Reply #2: I was wondering of the point of that story

[karynnj]

That and other stories have also tried to position Kerry as a friend and advocate for Syria, which he isn't. There is a huge jump from saying that it is valuable to open a line of communication and to attempt to get Assad to see that his and his country's interests do not lie with Iran and suggesting that he is "for" Syria. (Wikileaks actually showed Kerry's position to be exactly what he has said in the open.)

It is interesting if the US (and France) stopped Kerry from going there last month - which would likely have been after he left Pakistan, where he was doing the unpleasant, tough job of trying to heal the rift after Davis killed Pakistanis, for Israel, where he had dinner with Netanyhu. (It may be that the Obama administration is not as firm on always being willing to speak as Kerry is.)

The article with the interview did a good job in putting Kerry's role in perspective. At this point, Syria can go either way. If they do really move in the way Kerry (Obama, Clinton, the world) wants them do, this can be a major change in the dynamics of the entire area. If that happens, the action in Libya is likely to be seen as the cause for the change. Kerry's role in Syria, although it likely might have been needed would likely not be all that public.

If Syria does not move in the right direction, there is no way that Kerry can be blamed, but the WSJ, that does not like him anyway, will likely argue that it shows that he was naive to have thought it possible. (Ignoring that even if Kerry would have estimated that it had a 1% chance of success, the cost in pursing it was worth it - because the cost was essentially just his time and the potential gain was that it would be a game changer in the Middle East.)