Post by robeiae on Dec 6, 2016 9:14:07 GMT -5
John Kerry, speaking at the Saban Forum on Sunday (the Forum is an annual conference for US and Israel leaders held at the Brookings Institute):
Admittedly, it's not much of an admission. Kerry's take is pretty weaselly, imo: not enforcing the red line gave us "a better result" but not enforcing it also "cost us significantly."
Nonetheless, Kerry at least admits that there was an intentional choice to not follow through with what was supposedly a stone cold lock: chemical weapons use crosses the "red line" and there will be immediate and severe consequences. Imo, this is a significant tidbit, insofar as it kinda kills the post-red line narrative pushed by the admin (with assistance from left-leaning journalists). And there's a very strong case to be made that this decision was a critical one, with regard to the growth of ISIS.
Beyond that, there's precious little mention of this tidbit in the US media. Do a google search with these terms: kerry "saban forum" "red line". Limit it to the last week and to "news." See what you find.
But I do believe in force and I believe in being strong. And I believe it is important for us to – and I know the cost – this has been a topic of conversation here – of the President’s decision when he decided not to enforce the redline through the bombing. But in fact, that’s greatly misinterpreted. It’s – it had an impact. People have interpreted it as his decision not to when, in fact, he never made a decision not to bomb. He made the decision to bomb. He simply decided he had to go to Congress because Tony Blair – not Tony Blair – because David Cameron lost the vote in the parliament on a Thursday, and on Friday, President Obama felt, hearing from Congress, “Oh, you got to come to us, you got to come to us,” he would go there and get the decision. Well, the decision wasn’t forthcoming, and in the meantime, I got a deal with Lavrov to get all of the chemical weapons out of the country.
So in effect, we got a better result out of not doing it, but it was the threat of doing it that brought about the result, and the lack of doing it perception-wise cost us significantly in the region, and I know that and so does the President. As much as we think it’s a misinterpretation of sort of – it doesn’t matter. It cost. Perception can often just be the reality.
So in effect, we got a better result out of not doing it, but it was the threat of doing it that brought about the result, and the lack of doing it perception-wise cost us significantly in the region, and I know that and so does the President. As much as we think it’s a misinterpretation of sort of – it doesn’t matter. It cost. Perception can often just be the reality.
Admittedly, it's not much of an admission. Kerry's take is pretty weaselly, imo: not enforcing the red line gave us "a better result" but not enforcing it also "cost us significantly."
Nonetheless, Kerry at least admits that there was an intentional choice to not follow through with what was supposedly a stone cold lock: chemical weapons use crosses the "red line" and there will be immediate and severe consequences. Imo, this is a significant tidbit, insofar as it kinda kills the post-red line narrative pushed by the admin (with assistance from left-leaning journalists). And there's a very strong case to be made that this decision was a critical one, with regard to the growth of ISIS.
Beyond that, there's precious little mention of this tidbit in the US media. Do a google search with these terms: kerry "saban forum" "red line". Limit it to the last week and to "news." See what you find.
