Who’s Really the “Loser” in the Syria Deal?
A short essay on the Syrian crisis deal, in the form of embedded tweets.
Trying to understand why I’m supposed to think Obama came out the loser in the Syria deal. US gets everything we wanted w/o firing a shot.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 14, 2013
Of course it could still fall apart & enforcement will be tough, but how’s this deal a loss for Obama? Just don’t see it.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 14, 2013
How does it make the US look weak to resolve a crisis without bombing?
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
If anyone looks weak it’s Vladimir Putin. He backed Assad for years and excused everything he did, even denied CW - and then he caved in.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
If we had bombed Syria, we may have been able to wipe out some of the CW stockpile, but very unlikely to get all or even most of it.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
But with this deal, we get *all* of Assad’s chemical weapons, and it’s under international supervision. That’s worse than bombing?
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
By strongly emphasizing that strikes in Syria would be “unbelievably” limited, I think Assad got the message: he might be a target.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
Nothing gets a despot’s attention like a threat to his personal safety.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013
Imagine you’re Assad. You hear the US Sec. of State say military strikes will be “unbelievably” limited. What are you going to think?
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 15, 2013