There’s trouble in the Middle East — as there nearly always is — and the usual suspects are demanding the usual action. Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard is beating the drums for war, a musical refrain that should sound quite familiar. He’s signed an open letter to President Obama demanding military intervention in Syria, a letter that is, hilariously, alleged to be from “experts” like him. And Karl Rove. And Elliot Abrams.
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus. You have said that large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria would implicate “core national interests,” including “making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies [and] our bases in the region.” The world—including Iran, North Korea, and other potential aggressors who seek or possess weapons of mass of destruction—is now watching to see how you respond.
We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship’s military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. It should also provide vetted moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition with the military support required to identify and strike regime units armed with chemical weapons.
Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.
Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us—one that will certainly embolden Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.
Now where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, ten years ago when the same people were demanding an invasion of Iraq, a war that cost us more than a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Paul Waldman takes a trip down memory lane:
Back when George W. Bush was president, William Kristol—editor of the Weekly Standard, former Dan Quayle chief of staff, and general conservative man-about-town—co-founded something called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose purpose was to beat the war drums until the American government and public saw the wisdom of an invasion. Kristol was eventually mocked not only for his status as a “chickenhawk”—like nearly all the war’s most visible boosters, he was eager to send other people to fight and die, but had avoided military service during the Vietnam War—but for his confidently offered yet comically wrong predictions about Iraq, like “This is going to be a two-month war” or his immortal assertion that there was no reason to think there’d be any conflict between Sunnis and Shias since “Iraq’s always been very secular.”…
Bombing Syria may or may not be a good idea; I’m extremely skeptical, but it isn’t as though there’s no reasonable case you could make for it. But when these clowns start advocating for it, it becomes very difficult to think it would be anything but a disaster.
Conor Friedersdorf has a similar take:
I’d never claim to be a foreign-policy expert. But I know enough to scoff when The Weekly Standard grants “expert” status to Karl Rove, and to discount the prognostication skills of everyone who urged American intervention in Iraq without the faintest idea of what would follow. But in D.C., expert status is never taken away for being repeatedly, catastrophically wrong.
“Legitimacy” in these circles is a matter of social standing and institutional affiliations, not knowledge or track record.
I’m noticing a pattern for Obama, though. He keeps turning for advice and wanting to put in charge the same people who have screwed up in the past. John Brennan was one of the key players in the Bush administration’s torture regime, so naturally he makes him his national security adviser and then head of the CIA. Larry Summers led the fight to deregulate Wall Street, leading directly to the financial collapse of 2008, so naturally he makes him his chief economic adviser and now is likely to nominate him to head the Fed. Bill Kristol and all these other neo-cons were the ones who led us into the disastrous Iraq war, so naturally he’s going to listen to them on Syria. If we’d wanted a third and fourth Bush administration, we would have voted for McCain and Romney.