I admire John Kerry. He's an amazing Secretary of State . I wish him the best of luck in his efforts.
2
So, Assad, the ophthalmologist, is now America's public enemy #1? Successor to Khaddafi, Mubarak, or whom?
Is Putin in the running for this honor finally? Evidently not. We want to make friends with him, right?
Our objective is supposedly to get rid of Assad--because he's uniquely bad. But by now, he's a puppet in the hands of his military suppliers. As an individual he's meaningless. Focusing on this one individual is utter nonsense. Worse, it's fake. It's not just empty rhetoric, it's a lie.
If our goal is to achieve greater happiness for Syrians (but we don't care as much about Nigerians, Palestinians, the Kurds, or other riffraff), then let Merkel take them all--in her remaining two years in power before she's swept into the dustbin of history.
We've had many tries at "regime change" in foreign countries. We burn money, lives--and end up with a new and random regime. Or the same old one. This doesn't make us more credible, or richer, or gain us any allies. Time to stop.
Russia can overrun her neighbors and reestablish satellite regimes, without any meaningful NATO opposition. But Russia can't achieve lasting change in the Middle East, any more than we can. Neither boots on the ground, bombing, drones, our best (useless) science or our incompetent intelligence can get the job done, and Russia won't do any better.
Let them bleed fighting ISIS and all the rest. Let Russian Mothers march again.
Is Putin in the running for this honor finally? Evidently not. We want to make friends with him, right?
Our objective is supposedly to get rid of Assad--because he's uniquely bad. But by now, he's a puppet in the hands of his military suppliers. As an individual he's meaningless. Focusing on this one individual is utter nonsense. Worse, it's fake. It's not just empty rhetoric, it's a lie.
If our goal is to achieve greater happiness for Syrians (but we don't care as much about Nigerians, Palestinians, the Kurds, or other riffraff), then let Merkel take them all--in her remaining two years in power before she's swept into the dustbin of history.
We've had many tries at "regime change" in foreign countries. We burn money, lives--and end up with a new and random regime. Or the same old one. This doesn't make us more credible, or richer, or gain us any allies. Time to stop.
Russia can overrun her neighbors and reestablish satellite regimes, without any meaningful NATO opposition. But Russia can't achieve lasting change in the Middle East, any more than we can. Neither boots on the ground, bombing, drones, our best (useless) science or our incompetent intelligence can get the job done, and Russia won't do any better.
Let them bleed fighting ISIS and all the rest. Let Russian Mothers march again.
Obama blames his advisers for his lack of a strategy on this issue. It's a cop-out. What will happen now is the Russians, Iranians, and Syrians will go after the moderate Syrian rebels (if there are any) and not ISIS, because ISIS is the causus belli for their entry and continued presence in the country. The Kurds, our long-term steadfast allies who actually fight ISIS, are abandoned and at risk, which is appalling. If they are smart they are probably getting into dinghys to float over to Greece right now.
2
The Syria problem is intractable not because there is a brutal dictator but because the dictator knows RIGHTLY that in a Sunni sea of hardliners around him in the middle east (there are about eight to ten times more Sunni in the world than Shias) who have recently shown their hostility by attacking and killing the Shia mosques in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, with hardly any similar reprisal from the other sect, his minority group will be hacked into obsolescence once the rule is shifted to the other side. It's intractable because the rift between the sects started with a war between the wife of the prophet of Islam and his grandsons.
The skill, experience, and energy that John Kerry brings to his post is what we should hope to have in our highest offices.
"Why is he not running for President?", one commenter asked.
"Maybe we should be asking ourselves why much more highly qualified citizens are not willing to commit to the most important job in the United States.", said another commenter.
Kerry, of course, did run in 2004. Republican operatives produced the dishonest, despicable Swift Boat campaign, and amazingly the American people returned George W. Bush to the presidency with 53% of the popular vote.
More highly qualified people would commit to seeking the presidency except that the process of selecting nominees forces the candidates to appeal to an electorate whose civic engagement is missing (33% are unregistered to vote), low (another 10% are registered but don't vote even in the general election for president), or uninformed/misinformed/single issue (half of the rest? or another 27%). Total: at least 70% of electorate.
We get many lowest common denominator candidates/nominees because they are seeking votes from that 70%.
Headlines of recent opinion pieces in the Times are telling about the resulting candidates and the efforts required to connect to the electorate: "Scott Walker's Cocktail of Ignorance" and "Hillary Clinton's Pajama Party".
"Why is he not running for President?", one commenter asked.
"Maybe we should be asking ourselves why much more highly qualified citizens are not willing to commit to the most important job in the United States.", said another commenter.
Kerry, of course, did run in 2004. Republican operatives produced the dishonest, despicable Swift Boat campaign, and amazingly the American people returned George W. Bush to the presidency with 53% of the popular vote.
More highly qualified people would commit to seeking the presidency except that the process of selecting nominees forces the candidates to appeal to an electorate whose civic engagement is missing (33% are unregistered to vote), low (another 10% are registered but don't vote even in the general election for president), or uninformed/misinformed/single issue (half of the rest? or another 27%). Total: at least 70% of electorate.
We get many lowest common denominator candidates/nominees because they are seeking votes from that 70%.
Headlines of recent opinion pieces in the Times are telling about the resulting candidates and the efforts required to connect to the electorate: "Scott Walker's Cocktail of Ignorance" and "Hillary Clinton's Pajama Party".
4
Just because Putin wants to get involved in this conflict does not mean that he will succeed. It is amazing how quickly GOP start backing Putin and see him as a strong leader. He will make an excellent candidate for the Tea Party and then go back to the Bush era.
1
The Military Industry is nearly all-powerful. It is the base of the corporate oligarchs. A president is no match for it. Yet, Obama has kept it from going all-out despite the anguished howling of the Congressional Hawks. If Russia takes over in the war business for a while, Obama's "dithering" may prove to be the real Change he promised so that his successor can start on the policies that have been clearly stated by Bernie Sanders.
4
Kerry would make a much better candidate than Biden or Hillary - there is still time. He would have done a better job than Bush in 2004, in the same way that Romney would have done a better job than Obama in 2012. It is unfortunate that we keep denying ourselves of qualified candidates and go for glitter and charisma over qualifications.
My congrats to Obama losing Iraq, Syria, soon to be Afganistan, and now the Palestinians to the 2 state rule. Hillary and now Kerry have played the role that supported Obama in his game of international chess, or should I say checkers. It is a brutal world out there that preys on the weak. Wish it wasn't, but that is the way it is. Some are sheep and some are sheepdogs. Obama is the former but could be the latter - the rest of the free world depends on it.
3
"Obama is the former but could be the latter - the rest of the free world depends on it."
Not "could" but "should." That was the job he was hired for and that he failed.
Not "could" but "should." That was the job he was hired for and that he failed.
1
It seems as if Kerry hopes to reach some agreement about Assad. But the only agreement possible seems to have Assad in power immediately after the war ends and during some sort of transition.
I think any effort to remove Assad other than through a peaceful transition will turn Syria into Iraq when we destroyed all the institutions of government which caused the country to fall apart from which it has still not recovered.
Russia is the only country that can manage a transition with Assad. We refuse to talk to him - typical US arrogance - but there can be no transition without talking to Assad and that means Russia. If we try to overthrow Assad we are very apt to end up with ISIL in power - something no one wants.
Kerry is smart to keep diplomatic channel open, while the military is important, in the end there must be diplomatic negotiations. And it looks like Russia is the stand-in for Assad.
I think any effort to remove Assad other than through a peaceful transition will turn Syria into Iraq when we destroyed all the institutions of government which caused the country to fall apart from which it has still not recovered.
Russia is the only country that can manage a transition with Assad. We refuse to talk to him - typical US arrogance - but there can be no transition without talking to Assad and that means Russia. If we try to overthrow Assad we are very apt to end up with ISIL in power - something no one wants.
Kerry is smart to keep diplomatic channel open, while the military is important, in the end there must be diplomatic negotiations. And it looks like Russia is the stand-in for Assad.
3
Kerry is a negotiator.
1
I admire any human being who would, consciously, undertake such a profound journey with other global leaders - PLANETARY LEADERS - to work MANICALLY, to positively catalyze a Syrian Peace Accord - and for it to stick. For it to be REAL. Emotional. Spiritual cleansed.
How could that possibly happen -?
If John Kerry, who I admire greatly is sincerely opening his Neurosynaptic Fibers to radical creative impulses for resolution here - I feel less futile about the career of my Nation, the US. I feel relief. And basic human goodness.
Here's a question to meditate upon at this junction, I think:
How might the United States, through its vast channels (broadly and CREATIVELY defined), NOW, not in 2011, not it 2001, not in 1001, not in 2500 BC, NOW 2015 -
How might the United States, as a "realistic" first step, through its artistic and creative communities more fully use IMAGE and SONG and STORY, etc, (all the stuff we're GREAT at, apparently) to imagine a - wait for it -
Matriarchal Middle East
England has a Queen and Charles Darwin on the same piece of currency. Not us. Not them. :)
I'm pessimistic to think that would ever happen here. But who can argue that Matriarchy is the next (realistic, non-fantastical) step in MANY (if not all) Societies. Why not? 21st century style. It helps the Patriarchs safe face!!!!
How does THAT switch happen in Syria? Asma al Assad as President? But this is THEIR society. Not ours. And finally, Buddhism....
How could that possibly happen -?
If John Kerry, who I admire greatly is sincerely opening his Neurosynaptic Fibers to radical creative impulses for resolution here - I feel less futile about the career of my Nation, the US. I feel relief. And basic human goodness.
Here's a question to meditate upon at this junction, I think:
How might the United States, through its vast channels (broadly and CREATIVELY defined), NOW, not in 2011, not it 2001, not in 1001, not in 2500 BC, NOW 2015 -
How might the United States, as a "realistic" first step, through its artistic and creative communities more fully use IMAGE and SONG and STORY, etc, (all the stuff we're GREAT at, apparently) to imagine a - wait for it -
Matriarchal Middle East
England has a Queen and Charles Darwin on the same piece of currency. Not us. Not them. :)
I'm pessimistic to think that would ever happen here. But who can argue that Matriarchy is the next (realistic, non-fantastical) step in MANY (if not all) Societies. Why not? 21st century style. It helps the Patriarchs safe face!!!!
How does THAT switch happen in Syria? Asma al Assad as President? But this is THEIR society. Not ours. And finally, Buddhism....
America dropped on Vietnam three times the tonnage of bombs dropped during the entire Second World War. We lost that war. Does this fact mean anything to the goons who are running things now? Of course the air strikes have been useless in changing the course of the war and the civilians "accidentally" killed are just collateral damage. And the three Syrians in the American-supported army is not a comedy skit on SNL. It is the actual truth. You have two choices. Either let the Middle East solve their own problems or send in at least a half million soldiers. I choose option one.
Let's hope the notion that Assad must get out (& uncondtionally) doesn't become a kind of thoughtless mantra blinding many leaders (e.g., Obama, Hollande) to the true nature of diplomacy.
1
John Kerry has a work ethic, and he is not worrying about how Republicans will play any lack of success in Syria in their fact-challenged presidential politics. It is sometimes useful to have a cabinet member who may not be brilliant, but is smart enough and gritty enough to persist.
3
This is the sad era of America's downsizing across the board.
Instead of classical three stooges we switched to two.
Instead of classical three stooges we switched to two.
3
Depending upon how you count, al, the only stooges we have to deal with are 10 or 11 Republicans who keep busy poking each other in the eye while telling lies to anyone foolish enough to listen.
1
It's such a relief, even in a world filled with chaos and war, to see adults managing our foreign relations. I see Obama and Kerry's styles perfectly meshed. Obama is keeping us out of another interminable war in the Middle East. And Kerry is using his diplomatic power to keep Syria "unified" and "secular” with Assad gone.
Obviously Kerry's been dealt a losing hand, and it sounds like he knows it. Kerry is continuing to plug away anyway, because he see's it as his duty to his country and to the world. Perhaps the time is coming where Obama tells Kerry to toss this hand. And maybe Kerry's maturity in keeping communications open with Russia throughout all of this will give us some small bit of leverage after all, in how the next phase unfolds.
Obviously Kerry's been dealt a losing hand, and it sounds like he knows it. Kerry is continuing to plug away anyway, because he see's it as his duty to his country and to the world. Perhaps the time is coming where Obama tells Kerry to toss this hand. And maybe Kerry's maturity in keeping communications open with Russia throughout all of this will give us some small bit of leverage after all, in how the next phase unfolds.
1
CIA put a puppet in Ucraine as a retaliation to Putin refusal to eliminate Assad by the former , the latter refuses to give up the Golan (idric resource to the ME) to israel, the world is afraid of refusing israel oppressive sionism because of sionists world finance total control .....capish?....when US bombing kill civilians is always because somebody put them there to blame US:< theyre using civilians as a shield> when Assad is bombing the terrorists the US trained and put there to take Syria than Assad is a war criminal, PLEASE...you can lie some of the time but this is too much you know.
Secretary Kerry definitely rushes in, he is a stud. I heard Secretary Kerry even took shrap-metal in the leg while fighting the PKK alongside the Turks a few months back. He is fully on board with Erdogan's plan to commit genocide against the Kurds. Bravo. Oops, that news was one of his news releases. It turns out he just broke his leg riding a bike.
The jury may still out on Mr. Kerry, but we must give him credit for his indefatigable efforts on our behalf.
I do like his style and I'm sure the President employs Kerry to counterbalance his own grim view of it all.
His focus, his resolve, and above all his confidence are hallmarks of the American diplomatic way. It is a way we can be proud of and we must support.
I do like his style and I'm sure the President employs Kerry to counterbalance his own grim view of it all.
His focus, his resolve, and above all his confidence are hallmarks of the American diplomatic way. It is a way we can be proud of and we must support.
3
Benignly neglected is the Sunni-Shiite divide, Judeo-Christian world irrelevant as an inner-Muslim issue Muslims need to sort out. It lies submerged most in political decisions & rivalries between Iran & Saudi Arabia. In OPEC meetings and it surfaced newly in Rowhani's U.N. address, as he axed Saudi govt. for crass irresponsibility in 1000 & odd Hajj deaths. Assad’s Allawi sect is aligned to Shiite theology, hence “brotherhood” solidarity & allegiance, now militarily bolstered by Russia to stop U.S. regime-change. 2. With no ground troops U.S. lost its face after an egregious bungle arming “moderate” rebels - ISIS-Al-Kaida fighting Assad, now knifing U.S. & Western security in a mineral rich area. The "moderate rebel" in guerrilla war is bunk, when opaque kaleidoscope of forces work. U.S. stupidly embraced that fallacy. To hide folly, it frantically struggles to make itself validated. 3. White House invective at Russia albeit, Russia got rid of Syria’s chem-weapons, not the U.S., giving great security relief to Israel. Israel now trusts more Putin’s word than Obama’s, that Bibi & 2 of his generals rushed to Moscow to bag Putin’s non-clash assurance for Israeli jets in Golan Heights and Syrian borders while Russian jets back Syrian security. 4. Obama wants to end his term sans any war. Thus, aboard the Russian boat and not actively involved on ground is no harm, why not?
George Chakko, Fmr. U.N. correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria.
30/09/2015 16:00 hrs
George Chakko, Fmr. U.N. correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria.
30/09/2015 16:00 hrs
1
A variation on the "good cop, bad cop" theme, perhaps?
My compliments to Messrs. Obama and Kerry for putting it to good use.
My compliments to Messrs. Obama and Kerry for putting it to good use.
3
The author's implication is that Sec'y Kerry is somehow acting contrary to the President's agenda and strategy with respect to Syria. Yet, nothing supports that view.
Rather, this is an example of appropriate "division of labor" on the part of the administration. The Iran deal and the re-establishment of relations with Cuba were handled in a similar fashion.
One can disagree with the administration's goals on all of these things, but it is hard to fault the method employed in achieving them.
Rather, this is an example of appropriate "division of labor" on the part of the administration. The Iran deal and the re-establishment of relations with Cuba were handled in a similar fashion.
One can disagree with the administration's goals on all of these things, but it is hard to fault the method employed in achieving them.
5
Readers should remember that Syria has been a Russian client state for many decades. For most of that period, Syria was autocratic but reasonably stable, and adherents of its many different religious persuasions were allowed to practice their beliefs. Yes, Syria gave some sanctuary to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, but the latter was never the kind of threat to regional stability that Daesh ("ISIS") has become. Moreover, Russia's and Iran's interests are seldom aligned, for reasons that should be obvious.
In my view, it has been naïve from the outset to believe that Syria could somehow become a model democracy, or that this was in fact the goal of any significant "rebel" group, or an outcome that would be acceptable to the power players in the region. The current situation is directly attributable to Bush's disastrous decision to intervene in an already-contained Iraq and the gross military and political mismanagement that accompanied our invasion.
With two proxy wars (Syria and Yemen) already raging, let's be very careful before doing anything that will make the situation worse or commit us to unattainable goals.
In my view, it has been naïve from the outset to believe that Syria could somehow become a model democracy, or that this was in fact the goal of any significant "rebel" group, or an outcome that would be acceptable to the power players in the region. The current situation is directly attributable to Bush's disastrous decision to intervene in an already-contained Iraq and the gross military and political mismanagement that accompanied our invasion.
With two proxy wars (Syria and Yemen) already raging, let's be very careful before doing anything that will make the situation worse or commit us to unattainable goals.
1
Why is this surprising?
John Kerry is a knowledgeable person concerning world affairs.
In fact, unlike most politicians from both parties, he has actually walked in the same shoes that soldiers walk in.
And as Secretary of State, it is his job to me the president's point person on foreign policy.
"Where Obama Will Not Tread" title seems to indicate that you, Mr. Baker, think the president of the U.S. is some sort of Superman.
John Kerry is a knowledgeable person concerning world affairs.
In fact, unlike most politicians from both parties, he has actually walked in the same shoes that soldiers walk in.
And as Secretary of State, it is his job to me the president's point person on foreign policy.
"Where Obama Will Not Tread" title seems to indicate that you, Mr. Baker, think the president of the U.S. is some sort of Superman.
1
Just a bone to pick with the constant references to Pres Obama as a professor, professorial, professor-like, etc, as here, 'a professor's detachment'. Just because he is passive, disinterested, or even thoughtful about an issue does not make him a professor. In fact, he never was a professor in title, but a Sr Guest Lecturer' regarded as a professor by faculty and students, as all instructors but TA's are. News Flash: Obama is not always the smartest guy in the room.
2
Why doesn't Obama give Kerry the hook? Who is Kerry to go off designing and pursuing his own foreign policy?
Perhaps the Iraq withdrawal could have been better. But I don't hold this opinion for this decision.
He seems to have believed too much in the democratic spirit of the Arabs, having forgotten that they have largely evolved into a deeply religously indoctrinated mass compared to 30 years ago.
Had the Arab spring occurred 30 years ago, when the Arab world was still secular and moderate, the US policy of supporting it to get rid of dictators may have very likely succeeded.
In this environment, on the other hand, that has been dirtied by Saudi Arabia's campaigns of brainwashing the Muslim masses that is without parallel in history, it was bound only to expose the strength that political Islam has garnered in the last 30 years thanks to our so-dear ally Saudi Arabia.
He seems to have believed too much in the democratic spirit of the Arabs, having forgotten that they have largely evolved into a deeply religously indoctrinated mass compared to 30 years ago.
Had the Arab spring occurred 30 years ago, when the Arab world was still secular and moderate, the US policy of supporting it to get rid of dictators may have very likely succeeded.
In this environment, on the other hand, that has been dirtied by Saudi Arabia's campaigns of brainwashing the Muslim masses that is without parallel in history, it was bound only to expose the strength that political Islam has garnered in the last 30 years thanks to our so-dear ally Saudi Arabia.
Good luck on making Kerry your Democratic hero now that you've given up on Obama ,Hillary is getting gutted by the media,and Joe is AWOL.There are no Democratic heroes .
3
I fear this article is a prelude to a Kerry candidacy.... and he has excelled at nothing so much as self-promotion. The man does love the mirror...
But right now he should just do his job as best he can and serve the national interest and his President. Quietly.
I recall he wasn't even the first choice for State...
But right now he should just do his job as best he can and serve the national interest and his President. Quietly.
I recall he wasn't even the first choice for State...
As he left constitution hall in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a women. Doctor Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic? He replied:” a republic, if you can keep it”.
Fast forward to the present and America is the military spearhead for every monarchy out there, including Great Britain. It’s lamentable in my view.
Fast forward to the present and America is the military spearhead for every monarchy out there, including Great Britain. It’s lamentable in my view.
So what has Kerry fixed? Anyone?
3
At least unlike Bush/Cheney he didn't break anything.
As he left constitution hall in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a women. Doctor Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic? He replied:” a republic, if you can keep it”.
Fast forward to the present and America is the military spearhead for every monarchy out there, including Great Britain. It’s lamentable in my view.
Fast forward to the present and America is the military spearhead for every monarchy out there, including Great Britain. It’s lamentable in my view.
1
Either way you look at this situation there is no end to it. President Obama is being careful not to put ground troops in Syria to combat ISIS and wants Assad out. Assad out it will be another Iraq and Libya with no leadership, more killings between Shiites and Sunnis, thus ISIS grabbing more control. Let Russia, Iran and Iraq battle ISIS and wait and see what happens; their troops will be in bags back to their homeland. We had our share of sacrificing more than 4.000 US troops for what? Nothing, let these radicals Muslims kill each other, I wish them success.
Unfortunately the radical Muslims, of which continue to grow exponentially in number and ruthlessness, are changing the rules of the game.
"Leadership" isn't rushing in, ignorant and ill prepared, and smashing a place to pieces. That hasn't worked out too well. The critics of Obama, Kerry and Clinton are the same blustering nincompoops that gave us Iraq, Afgahanistan, the recession and a dysfunctional congress. Stupidity and a refusal to learn from experience is not the same a "courage of your convictions". Let those calling diplomacy "capituation" and prudence a "lack of leadership" never be handed the reins of real power.
7
Pres. Obama is sitting back in his faculty lounge at the White House waiting for Kerry to submit a research paper on the Middle East. Then Obama, like any good academic and community organizer, can review the paper with his colleagues, brain storm during a break out session, and come up a consensus theory. In the mean time more people are getting dead and Putin is stomping all over Obama as he rushes into the Middle East to fill it's leadership vacuum. My how the country has declined.
4
Hope that Kerry is in his role for the long-run... He's established considerable traction as Sec'y of State ... If he stays in that role beyond 2016 (irrespective of who wins the White House), his accomplishments might be truly remarkable. And, we'd have a foreign policy with continuity and consistency that both partners and adversary's would respect (despite that some groups within the US would prefer a neo-con approach).
1
I strongly doubt that John Kerry is doing what he is doing without full approval of Obama, though the characterization of the different attitudes of the two men with regard to the Middle East seems to fit what we've witnessed. John Kerry appears to be one of the boldest and most effective Secretaries of State we have had in that position. Kudos to Obama for choosing him. His vigor, decisiveness and diplomatic skill are a surprise to those of us who have only watched American politics from the sideline and witnessed his floundering in his campaign bid against George Bush. I'd love to see him in the current presidential race, but there is no way he could conduct a campaign and continue to work on the problems he is trying to solve right now. He is probably more valuable in his current role.
3
The "red line" quote continues to be misused against Obama by those who want to pursue a theme of Obama leadership shortcomings.
Remember the actual words. "If we see chemical weapons moving around or being used that would be a red line. It would change my calculus. It would change my equation."
It did. Obama picked up the phone and called Putin. Working together they got the chemical weapons out. He asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force (that, by itself, was a "change of calculus").
The Republican controlled Congress saw an opportunity to hang Obama out to dry by doing nothing. Exhibit 7000 of why they have an approval rating with American people of 14%.
Those who use the "red line" attack on Obama should tell the entire story. Would they ave preferred unilateral action by the President without Congress. How many dead bodies would satisfy their criteria of "effective leadership"?
Remember the actual words. "If we see chemical weapons moving around or being used that would be a red line. It would change my calculus. It would change my equation."
It did. Obama picked up the phone and called Putin. Working together they got the chemical weapons out. He asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force (that, by itself, was a "change of calculus").
The Republican controlled Congress saw an opportunity to hang Obama out to dry by doing nothing. Exhibit 7000 of why they have an approval rating with American people of 14%.
Those who use the "red line" attack on Obama should tell the entire story. Would they ave preferred unilateral action by the President without Congress. How many dead bodies would satisfy their criteria of "effective leadership"?
5
Putin set the tone on the Syria change not Barry O b
The man seems nothing more than an insufferable travel nut who loves living out of fancy hotel rooms and bike riding in exotic places. He wears a mean suit and cuts a dashing figure in it . . . What more does a modern-day diplomat have to be. Oh, and he's a good talker with that big square chin.
Unfortunately, talk is just talk, so what has Kerry to fear by rushing in anywhere and hanging out with his diplomatic buddies in some hip resort town and all the amenities that go with?
Unfortunately, talk is just talk, so what has Kerry to fear by rushing in anywhere and hanging out with his diplomatic buddies in some hip resort town and all the amenities that go with?
1
As a person who travels extensively on business I can assure you that your idea as to the pleasures of such non-stop travelling are incredibly naïve, to say the least.
Let's also not forget that this guy was on patrol boats under constant threat of attack during Vietnam.
Kerry is doing a superb job under most difficult conditions.
Let's also not forget that this guy was on patrol boats under constant threat of attack during Vietnam.
Kerry is doing a superb job under most difficult conditions.
Keery doesn't negotiate, he capitulates. It makes things much easier.
9
Goes to show what a failure Hillary Clinton and Obama have been.
8
This sums up the lack of leadership by President Obama.
8
Wait, we're trusting John Kerry to speak for America? To negotiate critical details? Is this approved by Karl Rove, the skilled smear machine czar who did George W. Bush's dirty work for him in the '04 campaign? ( as well as other smear action prior to that).
While I was dismayed by his choice of a rich ambulance chaser named John Edwards as running mate, John Kerry would have been the president we needed in January of '05.
That the same party who held hands with Rove as his operatives destroyed Kerry in their Swift Boat campaign, then lavished heaps of praise on him as our Secretary of State, shows the schizoid mind set in the current Republican Part.
John Kerry has served his nation well, I wish him luck as he continues to try to put together any stability in a region we decimated in 2003.
While I was dismayed by his choice of a rich ambulance chaser named John Edwards as running mate, John Kerry would have been the president we needed in January of '05.
That the same party who held hands with Rove as his operatives destroyed Kerry in their Swift Boat campaign, then lavished heaps of praise on him as our Secretary of State, shows the schizoid mind set in the current Republican Part.
John Kerry has served his nation well, I wish him luck as he continues to try to put together any stability in a region we decimated in 2003.
13
Kerry has seen the horrors of war first hand. He is a good man and true American hero.
13
Kerry should be running for President of the United States.
6
On foreign policy, President Obama has chosen wisely on his second mandate. His Secretary of State is skillful John Kerry and not Hillary Clinton. Kerry will be remembered as one of the most capable and effective Secretary of State since Herr Doctor Henry Kissinger.
7
John Kerry is so obviously the choice for democratic nominee for 2016. After the shameful way he was treated last time we can only hope he puts the country & world's needs first.
7
Let the Russians get stuck in Syria like they did in Afghanistan, Vlad watch out for shoulder fired "ground to air" missiles.
4
That headline should not have been written. It's clearly a play on "fools rush in ..." and thus not so subtly suggests Mr. Kerry is being naive or irrational even to attempt diplomacy in some cases. How the NYT can believe it's presenting unbiased news with headlines like this is beyond me.
4
Who does Kerry work for? Do you think for one second he goes off on these missions without coordination and approval of the White House? How naive are you?
13
What in the world are you implying! That, as some said about Rove and Bush, Kerry is Obama's brain?
3
Sec. Kerry and President Obama share a thankless task, regardless of the approach taken.
The video of a toddler's body washing up on the shore has done little to sway those in this country, and they are many, whose attitude is encapsulated in the opinion that "they're just Muslims; it's their problem; let them sort it out." Most of holders of this mindset will tell you they are Christians. You can guess where they stand on other hot-button issues of this election cycle as well.
A two-year-old is not a Muslim, a Christian (let alone any one specific form of the myriad sects of this religion, regardless of what you believe or what your parents told you), a Jew, or atheist, for that matter. He was a helpless human being. At what point does age cease to matter when another person is helpless in their home?
The video of a toddler's body washing up on the shore has done little to sway those in this country, and they are many, whose attitude is encapsulated in the opinion that "they're just Muslims; it's their problem; let them sort it out." Most of holders of this mindset will tell you they are Christians. You can guess where they stand on other hot-button issues of this election cycle as well.
A two-year-old is not a Muslim, a Christian (let alone any one specific form of the myriad sects of this religion, regardless of what you believe or what your parents told you), a Jew, or atheist, for that matter. He was a helpless human being. At what point does age cease to matter when another person is helpless in their home?
2
It doesn't sway me because it was designed to manipulate me.
4
The toddler was not a refugee. His family was living in Turkey for at least two years. His father jumped on board with the refugees to find better work in Europe.
Children's bodies "wash up" in the morgues of our great American cities everyday. Where's the outcry about that?
John Kerry has - compared to Obama - more freedom to be entrepreneurial. He is also obsessed with his legacy, wishing to be remembered for writing history.
Kerry is said to have struck an agreement with Russia that "we want to save Syria, keep it unified, keep it secular".
Have they asked the Syrians and other players in the region what they want? A huge mistake had been made by the British and French diplomats - Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges Picot, who carved up the Ottoman Empire, disregarding the ethnic, sectarian fault lines of the region. Co-existence had been painful, especially under secular dictators like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad.
The Arab Spring was a taste for democracy, although short-lived. Hence it will be problematic to turn the clock back to the good old days of secular dictators, who rule with an iron grip.
Kerry is said to have struck an agreement with Russia that "we want to save Syria, keep it unified, keep it secular".
Have they asked the Syrians and other players in the region what they want? A huge mistake had been made by the British and French diplomats - Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges Picot, who carved up the Ottoman Empire, disregarding the ethnic, sectarian fault lines of the region. Co-existence had been painful, especially under secular dictators like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad.
The Arab Spring was a taste for democracy, although short-lived. Hence it will be problematic to turn the clock back to the good old days of secular dictators, who rule with an iron grip.
2
John Kerry has become the "Hardest Working Man In Show Business" As good or better than Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher.
4
"John Kerry Rushes In..."?
This war has been raging for HOW MANY years? How is anyone "rushing in"? And do DO what?
And Obama is RIGHT to understand "the lesson of the Iraq war" (which is the same as "the lesson of the Vietnam war")! A war based on vague political goals, with no clear military goals or objectives, is doomed to failure, leaving the wager of war in a ruinous quagmire... (Ask the Russians in Afghanistan, or the English in the Boer War)
The generals always want more weapons and always see more threats, while also telling us they see 'the light at the end of the tunnel,' just a few $billions down the line...
This war has been raging for HOW MANY years? How is anyone "rushing in"? And do DO what?
And Obama is RIGHT to understand "the lesson of the Iraq war" (which is the same as "the lesson of the Vietnam war")! A war based on vague political goals, with no clear military goals or objectives, is doomed to failure, leaving the wager of war in a ruinous quagmire... (Ask the Russians in Afghanistan, or the English in the Boer War)
The generals always want more weapons and always see more threats, while also telling us they see 'the light at the end of the tunnel,' just a few $billions down the line...
8
Another clear piece of evidence that Barack Obama is as incompetent as he is arrogant. Obama content to lose? Won't touch global problems created by his failed policies? Leave it to Kerty to tinker with like a discarded transistor radio?
We're talking about 250,000 dead Syrians, millions more fleeing. An international crisis. We're talking about Afghanistan crumbling as Obama's policy fails and the Taliban rises. We're talking about the JV team running roughshod over Iraq.
We're talking about Iran, watching Obama fumble around in the clown car and laughing as they develop nuclear weapons.
The NYT should be calling for Barack Obama's resignation. How much more of the world needs to be in flames as Obama goofs around, pouting on the global stage making a fool of himself and our country?
We're talking about 250,000 dead Syrians, millions more fleeing. An international crisis. We're talking about Afghanistan crumbling as Obama's policy fails and the Taliban rises. We're talking about the JV team running roughshod over Iraq.
We're talking about Iran, watching Obama fumble around in the clown car and laughing as they develop nuclear weapons.
The NYT should be calling for Barack Obama's resignation. How much more of the world needs to be in flames as Obama goofs around, pouting on the global stage making a fool of himself and our country?
7
I have greatly enjoyed the strong dose of reality you have been serving up to our Progressive friends the last few days. Please keep it up!
3
Thank you.
I almost wish I could write a column for the NY Times to let America know exactly how far we've fallen into the abyss with Obama in the White House, and how hard the establishment news media works to make sure we get more selfies of Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner than actual news.
I almost wish I could write a column for the NY Times to let America know exactly how far we've fallen into the abyss with Obama in the White House, and how hard the establishment news media works to make sure we get more selfies of Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner than actual news.
1
Kerry (like Biden) would make a strong Democratic presidential contender should Hillary Clinton's campaign falter.
3
When Pope Francis entered Congress, John Kerry was the only person he approached to personally greet. That says something.
8
Good article. As a conservative Republican I seldom agree with anyone near the top of this administration, but at least Kerry has the ability to appear statesmanlike and diplomatic, and chooses to allow his ideals to guide him. Good for him. He's got guts.
18
One of Amerivca's great ex-ambassadors, Christopher Hill, appeared on MSNBC this morning discussing Syria and Russia's new-old role there. Hill said that just because specific talks don't seem to produce immediate results is no reason to stop talking. Diplomacy is a slow, tedious process. Maybe Kerry knows this, in part, because he learned from his father about diplomacy.
We, my wife and I, have two thoughts generated by this article. 1) Where would our world be if John Kerry would have been allowed to be our President? 2) The currently described behaviors of the POTUS and the SOS offer a more favorable opportunity for success rather than what is promoted by the non thinkers constantly shooting from the hip.
6
The Iran nuclear deal is proof Kerry is pathetic. He's pandering to the Nobel Prize committee.
2
Obama has no plan. And if he does, it apparently is to see Syria turn into an Islamist state.
The US must have the courage to admit that Putin was right all long on this one. I prefer Putin's plan and hope the US supports Putin and Russia on this one.
The US must have the courage to admit that Putin was right all long on this one. I prefer Putin's plan and hope the US supports Putin and Russia on this one.
1
Russia's solution could have worked four years ago, when Russia first proposed it. After so much killing I think Assad must go. But, as the Russia say, let's first join forces to defeat IS and then look at how promoting an accord among the healthy forces in Syria -- which means that Assad will go.
The USA has no proposal whatsoever. Perhaps because chaos is what it is looking for: good for arms sales and for Israel.
The USA has no proposal whatsoever. Perhaps because chaos is what it is looking for: good for arms sales and for Israel.
5
Before before I even read this article, I want to register my deep offense at the headline. Apart from your transparent reliance on a well known aphorism, you clearly assesses Kerry to be a fool (who "rushes in"). Interestingly, though, you do not assign Obama the role of the angel. Instead, you suggest that he, by dent of obstinate will, refuses to engage. These two men are working through a very dangerous situation. Can't you swallow you cynicism for just a little while as they try to unwind this confrontation.
39
What crediblity can the US have in the world if American theologians can shut down the government? America's adversaries see the opportunity.
5
Let's face it. The reason Obama wanted to see Assad go was because he was inconvenient for Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is highly unlikely Assad used chemical weapons on his people. The man cannot be that stupid.
It has been a convenient excuse for Obama to do the dirty work of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The problem is Obama has no plan. No alternative. Does he really want Syria to become another Saudi Arabia? Another nation in the hands of fanatic Islamists? Because at the moment, that seems to be the only alternative.
Putin, on the other hand, has a plan.
The US should abandon all its plans and support Russia on this.
Hopefully the fiasco of M.E. politics of the US in the last two decades will teach the US one thing. That it needs to reevaluate all of its alliances in the region - especially those of the fanatic Gulf nations that are undermining US policy with the programs of radicalization of the muslim masses and by supporting all manner of Islamist groups in the region, running directly against the principles of the US.
Russia is a much better ally than Saudi Arabia. And maybe Iran will become one as well. Time to reevaluate everything the US has stood for in the M.E in the last three decades. That the US has committed one fiasco after another in the last three decades is beyond doubt.
It has been a convenient excuse for Obama to do the dirty work of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The problem is Obama has no plan. No alternative. Does he really want Syria to become another Saudi Arabia? Another nation in the hands of fanatic Islamists? Because at the moment, that seems to be the only alternative.
Putin, on the other hand, has a plan.
The US should abandon all its plans and support Russia on this.
Hopefully the fiasco of M.E. politics of the US in the last two decades will teach the US one thing. That it needs to reevaluate all of its alliances in the region - especially those of the fanatic Gulf nations that are undermining US policy with the programs of radicalization of the muslim masses and by supporting all manner of Islamist groups in the region, running directly against the principles of the US.
Russia is a much better ally than Saudi Arabia. And maybe Iran will become one as well. Time to reevaluate everything the US has stood for in the M.E in the last three decades. That the US has committed one fiasco after another in the last three decades is beyond doubt.
4
The layers of pathetic in the headline alone stagger the mind.
5
The great irony is that Kerry is cleaning up a mess that likely never would have happened if he had not been Swift-boated and Bush elected.
5
Unfortunate that this courageous intelligent patriot, John Kerry, got swift-boated by a few GOP billionaires during the 2004 presidential election, thereby dooming the USA to four more years of the worst president in US history.
6
Followed by eight years of the next worst president in history.
I seem top recall an old adage.....
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend...."
Sorting out Syria is akin to cleaning Augean Stables and is really quite secondary to containing and defeating ISIS which should be the priority and a sine qua non.
If Russia wants to help, we should welcome the assistance.
If the decide they want to prop up an unpopular and brutal dictator, and nation build by all means be our guest.
We've been there (Viet Nam) done that (1950-1975) and still haven't learned that lesson (Iraq 2)
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend...."
Sorting out Syria is akin to cleaning Augean Stables and is really quite secondary to containing and defeating ISIS which should be the priority and a sine qua non.
If Russia wants to help, we should welcome the assistance.
If the decide they want to prop up an unpopular and brutal dictator, and nation build by all means be our guest.
We've been there (Viet Nam) done that (1950-1975) and still haven't learned that lesson (Iraq 2)
5
Although Kerry might not seek the nomination, if Hillary Clinton were to withdraw her quest for the presidency, Kerry would be a formidable candidate.
4
A deal at any price. Or, any deal is better than none. That explains Iran, and the Administration, and Kerry's outlook on diplomacy. That is not, however, what America is based on.
1
It's Kerry's job to negotiate on behalf of U.S. and Obama. Dumb story almost as dumb as Chicago Tribune report - more like opinion piece - that Obama is weak because U.S. does not use force for every regional conflict that comes up.
3
It seems that neither Obama nor Kerry understand how to work Geo-politics. A situation where there is often no Politically Correct good action but a choice between the lessor of two bad outcomes. The choice of which actions benefits US and western interest. It seems that when confronted with a situation where his ideology and the good of US conflict Obama does not act.
This reader wonders how many understand that Sec. of State John Kerry served honorably during the Vietnam War. He earned the Naval Cross and a purple heart. He commanded a Scout Boat on the Mekong River which flowed through the jungle with highest number of the Viet Cong Guerrillas along with their Command and Control center in that area. While these boats were well armed, their attempts were to draw the V. C. out of the Jungle to the shore of the River. Attack Helicopters waited for the call from the Scout Boats and arrived to blast the Guerrillas, (along with the boats), on the rivers edge. The boats, while effective, were mainly bait.
Mr. Kerry, unlike the great majority of those Career Civilians who serve in our Congress was a warrior who as an Officer and Gentleman operated like a Bulldog On A Pork Chop to defeat the enemy.
The same might now be said of the role he plays as the Sec. Of State! Folks like John Kerry never give up!
Mr. Kerry, unlike the great majority of those Career Civilians who serve in our Congress was a warrior who as an Officer and Gentleman operated like a Bulldog On A Pork Chop to defeat the enemy.
The same might now be said of the role he plays as the Sec. Of State! Folks like John Kerry never give up!
6
Its easier to bomb a city than to bomb an idea. ISIS's staying power in the region is breathtaking but the Western "cold war" view of Syria is more so. The West sees the Asaad government's defeat as the only acceptable solution to the current strife, as Syria is/was the only solid client state of the former USSR. Meanwhile, the very existence of a viable nation organized by Europeans after WWI seems untenable as five million of its fleeing citizens, not to mention its countless dead might attest. After five years of watching this disaster we should have learned that ISIS is an IDEA that is going to continue to expand in influence unless the West stops trying to assert a defense of the European notion of nationhood in the region; that it is the Shia majority who could defeat ISIS in the region if allowed the political space to confront ISIS in a powerful, if not savage military struggle; this is a sectarian crises, not a political crises. As for the Asaad regime, should we even care at this point? Who would fill his shoes? A Shia? A Sunni? A democracy? Time to get real and let the Russians have at it. Their current diplomatic strength in the region favors the Shia in Syria, Iran and Iraq. Ours favors the Sunni in the wealth oil nations who are loathe to attack ISIS consistently. Go for it comrade Putin!
2
Kudoz to Kerry and his relentless optimism (or stubbornness). So much taller than Putin (just look at his face) and Lavrov in so many senses. I ,too, wish he would run for president again.
1
“The president is at peace determining that something is just a loser, that if he touches it, he’s going to make it worse."
Ha.
Ha.
1
I am firmly in the Kerry camp, remembering and honoring the peacemakers without violence, Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela, Jesus and the recent Pope Francis. Please let us exhaust all possibilities and spare the innocent bystanders and our good green earth...more getting in the same room together is a start.
2
I'd vote for Kerry in a flash while I wouldn't for Clinton under any circumstances. Kerry understands foreign policy as well as Sanders knows domestic. Now there's a team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My consistent problem with Warren and Sanders is their lack of foreign policy experience. My problem with Clinton is her experience with foreign policy that brought us catastrophic failure from the Arab Spring to Syria to the Ukraine to the anti-Putin obsession.
My consistent problem with Warren and Sanders is their lack of foreign policy experience. My problem with Clinton is her experience with foreign policy that brought us catastrophic failure from the Arab Spring to Syria to the Ukraine to the anti-Putin obsession.
2
Wow, the body language! If fingers were arrows . . .
John Kerry is the unsung hero of our current political scene. Imagine there was President Kerry and not the 2nd GW administration....
3
So, is it official now? John Kerry for President? Not only is John Kerry Secretary of State, he is a secretary of state that does not shy away from engagement with the world. Not only has John Kerry faced a tough world, he has faced disparity between State and the administration.......What a puff piece.
1
As if the Islamic fanaticism that is ISIS will negotiate with any one or anything. What ISIS will understand, and Islamist fanatics have understood for 1400 years, is violence.
Give it to them, in spades.
Kerry and by extension, Obama, does not have clue as to what he is dealing with. Or, is simply lying to the American people.
Give it to them, in spades.
Kerry and by extension, Obama, does not have clue as to what he is dealing with. Or, is simply lying to the American people.
Frederic C. Hof: “The president is at peace determining that something is just a loser, that if he touches it, he’s going to make it worse. Whereas Kerry has the typical American engineering approach to things — there’s a problem, there’s a way to fix it, somehow.”
Clearly a very correct statement. It shows Obama as a non-American non-fixer ( a looser).
Clearly a very correct statement. It shows Obama as a non-American non-fixer ( a looser).
1
" Kerry has the typical American engineering approach to things — there’s a problem, there’s a way to fix it, somehow.”
Think how different America might be had Ohio cast a few votes differently in 2004...
Think how different America might be had Ohio cast a few votes differently in 2004...
6
Please excuse me for my ignorance but I think the global goal of defeating ISIL is ambiguous. Believing the moderates, supported by the U.S. and some Arab monarchies, can win and set up a successful “secular” government in Syria is just inane. Even if they could, it would just get overrun by the ISIL later. Mr. Kerry’s expression of hope that “the agreement is that we want to save Syria, keep it unified, keep it secular” may not be achieved by ousting Assad since ISIL or moderates whatever aren’t known to be lovers of secularism.
We can just get back to our recent past to have some hints…Saddam Hussein reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds. But, whatever his sins were, his overthrowing destabilized Iraq, and the effects are now almost evident. The same thing had happened in Libya. In both Iraq and Libya, chaos descended into anarchy, clearing the way for the rise of the radical forces like ISIL.
There are many reasons to be thankful by the end of a dictatorship because there can be hope that democracy could take root in its stead. Some people also believe that anything is better than despotism. But that last belief is incorrect.
There is something worse than dictatorship, worse than the absence of freedom, worse than oppression: civil war and chaos. Making Syria chaotic only help non-secular forces in the region to gain and flourish.
We can just get back to our recent past to have some hints…Saddam Hussein reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds. But, whatever his sins were, his overthrowing destabilized Iraq, and the effects are now almost evident. The same thing had happened in Libya. In both Iraq and Libya, chaos descended into anarchy, clearing the way for the rise of the radical forces like ISIL.
There are many reasons to be thankful by the end of a dictatorship because there can be hope that democracy could take root in its stead. Some people also believe that anything is better than despotism. But that last belief is incorrect.
There is something worse than dictatorship, worse than the absence of freedom, worse than oppression: civil war and chaos. Making Syria chaotic only help non-secular forces in the region to gain and flourish.
30
The history of acquiescence in the face of a conquering ethos in international relationships is none too good.
Sometimes there are reasons why dictatorships exist.
The US leaders apparently were ignorant of these reasons.
The US leaders apparently were ignorant of these reasons.
The combined military strength of the nations immediately surrounding ISIS--who reportedly all wish ISIS destroyed as a destabilizing, barbaric force in the region--numbers around 4 million. ISIS numbers approx. 30,000 fighters recruited from multiple countries abroad. That's 10,000 fighters LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the surrounding military strength of ISIS's assumed regional adversaries. Yet, these regional countries are either unable or unwilling to commit their own troops to fighting ISIS, let alone defeating them. The U.S. is still expected to magically produce 100,000 ground troops to "get rid" of ISIS; air strikes just "won't cut it"? We've produced FOUR OR FIVE trained Syrian rebel fighters? That's a joke, right? Now the Russians are showing up in a major way, ramping up the stakes by an order of magnitude and sowing the seeds for galactic confrontation with U.S. interests and forces in the region. At the same time, Afghanistan appears to be coming apart once again, with the Taliban resurgent after 15 years, and the American puppet Afghan "government" a weak, corrupt, ineffective clone of the Iraqi government. Obviously, this bushwah will never end, except maybe with WWIII? Obama is worried about "his legacy"? What happens when ISIS gets a nuclear weapon? Even a "small" one? Where is North Korea in all this? Just home watching the NFL on TV? I don't think so. Legacy, schmegacy! The world hasn't been this much of a powder keg since Hitler invaded Poland.
2
Obama is caught flat footed on every move the Russians make. Why did he not put troops in Syria. Obama is so incredibly flat footed when it comes to foreign policy.
2
When it comes to foreign policy, Obama is the like boss we have all had at some time. The one who doesn't have a clue. And Kerry is like the underling we've all seen, the one who runs around trying pick up the pieces and straighten out the mess his boss leaves behind. And the boss, he never flinches, head up and chest out while he struts around playing the role of the smartest guy in the room. Mean while his staff shakes their heads in bewilderment and snickers behind his back.
11
Tom,
You must mean GW Bush; except his underling Cheney guided W into the messes and went around hitting the pieces with a sledge hammer.
You must mean GW Bush; except his underling Cheney guided W into the messes and went around hitting the pieces with a sledge hammer.
So, if I read you correctly, Kerry is the defiant employee who defies the boss and gets fired?
2015 is deja vu 1980 -- the politically impotent U.S. President in the face of:
*hostile Iran, holding U.S. hostages,
*unchecked Russian aggression
*internationally, an Administration burdened by fundamental lack of long-term foresight and historical illiteracy.
*hostile Iran, holding U.S. hostages,
*unchecked Russian aggression
*internationally, an Administration burdened by fundamental lack of long-term foresight and historical illiteracy.
Oh, brother. the last thing we need is Kerry negotiating any deals with Russia or Syria. He bollixed up the Iran deal and gave them a path to a nuclear weapon in less than 10 years, released $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets that they will use to promote more Islamic terrorism world wide, and allowed Iran to self-police their own nuclear sites. Then he and Obama had the nerve to call it a good deal. What will he give away to Russians and Assad?
2
Diplomacy, unbacked by any other exercise of meaningful national power is not going anywhere. It is naïve to believe that Kerry talking to Russia or Syria or any of the other parties is going to do anything other than amuse the other parties. We do not have our own boots on the ground, we do not pick and back relatively good players like the Kurds, and we do not back potential but problematic winners like Turkey. We bomb when allowed to, and we talk from what Obama thinks is a 'moral high ground'. Moral high grounds are more effective when backed with the power of a state, not its talk.
2
What a toweringly stupid headline! Kerry is engagedin Syria because Obama wants him there, not because President Obama 'fears to tread' there. Any Secretary of State is an extension of the Presidency, and acts under orders. Kerry is there under Obama's direct orders, and any insinuation that Obama is a coward and is avoiding the situation in Syria personally is disgraceful and contemptible.
85
The author poses a non sequitur: Obama is worried that if he "touches" it he will make it worse but that doesn't mean he is "hands off".
2
When the USSR sent military forces to the Middle East, did they benefit from the engagement? No, indeed their ignominious retreat from Afghanistan was shortly followed by the dissolution of the USSR. And "Russian Mothers" made a lot of noise. They still can.
Our one successful intervention since Korea occurred when Saddam invaded Kuwait. All the others cost lives and money, and failed.
I'll give you a rule of thumb. Boots on the ground don't work in effectuating regime change. Nor bombing. Nor drones. Nor anything else our scientists and military can think of. And our entire constellation of intelligence organizations merit dismissal. Where were they when ISIS came along?
The Assads were not our enemies, just as Khaddafi wasn't. Let's stop intervening.
Close the feedback loop
Our one successful intervention since Korea occurred when Saddam invaded Kuwait. All the others cost lives and money, and failed.
I'll give you a rule of thumb. Boots on the ground don't work in effectuating regime change. Nor bombing. Nor drones. Nor anything else our scientists and military can think of. And our entire constellation of intelligence organizations merit dismissal. Where were they when ISIS came along?
The Assads were not our enemies, just as Khaddafi wasn't. Let's stop intervening.
Close the feedback loop
3
The U.S. caused this mess when we encouraged the so-called "Arab Spring". Assad may have been a dictator, but he kept the country stable and protected minorities. Our backing of the attempt to overthrow a legitimate leader of a sovereign country has plunged the region into chaos and opened the door for ISiS to roll back the progress we had made in Iraq. All John Kerry is going to do is try to cover the damage this administration has done to the poor Syrian people. The best thing we can do now is to get out of the way and let the Russians take the lead for putting the pieces back together.
3
While I am no fan of John Kerry's turnaround from brave Vietnam War protester to supporter of the endless Wars I have to give Kerry credit for the huge energy he has put into diplomacy and in particular the Iran Nuclear Deal. On the other hand, it is critical to point out the backdrop to the current Syrian fiasco- namely the support of alleged "moderate" armed opponents of Assad regime with weapons even after the UK and the US public both stopped an overt War with huge opposition. Instead Obama simply provided covert arms to terrorists while looking the other way while Saudi Arabia armed outright Sunni extremists who morphed into ISIS. Meanwhile the blowback from the illegal War against Libya and the provision of 20,000 rocket launchers and other weapons to Islamic terrorists to overthrow Ghaddafy wound up fueling a new civil War in Mali and arming ISIS.
Endless War is not the answer, it is never the answer. As Pope Francis pointed out it is time to stop the deadly arms trade, the selling of $60 Billion in weapons to the Saudi monarchy now being used to bomb Yemen. The only ways gaining from these endless Wars are the Merchants of Death like Boeing, Lockheed etc who receive hundreds of billions in our tax dollars to develop weapons, while paying no US taxes and then making billions selling them to all sides in the endless Wars.
At least it seems John Kerry is actively promoting diplomacy with the 5 countries in the Iran deal and the inclusion of key players in Syria.
Endless War is not the answer, it is never the answer. As Pope Francis pointed out it is time to stop the deadly arms trade, the selling of $60 Billion in weapons to the Saudi monarchy now being used to bomb Yemen. The only ways gaining from these endless Wars are the Merchants of Death like Boeing, Lockheed etc who receive hundreds of billions in our tax dollars to develop weapons, while paying no US taxes and then making billions selling them to all sides in the endless Wars.
At least it seems John Kerry is actively promoting diplomacy with the 5 countries in the Iran deal and the inclusion of key players in Syria.
19
It's always been time to stop the arms trade.
The issue isn't aggression as much as it is greed and religion.
"Think as I do, or die."
Roman/Eastern/Russian/Greek/Serbian Orthodox, Protestant, Islam, as well as racial (European, Slav, Jewish, and Asian) differences all whipped into frenzy of war for the sake of money to be made selling weapons in WW1.
One family possessed a 100 year old secret that they shared with an estranged nephew. The secret of Sheffield Steel was acquired and improved upon by Krupp who used it to make guns, tanks, submarines, battleships, etc. for customers who they stirred into a frenzy of fear and aggression to promote sales.
But, the deadliest weapons were propaganda and ideology that forced men to fight because of a desire to dictate other people's lives.
The 1914 X-mas cease fire during WW1 made it clear that soldiers who preferred peace were forced to kill. -- 8.5 million killed, 37 million casualties.
One hundred years later, the weapons are different but the inclinations remain the same.
Why can't we get along?
The issue isn't aggression as much as it is greed and religion.
"Think as I do, or die."
Roman/Eastern/Russian/Greek/Serbian Orthodox, Protestant, Islam, as well as racial (European, Slav, Jewish, and Asian) differences all whipped into frenzy of war for the sake of money to be made selling weapons in WW1.
One family possessed a 100 year old secret that they shared with an estranged nephew. The secret of Sheffield Steel was acquired and improved upon by Krupp who used it to make guns, tanks, submarines, battleships, etc. for customers who they stirred into a frenzy of fear and aggression to promote sales.
But, the deadliest weapons were propaganda and ideology that forced men to fight because of a desire to dictate other people's lives.
The 1914 X-mas cease fire during WW1 made it clear that soldiers who preferred peace were forced to kill. -- 8.5 million killed, 37 million casualties.
One hundred years later, the weapons are different but the inclinations remain the same.
Why can't we get along?
I know this article is about the ongoing Syrian crisis, but IMO it also speaks volumes about Obama and his initial shortcomings:
In his limited time as Secretary of State, Kerry has demonstrated how significant it is that the President selects the most qualified individual for this Cabinet post, and not simply the person who will generate the most photo-ops, while piling up their frequent flyer miles.
While Secretary Clinton did not create the current chaos in the ME, I cannot recall any significant Clinton initiatives that have helped ameliorate the ongoing tensions brought about by Bush's ME foreign policy fiasco.
The fact that Clinton preceded Kerry says more about Obama than it says about Clinton; IMO when Obama assumed office his inexperience led him to try to emulate Lincoln, or at least his vision of who Lincoln was, but Lincoln was a seasoned politician who know how to keep his rivals in check, while Obama deferred to their perceived superior experience.
However, even here he failed; had he listened to his VP on the best solution for Iraq, which was similar to the Bosnia/Serbian plan, it is possible that ISIS would not pose a problem at this time.
I believe Obama has grown into the job very well, and had he came into the position with a deeper grasp of DC politics, he could have been one of the greatest Presidents in our history.
In his limited time as Secretary of State, Kerry has demonstrated how significant it is that the President selects the most qualified individual for this Cabinet post, and not simply the person who will generate the most photo-ops, while piling up their frequent flyer miles.
While Secretary Clinton did not create the current chaos in the ME, I cannot recall any significant Clinton initiatives that have helped ameliorate the ongoing tensions brought about by Bush's ME foreign policy fiasco.
The fact that Clinton preceded Kerry says more about Obama than it says about Clinton; IMO when Obama assumed office his inexperience led him to try to emulate Lincoln, or at least his vision of who Lincoln was, but Lincoln was a seasoned politician who know how to keep his rivals in check, while Obama deferred to their perceived superior experience.
However, even here he failed; had he listened to his VP on the best solution for Iraq, which was similar to the Bosnia/Serbian plan, it is possible that ISIS would not pose a problem at this time.
I believe Obama has grown into the job very well, and had he came into the position with a deeper grasp of DC politics, he could have been one of the greatest Presidents in our history.
10
I partly agree. I think his positions on Iran, Cuba, the climate, Obamacare and even the economy have been very forward looking, and excellent policy pursuits.
I however do feel he has failed miserably in the Middle East.
I however do feel he has failed miserably in the Middle East.
He may be failing miserably in the ME, but I would be hard pressed to name one President whose ME policies have had any lasting impact.
In fact, our current ME foreign policy dates back to Truman's Cold War containment strategy, and his recognition of Israel against the advice of his own Secretary of State, George Marshall, still plays a major role in current US ME foreign policy, and by any objective standard is a 60 year old foreign policy failure; even more so when you consider today's current crop of presidential hopefuls, must pass the Israel First policy test.
As for Eisenhower, one need not look any further than Iran, and the deposed Shah for proof of the failure in that foreign policy misadventure.
I could go on, but the fact is Obama did not create the crisis in the ME, the current crisis is the result of misguided US foreign policy since the Truman Administration.
Finally, since you believe Obama has failed miserably, what would be your proposed solution?
If the answer is military intervention, I suggest that the first thing we, as a nation should do, is reinstitute the draft, and only then will we find out how strong is America's desire to solve the ME dilemma.
PS: For some reason your reply only shows up when I click on the "NYT" picks selection; it is not showing up in the regular comments section.
In fact, our current ME foreign policy dates back to Truman's Cold War containment strategy, and his recognition of Israel against the advice of his own Secretary of State, George Marshall, still plays a major role in current US ME foreign policy, and by any objective standard is a 60 year old foreign policy failure; even more so when you consider today's current crop of presidential hopefuls, must pass the Israel First policy test.
As for Eisenhower, one need not look any further than Iran, and the deposed Shah for proof of the failure in that foreign policy misadventure.
I could go on, but the fact is Obama did not create the crisis in the ME, the current crisis is the result of misguided US foreign policy since the Truman Administration.
Finally, since you believe Obama has failed miserably, what would be your proposed solution?
If the answer is military intervention, I suggest that the first thing we, as a nation should do, is reinstitute the draft, and only then will we find out how strong is America's desire to solve the ME dilemma.
PS: For some reason your reply only shows up when I click on the "NYT" picks selection; it is not showing up in the regular comments section.
It's hard to believe that Kerry did not unseat George W. in 2004. It was apparent at that time that the war in Iraq was a disaster. Falsified information and a desire to punish the man who tried to have his father killed pushed George W. to act. Kerry, who served in a combat capacity in Viet Nam, was slandered by former military men who were still angry with him for protesting that ridiculous war after he came home. One such military leader had written up a commendation citing Kerry with bravery during that war. He later turned against Kerry. Meanwhile George W. who was trained as a pilot in the Reserves walked away from that duty. Amazing how things work!
4
It must be noted that if the US had a significant and potentially threatening presence in the area, offering a pull-back would be something our opponents might be willing to negotiate for.
No mention of Russia's 2012 offer for a joint solution to Syria with Assad stepping aside. Quite the omission I would say. And "backlash" seems to be defined as Kerry and/or Obama losing face or appearing weak -- not millions of Syrians suffering needlessly because of inaction stemming from some kind of political alpha ego trip. Awful lot of blood on those hands.
2
I, like a few other who have posted here, can't quite understand the title of the article and how some of those posting have fallen for it. It makes it sound like Kerry is an independent actor who is doing things while Obama sits around. Kerry works for the administration and of course will be the point person for the POTUS--that is what a Secretary of State does. What next, lauding the Attorney General for prosecuting cases while Obama sits around?
4
John Kerry has found his niche as Secretary of State. The role seems to bring out the best in him. He conveys a passionate yet rational belief in diplomacy as a tool for stablizing the crises that challenge our world. This is exactly what we need, and I hope our leaders and citizenry will give him full support in his missions.
3
sorry to say but Obama is a huge failure in MENA. he doesn't get the essence of the problem and insists on inoperable plans. one single question: is there a tiny difference between the governments of saudi arabia and syria in terms of legitimacy? let me tell you there is none. one of them is US' ally in the region and the other is the enemy. be sure no one is that stupid not to see this dilemma
3
Saudi Arabia leaves Israel alone, buys US weapons, American cars, and Boeings. So that makes it an ally.
Syria, for some reason I fail to understand, maintained an anti-Israel rhetoric and position. And this destroyed everything. Then of course, it was ruled by a Shia minority, which is unacceptable to bigoted Saudi Arabia.
If only Iran, Syria and Hezbollah would drop their anti-Israel dogma, they would be far better allies of ours than Saudi Arabia.
Syria, for some reason I fail to understand, maintained an anti-Israel rhetoric and position. And this destroyed everything. Then of course, it was ruled by a Shia minority, which is unacceptable to bigoted Saudi Arabia.
If only Iran, Syria and Hezbollah would drop their anti-Israel dogma, they would be far better allies of ours than Saudi Arabia.
Obama seems always be surprised and/or frustrated by events. Anticipating them, developing a feasible strategy to deal with them, or taking action do not seem to be within his circle of competence.
2
Staying engaged is not a foreign policy, and the risk is, as happened with Sochi, that it gives the other party, in this case the Russians, the opportunity to claim that Kerry's actions were "a validation of the Kremlin’s role in the world." Sometimes, sticking your nose into places where it does not belong can have adverse consequences.
When there is a clearly defined foreign policy, then staying engaged as a means of implementing that policy may make sense. But this would not be true in every case. Sometimes sanctions and isolation make more sense.
True that staying engaged can "make things happen," as one of Kerry's advisors states in the article. However, if it makes the wrong things happen, what is the benefit?
When there is a clearly defined foreign policy, then staying engaged as a means of implementing that policy may make sense. But this would not be true in every case. Sometimes sanctions and isolation make more sense.
True that staying engaged can "make things happen," as one of Kerry's advisors states in the article. However, if it makes the wrong things happen, what is the benefit?
1
Why would the USA want to involve themselves in Syria's civil war? It makes no sense at all. Yes, the caliphate is a problem, yes ISIS needs to be stamped out and yes the USA has a role to play in all of that, but it is certainly not America's problem to solve. That approach has just resulted in burnt fingers in the past. Let the Russians get in there and you'll quickly see another Afghanistan situation arise. Putin has no magic wand here. They will get burned, I guarantee it.
I agree with Pres Obama that it is an intractable problem and anyone who steps in is bound to regret it. Unless the Arab nations and Europe are willing to get their hands dirty as well, then the USA should stay the hell out of there. Nobody offers thanks when the USA gets hands-on in toppling dictators like Muammer Gaddafi, they just get blamed when Libya devolves into another chaotic mess.
All credit to John Kerry for trying and I really admire his energy and optimism - two qualities the world can never get enough of - but in my opinion that region is simply beyond help.
I agree with Pres Obama that it is an intractable problem and anyone who steps in is bound to regret it. Unless the Arab nations and Europe are willing to get their hands dirty as well, then the USA should stay the hell out of there. Nobody offers thanks when the USA gets hands-on in toppling dictators like Muammer Gaddafi, they just get blamed when Libya devolves into another chaotic mess.
All credit to John Kerry for trying and I really admire his energy and optimism - two qualities the world can never get enough of - but in my opinion that region is simply beyond help.
1
Saving Syria: keep it unified, keep it secular. That will only happen under Assad. Not a happy resolution but the best one available.
Whether a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies, or 25 years in the region, or maybe only a few visits to the region: Anyone with even a casual understanding of the region knows that any post-Assad government will be worse than Assad. Kerry can wish for some sort of power sharing resolution, but this would be so unstable that it would collapse within a year to jihadist forces.
I guarantee it. If Assad is ousted it will be open season on Christians, Alawites, Shia, and all other minorities.
Whether a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies, or 25 years in the region, or maybe only a few visits to the region: Anyone with even a casual understanding of the region knows that any post-Assad government will be worse than Assad. Kerry can wish for some sort of power sharing resolution, but this would be so unstable that it would collapse within a year to jihadist forces.
I guarantee it. If Assad is ousted it will be open season on Christians, Alawites, Shia, and all other minorities.
4
I have some difficulty feeling pity for the minority Alawite, Shia and Christian populace in Syria who have supported the Assad family dictatorship since the 1970s and done quite well off it. They chose to sleep with the Devil and now they are realing their sour rewards. Most of the elite in these three groups have probably moved their money and their families out a long time ago and have nice crash-pads to go to when the Assad Mafia family falls and it all goes south.
1
I completely agree.
The US should have supported Assad from the beginning.
The west should be engaging secular nations around the world, not breaking them! Secularism is the only way to conserve peace among a mosaic of religious fanatics. If one religious group dominates over another - in the name of religion - it's game over.
As events in Iraq, Syria and Libya clearly demonstrate.
Putin was right all along America.
Just admit it and assume your responsibilities.
The US should have supported Assad from the beginning.
The west should be engaging secular nations around the world, not breaking them! Secularism is the only way to conserve peace among a mosaic of religious fanatics. If one religious group dominates over another - in the name of religion - it's game over.
As events in Iraq, Syria and Libya clearly demonstrate.
Putin was right all along America.
Just admit it and assume your responsibilities.
The title of the story is miss leading. Secretary Kerry is doing exactly what a good Secretary of State does, enters dangerous waters and takes the heat for the boss. At times the President has to distance himself from issues while the Secretary can get involved. The process is exactly what it should be. In the Clinton case Hillary was worried about her own perception as a future presidential candidate. Kerry is doing his job.
71
There is no person among the current presidential hopefuls with even a small fraction of Mr. Kerry's demonstrated experience, courage, skill and commitment in the service of his country. Nobody close.
Mr. Kerry may or may not be the best person to be President, but it seems to me that we ought to be making our selection from a group of people with resumes more like Mr. Kerry than the resumes of our current crop.
Maybe we should be asking ourselves why much more highly qualified citizens are not willing to commit to the most important job in the United States. We need them.
Mr. Kerry may or may not be the best person to be President, but it seems to me that we ought to be making our selection from a group of people with resumes more like Mr. Kerry than the resumes of our current crop.
Maybe we should be asking ourselves why much more highly qualified citizens are not willing to commit to the most important job in the United States. We need them.
67
Perhaps you don't remember the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry? Turned a war hero into something less than that. Imagine what that group is going to do with Hillary and Benghazi.
Obama has a clear understanding of the nature of the problems in the Middle East. Unlike Bush he is not rushing in to try to solve a problem that may have no solution. His strategy of having Kerry probe to seek possible solutions is brilliant. Until some kind of breakthrough is identified, Obama is right to not make the situation worse. We need to clear alignment of our actions with the interests of America, and not some ideological fascination with democracy which seems to find much of the world to be hostile to its implementation. In fact, democracy is not working so well in this country at the moment.
86
"....His strategy of having Kerry probe to seek possible solutions is brilliant. Until some kind of breakthrough is identified, Obama is right to not make the situation worse..."
This is called "Leading from Behind", i.e., not taking any risks until he knows which way the wind is blowing...(I know NYT's censors will choose not to post this given their worship of all things Obama; but at least someone will read it)
This is called "Leading from Behind", i.e., not taking any risks until he knows which way the wind is blowing...(I know NYT's censors will choose not to post this given their worship of all things Obama; but at least someone will read it)
One of the key components in helping someone or a country save themselves is to realize that you cannot be the lead in that process. You can merely help them save themselves when they are ready to do so.
I assume you were not born yesterday, and perhaps you worked in an organization with a hierarchy/chain-of-command? If so, let me see if you recollect that the staff works projects and when it is time for a decision it is presented to the boss for action. You call that leading from behind I guess. Pretty normal in my experience.
It is Obama's incompetence that has assured the permanence of the Syrian catastrophe. Repeatedly in every problematic situation, he hesitates, vacillates, pronounces the problem he has helped create insoluble, withdraws and assures long term chaos. This administration will go down in history as the nadir of America's international role, outstripping the war in Vietnam and W's misadventures. A sad comparison to those periods in the 20th century prior toVietnam, when the U.S. played a pivotal role in the defeat of fascism and other sources of international aggression.
1
And your brilliant solution is what? More wars? The American people don't want to be involved in any more wars and you can't afford that anyway. Unless you are willing to raise taxes and implement a draft so you can replenish your military that was left exhausted by two ongoing 10 year wars.
The world is full of shades of greay. Those who see only in black and white might as well be blind.
What most Americans do not understand is there's still a great deal of prestige sought by dictators and power hungry heads of state from despotic countries, in garnering the attention of an American President. This is why North Korea is angry. We refuse to deal only to elevate a dictator at home. It's a use, a trap. These leaders, and sadly Putin now to an extent, are people who are troubled at home and seek to pedal to their own people the image of power and success in negotiating their agenda on a world stage. There's no points like that of meeting our President or visiting The Whitehouse. Their agenda is less than democratic, and President Obama is not taking the bait. One should have to earn this privilege. It's wise and he has tried the other, naaive, simplistically diplomatic route, birth at home and with word leaders during his first term. It often backfires. Let Russia take over the entire Middle East while we, the most technologically advanced country the world has ever known, focuses on new energy sources. We can at that point rid ourselves of the entire region and all their religion induced problems. It's sickening and has been for centuries. I'm frankly tired of it. They beg for our involvement only to demonize us for meddling.
2
Obama uses the calculus of the politician" "what's in it for me". Any risk that something will blow up in his face and he gives it a wide birth. This is not statesmanship, this is not the leadership we have come to expect from our presidents, this definitely isn't American optimism and a "can do" attitude. This is what Obama calls "leading from behind"
12
Give me a break! Let' s hear all your good "can do" ideas.
The evidence for the assertion that seems to support premise of this article, that "at time, the White House and State Department do appear to be on different pages" is scant.
A solid article on American strategy is certainly newsworthy without ginning up some kind of impression of conflict within the administration.
A solid article on American strategy is certainly newsworthy without ginning up some kind of impression of conflict within the administration.
7
I admire Kerry for his willingness to work with Russia and fill the gaps where Obama may not want to tread. We need this kind of assertiveness and eagerness to engage with leaders that many made find contentious or threatening. I don't think Kerry or Obama have a good understanding of the dynamics of sectarian violence or the complexities of the Middle East (as seen in previous failed policies), but to begin to end the war in Syria means a broad coalition of countries. This is a step in the right direction.
6
I disagree. I think Obama was in an impossible situation in Syria. Four things come to mind: 1) none of the Syrians wanted us to get involved militarily or asked us to; 2) the U.S. public has zero interest in supporting another expensive war in the Middle East, 3) the rebels were infiltrated by Muslim extremist groups, and/or any support we gave them could easily fall into the hands of such groups, and 4) on the other side was a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people and had the full military support of Russia. You tell me: what were we supposed to do?
2
It's easy for Putin to have a strategy in Syria as he is simply backing Assad. I don't think Russia differentiates between the moderate Sunni opposition and ISIL when it comes to attacking them. Even if the Syrian government was to regain control of more of its territory, Assad could not remain as leader. Assad has lost all credibility as leader of Syria having killed so many of his own people. The Sunni majority in Syria will never support him again.
4
Assad may be every bit the bloodthirsty, merciless dictator, but before we remove him, we need to answer the question of who's in there next. It may gall us to acknowledge that Putin is right about answering that question first, but he is right.
I particularly agree with your last point. How does anyone in their right mind think that Syria will hild together under Assad. His actions have led to over 200,000 dead and millions displaced. The fragile economy is utterly destroyed. Many of their major cities are in ruins. Many of the best amd brightest have left and won't come back. Capital has fled for safer investment opportunities. Do people think he will be re-elected by a grateful populace? Syria will become a welfare case for Iran, the Russians and the UN to support for many decades. That doesn't even take into account ISIL and what is happening next door in a fractured Iraq.
Obama is in a weaker situation then Putin due to political strains put by Congress. Also Putin does not have critics like GOP, who have not learned any lessons from Iraq. So there cannot be any comparison between Putin and Obama, Obama and Kerry however make an excellent team and hope they succeed.
32
NYT's headlines grow more absurd and ridiculous by the day. Peter Baker is a gross propagandist and a sick sycophant for all of the racist that hate everything about a black man being president. Kerry works for and takes direction from President Obama, and someone should inform weird and wandering Peter of that fact. Is this paper trying to be a tabloid?
16
If it's not trying to be a tabloid, it's slipping into it inadvertently.
1
Neither Obama nor Kerry have accomplished anything positive on the world stage. Obama promoted the Arab Spring, which is responsible for most of the chaos in the ME, and Kerry's "Can't we all be friends?" approach has done nothing but create a power vacuum being filled by ISIL and Putin.
This paper has been "tabloidish" for many years. It seems that Baker is setting the stage for a 'Kerry for president' run. Kerry, like his predecessor, Clinton, have been worthless, and, as a result, the U.S. is in more danger than ever.
I liked Allen West and the more I hear from Ben Carson, the more I like him. It would seem to me that you are the racist--you seem to like someone based solely on the color of his/her skin. What can you point to that makes you think that Obama has been a good president?
This paper has been "tabloidish" for many years. It seems that Baker is setting the stage for a 'Kerry for president' run. Kerry, like his predecessor, Clinton, have been worthless, and, as a result, the U.S. is in more danger than ever.
I liked Allen West and the more I hear from Ben Carson, the more I like him. It would seem to me that you are the racist--you seem to like someone based solely on the color of his/her skin. What can you point to that makes you think that Obama has been a good president?
Obama and Kerry have transcended the dogmatic mind set of the Republican warmongers"( Kudos to Rouhani) Republicans are usually wrong about foreign policy.They have a record of catastrophic failure in Iraq.They have a failed world view that thinks military force can still solve issues along cultural fault lines. They still believe in the myth of American omnipotence,America as the worlds policemen, and that every crisis is caused by a lack of U.S.military presence. They are wedded to an anachronistic, mind set that is a recipe for failure. Vladimir Putin, in Charlie Rose's fascinating interview, clearly states Russia's goals in Syria.He feels Assad's departure would lead to a power vacuum and chaos like Libya. He wants multi-lateral co-operation to defeat ISIS. Obama, Kerry, and Putin practice Real Politik, they can see a shared a goal to defeat ISIS. Both Russia and the U.S.fear returning ISIS fighters. Difficult negotiations between the U.S. and Russia with the co-operation of Turkey and the GCC can solve the ISIS enigma.
33
How is this going to be resolved eventually?
Firstly research will prove persons behavior regards Other which are the cause of inter group violence derives from a cultures codex ((con) textual authority and exemplar (messianic) templates) construct of Other forming the adherent "categorisation engine" which in the case of the Islamic/Muslim codex construct lead inexorably to a state of being which informs the complete opposite of 'freedom' based upon Others definition. In fact a cycle of terror and major schism wherever it is allowed to flourish.
Secondly it will be demanded all sides utilising such a cultural codex construct of Other have it removed from cultural indoctrination infant-child framing the nature of future Muslim generations to inform the same. This will be refused a war will commence nuclear weapons will be utilized and a political will to remove genocide and misogynistic cultural constructs will gain political momentum and there you are peace and tranquility.
Intractable no of course not, as Kerry determines there is always an answer somewhere.
Firstly research will prove persons behavior regards Other which are the cause of inter group violence derives from a cultures codex ((con) textual authority and exemplar (messianic) templates) construct of Other forming the adherent "categorisation engine" which in the case of the Islamic/Muslim codex construct lead inexorably to a state of being which informs the complete opposite of 'freedom' based upon Others definition. In fact a cycle of terror and major schism wherever it is allowed to flourish.
Secondly it will be demanded all sides utilising such a cultural codex construct of Other have it removed from cultural indoctrination infant-child framing the nature of future Muslim generations to inform the same. This will be refused a war will commence nuclear weapons will be utilized and a political will to remove genocide and misogynistic cultural constructs will gain political momentum and there you are peace and tranquility.
Intractable no of course not, as Kerry determines there is always an answer somewhere.
John Kerry is very impressive. The most disappointing presidential election in my lifetime, with the most dire consequences for the U.S., was his losing to George Bush.
45
You and I are not alone in this assessment.
In addition is the fact that the orchestrated denigration of John Kerry's noteworthy, meritorious service in Vietnam was utilized to aid in his defeat.
This malicious campaign also called into question the process by which the armed services determine who is worthy of receiving medals for noteworthy, meritorious service.
I can assure anyone who cares that this military process is thoroughly done and all persons under consideration are vetted properly - certainly in the case of Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
Military awards are not given lightly or carelessly. To imply that they are is a disservice to all of our Armed Forces - those persons who serve us all and indeed serve us very well.
In addition is the fact that the orchestrated denigration of John Kerry's noteworthy, meritorious service in Vietnam was utilized to aid in his defeat.
This malicious campaign also called into question the process by which the armed services determine who is worthy of receiving medals for noteworthy, meritorious service.
I can assure anyone who cares that this military process is thoroughly done and all persons under consideration are vetted properly - certainly in the case of Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
Military awards are not given lightly or carelessly. To imply that they are is a disservice to all of our Armed Forces - those persons who serve us all and indeed serve us very well.
2
Beware the swift-boaters. They are out in force.
1
Cannot think of any better candidate to be the next President of the United States!
12
A Secretary of State, or Foreign Minister as known outside the USA, is expected to take the blows that his President or King wants to avoid. That way the big guy can appear to remain above the fray.
"The idea that it may be elusive, or even impossible, is no deterrent."
Yes, we all saw how persistently stubborn he tried to revive the failing Palestinian-Israeli peace re-re-re-re-negotiation last year, and not admitting failure, despite the humiliation he was subjected to by PM Netanyahu.
In the current case of Syria and the roles of Russia and Iran in Syria, Obama ---at the UNGA-70-- appeared both defiant and defensive while still expressing willingness to work with Russia. Now, with John Kerry pursuing the details it is clear the US will not be simply leaving the scene to Russia and its new allies. Let's wait and see, but the refugees and those intending on fleeing the war zone cannot wait. Quick resolutions are needed and not personality conflicts and leadership style competition between Obama and Putin.
"The idea that it may be elusive, or even impossible, is no deterrent."
Yes, we all saw how persistently stubborn he tried to revive the failing Palestinian-Israeli peace re-re-re-re-negotiation last year, and not admitting failure, despite the humiliation he was subjected to by PM Netanyahu.
In the current case of Syria and the roles of Russia and Iran in Syria, Obama ---at the UNGA-70-- appeared both defiant and defensive while still expressing willingness to work with Russia. Now, with John Kerry pursuing the details it is clear the US will not be simply leaving the scene to Russia and its new allies. Let's wait and see, but the refugees and those intending on fleeing the war zone cannot wait. Quick resolutions are needed and not personality conflicts and leadership style competition between Obama and Putin.
5
After reading all the comments here I ask. What would you have Obama do? Start another mid east war? These people in Syria,Iraq etc are crazy. We can't bring Democracy to people that don't want it. They need to figure this out on their own. If Putin wants to get involved I say let him! Apparently he has forgotten how Afghanistan worked out for Russia years ago
22
Afghanistan might have worked out better for Russia if the US had stayed out of it! Remember "Charlie Wilson's War?"
The thing about red lines is that when you don't enforce yours, someone else enforces theirs.
13
Secretary of State John Kerry must use common sense: Bashar Al-Assad cannot be replaced. There are no credible candidates to do so and ISIS, Al NUsra are much much much worse than westerner Assad, the devil that we know. Assad has the infrastructure, government and organizational skills. US strong support can take the wind out of Putin sails, obviate Iran influence. The civil war has to end quickly, resettle Syrian refugees in their own villages after restoring water supply from Turkey. OR, the flood of refugees will continue, by far more expensive than support of Assad. US EU have no time to find replacement for Assad. He kept his agreements with Israel. Any other Syrian president will spell war with Israel. If US could agree with Russia and Iran on the Iran nuclear deal why is it so difficult for Obama to cooperate with Putin? Where is Washington leadership ?
7
But can Assad rule Syria now, even if a peace agreement is made among Syrians and how does ISIS fit in? I like the idea of Russian boots on the ground and getting beheaded and sodomized over Americans. It means that Syria will be a facto satellite of Russia but since we don't want another costly war involving American troops in the Middle East, it's the price to be paid. Bush and Cheney's lie based war in Iraq makes the idea of Washington leadership absurd. We lost so much political face over that insane decision. So much money and life lost for what? Contracts for Halliburton maybe. Criminal.
1
Kerry-Lavrov continuous discussions are a glimmer of light in an otherwise Obama climate of belligerence, hostility, unilateralism. How long before Kerry is forced out because he does not share US hegemonic policy all the way, although in fact he has up until now carried water for Obama on intervention, covert action, regime change? I don't feel sorry for him, for he has been complicit with policy--and helped shape it--for too long, and only now begins to recognize the zealous quality of Obama's Cold War renewal. This is reminiscent of the Vietnam era, when a few souls in the State Department began to have second thoughts. The way the Administration seeks to isolate Kerry, as though a quixotic figure in search of the impossible, is vintage Washington melodrama.
7
Belligerence? Obama? Surely you jest.
15
Say-WHA? From every direction Obama is under attack for being reticent and hands-off...and you write this? Lordy...
@norman_pollack, I believe you have confused the Obama administration with it's predecessor.
The combined Obama-Kerry strategy is very canny and business strategy used in negotiations: stay engaged (Kerry) and keep the principal (Obama) off-stage to preserve options and deniability.
I think that Kerry is doing an excellent job. I appreciate that he does not shy away from tough problems.
I think that Kerry is doing an excellent job. I appreciate that he does not shy away from tough problems.
160
Obama's hasty and premature withdrawal our of Iraq allowed this ISIS crisis to happen. Pulling out early before achieving a satisfactory goal of stability in that region led to the awful conditions today.
Yes, it was wrong under Powell and Bush to be there in the first place.
Yes, Obama pulled out way too early.
Yes, it was wrong under Powell and Bush to be there in the first place.
Yes, Obama pulled out way too early.
The photograph of Kerry, Putin, and Lavrov accompanying this story illustrates precisely what is wrong with the situation in the Middle East -- Syria in particular: none of these men live in the region (although it is true that Russia is geographically closer, but still, you know what I mean) and all of them represent powers that are foreign to it.
The roots of this crisis can ultimately be found, as Robert Fisk has been writting recently, in a long history of French, British, and American exercises of power to shape the political landscape in what you might call the oil lands to further their own economic and geopolitical aims.
ISIS, leaving aside the 10,000 or so malcontents who have joined them from abroad, and leaving aside also the horrendous terrorism they employ to further their aims, draws on an indigenous population that leaving everything else aside, sees itself as throwing off the yoke of foreign domination.
In my view, the political solution to this catastrophe, and the diplomatic objective that must be foremost in everybody's mind, is to engage local powers who are antagonistic to one another -- namely the Gulf States (primarily Saudi Arabia), Turkey, Iran, Iran's client Iraq, and Assad -- to arrive at some kind of nonlethal arrangement that will allow them to work out what the balance of power is going to be between them without resorting to jihadis, militias, bombs, planes, tanks, and every other horror you can think of. I am out of space . . .
The roots of this crisis can ultimately be found, as Robert Fisk has been writting recently, in a long history of French, British, and American exercises of power to shape the political landscape in what you might call the oil lands to further their own economic and geopolitical aims.
ISIS, leaving aside the 10,000 or so malcontents who have joined them from abroad, and leaving aside also the horrendous terrorism they employ to further their aims, draws on an indigenous population that leaving everything else aside, sees itself as throwing off the yoke of foreign domination.
In my view, the political solution to this catastrophe, and the diplomatic objective that must be foremost in everybody's mind, is to engage local powers who are antagonistic to one another -- namely the Gulf States (primarily Saudi Arabia), Turkey, Iran, Iran's client Iraq, and Assad -- to arrive at some kind of nonlethal arrangement that will allow them to work out what the balance of power is going to be between them without resorting to jihadis, militias, bombs, planes, tanks, and every other horror you can think of. I am out of space . . .
34
Mr. Kerry is one (perhaps the only) leader In Washington with the intelligence and courage and sense of moral justice to have driven himself to the limit of human capacity in trying to work out diplomatic solutions to major problems facing our country and the world. He is a gem, and we could use a few more with his sterling qualities. What a beautiful difference our country would face if Mr. Kerry had been at the helm in recent years instead of the Bush/Cheney/Powell team that pulled the walls down around our heads starting in Iraq and continuing to this day.
157
Response to Bill M
Fully agreed. John Kerry should be the next POTUS. Nobody else comes even close.
Fully agreed. John Kerry should be the next POTUS. Nobody else comes even close.
36
Mr. Kerry may or may not have the "intelligence and courage and sense of moral justice" that you believe he has, but for sure he lacks competence and is one of the worst negotiators our nation has ever had. He had a shot becoming our president and blew the opportunity badly. Nevertheless, I agree that we would have been better off with a president Kerry than we were a president GW Bush.
1
Never forget the vile mendacity of the Swiftboaters...GOP.
1
Putin is playing chess while Obama is playing checkers. Putin knows who the players are Obama is in over his head he is a rookie. Putin will clean up the stupid neocons in both parties mess and get more support around the world then who will look isolated it wont be Putin Russia like Obama and Kerry will have you think it will be the USA.
7
Assad is the legitimate ruler of a sovereign country. He has every right to ask for help from his ally, Russia. Our meddling in Syria's politics has led the Obama administration into the deep end of the pool, now they're floundering. I hope the Syrian people will forgive us for destroying their country.
This illustrates how we get into quagmires: A focus on how bad it is now leads to the accusation by some - typically not in the arena and risking nothing with their opinion - about how it would be better if we had intervened while ignoring recent and not so recent history that proves it would likely to be much worse.
48
It is absolutely wonderful to see Kerry with all his heart and mind involved in solving this problem, which is essentially a humanitarian problem requiring an urgent solution. But, I think it would be much better if the UN appoints somebody who enjoys the respect of the major factions in this conflict as lead negotiator. This chief negotiator may start by building safe heavens within Syria, and then forming an international coalition to get rid of ISIS. We need to prevent at all cost that this conflict becomes a “poker game” between the US and Russia. Otherwise, the victims are going to be the Syrian and Iraqis, who have already suffered enough.
John Kerry, we love you for all your efforts. Keep it up!
John Kerry, we love you for all your efforts. Keep it up!
39
John Kerry would have made a fine president.
Pity he chose John Edwards as his running mate.
Pity he chose John Edwards as his running mate.
45
If Joe Biden does not step in, I would welcome a Kerry candidacy.
25
The art of diplomacy is always difficult.Because of his experience in Vietnam Kerry would like to settle something what out a war. Obama observing the disaster of our invasion of Iraq and our inability to manage the result of that action is cautious. The most formidable task of a President is to combine the diplomatic and military tools effectively.This can be quite a juggling act.It belongs to the President alone.How he handles it determines his foreign policy.What is striking about the Obama administration is his deft handling of this task has been admirable and not appreciated enough because of our tendency to military solutions. Obama is cautious in its use and finds it difficult to blind it with diplomacy. He has been more effective than Bush.But this has been interpreted as a sign of weakness rather than sign of strength.
40
He has been more effective than most, not just bush, and history in time will be the judge.
5
"Deft handling"? Really? Despite what has happened in Syria, in Libya, in Iraq, in the South China Sea, in Crimea, in Ukraine, in Afghanistan, etc., etc.??? GW Bush was a disaster, but Obama is not far behind. Doing nothing is NOT a strategy, nor is it "deft". One has to hope that we will not elect a 3-rd incompetent president in a row in 2016.
“Obama seems to approach Syria with a professor’s detachment..." blah, blah
The media keeps perpetuating the myth of Obama professor/thinker. Well... compared to Bush... maybe...
If Obama were a professor in a university my kids go to, I would have withdrawn them and demanded the tuition refunded.
Obama has no political (or otherwise) vision, none. This is why there's no American international policy to speak of during his tenure. Putin outplays him at every turn be it Ukraine (he's ruined it and irreversibly annexed Crimea, and enjoys an 86% approval rating), Syria (he's saved Assad's rear and increased Russian permanent military presence in the ME), Europe (he has pushed back American influence there carving out his zone of influence), the world (Obama's attempt at isolating him made him more popular).
Leave Syria to Putin, and you'll see a solution. You may not like it, but it'll be a solution nevertheless. Leave Syria to Obama, and you'll see an "intractable situation," a series of speeches, and a couple of red lines.
And Putin ain't no thinker by any stretch, just an extremely cunning and dangerous adversary.
The media keeps perpetuating the myth of Obama professor/thinker. Well... compared to Bush... maybe...
If Obama were a professor in a university my kids go to, I would have withdrawn them and demanded the tuition refunded.
Obama has no political (or otherwise) vision, none. This is why there's no American international policy to speak of during his tenure. Putin outplays him at every turn be it Ukraine (he's ruined it and irreversibly annexed Crimea, and enjoys an 86% approval rating), Syria (he's saved Assad's rear and increased Russian permanent military presence in the ME), Europe (he has pushed back American influence there carving out his zone of influence), the world (Obama's attempt at isolating him made him more popular).
Leave Syria to Putin, and you'll see a solution. You may not like it, but it'll be a solution nevertheless. Leave Syria to Obama, and you'll see an "intractable situation," a series of speeches, and a couple of red lines.
And Putin ain't no thinker by any stretch, just an extremely cunning and dangerous adversary.
35
Syria is a quagmire. Putin might get lucky, but a "solution" is hardly guaranteed. It's not even clear that he wants one. He is more interested in serving Russian interests in the Middle East and in forging an alliance with Iran than in Syria itself. He is basically a mischief maker, but a very good one.
1
Actually, "professorial" is derisive and not complementary here. That said, history is replete with people with political vision -- and of course the consequences of their vision. Your last paragraph evokes the can do anything bluster of a past administration that ended in a debacle, one we are still reeling from.
Leadership is not just pretending you have the answer to every problem or that you must be in the middle of everything. There is a value in making the best of what you have, humanely and humbly.
Leadership is not just pretending you have the answer to every problem or that you must be in the middle of everything. There is a value in making the best of what you have, humanely and humbly.
7
You mean how Russia succeeded in Afghanistan? Or have you forgotten about it same way you seem to forget about Iraq. Only people in that area can address problems around them. Just keep out and let them resolve conflicts. Let us see what Russians accomplish.
3
The Obama Administration repeats, ad infinitum, that Assad must go. I also detest Assad, but nevertheless ask: If the Administration should get its wish, who should succeed Assad? Do they have any idea?
60
A sad political call, made at the height (or near height) of a political season. Asad is a sad looser and a bad actor. But in a world full of bad actors, it is incumbent on us to pick our battles with carefully.
4
Of course they do not. That would require to develop a feasible plan and strategy. Obama's position is that Syria is a difficult problem, which it obviously is. His "solution" so far was to train 50 moderate rebels for a cost of $400Million dollars, paid by us US tax payers. Out of the 50 trained and armed 45 have already defected and joined to either Daesh or Al Nusra. Given that there is no "moderate" opposition in Syria there seems to be no other option but to fight against all the extremist Islamist opposition which implies supporting Assad. This however implies being allied with Iran and Russia. An extremely and painfully bad option, which is the consequence of the huge mistake Obama made 3+ years ago when he refused to support and arm the moderate opposition which actually did exist then.
Obama has absolutely no plan. And if he does, it's a horrible one.
It almost seems as if he wants Islamists to take over. And these Islalmists are all under the pay of the fanatic Gulf nations. Which would mean that Syria goes from being a secular nation with values similar to those of the west, to a fanatic Islamist nation - a breeding ground for hatred of the west.
Seems very similar to what Bush did in Iraq.
Well done Obama.
It almost seems as if he wants Islamists to take over. And these Islalmists are all under the pay of the fanatic Gulf nations. Which would mean that Syria goes from being a secular nation with values similar to those of the west, to a fanatic Islamist nation - a breeding ground for hatred of the west.
Seems very similar to what Bush did in Iraq.
Well done Obama.
1
There are in Syria over a hundred separate and distinct Jihadist, al Qaeda and rebel entities all with their own turf and power brokers, not counting the big one ISIS. They are listed on Wikipedia. After more than a year of searching, the US recently had only 5 (five) Syrian volunteers for the US backed force for a free Syria. ISIS is replacing dead fighters with foreign Jihadists faster than they are lost on the battlefield, and even Iraqi Army members are fleeing to Europe. Until and if the people who remain in the region ever rise up, this will never end.
18
until the radicalization programs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the like are stopped, this will never end. the extremists will continue being produced in industrial scale.
1
what does anybody think putin can do there? this is a grandstand play for the benefit of a home audience, a chest beater. the french will get more done in syria than the russians.
7
My bet is that Putin will carve out a safe haven for Assad. He will conquer territory and then say, this is where Assad rules (which will be very close to what Assad is still in control of). The rest will be divided between Kurdistan (which may fall under the new Syria) and "Sunnistan" where all the Islamist groups will continue killing each other until they reach some sort of settlement. So ISIS may very well settle on holding on to conquered territory in a permanent state, and may abandon its expansion plans.
And Obama's dreams of a "democracy" (holy moly - still believing in Santa Clause are we?) will come to nothing.
And Obama's dreams of a "democracy" (holy moly - still believing in Santa Clause are we?) will come to nothing.
Actually Putin can do a lot, not to defeat Daesh but to prop up Assad, which is his goal. As far as the French, it seems that they have done more damage to Daesh with one sortie than our hapless "coalition" has done during the past 6 months there.
I found the article informative. And Obama's failure to grasp the dangerous potential of his inaction will be a lasting blemish on his legacy.
-when Obama's response to the use of chemical weapons was being hatched, I heard interviews on BBC and read comments from the main anti-Assad rebel leader saying "I appreciate his concern over chemical weapons, but it misses the point. He only killed about 500 civilians with chemicals, the real massacre is the 100,000 he's killed with bombs and heavy weapons. WE NEED WEAPONS NOW, while there is still a chance he begged. But he and the women and children got the cold shoulder from Obama. It's too late now.
-even today, the 4 or 5 we've trained can only fight ISIS, they can't fight Assad. Explain the logic of that.
-and as quoted in the NYT in his own words, "don't worry about ISIS, they are a junior varsity terror group..." That will be his legacy.
-when Obama's response to the use of chemical weapons was being hatched, I heard interviews on BBC and read comments from the main anti-Assad rebel leader saying "I appreciate his concern over chemical weapons, but it misses the point. He only killed about 500 civilians with chemicals, the real massacre is the 100,000 he's killed with bombs and heavy weapons. WE NEED WEAPONS NOW, while there is still a chance he begged. But he and the women and children got the cold shoulder from Obama. It's too late now.
-even today, the 4 or 5 we've trained can only fight ISIS, they can't fight Assad. Explain the logic of that.
-and as quoted in the NYT in his own words, "don't worry about ISIS, they are a junior varsity terror group..." That will be his legacy.
5
I bet Obama's grasp is far greater than your validation of the phony article that joins many others by Monday morning quarter backs.
No his legacy is to not get us involved in something that has absolutely no solution. There is no solution, because there are no good guys in the fight and even if there were, they need to do this themselves or (as history has shown) there will be no stability anyway. So basically, there is no point to Syria. Let the people exit if they want, and take them in, that is all you can do. Do not interfere.
2
To read in this article that "Mr Obama and his circle might be increasingly concerned about the impact of Syria on his legacy.", underscores the
bankruptcy of this administration. I have lived through every presidency sinc Eisenhower, and have never been bombarded with the word LEGACY until now. Obama, with his arrogance, is only concerned with how left wing historians are going to grade him. Does the present matter at all? Obama''s legacy will be that of an incompetent community organizer.
bankruptcy of this administration. I have lived through every presidency sinc Eisenhower, and have never been bombarded with the word LEGACY until now. Obama, with his arrogance, is only concerned with how left wing historians are going to grade him. Does the present matter at all? Obama''s legacy will be that of an incompetent community organizer.
17
I could not care less about Obama's legacy. He should act based on the best interest of our nation not based on his perceived legacy.
3
It's time to just walk away and let Putin own this mess. Russian arms and Iranian petro dollars created Assads power. Let them own it while the Saudis back their brethren. By the way, where is Bibi in all of this?
23
We used to be the leader of the free world. We seem to be "walking away" from any conflict and giving in to any bully nowadays. That is not a leader.
We seem to have never trusted the Russians since 1917. I quote from Washington's Farewell Address is in order. The first two sentences are of special interest and thought.
". . .In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. . . "
". . .In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. . . "
16
Uh, doesn't John Kerry work for Obama? And is in some way acting on his behalf? The whole press seems to be hellbent on saying Obama should have done something about Syria, although that something in itself has not actually been named, because (drumroll, please) it's somewhat of an intractable problem. And not one that's going to be solved by the myth of the American rolling up his leaves and getting to "work." John Kerry is acting within his means as Secretary of State, a limited role, with limited consequences. There's no simple solution to what's going on in Syria, and maybe if the press were more scrutinizing of the Bush years, when the whole Middle East was being ripped apart by the whims of a virtual Texas-born child, backed by a junta of a government, none of this would have ever happened.
226
I think there are some simple solutions. The obvious one is for Assad to be replaced by a dictator acceptable to the rebels. Then the country could unify and deal with ISIS.
1
GWB can be blamed for a lot but the Syrian situation is entirely home-grown. The Syrian people saw what was happening in other nations like Tunisia and Egypt and decided they wanted freedom too. Mass peaceful protests began and Al-Assad responded with brute force and the situation devolved from there. Even a cursory look at Syria's history will quickly reveal that there is a long and complex history behind these antagonisms and the problem is far more complex than just getting rid of al-Assad. We already made the mistake of toppling Hussein without considering the consequences. Syria is no different. These countries have had dictators ruling them for a reason; in most instances they are simply powder kegs waiting to explode.
Yes, Obama should have done something: support the moderate opposition when it actually existed 3-4 years ago. His enormous mistake doing nothing then (against the advice of his sec. state, the CIA, and his army chief) is the cause of the present intractable situation, and Putin's gaining foothold in the ME. Decisions have consequences, and almost all of Obama's foreign policy decisions were bad decisions. His foreign policy failures will be his legacy.
Many kudos to John Kerry for his long, undaunted service to the US.
128
The only thing that the United States has clearly demonstrated in this case as well as all of our other conflicts since the Second World War is our utter incapacity to prevail. The only exceptions are raids on very small nations like Grenada.
12
For all the talk of assistance from Mr. Putin in "easing out" Mr. Assad, I just don't buy it. Mr. Putin wants to keep his military presence in Syria, and who else is going to reliably assure him of that?
8
The last time USSR kept it's military presence in a conflict ridden middle eastern nation, it got bankrupted.
Very interesting. Two cerebral men, of the same party, who should have nothing to lose politically, with such varying approaches to a world crisis. Possibly Obama wants to finish his term without another foreign policy blemish. But a lasting legacy was never won by inaction.
8
Can this be the first time you have noticed a difference between efforts and results? Therein lies the rub.
2
Well, inaction has been Obama's middle name....
No matter what Kerry, Obama and the US government think of Assad he is the leader of a sovereign country and not all of his citizens view him as a brutal dictator. Obama and Kerry drew the red line in the sand, to some extent armed rebels weakened Assad leaving a vacuum for ISIS to grab territory and now destroy artifacts and murder countless Syrian citizens and cause a mass immigration to European countries. Kerry now has been sending hollow warnings to Russia regarding their backing of a sovereign countries leader. We have flip flopped and meddled with no future plan as how to remedy the conflict. At this point I'm willing to say let Russia have at with ISIS, because they wont fight a half baked PC war. Obama in another NYT article talked about defeating ISIS by better ideas and a more attractive and compelling vision. ISIS must be laughing their butts off.
39
Saddam Hussein was the leader of a sovereign country and not all his people viewed him as a brutal dictator. American troops were sent in and … well, the hornet's nest was kicked, the dominoes fell, find a cliche.
34
@Jenny Mann,
Can't argue with that.
Can't argue with that.
1
I suspect Russia will consolidate Assad's territory more than fight off ISIS.
He will ensure Assad remains in power and get ready to reach a long term settlement with ISIS.
If the world wants to get rid of ISIS, it needs to get together. And it needs to stop the source of radicalization in the first place (Saudi Arabia and friends).
Otherwise, the world must accept ISIS as a permanent feature of the modern day world (thanks Saudi Arabia).
He will ensure Assad remains in power and get ready to reach a long term settlement with ISIS.
If the world wants to get rid of ISIS, it needs to get together. And it needs to stop the source of radicalization in the first place (Saudi Arabia and friends).
Otherwise, the world must accept ISIS as a permanent feature of the modern day world (thanks Saudi Arabia).
2
The more we know about John Kerry, the better he seems: comfortable in his skin, smart, strong, persistent, undaunted by Congress, and unafraid of difficult negotiations such as those with Iran; why is he not running for President?
233
Been there; done that.
6
No desire to be around when all the carefully constructed Popsicle stick promises are dropped on the sidewalk in Iran.
3
Perhaps he is running for President along with Joe Biden as his also comfortable in his own skin VP. As long and for the while doing a great job of being Secretary of State so as to keep the World safe from itself until we start vetting, voting for the obvious candidates -- therefore, hence, consequently rationally; the KERRY/BIDEN ticket that will emerge at the 11th electoral hour to save our Republic and the rest of the planet from the prospect of President 'The Donald'.
1
Isn't it possible that until now most powers outside Syria, including the US, have concluded that their interest is best served by delaying resolution of the civil war? No nation - least of all the US - would admit it has an interest in ongoing civil war in light of the carnage.
Before now, incentives for outsiders faced lots of reasons not to get involved in Syria: a) the immigrant crisis had not yet pressed into Europe, b) ISIS had not proven its ability to replenish ranks from foreign recruits (despite significant losses from US aerial bombing and Kurdish "boots on the ground"). and c) the US and Iran (not to mention the key European powers as well as Russia and China) were focused on reaching a nuclear deal.
Now that these three conditions have changed, the Europeans and Americans are ready to deal and Kerry is their natural point man; the Russians and Iranians are too, though with markedly different objectives.
The balance of power to change the course of the war seems to rest the Sunni monarchies on the Arabian Peninsula: They can side with the West against their mortal enemies the Shiite-led Iranians or with they can side Putin's, Tehran's and Damascus's validation of authoritarian rule. How much you want bet the Sunni Arab states choose not to decide while the war grinds on?
Before now, incentives for outsiders faced lots of reasons not to get involved in Syria: a) the immigrant crisis had not yet pressed into Europe, b) ISIS had not proven its ability to replenish ranks from foreign recruits (despite significant losses from US aerial bombing and Kurdish "boots on the ground"). and c) the US and Iran (not to mention the key European powers as well as Russia and China) were focused on reaching a nuclear deal.
Now that these three conditions have changed, the Europeans and Americans are ready to deal and Kerry is their natural point man; the Russians and Iranians are too, though with markedly different objectives.
The balance of power to change the course of the war seems to rest the Sunni monarchies on the Arabian Peninsula: They can side with the West against their mortal enemies the Shiite-led Iranians or with they can side Putin's, Tehran's and Damascus's validation of authoritarian rule. How much you want bet the Sunni Arab states choose not to decide while the war grinds on?
6
I it possible that we have NO business in that area of the world. We stipulated that in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, when we said we would not engage in Greece (part of the Ottoman Empire at the time) if no European power would not engage in the Western Hemisphere.
15
Obama is very comfortable with inaction, while Kerry's quick to rush into action. Recall Kerry's mad dash to reach an Palestinian-Israeli deal. He hadn't laid the groundwork and didn't have the relationships necessary but believed he could somehow broker a deal. Not surprisingly, he failed.
What a pair.
What a pair.
13
You make it sound like they are operating out of two separate governments. You do realize that Kerry works for the Administration.
That's one crazy article. "The yearlong military campaign against the Islamic State" ?! Where do you pull up such facts? Is American equipment being funneled to them? Did Benghazi 2012 have anything to do with them?
How can you write that entire article without pointing out the contradiction in foreign policy between *demanding* Assad leave power while fighting anti-Assad forces?
Clearly the NY Times missed Putin's point that failing to back Assad is a strategic mistake.
Putin has no such contradiction in foreign policy.
Demanding that Assad leave power and fishing up in Alaska while the UN cut the food and medical budgets to the refugee camps has spawned an inter-continental refugee crisis, yet this article carries on as if President Obama has a sensible foreign policy.
He doesn't. Left-wing or Right-wing, Obama's self-contradicting foreign policy of being against both Assad and those who are fighting him is noteworthy.
ISIS wants Assad gone, too. That's a slippery slope for Obama to tread. The NY Times should have been explicit in pointing it out. Does the paper not understand current geopolitics?
How can you write that entire article without pointing out the contradiction in foreign policy between *demanding* Assad leave power while fighting anti-Assad forces?
Clearly the NY Times missed Putin's point that failing to back Assad is a strategic mistake.
Putin has no such contradiction in foreign policy.
Demanding that Assad leave power and fishing up in Alaska while the UN cut the food and medical budgets to the refugee camps has spawned an inter-continental refugee crisis, yet this article carries on as if President Obama has a sensible foreign policy.
He doesn't. Left-wing or Right-wing, Obama's self-contradicting foreign policy of being against both Assad and those who are fighting him is noteworthy.
ISIS wants Assad gone, too. That's a slippery slope for Obama to tread. The NY Times should have been explicit in pointing it out. Does the paper not understand current geopolitics?
66
WE have fallen Victim to a Narrative that Mr. Assad's Departure will solve the Syrian Tragedy and keep ignoring the fact that he has substantial support amongst Syrians, be it Shia, Sunni, Christian or even Jewish.
THE Civil War in Syria started by the "Assumption" that toppling Mr. Assad will isolate Iran further and combined with Sanctions Iran will capitulate.
THIS idea was supported by the House of Saud, Israel and Turkey who see Iran's rise as a threat to their regional influence that has led to the monumental Catastrophe that we face.
Mr. Assad with all his "Shortcomings" is a Secular politician and once again we confront the fact that there are no viable alternatives we could offer, similar to what happened in Iraq and Libya.
WE need "Boots On The Ground" to eliminate ISIS and at this point the Russia/Iran/Syria coalition that is on the ground must coordinate with "Legitimate Syrian Fighters", while we cut the flow of Money, Weapons and Fighters from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to end this Tragedy.
WE also urgently need to Deal with the "Atrocities in Yemen" as that situation is about to spiral out of control.
THE Civil War in Syria started by the "Assumption" that toppling Mr. Assad will isolate Iran further and combined with Sanctions Iran will capitulate.
THIS idea was supported by the House of Saud, Israel and Turkey who see Iran's rise as a threat to their regional influence that has led to the monumental Catastrophe that we face.
Mr. Assad with all his "Shortcomings" is a Secular politician and once again we confront the fact that there are no viable alternatives we could offer, similar to what happened in Iraq and Libya.
WE need "Boots On The Ground" to eliminate ISIS and at this point the Russia/Iran/Syria coalition that is on the ground must coordinate with "Legitimate Syrian Fighters", while we cut the flow of Money, Weapons and Fighters from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to end this Tragedy.
WE also urgently need to Deal with the "Atrocities in Yemen" as that situation is about to spiral out of control.
40
Well said! My congratulations.
3
I think you get it! Confused why others do not. Perhaps that is because of American exceptionalism and our commitment to Israel. We need to let Putin lead this time.
2
Yes, precisely the situation and at the core of it all is Saudi fundamentalism. Is cheap gas all that important to our country any more? Why are we fighting Saudi Arabia's battles for them? how many more billions of dollars of US treasure and blood need be wasted on this dead end?
3
Interesting perspective.
It's not surprising that Kerry, who apparently has no future political aspirations at this point in his career, is willing to work hard and risk failure if that's what it takes to find success... whereas Hillary Clinton, as his predecessor was more likely to avoid any risk of embarrassment and stick to making make empty speeches (and private email remarks).
Obama and Hillary are more alike in this regard than first meets the eye.
It's not surprising that Kerry, who apparently has no future political aspirations at this point in his career, is willing to work hard and risk failure if that's what it takes to find success... whereas Hillary Clinton, as his predecessor was more likely to avoid any risk of embarrassment and stick to making make empty speeches (and private email remarks).
Obama and Hillary are more alike in this regard than first meets the eye.
25
The wisdom of leadership is not how you solve an "intractable" problem, but how you prevent it. This has been the failure of Obama's administration and the fruits of that failure are on display in Syria, iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. In all of those cases he could have acted decisively rather that reactively. And each of of those has shown that doing nothing is also a choice, but one that simply places you in a position where there are no good answers
15
Vizitei ¥uri writes "The wisdom of leadership is not how you solve an "intractable" problem, but how you prevent it. This has been the failure of Obama's administration and the fruits of that failure are on display in Syria, iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. In all of those cases he could have acted decisively rather that reactively." To act decisively In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria would require--based on the failures in the first two--three million men under arms and a good few trillion dollars (so far, the costs of the first two, unless the maimed soldiers are discarded, will be ca. six billion). Not long ago, an air strike destroyed an ISIL motorcycle--the missile was worth about two million, the flight cost, at a guess, double that, and the motorcycle was worth a thousand.
11
What would you have had him do in all those situations? Please be specific. Criticisms of lack of "leadership" should be able to tell us what should have been done. Otherwise they are nothing more than vague, amorphous, and prejudiced declarations,
11
You want an answer that is clear? Here is one. Get out of the Middle East. Listen to Washington in his Farewell Address when he talks about taking sides. Read the Monroe Doctrine. No not the part about the Western Hemisphere, but the part of Greece, then a part of the Ottoman Empire.
We have as much right to put our camel's nose under the Syrian Tent as the Russians had in Cuba or the Germans and Brits in Venezuela or the Germans in Argentina or Peru. It's Russia's neighborhood, not ours.
We have as much right to put our camel's nose under the Syrian Tent as the Russians had in Cuba or the Germans and Brits in Venezuela or the Germans in Argentina or Peru. It's Russia's neighborhood, not ours.
9
That's exactly what he's supposed to do--rush in where Pres will not.
And I like his pointing two fingers @ Putin.
Can we get John for Pres? (Then he'll need a food Sec State to deal with Putin.
And I like his pointing two fingers @ Putin.
Can we get John for Pres? (Then he'll need a food Sec State to deal with Putin.
7
John Kerry is doing a fantastic job! Having been through war personally, he understands the ramifications of negotiations breaking down. He is running circles around the record of HRC. I listened to his interview on Morning Joe. He knows the issues, and understands history's lens on a situation. I am very glad he is our Secretary of State. I hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.
99
Almighty God, spare the innocents from our misaction.
2
Kerr is Obama's drone, that is, he goes on and on. He does obama's dirty work and takes the blame
3
Maybe, if Obama made nice and stop America's own aggressive intervention, he'd catch up to Kerry, who knows to make nice with Russian foreign minister Lavrov, for whom there is no match in the diplomatic sphere – well, maybe Francis comes close.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." ~ WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
VETERAN DIPLOMAT FOND OF CIGARS, WHISKEY AND OUTFOXING U.S.
By David M. Herszenhorn and Michael R. Gordon
THE NEW YORK TIMES: September 16, 2013
He enjoys whiskey and cigars.... Mr. Lavrov, 63, and [U.S. Secretary of State John] Kerry, 69, seem to have formed a quick bond, with late-night dinners, fireside drinks and garden strolls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/middleeast/veteran-diplomat-fond...
"Every wall is a door." ~ RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Besides, Obama owes Putin the "red line" he never had to tread.
“A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.” ~ SIR FRANCIS BACON