Skip to main content

Obama administration confused, conflicted over Syria

By Newt Gingrich, CNN Contributor
updated 7:25 AM EDT, Mon September 9, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Newt Gingrich: Administration officials seem confused on basic points
  • He asks: Are they for military action or for peace? What are the objectives?
  • How much will it cost? Who supplied Syria with chemical weapons?
  • Gingrich: Administration officials have wavered on these vital questions

Editor's note: Newt Gingrich is a co-host of CNN's new "Crossfire," which makes its debut on Monday, September 9, at 6:30 p.m. ET. A former speaker of the House, Gingrich is a Republican strategist who works with candidates who share his vision.

(CNN) -- No administration in modern times has been as confused, contradictory and incompetent in trying to make the case for war as this White House has been in its push for action against the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Listen to the words of the Obama administration:

On war and peace: At the G20 Summit on Friday, President Barack Obama said as he pushed for strikes in Syria, "I was elected to end wars, not start them. I've spent the last four and a half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people."

Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich

Then Obama signed onto a joint statement with 10 other nations present at St. Petersburg's G20 Summit, "Recognizing that Syria's conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique."

On boots on the ground: Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry wavered on whether U.S. ground forces could be deployed in Syria.

Kerry told Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, "I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country."

Then Kerry backtracked when pressed by Ranking Member Bob Corker, "Let me be very clear now, because I don't want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibility, so let's shut that door now as tight as we can." Kerry explained his contradiction by admitting, "I was thinking out loud."

Newt Gingrich's wild animal adventures

On who supplied al-Assad with chemical weapons: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week when asked where al-Assad got his chemical weapons, "The Russians supply them."

The Russians called that a lie and the Defense Department walked back the comment, saying Hagel meant Russians supply conventional weapons to Syria.

On war objectives: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, couldn't answer even the most basic question on U.S. objectives on a Syrian intervention. When Corker asked, "What is it you're seeking?" Dempsey replied, "I can't answer that, what we're seeking."

On the cost of war: Hagel told the House Committee the entire Syria campaign's cost, "would be in the tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range." Since Tomahawk missiles cost about $1 million each, the administration would only be able to deploy several dozen missiles before going over its own budget.

So this administration does not know if it wants war or peace, if it will need to deploy ground troops, where the chemical weapons it wants to eradicate come from, what our war objectives are and how much this war will cost.

Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Kerry's assertion that al Qaeda and radical Islamists comprise only a small part of the anti-Assad rebels, saying Kerry "is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

That a foreign leader would so forcefully call America's top diplomat a liar points to the administration's growing credibility gap with the world and the American people. That is sad.

Retired Gen. Robert Scales chalks up the public relations disaster to amateurism, writing "[Military leaders] are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it."

Scales has a point -- when the sitting secretary of state, while discussing matters of war, admits to "thinking out loud," something is very wrong.

Every member of Congress should vote his or her conscience on matters of peace and war. After weeks of misstatements, contradictions and gaffes, it is becoming clear that the administration's leaders are in way over their heads on these weighty matters.

For members carefully weighing the decision to authorize force, they should know that a yes vote rewards the most incompetent, atonal security team in our lifetime. It will only encourage more incompetence.

If they can't even explain the war, how can they win it?

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Newt Gingrich.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 2:19 PM EDT, Fri October 31, 2014
As a woman whose parents had cancer, I have quite a few things to say about dying with dignity.
updated 9:04 AM EDT, Fri October 31, 2014
David Gergen says he'll have a special eye on a few particular races in Tuesday's midterms that may tell us about our long-term future.
updated 10:52 AM EDT, Fri October 31, 2014
What's behind the uptick in clown sightings? And why the fascination with them? It could be about the economy.
updated 9:01 AM EDT, Fri October 31, 2014
Midterm elections don't usually have the same excitement as presidential elections. That should change, writes Sally Kohn.
updated 11:39 AM EDT, Thu October 30, 2014
Mike Downey says the Giants and the Royals both lived through long title droughts. What teams are waiting for a win?
updated 2:32 PM EDT, Thu October 30, 2014
Mel Robbins says if a man wants to talk to a woman on the street, he should follow 3 basic rules.
updated 5:03 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Peter Bergen and David Sterman say more terrorism plots are disrupted by families than by NSA surveillance.
updated 5:25 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Time magazine has clearly kicked up a hornet's nest with its downright insulting cover headlined "Rotten Apples," says Donna Brazile.
updated 4:55 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Leroy Chiao says the failure of the launch is painful but won't stop the trend toward commercializing space.
updated 7:45 AM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Timothy Stanley: Though Jeb Bush has something to offer, another Bush-Clinton race would be a step backward.
updated 8:37 AM EDT, Tue October 28, 2014
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
updated 7:45 AM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
updated 3:04 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
updated 8:32 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT