Roughly ten days ago, CNN's Fareed Zakaria said, "[T]he administration's handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy."
On Wednesday, Zakaria wrote a piece for the Washington Post in which he conceded, "Obama’s proposals are also not likely to reduce the humanitarian crisis" in Syria, but yet in his view, the new plan involving Russia "is a significant success."
So, how can this be a "significant success" if the plan doesn't solve Syria's humanitarian crisis?
"[Obama] has mobilized world attention, and there is now a chance, albeit small, that he might get a process in place that monitors and even destroys Syrian chemical weapons," wrote Zakaria. "Almost certainly he has ensured that such weapons won’t be used again by the Assad regime."
Really? Exactly how has that been ensured?
The Times of Israel reported hours ago that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on rebels in Damascus Thursday.
Beyond this, Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposal requires the United States to take military action off the table.
As it seems unlikely Obama is going to do that, this entire plan is in grave danger of totally falling apart before it gets off the ground.
Zakaria apparently isn't concerned about that as he contorts himself in what must be a tremendously painful position to pat the current White House resident on the back going in ten days from Obama's handling of Syria being "a case study in how not to do foreign policy" to it being "a significant success."
Pretty impressive feat when you think about it.
