Let us say that September 16, 2013 was a publishing event at
the Wall Street Journal. That's because they had their own editorial, and they
published an article by a medical doctor on the subject of Syria . John
Barrasso is the doctor and he is also a senator.
He wrote: “Why the Russians Can't Be Trusted in Syria ,” which also comes under the subtitle: “Moscow isn't even
complying with a commitment to destroy its own chemical weapons.” As to the
editorial of the Journal, It comes under the title: “Into the Syrian Bazaar”
and the subtitle: “Even if Assad gives up his chemical weapons, he escapes
unpunished for using them.”
The feeling you get when reading the Journal editorial is
that of watching a child throw a tantrum because he was promised a visit to Disneyland but is being informed the visit is off for
now. What happened in the interim was that a new test on his condition has
indicated he is not terminally ill but must remain at the hospital to undergo
an operation that will end his non life threatening condition. He is unhappy,
and keeps insisting that he is about to die. He wants to go to Disneyland where he believes they have an arcade in which
he wants play the game of shooting the bad guys and blowing their brains off.
The tantrum exhibited by the editors is manifested like
this: “Politicians are desperate to avoid voting on a military strike.” They
must think: What's wrong with these politicians? Don't they love seeing brains
blown off? Furthermore, look at the promise they made and failed to keep: “Two
weeks ago, John Kerry called Assad a thug and a murderer. Today, we are told he
will come clean about his CW stockpile.” And you can almost hear them cry out:
That's unfair; it's unfair, unfair. You promised, you promised.
But like the kid who insists he is going to die, they insist
that to expect Assad to honor the agreement is unrealistic because: “There are
a hundred ways to cheat on this agreement.” And when this happens, they go on
to say, the U.S.
will seek a Security Council resolution that “the Russians will veto.” It gets
worse because even though “Mr. Obama reserves the right to use force without
approval, the prospect of that is vanishingly small.” But if you thought this
was the end of it, you must think again because “even if Assad destroys his
entire CW stockpile, he will have emerged unpunished.”
And so, they lament that “Assad knows he has all but ended
the threat of military intervention.” To compensate for the loss, they implore:
“the least Mr. Obama can do is give the rebels … heavier weapons … If he shuts
down U.S.
aid, then he should encourage the Saudis and Qataris to provide those arms.” If
this does not lead to victory, and there is a stalemate, they still want to
have their dessert. It will not be sweet like ice cream but will taste like a
barbecued rump from a young steer. Look how they describe this fantasy of
theirs: “One result might be a Syrian partition into a rump Alawite nation and
a separate Sunni state.” Ah, the sweet partition of another Arab country!
Praise the dream and pass the barbecue sauce.
Not to be outdone, John Barrasso came up with an article
that tells more about his disorganized mind than the subject of Syria . I am
glad this guy is not my doctor because he would scare the hell out of me. Look
how his mind operates and judge for yourself. He first says that “Assad is
supposed to provide an accounting of his chemical weapons within a week.” He
then writes: “Experts say the timetable is unworkable. But ridding Syria of
chemical weapons is not the point.” What? What then is the point he is trying
to make? He says the agreement is a Russian delaying tactic on behalf of Syria . And so
you want to know delay what, and for what reason?
Barrasso does not answer these questions directly but makes
reference to a Russian tactic he says he saw before. He tells what it is: “amid
reports that chemical weapons had been used in Syria , Obama and the Russians
announced plans for a conference to help end the civil war.” Then comes the
strange part in his mode of thinking: “Within two weeks, Moscow was supplying Assad with advanced
cruise missiles.” Is he saying the announcement was necessary to supply Syria with
weapons? Why did the Russians need that? Could they not have gone ahead and
supplied the weapons without the announcement? A strange sort of linkage that
leaves you baffled.
He now uses the preceding argument as a preamble to launch a
diatribe against Russia 's
military support for Syria ,
and the use of the veto at the Security Council to protect its client. Hey,
this sounds like the relationship which exists between the United States and Israel . Is he by any chance making
a subtle point here? Is he attacking the Russia-Syria relationship to attack
the America-Israel relationship? Creative people do that at times and call the
technique a metaphor. The thing, however, is that Barrasso does not seem to be
that creative.
Still, he reaches a conclusion that leads him to make
another strange linkage. Look at this: “It is unlikely that Russia will now cooperate with the U.S. on Syria . We have also seen this
before. It began with the New START treaty on arms control.” What happened
there? you want to know. Well, with a straight face, he tells of an unfairness
that seems to upset him: “negotiators limited our missile deployments … In
return, Russia gave up
little, as Russia
was already well below the limits.” What did he expect? That Russia should
go below what is already below the limits? What kind of logic is this?
And you see that same logic return after he makes a few more
strange linkages regarding Iran, North Korea, Edward Snowden, human rights,
corruption and freedom. And this is where he throws in his bombshell: “Moscow is not even
complying with a commitment to eliminate its own chemical weapons.” You know
what this refers to, my friend? It refers to the treaty agreed to by most
nations decades ago at which time America
and Russia
pledged to destroy their huge piles of chemical weapons. They have been doing
that ever since, but the American and Russian piles are so big that the two
countries are still working on the project. If Barrasso is criticizing Russia , he must also be criticizing America . And
so, you must ask: Is this a subtle metaphor pointing to his creativity or is
the man just dumb?
At first you want to give him the benefit of the doubt but
then you encounter this statement: “Assad has no interest in surrendering his
chemical weapons voluntarily.” How the hell does he know that? He is not a
prophet. And that means he must be dumb.
Finally, he ends his presentation like this: “The president
needs to come up with a coherent, realistic Syria policy.” This is like the
naked emperor telling the peacock: You need to come up with a thicker, more
colorful plumage.
No, I shall never have this man as my doctor.