Can Obama Recover?

At first, the president bungled badly. But now he’s getting it right — along with America’s role in the world.

A U.N. chemical weapons expert, wearing a gas mask, holds a plastic bag containing samples from one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Ain Tarma neighbourhood of Damascus August 29, 2013. A team of U.N. experts left their Damascus hotel for a third day of on-site investigations into apparent chemical weapons attacks on the outskirts of the capital. Activists and doctors in rebel-held areas said the six-car U.N. convoy was scheduled to visit the scene of strikes in the eastern Ghouta suburbs. 
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Sept. 12, 2013, 11:55 a.m.

Nev­er has Win­ston Churchill’s epi­gram looked so apt as right now: “Amer­ic­ans can al­ways be coun­ted on to do the right thing,” the elo­quent Bri­ton re­portedly said, “after they’ve ex­hausted all the oth­er pos­sib­il­it­ies.” Barack Obama at first tried just about every pos­sib­il­ity in deal­ing with Syr­ia but the right one. For many months, he ig­nored the spread­ing civil war there, even as it spilled over the bor­ders in­to Ir­aq, Jordan, Le­ban­on, and Tur­key. Obama also failed to re­spond to the re­gime’s pre­vi­ous, if smal­ler, chem­ic­al at­tacks when they were doc­u­mented in June, des­pite say­ing he would act; this fail­ure un­ques­tion­ably em­boldened Bashar al-As­sad to es­cal­ate his use of chem­ic­al weapons un­til the brazen and deadly at­tack of last month. And when Obama fi­nally did re­spond, it was with a neck-wrench­ing pledge to launch an im­min­ent at­tack. The turn­about caught every­one off guard, es­pe­cially va­ca­tion­ing mem­bers of Con­gress whom Obama pledged to by­pass — un­til he ab­ruptly del­eg­ated his de­cision to them.

The pres­id­ent nev­er got his tim­ing right. If Obama wanted Con­gress to ap­prove mil­it­ary ac­tion, he should have waited un­til mem­bers re­turned from their sum­mer re­cess, rather than al­low­ing them to get am­bushed by an angry and ill-in­formed pub­lic in town meet­ings while the me­dia chewed up his evid­ence piece­meal on talk TV over the last two weeks. “That was a mis­cal­cu­la­tion,” says Rep. Dutch Rup­pers­ber­ger, the rank­ing Demo­crat on the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee. Mike Ro­gers, the com­mit­tee chair­man, also poin­ted out, “You can’t really go from a dead stop to full speed. We cre­ated our own prob­lem here.”

But now Obama has won a re­prieve — thanks to the Rus­si­ans, of all people, Amer­ica’s chief ant­ag­on­ists — from what looked like an all-but-cer­tain con­gres­sion­al de­feat. In the com­ing days, the pres­id­ent thus has a chance to avoid what could have been the worst hu­mi­li­ation of his pres­id­ency. In­deed, he could even achieve two ma­jor vic­tor­ies at once. If Syr­ia, un­der Rus­sia’s dis­arm­a­ment plan, goes bey­ond its already start­ling ad­mis­sion that it pos­sesses chem­ic­al weapons (com­ing only days after As­sad’s deni­als, this is already a vic­tory) and gives its stock­piles up to in­ter­na­tion­al in­spect­ors for elim­in­a­tion, it will prove a huge Amer­ic­an dip­lo­mat­ic tri­umph in a re­gion where there haven’t been any U.S. break­throughs for a very long time.

More than that, though, Obama will also have af­firmed a truth that has fallen in­to doubt in re­cent years, most of all among Amer­ic­ans them­selves: the cent­ral­ity of the United States in up­hold­ing the in­ter­na­tion­al or­der. If Obama’s Syr­ia strategy was marred by un­cer­tainty (in keep­ing with the war-weary neo-isol­a­tion­ism that now af­flicts Amer­ica), the line he now draws is quite clear. It could even set a for­eign policy pre­ced­ent for fu­ture pres­id­ents. In his 17-minute speech to the na­tion Tues­day night, Obama made plain that his policy is at least as much about Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram — and po­ten­tial WMD in every oth­er rogue state — as it is about Syr­ia. Amer­ica doesn’t gen­er­ally in­ter­vene mil­it­ar­ily any­more to topple dic­tat­ors, or even to stop hu­man­it­ari­an dis­asters. But it will up­hold cer­tain “norms” that keep the in­ter­na­tion­al sys­tem from fall­ing in­to its nat­ur­al and his­tor­ic­al state — an­archy — once again. “A fail­ure to stand against the use of chem­ic­al weapons would weak­en pro­hib­i­tions against oth­er weapons of mass de­struc­tion, and em­bolden As­sad’s ally, Ir­an, which must de­cide wheth­er to ig­nore in­ter­na­tion­al law by build­ing a nuc­le­ar weapon or to take a more peace­ful path,” Obama said. “This is not a world we should ac­cept. This is what’s at stake.”

The Syr­i­an crisis emerged at a crit­ic­al time: The re­gime in Tehran is about to make an ex­ist­en­tial choice un­der a new mod­er­ate pres­id­ent, Has­san Rouh­ani, and a worldly and West­ern­ized for­eign min­is­ter, Javad Za­rif, who is the op­pos­ite of his hard-line pre­de­cessor. Will Ir­an sur­render its nuc­le­ar pro­gram and re­join the world, or will it re­main the pari­ah it has been for dec­ades? “An elec­tion that was ex­pec­ted to con­sol­id­ate au­thor­ity in the hands of de­fi­ant theo­crats has un­ex­pec­tedly opened a tent­at­ive door to con­cili­ation,” writes Su­z­anne Malo­ney, an Ir­an ex­pert at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion, in a re­cent re­port. As a res­ult, nev­er has the im­age of Amer­ic­an firm­ness against WMD pro­lif­er­a­tion been as im­port­ant as it is right now.

No, Amer­ica can­not and will not be the “po­lice­man for the world,” as the pres­id­ent said in his speech. But it is still, un­mis­tak­ably, “the an­chor for glob­al se­cur­ity.” What the Syr­ia crisis un­der­lines is the rock-bot­tom truth that there is no oth­er en­for­cer but the United States when it comes to main­tain­ing ba­sic stand­ards for a peace­ful and stable in­ter­na­tion­al sys­tem. The United Na­tions and in­ter­na­tion­al law — such as it is — are empty shells without the United States. And while that sys­tem has suffered ser­i­ous blows and of­ten ap­pears to be com­ing apart at the seams, bat­tling the spread of WMD is clearly in Amer­ica’s in­terest, even after a dec­ade of war. To a de­gree Amer­ic­ans still seem un­will­ing to ac­know­ledge (judging from the over­whelm­ing poll num­bers against any kind of mil­it­ary strike on As­sad), there is a dir­ect re­la­tion­ship between U.S. na­tion­al se­cur­ity and se­cur­ing that glob­al or­der, with all of its “norms.”

Obama was re­af­firm­ing an even lar­ger point, one go­ing back to Woo­drow Wilson. The world that Amer­ic­ans have al­ways longed to keep at ocean’s length has be­come, to an ex­tent most of us don’t real­ize, our world, shaped largely by U.S. val­ues and U.S.-en­gendered in­sti­tu­tions. Since World War II, we have been the chief ar­chi­tects of a vast, mul­ti­di­men­sion­al glob­al sys­tem that con­sists of trad­ing rules, of in­ter­na­tion­al law, of norms for eco­nom­ic and polit­ic­al be­ha­vi­or. Im­per­fect though they are, the in­sti­tu­tions of this sys­tem — the U.N., the World Trade Or­gan­iz­a­tion, among oth­ers — are the most power­ful ever to ex­ist and are fully en­trenched. After cen­tur­ies in which ever-shift­ing great-power rival­ries gov­erned world af­fairs, lead­ing time and again to war, the best thing for the United States is to strengthen these in­sti­tu­tions. Stop­ping the pro­lif­er­a­tion of chem­ic­al weapons and oth­er WMD simply makes us all safer, and the only way to do it is through in­ter­na­tion­al co­oper­a­tion.

All of which leads us to the biggest ques­tion right now: Does Rus­sia genu­inely agree with this as­sess­ment? Mo­scow seems to re­cog­nize it has a com­mon in­terest with Wash­ing­ton not only in avert­ing war but also in se­cur­ing chem­ic­al-weapons stock­piles, es­pe­cially when it comes to rad­ic­al Is­lam­ists who cov­et them (along Rus­sia’s south­ern bor­der, among oth­er places). On the oth­er hand, Mo­scow likes noth­ing bet­ter than hu­mi­li­at­ing the na­tion that got the bet­ter of it in the Cold War. Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin genu­inely sees As­sad as an ally in Rus­sia’s loose “sphere of in­flu­ence.” That’s why the com­ing days will al­most cer­tainly see a fierce fight in­side the U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil over the lan­guage of a Syr­ia res­ol­u­tion.

The main stick­ing points are these: Putin wants Obama to “re­nounce” the threat of force, while Obama in­sists it is the only thing that has got­ten As­sad to budge on chem­ic­al weapons. The U.S. pres­id­ent and his chief al­lies, France and a reen­er­gized Bri­tain (which is now back at the table des­pite Prime Min­is­ter Dav­id Camer­on’s hu­mi­li­at­ing de­feat in Par­lia­ment), will try to in­sist on what Rus­sia has already said it can’t ac­cept: that the res­ol­u­tion be bind­ing un­der Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which al­lows for the use of force. The two sides will also wrangle bit­terly over a dead­line for Syr­i­an co­oper­a­tion: Obama will in­sist on one even­tu­ally (al­though right now he’s happy for the time-out), and Putin will try to keep things open-ended. It is over those two is­sues, among oth­ers, that the tent­at­ive Syr­ia agree­ment could eas­ily blow up. In which case, the pres­id­ent will have to go back to his up­hill selling job on the use of force.

In the end, much will de­pend on what Putin and his wily for­eign min­is­ter, Sergei Lav­rov, are really think­ing. Is their sur­prise pro­pos­al just a ploy to make Obama look even more fool­ish than he would have oth­er­wise looked, when the pres­id­ent faced a choice between de­fy­ing Con­gress to bomb Dam­as­cus, thus in­vit­ing im­peach­ment, or back­ing off his threat, thus in­vit­ing ri­dicule? As Obama him­self said of the Rus­si­ans in a To­night Show ap­pear­ance in Au­gust, “There have been times where they slip back in­to Cold War think­ing and a Cold War men­tal­ity. What I con­tinu­ally say to them and to Pres­id­ent Putin, “˜That’s the past. We’ve got to think about the fu­ture.’ “

In an ef­fort to put the best pos­sible face on Obama’s fum­bling ap­proach to Syr­ia, ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials are now play­ing up the idea that Obama and Putin first hatched the Syr­ia idea to­geth­er a year ago. But the truth is that it was only when Obama faced near-cer­tain de­feat in the House on a res­ol­u­tion au­thor­iz­ing the use of force, and Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry re­luct­antly re­floated the idea of tak­ing charge of Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons on Monday, that the Rus­si­ans jumped on the pro­pos­al. All of which sug­gests that Mo­scow is less than sin­cere and is mainly try­ing to give As­sad more time.

But if Obama can find a way to avoid yet an­oth­er Rus­si­an veto in the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil, he could still achieve the lever­age he needs with As­sad. In the ul­ti­mate irony, per­haps the best pre­ced­ent for what Obama is try­ing to do here comes from the pre­de­cessor whose leg­acy he has been run­ning away from: George W. Bush. We tend to for­get this now, but be­fore he in­vaded Ir­aq, in the fall of 2002, Bush had won a big dip­lo­mat­ic vic­tory against Sad­dam Hus­sein by threat­en­ing the use of force: a 15-0 Se­cur­ity Coun­cil vote giv­ing him com­plete in­spec­tion ac­cess to Ir­aq. Had Bush stopped at that point — as Obama ap­pears in­tent on do­ing with Syr­ia — it would have strengthened the U.N., the in­ter­na­tion­al sys­tem, and Amer­ic­an prestige, rather than lead­ing to a chron­ic Amer­ic­an re­luct­ance to in­ter­vene ever again.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.