What Obama Learned From Syria: Say Nothing

Far from drawing a “red line,” the president has said little since Putin expanded his reach into Crimea. It’s not a bad strategy, so far.

President Barack Obama makes a statement to the news media about Ukraine in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House March 6, 2014 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Lucia Graves
March 7, 2014, 8:51 a.m.

A week ago, when Pres­id­ent Obama de­livered his first mes­sage on the crisis in Crimea, pun­dits were quick to cri­ti­cize him for lack of sub­stance. “Pres­id­ent Obama Speaks on Ukraine, Says Vir­tu­ally Noth­ing,” read the head­line at Slate.

A few days later, he warned there would be “costs” for any mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion in Ukraine. It was a vague threat, and Obama showed no in­terest in ex­pand­ing on it or spelling out ex­actly what he meant by Rus­si­an mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion.

For this he’s been cri­ti­cized by con­ser­vat­ives like The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Marc Thiessen, who wrote in a Monday column that “Obama’s weak­ness em­boldens Putin.” So far, however, aside from Thiessen and the Sarah Pal­in types in­tent on mak­ing petty at­tacks on the pres­id­ent’s mach­ismo, his ap­proach seems to be go­ing pretty well.

If Obama learned any­thing from the con­front­a­tion with Syr­ia this fall, it’s that it’s best not to box your ad­min­is­tra­tion in with rhet­or­ic. Obama fam­ously backed him­self in­to a corner with re­gard to mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion in Syr­ia’s civil war back in Au­gust  2012 with his re­portedly un­scrip­ted “red line” ut­ter­ance. If “we start­ing see­ing a whole bunch of chem­ic­al weapons mov­ing around or be­ing util­ized,” that would be a “red line” that would “change my equa­tion,” Obama said at the time.

A year later, that red line prom­ise would come back to haunt him. In a piece titled “Obama’s For­eign Policy by Faux Pas,” Na­tion­al Journ­al de­scribed how that “red line” be­came the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s of­fi­cial po­s­i­tion and that “the genie couldn’t be put back in­to the bottle.” (That is, un­til an­oth­er un­scrip­ted re­mark, this one from Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, mi­ra­cu­lously saved the day.)

In fact, Obama was still tak­ing flak for his hand­ling of the situ­ation in Syr­ia as re­cently as Fri­day morn­ing, when Oliv­er North, a con­trib­ut­or on Fox News, made a jab at the pres­id­ent dur­ing his speech at the Con­ser­vat­ive Polit­ic­al Ac­tion Con­fer­ence, ac­cus­ing Obama of draw­ing “phony red lines with a pink cray­on.”

He isn’t mak­ing the mis­take again. Thursday night Obama and Vladi­mir Putin had what The New Re­pub­lic deemed “a very un­pro­duct­ive phone call” in which Obama em­phas­ized resolv­ing the situ­ation dip­lo­mat­ic­ally and co­ordin­at­ing with his European part­ners.

Obama, it’s clear, is very will­ing to sit back and let a lar­ger net­work of forces take their toll on Rus­sia. He isn’t the first Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent to be con­fron­ted by pro­voca­tions and mil­it­ary ac­tions from Mo­scow but he is, as Na­tion­al Journ­al noted on Thursday, the first to have a broad range of highly ef­fect­ive non­mil­it­ary re­sponses at his dis­pos­al.

Putin has brushed off the threat of sanc­tions and the sus­pen­sion of pre­par­a­tions for a G-8 or­gan­iz­a­tion sum­mit in So­chi in June. But that dis­play of con­fid­ence is already ringing hol­low.

Rus­sia is more eco­nom­ic­ally isol­ated than ever be­fore and that means, des­pite Putin’s re­sound­ing shrug, the coun­try is vul­ner­able. Rus­si­an mar­kets have plummeted since Putin ex­pan­ded forces in­to Crimea and the ruble is down more than 8 per­cent since the be­gin­ning of the year.

With num­bers like those, Obama is per­fectly happy to keep play­ing the wait­ing game.

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×