to go be­fore Con­gress has to take a vote on the mat­ter, con­sider where the equally di­vided pun­d­ito­cracy stands on a mil­it­ary strike. It’s not a simple left-right split of course. It’s not even a bomb or don’t-bomb split. That’s why you need a score­card. Here­with, where some of the more prom­in­ent colum­nists stand.

He’s too in­com­pet­ent to at­tack. Pro­vocateur Ann Coulter em­phas­izes the in­com­pet­ence factor. “Why is Con­gress even hav­ing a vote? This is noth­ing but a fig leaf to cov­er Obama’s own idi­ot­ic “red line” ul­ti­mat­um to Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad of Syr­ia on chem­ic­al weapons”¦.No Re­pub­lic­an who thinks ser­i­ously about Amer­ica’s na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests — by which I mean to ex­clude John Mc­Cain and Lind­sey Gra­ham — can sup­port Obama’s “plan” to shoot blindly in­to this hor­net’s nest.” For his part, Charles Krau­tham­mer penned a column with a some­what more el­eg­ant premise titled “Un­less he’s ser­i­ous, vote no” ur­ging more and not less force. In oth­er words, if Obama seems bet­ter pre­pared to ex­ecute an at­tack, Krau­tham­mer might back him.

Yes, let’s do this. George F. Will has tapped out a column called “Obama is right on Syr­ia.” On Fox News Channel, Bill O’Re­illy has spared no cri­ti­cism of the pres­id­ent’s hand­ling of the Syr­i­an situ­ation but has re­peatedly made the case that strong ac­tion is re­quired. “We can not let evil go un­chal­lenged,” O’Re­illy said. While mak­ing clear he wasn’t com­par­ing As­sad to Hitler, O’Re­illy nev­er­the­less ded­ic­ated a seg­ment on Tues­day night com­par­ing 1930s isol­a­tion­ism to the cur­rent situ­ation.

Lib­er­al hawks: It Sucks But We Have to Bomb. Eu­gene Robin­son of The Wash­ing­ton Post, has de­clared how aw­ful it’d be to at­tack but the con­sequences are worse. “I be­lieve we are ob­liged to hit As­sad,” he writes. “Are the re­l­at­ively few deaths caused by nerve gas really so dif­fer­ent from the many more deaths caused by bul­lets, rock­ets and bombs? Yes, I be­lieve they are.” Nick Kris­tof at the New York Times echoes the sen­ti­ment. He writes that he’s con­vinced a mil­it­ary strike can do some good “[W]hile neither in­ter­ven­tion nor para­lys­is is ap­peal­ing, that’s pretty much the menu,” Kris­tof writes. “That’s why I fa­vor a lim­ited cruise mis­sile strike against Syr­i­an mil­it­ary tar­gets (as well as the arm­ing of mod­er­ate rebels).” For his part, Robin­son balks at arm­ing the rebels.

Um, no. Peggy Noon­an, who penned some of Ron­ald Re­agan’s mome mem­or­ably hawk­ish speeches, has come out against go­ing in­to Syr­ia. “The only strong re­sponse is not a mil­it­ary re­sponse,” she writes. Noon­an cites Pope Fran­cis‘s call to ad­dress the hu­man­it­ari­an situ­ation in Syr­ia without turn­ing to vi­ol­ence.

Um, yes. Still a neo­con. Bill Kristol, ed­it­or of The Weekly Stand­ard and one of the more prom­in­ent Ir­aq hawks, sticks to his guns (fig­ur­at­ively) by sign­ing a let­ter from oth­er neo­con­ser­vat­ives and hawk­ish lib­er­als ask­ing Pres­id­ent Obama to take mil­it­ary ac­tion against Dam­as­cus. Fre­quent Wall Street Journ­al con­trib­ut­or Fou­ad Ajami signed the let­ter, too, as did The New Re­pub­lic’s Le­on Weisel­ti­er.

We could do bet­ter. Mideast ex­pert and Bloomberg View colum­nist (as well as a con­trib­ut­or to our sis­ter pub­lic­a­tion, The At­lantic) Jef­frey Gold­berg leans against a lim­ited Syr­ia at­tack. In a column titled, “Why a Mis­sile Strike on Syr­ia Could Make Things Worse,” he says such an at­tack may not be the best idea. “What’s a bet­ter idea? A bet­ter idea would be to com­mit the U.S. fully to the re­mov­al of the As­sad re­gime,” he writes. Thomas Fried­man, the New York Times colum­nist and former Mideast cor­res­pond­ent, lays out a some­what sim­il­ar po­s­i­tion in his columns. He’s all for keep­ing the pres­sure on Syr­i­an strong­man As­sad: “In that con­text, I think it is worth Obama and Con­gress threat­en­ing to sched­ule a vote to en­dorse Obama’s threat of force — if the Syr­i­ans and Rus­si­ans don’t act in good faith — but not sched­ule a vote right now”¦.That’s why I think the best re­sponse to the use of pois­on gas by Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad is not a cruise mis­sile at­tack on As­sad’s forces, but an in­crease in the train­ing and arm­ing of the Free Syr­i­an Army.”

This is a bad idea. MS­N­BC’s Chris Hayes has been a crit­ic of the idea of a mil­it­ary strike say­ing he’d vote no if he were in Con­gress. The At­lantic’s James Fal­lows has also dubbed it a bad idea. “On why I would now vote No: From what I can tell, ap­prox­im­ately 100% of the pro-strike ar­gu­ments have been de­voted to prov­ing what no one con­tests. Namely, that hideous events are un­der­way in Syr­ia, that someone (and most likely As­sad) has crim­in­ally and hor­rific­ally gassed ci­vil­ians, and that something should be done to re­duce the on­go­ing carnage and pun­ish the war crimes. And ap­prox­im­ately 0% of the ar­gu­ment has ad­dressed the main anti-strike con­cern: wheth­er U.S. mil­it­ary ac­tion — minus broad sup­port, any form­al in­ter­na­tion­al ap­prov­al, or any clear defin­i­tion of goal, strategy, or suc­cess — is an ef­fect­ive re­sponse.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4435) }}

What We're Following See More »
AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
18 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
21 hours ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
TEMPORARY OR NOT?
Rick Wiley Bolts the Trump Campaign
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Wednesday parted ways with Rick Wiley, his national political director, just six weeks after the Republican operative joined the campaign." Wiley joined just six weeks ago, as Trump said he would be a "tremendous asset as we enter the final phase." But yesterday, Trump said in a statement that "hired on a short-term basis as a consultant."

Source:
×