9.15.13: No Diplomatic Break Through in Syria

Of the fifteen... yes, fifteen individuals who appeared on the program today to discuss Syria and the U.S. economy respectively, the only one to not offer something constructive was Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.  If she's a strategist for the party, it's no wonder why Republicans are in disarray and lacking in a cohesive, sensible message.  Point being, fifteen people offering commentary in an hour is a lot so why have any one superfluous.

Ms. Navarro's lack of depth of knowledge on Syria can only invite sympathy for President Obama's dilemma, otherwise known as his indecisiveness on the matter.  She had a few empty ziggers for Mr. Obama - commander in confusion, offending the Keystone Cops - but she had her facts wrong and her analysis was reckless. 

She stated that the Administration had agreed to a 'no force' policy unless sanctioned by the United Nations, but the fact is that the United States hasn't changed in use-of-force policy toward Syria, which is the right to act unilaterally.  And as we've pointed out in previous columns, arming the Syrian rebels, even if they have a legitimate sounding name like the Free Syrian Army, is not the right solution.  To reiterate what we've referenced before, which Richard Wolfe cited today, is the Mujahideen and what that lead to.  When Mr. Gregory asked Senator John McCain (R-AZ) what the United States should sacrifice in the Syrian civil war, he answers was 'weapons.'  Hardly a 'sacrifice.'

Too many points of view and no good solutions.  And the discussed proposed deal between the United States and Russia to resolve the chemical weapons threat is unrealistic at best, cynically manipulative at the least on the part of Mr. Putin. Senator McCain did offer a succinct analogous example of what the United States is dealing with, describing how Mr. Putin did in fact blame the rebels for the chemical attack in and op-ed in this week's New York Times to only later say that Assad has chemical weapons and will get rid of them.  And the deal calls for the destruction of Assad chemical arsenal with in a six month time frame.  An independent verification process to make sure all the weapons are accounted for will take longer than that.  And no sanctions.  All this knowing that Russia a nuclear power that since its Soviet collapse has needed the United States' help in securing its nuclear material.  Mr. Putin simply doesn't have the track record for ensuring a legitimate process.

Mr. McCain's hawkish stance on the situation is of the kind that the American people do not have the stomach for right now, reflected in Senator Roy Blount's (R-MO) comments that he is not in favor of military action. However, after noting the president's deficiencies as a commander, he mentioned one of his proposals, which he said was to establish a safe zone for refugees in Syria.  Noble, but how could that be accomplished without having soldiers on the ground to enforce it?  However, Mr. Blount is right to ask the Administration what kind of military strike is small but consequential because it is difficult to understand what that would look like.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in a mild attempt to give the Administration some credit, called the deal a 'diplomatic break though' with the caveat that it is one fraught with danger. Given its parameters, one could hardly call it that. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker in speaking about herself was actually reflecting the position of most elected officials in that she opposed military intervention, didn't know what was best to do, and was glad she didn't have to make the decision.  Yet, go ahead and knock the president because he hasn't figured it out.  New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's assessment was more sympathetic of the difficulties the Administration faces.  The moderator noted one of Mr. Friedman's columns in which he says its difficult to face down dictators in the Middle East when there is an absence of organized charismatic leader on the other side (difficult to continue deposing a Hitler without a Churchill).  Vladimir Putin would not be the guy filling Churchill's shoes.  It speaks to the point that Robin Wright has made before on the program which is that a regional solution is needed for the Middle East.  Traditional thinking is that it all starts with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but with a plethora of bad actors in the region, we're not so sure anymore.  As long as the violence in the region is motivated by religion, there will be no reconciliations.

But maybe, just maybe the Churchill-type figure in the equation is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  It's a long shot but if he can garner support from the Security Council members to pursue his call for charging Bashar Assad with war crimes, that would truly be a diplomatic break through the world needs.


Program Guests:
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Armed Services Committee member Roy Blunt (R-MO).

New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman; Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center Robin Wright; National Correspondent for the Atlantic and Columnist for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Round Table: Associate Editor at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward; Executive Editor of MSNBC.com and author of The Message: The Reselling of President Obama, Richard Wolffe; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; and Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd

former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Plus, the top lawmaker in the effort to regulate Wall Street after the crisis, Fmr. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo.


And speaking of what the world needs, here's something it doesn't need... and Americans don't need, and that is Republicans continually threatening to bring down the world economy with threats of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling.  Chuck Todd noted a poll that showed 44% of Americans are not in favor of raising the debt ceiling (22% in favor), and that the president had a lot of work to do to change these opinions around.  What that poll says to us is that Americans simply don't understand what the debt ceiling is, why it has to be raised, and how their Congressional leaders are failing them in correcting its trajectory.

On the fifth anniversary of the 2008 financial meltdown, Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called on Washington to play a more constructive role in economic stability by cooperating (parties working together) and passing the big reforms needed - immigration, tax reform, et. al.  Great sentiment but is he going to be the one to talk to the Tea Party because they just don't seem to be listening.