I regularly read a few
columnists. I might not agree with their
opinions but I often learn something.
This is true, for example, of David Brooks. So when it came time to dive into today’s
Sunday Review in the New York Times I assumed Syria would dominate the columns
and hoped I would be enlightened, since I’ve not yet decided what I think the
U.S. should or should not do in Syria.
I was mindful (and amused)
by what Sarah Palin recently had to say on the subject: “So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is
bombing Syria? Let Allah sort it
out.” Give her credit – that wasn’t
bad. Maybe one of the Times pundits
could do better.
Tom Friedman knows more
about the Middle East than most and I’ve found him particularly useful in recent
months. Today he said: “Spare me the lecture that America’s
credibility is at stake here.
Really? Sunnis and Shiites have
been fighting since the 7th century over who is the rightful heir to
the Prophet Muhammad’s spiritual and political leadership, and our credibility is on the line? Really?
Their civilization has missed every big global trend – the religious
Reformation, democratization, feminism and entrepreneurial and innovative
capitalism – and our credibility is on the line? I don’t think so.”
OK, good so far. How about Nick Kristof, who I’d think would
shy away from any kind of military action:
“Syria is today the world capital of human suffering . . . So while neither
intervention nor paralysis is appealing, that’s pretty much the menu. I favor a limited cruise missile strike
against Syrian military targets (as well as the arming of moderate rebels). . .
Syria will be bloody whatever we do.”
Maureen Dowd: “As commander in chief, Obama knows that if
he doesn’t punish Bashar al-Assad, America and his presidency will be forever
reduced. He thinks a limited strike –
not a war, as some are calling it – is the right thing to do.
“But as Barry talked to the
press in St. Petersburg, his lack of enthusiasm came across. He was not thundering from the top of the
moral ramparts. He made his usual
nuanced, lawyerly presentation, talking about the breach of international
‘norms.’ It’s a weak, wonk word.
“Norms don’t send people to
the barricades.”
Frank Bruni, not usually a
foreign policy maven, also chipped in:
“The stakes are huge. Bomb Syria
and there’s no telling how many innocent civilians will be killed; it will be
the first chapter in an epic longer and bloodier than we bargained for . . .
we’ll be pouring accelerant on a country and a region already ablaze.
“Don’t bomb Syria and
there’s no guessing the lesson that the tyrants of the world will glean from
our decision not to punish Bashar al-Assad for slaughtering his people on
whatever scale he wishes and in whatever manner he sees fit. . . What will our
inaction say about our morality, and about our mettle?”
Finally, Ross Douthat, the
most conservative voice among regular Times columnists: “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a foreign
policy fiasco.
“All along, it’s been clear
that President Obama has nothing but bad options in Syria’s civil war. Now, though, he’s found a way to put Congress
in a similarly unfortunate position.
When the House and Senate vote on whether to authorize strikes on Bashar
al-Assad, they’ll be choosing between two potentially disastrous paths: either
endorse a quasi-war that many constituents oppose and that this White House
seems incapable of justifying on the merits, or vote to basically finish off
the current American president as a credible actor on the world stage.”
OK, so much for the
pundits. Did all that help you make up
your mind? Me either!
