off the cuff - ignoring that Kerry twice (at least) the next day answered that it was intentional - one before a House committee and once during a more informal google hangout with Nicolas Kristoff.
Then - just use logic. It is a fact that 1) Kerry called the Syrian foreign Minister the day after the attack and 2) Obama spoke of this to Putin in St Petersburg. The question Kerry was asked is what Assad could do to avoid an attack. Now two questions.
1) Could this have been an unexpected question at an open press conference? I doubt it - the question of how it could be avoided was asked by many on DU. It is a pretty obvious question. Kerry is known to be very good answering questions informally - a necessity for a NE politician. Not to mention, he had just spent a week with his EU counterparts - and the question had to have surfaced there, Can you make a serious argument for him being blindsided?
2) Given the question, what are the possible answers - and are any better. Kerry is the top diplomat - an answer of "I don't know" or "No comment" or just avoiding the question would be bad and also - anyone following Kerry since 2004 knows that it is not his style to avoid questions - no matter how often they are asked. Now consider "nothing" - which diplomatically would be awful and also something 100% against everything Kerry has said on diplomacy since he was young. A faux pas would have been to say "Assad stepping down" - as they had stated hundreds of time the goal of the targeted strike was not - to McCain's disappointment - "regime change". I contend that when the CAUSE was chemical weapons use, Kerry's response was the only honest, reasonable answer - and it was clear in his demeanor that it did not seem possible.
It seems that what happened was that the idea being spoken -- brought support from many sides and led to the Russian/Syrian response - both of which were complex enough it was clear that they had been thoroughly worked on for some time.
I think that even if you watched just the Obama and Kerry cases for the targeted strike, it seems both are leery of getting more involved in the civil war. For Obama, the best legacy would be leaving a more peaceful world - that is why he pointedly spoke of the Israel/Palestinian negotiations and Iran. Both of these were considered unsolvable by most pundits. I would guess that a chemical weaponless Syria would be good for the region. If we had better relations with Iran, second to no nuclear weapons, not funding Hezbollah is important.
The BEST possible case that could result is an Iran, with whom we have relations - with no nuclear weapons and not supporting Hezbollah. A Lebanon where the more radical parts of Hezbollah lose power to more moderate people. A Syria without chemical weapons. (The real best case is that they also have a political solution that supports neither the US or Russia/Iran, but which tolerates all the minorities and is able to see past the atrocities that have targeted so many from both sides. I kept this out of the best case, because though what is needed - I really doubt they can get there.)
There is no doubt that the can of worms that was slightly opened by funding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, aggravated by the first Gulf War, inflamed by Bush's wars, and then further let out by things done in Obama's first term have led to a very unstable, inflamed Middle East and North Africa. If Obama can NOT accomplish the incredibly difficult goals that he set out, it is pretty likely that the Republicans will run on foreign policy arguing - hoping America has a short memory - that Bush's assertiveness (!) was better than Obama's actions.
As to Hillary Clinton, her best chances will be if the new Obama foreign policy team can achieve some real, tangible accomplishments. (These will be diminished by the neo-cons of both parties and the right - and their many allies in the media. ) Otherwise, as the first SoS - and someone who pushed things like the surge in Afghanistan and doing more for the rebels in Syria -- it is possible that a Republican could run - strong on defending the US, but against Obama/Clinton policies if they are disliked. (Yes I know the President makes the final decisions - and Kerry is now SOS, but he will not be the one running for President - her opponents will label it Obama/Clinton.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
