Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Annals of State Department Ad Hocery

In his interview of Secretary State Clinton last month, Jeffrey Goldberg had the following colloquy regarding Syria:

QUESTION: Would you be sad if [Assad’s] regime disappeared?

CLINTON: It depends upon what replaces it.

QUESTION: Nicely put.

It is not much of a standard (“it depends”), and it is not a standard applied consistently. In Egypt, the U.S. called for the removal of an ally without knowing what regime would replace it. In Libya, the U.S. started a kinetic military operation against the regime, without knowing who the rebels were. In Syria, the U.S. adopted something like the 2009 policy in Iran (remaining silent out of concern that overthrow of the regime would interrupt the American efforts to outstretch a hand to it).

There must be a coherent foreign policy in there somewhere.

Yesterday the topic came up again at the State Department press conference:

QUESTION: The Secretary in an interview not so long ago . . . was asked would you be happy if Assad were gone, and she said it depends on what comes next. Do you – does she – does the State Department have any idea of what would come after?

MR. TONER: Well, I think what we would like to see is some sort of—you’re asking me to speculate wildly here.

QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.)

MR. TONER: . . . we’d like to see some sort of credible democratic process that attempts to address the aspirations of the Syrian people. We talked at the beginning of this issue or this situation, crisis, that we wanted to see Assad address the aspirations with a meaningful reform. As I said, that—as we’ve gone down this path of increased abuses of what appears to be targeting civilian populations and going after and rounding up innocent civilians, that becomes increasingly unlikely. And so that—as that—as we go down that path, those options for real reform decrease, and we—but we still need to see, at some point, the Syrian people’s aspirations addressed.

So no calls for removal of Assad, as in Egypt. No kinetic military action, as in Libya. No standing silent, as in Iran. In Syria, the U.S. would like some sort of credible democratic process, attempting to address the aspirations of the people, with meaningful reform, and as that becomes increasingly unlikely, we still need to see, at some point, the people’s aspirations addressed.

Nicely put, or rather put as nicely as a non-strategy can be put.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.