Anthony J. Blinken wrote an article on the subject of the
missile strike in Syria
by the Trump administration. And so did Elliott Abrams and John Podhoretz among
others. In so doing, they gave the world a study in contrast between seasoned
maturity and juvenile braggadocio.
The Blinken article came under the title: “After the
Missiles, We Need Smart Diplomacy on Syria ,” published in the New York
Times. It is a presentation made by a statesman to an audience he respects, in
which he describes a work that was well executed. As to the Elliott Abrams
article, it came under the title: “The Strike At Syria,” and was published in
the Weekly Standard. And there is the John Podhoretz article, which came under
the title: “Trump's message to the rest of the world: Time to take me
seriously,” published in the New York Post. All three articles appeared on
April 7, 2017.
Whereas the Blinken article tells the audience what
happened, and how he hopes the events will develop from here on, the messages
of Abrams and Podhoretz revive the old menu that tells the audience the
geopolitical football game is on. To this, Abrams and Podhoretz have added
jubilantly that their side is winning. The locution that was used in the 1970s
to express this kind of enthusiasm was “sock it to them.” It later became “go
kick some asses.” Now Abrams and Podhoretz seem to grope in search of a new
expression that suits their taste.
This is how Anthony Blinken began his article: “President
Trump may not want to be 'president of the world' but [at times] the world
looks to America
to act. Mr. Trump did, and for that he should be commended.” This is how
Elliott Abrams began his article: “The Trump administration had a rocky start.
There was the defeat on Obamacare, [delays on] staffing the departments,
[trouble on] the National Security Advisor, infighting among the staff, and too
many tweets.” And this is how John Podhoretz began his article: “The US military
strike against the Syrian air base … was both earth-shaking and modest.” The
difference between the mentalities behind these statements is too stark to
miss.
Blinken goes on to tell what, in his opinion, should happen
next. He lists a few priorities which he calls “smart diplomacy.” They are as
follows: “Restrain Syria's air force, stop any use of chemical or biological
weapons, implement a cease-fire in Syria's civil war and move toward a
negotiated transition of power … Prevent the possible consequences of using
force [like] complicating the campaign against ISIS”.
Abrams goes on to say that, in his opinion, Trump has
“finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World … Allies and friends
will be cheered, while enemies will realize times have changed … He did not let
worries about the possible Russian reaction scare him … He was willing to act
alone, without a UN Security Council meeting or congressional vote.” By now,
Abrams had realized that his enthusiasm went a bit too far. And so, he
restrained himself by throwing in this caveat: “He [Trump] may waver in the
coming months, and lead analysts to wonder if the Syria strike was a one-time
emotional response”.
As to Podhoretz, he goes on to tell that, in his opinion,
this was “the first major test of Trump's mettle as president,” and that he put
the world on notice to the effect that “he is charting his own course.”
Podhoretz believes that Trump has abandoned his old isolationist policy, and
has embraced the neoconservative (Neocon) philosophy. What cheers him most is
that Trump attacked Syria
“with the prime minister of China
in his company.” He views this as Trump sending a message to the Chinese guest
and to the world saying this: take me seriously.
While that was the way Podhoretz ended his article, Blinken
ended his own as a true statesman. He said this: “Here at home, Mr. Trump must
speak directly to the American people about the country's mission and its
objectives, brief the Congress, and make clear the legal basis for U.S. actions”.
As to Elliott Abrams, he is conscious of the fact that the world
considers him an extremely delinquent fanatic when it comes to supporting Israel 's policy of (1) murdering unarmed Gazans
and (2) violating the Security Council resolutions America does not bother to veto.
And so, he uses this occasion to mitigate the sting of that reality. He says
this: “Syria
kills babies, laughing at the Security Council decisions – and we do nothing”.