How not to deal with Syria
Saying, in effect, 'Don't worry, we won't do a very good job,' is no way to sell a military action.

Reuters

US Secretary of State John Kerry (L-R), Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Martin Dempsey testify at the House Armed Services Committee in Washington September 10, 2013.

  • Title:

    The Tyranny of Clichés
  • Hardcover Price:

    27.95
  • Hardcover ISBN:

    9781595230867
  • Buy the Book

Article Highlights

  • GOP opponents of Obama's Syria plan have been cast in 1 or both of 2 categories: partisan flip-floppers or isolationists.

    Tweet This

  • Removing a state supporter of terror and proxy of Iran (and Russia) is of real strategic value .

    Tweet This

  • And the role of, well, not cereal killer but cereal hinderer falls to us.

    Tweet This

When I first moved to Washington, I drove a beat-up Honda. But, because those were the waning days of the crack era, it was common to have any car broken into, particularly where I lived. This helped me rationalize my habit of keeping my car filthy. I figured a dirty-looking car would make a less tempting target.


One day I parked around Dupont Circle. An enterprising homeless guy asked if he could clean my car for, I think, five bucks. I said something to the effect of "Sorry, buddy, but I keep it dirty so it won't get broken into."

He responded: "That's OK! I wouldn't do a very a good job!"

I laughed so hard, I gave him a couple of bucks just for the sales effort.

The story came to mind when I heard John Kerry in London on Monday reassure the world that "we're not going to war." Rather, it will be "an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

Admittedly, these are difficult times for the taxonomists of Beltway zoology. So far, Republican opponents of President Obama's Syria plan have been cast in one or both of two categories: partisan flip-floppers or isolationists. Crediting GOP opponents of intervention with the possibility that they could have learned something from the mistakes of the Bush years or that their reluctance stems from the weaknesses of the administration's arguments is too implausible for many.

It seems particularly difficult for some to get a radar lock on the many foreign policy hawks opposed to a Syria intervention. Neither isolationism nor partisan flip-floppery explains their reluctance.

The hawkish case for striking Syria involves a coherent strategy of ousting President Bashar Assad or damaging his war-making ability to the point where the tide in the Syrian civil war is eventually changed in favor of militants hostile to Iran and amenable to U.S. influence. Removing a state supporter of terror and proxy of Iran (and Russia) is of real strategic value (and real strategic risk, given the Islamist nature of much of the Syrian opposition). Enforcing the taboo against chemical weapons is gravy.

And it is a taboo we're talking about. Administration officials constantly say we must "enforce international norms" — not laws — as Syria is not actually a signatory to the international treaty banning chemical weapons.

But Obama and Kerry are selling the gravy as if it's the meal. In private, sources tell me that the White House promises hawks such as Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain a more robust response. But there's reason to think it's telling doves something else. Regardless, the administration's public promise is to keep the strike as symbolic as possible — a "shot across the bow," in Obama's words, "incredibly small and limited" in Kerry's.

But the best explanation of the White House's thinking comes from a "senior official" involved in the White House's planning. He told USA Today: "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."

It's kind of hard to imagine FDR or Churchill vowing to take away Hitler's Cheerios spoon while "giving" him a fork. And yet, Kerry insists that this is a replay of Munich, with Assad as Hitler.

And the role of, well, not cereal killer but cereal hinderer falls to us.

For this, hawks are supposed to rally around an administration that has demonized and belittled them for years?

Sure, a symbolic shot across the bow would satisfy the president's unstated but obvious desire to make good on the "red line" he drew last year. But how would it deter Assad or other dictators from using chemical weapons? "Give up your sarin or feel the full brunt of our incredibly small and limited wrath!"

In advance of his Tuesday speech, the president has put himself in a nearly impossible situation (though the Russians may have thrown him a lifeline). By insisting that it's the "world's red line," he invites the question from war-weary skeptics of all parties: If it's the world's problem, why does the U.S. have to go to war?

And the response boils down to, in effect, "Don't worry, we won't do a very good job."

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Jonah
Goldberg

  •  


    A bestselling author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg's nationally syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).  At AEI, Mr. Goldberg writes about political and cultural issues for American.com and the Enterprise Blog.

    Follow Jonah Goldberg on Twitter.


  • Phone: 202-862-7165
    Email: jonah.goldberg@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.