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 »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
11 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×