Mind you, I have no doubt that Ignatius is sincerely puzzled. But he is wrong to say we achieved the right result.
What to make of this?
How did it happen that, less than a year after Barack Obama convincingly won reelection, his every move as president now draws hoots and catcalls from nearly every point on the political spectrum? ...
What’s puzzling about this latest bout of Obama-phobia is that recent developments in Syria have generally been positive from the standpoint of U.S. interests.
And no, it is not the "McCain factor." He's an honorable man and he'd have been a better president had he won in 2008, but I simply don't look to him for guidance on foreign policy.
And no, you can't start the argument by asserting, as Ignatius does, that the agreement is in US interests and then justify that argument by saying the public approves of the agreement over strikes, as if polling data equals national interests. And is if those are the only two choices our president had. Shoot, I'm on record as saying that overthrowing Assad would be the best retaliation for his use of chemical weapons.
Most basically, Ignatius ignores the major change in our policy of saying Assad had to go and that the possession of chemical weapons by such a mad man is a threat, to a policy that says chemical weapons are the threat and that Assad must cooperate to get rid of those weapons. So Assad must stay. And how Assad kills Syrians if he doesn't use chemical weapons is none of our business, apparently.
Ignatius also makes the mistake of thinking that Russia is on board with our objective--whether old or new. I don't believe we can subcontract out the elimination of Assad's chemical arsenal to the Russians whose sole goal is to preserve the Assad regime.
I have admitted that if the agreement is carried out that it could benefit us by eliminating Assad's chemical weapons. After all, we benefited from both Saddam and Khadaffi not having chemical weapons by the time we waged war against both of their regimes.
But the agreement is not the "right result." For this agreement to be the "right result," we have to both get the WMD removed and remember that the real objective must be to get rid of Assad.
Even if the agreement is carried out successfully, if Russia gets that result at the price of preserving Assad's regime, why is it puzzling that our president should get hoots and catcalls?
If the agreement means we abandon those rebels we once said should defeat Assad, why is it puzzling that such a major hit to our reputation as a reliable ally and formidable foe should get hoots and catcalls?
If the agreement makes Iran think (if they don't already, given the last fiver years) that President Obama poses no real threat to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, why is it puzzling that the president gets hoots and catcalls?
What's puzzling is that people like Ignatius are cheering peace in our time and holding the umbrella over President Obama to shield him from the hoots and catcalls he so richly deserves so far.
