The Ugly, Disorganized Obama Victory on Syria

The president on Sunday took credit for an apparent diplomatic solution to Syria’s chemical weapons.

Syrian demonstrators carry an image of Syrian President Bashar Assad during a demonstration against U.S. military action in Syria, Sept. 9, 2013, in front of the White House. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
Sept. 15, 2013, 6:47 a.m.

If there’s one thing that Wash­ing­ton can agree on right now, it’s that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s hand­ling of the chem­ic­al-weapons at­tack in Syr­ia has been any­thing but or­derly.

After weeks of a con­cer­ted ef­fort on be­half of the pres­id­ent and his ad­min­is­tra­tion to push for a mil­it­ary re­sponse to the As­sad re­gime’s al­leged use of chem­ic­al weapons in Syr­ia, there might be a dip­lo­mat­ic solu­tion that could make the re­gion safer.

But up to this point, the pro­cess was marked by delayed re­sponses, double stand­ards, fail­ing con­gres­sion­al sup­port, mixed mes­sages, and ap­par­ent gaffes. Even Pres­id­ent Obama agrees that the pro­cess hasn’t been without is­sue. However, that doesn’t mat­ter, he said on Sunday.

“I think that folks here in Wash­ing­ton like to grade on style. So had we rolled out something that was very smooth and dis­cip­lined and lin­ear, they would’ve graded it well even if it was a dis­astrous policy. We know that be­cause that’s ex­actly how they graded the Ir­aq war,” Obama said on ABC’s This Week. “I’m less con­cerned about style points, I’m much more con­cerned about get­ting the policy right.”

And that’s what the pres­id­ent thinks he has right now: a policy vic­tory through a rocky pro­cess.

On Sat­urday, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion an­nounced that Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry and Rus­si­an For­eign Min­is­ter Sergei Lav­rov agreed on a frame­work to re­move or des­troy all Syr­i­an chem­ic­al weapons by the middle of 2014. This happened on the third day of ne­go­ti­ations in Geneva.

The plan is am­bi­tious, however, and is de­pend­ent on sev­er­al factors, not least of which is keep­ing Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad to his word. In the com­ing week, As­sad will have to provide a “com­pre­hens­ive list­ing” of its chem­ic­al weapons stock­pile. The deal also in­volves a United Na­tions Se­cur­ity Coun­cil res­ol­u­tion and an in­spec­tion of all chem­ic­al weapons sites. Ad­di­tion­ally, all equip­ment to arm or make chem­ic­al weapons must be des­troyed by Novem­ber.

This could prove dif­fi­cult, see­ing as though there are 1,000 tons of chem­ic­al weapons in Syr­ia, housed in 45 sites, ac­cord­ing to a U.S. of­fi­cial speak­ing to The New York Times.

And what about the U.S. mil­it­ary op­tion? The pres­id­ent said the U.S. still re­serves the right to use force if the dip­lo­mat­ic op­tion fails. Plus, he says, if it wer­en’t for the threat of force, this solu­tion might not have been pos­sible. In a mat­ter of weeks, Syr­ia has not only ac­know­ledged that it has chem­ic­al weapons, but it is will­ing to join the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity and des­troy those weapons. To Obama, the U.S. is “in a bet­ter po­s­i­tion.”

“I think we have the pos­sib­il­ity that it doesn’t hap­pen again,” Obama con­tin­ued on ABC. “The dis­tance we’ve traveled over these last couple of weeks has been re­mark­able.”

House In­tel­li­gence Chair­man Mike Ro­gers, R-Mich., though, would dis­agree with that claim. To him, it’s “a Rus­si­an plan for Rus­si­an in­terests.”

“If the pres­id­ent be­lieves a cred­ible mil­it­ary force helps you get a dip­lo­mat­ic solu­tion, they gave that away in this deal,” Ro­gers said on CNN’s State of the Uni­on on Sunday.

Obama, on the oth­er hand, said he doesn’t view this is­sue as black and white between Rus­sia and the U.S. “This is not the Cold War,” Obama said. And though Obama doesn’t “think that Mr. Putin has the same val­ues that we do,” the pres­id­ent wants Rus­sia to be in­volved in is­sues where there is shared in­ter­ested.

And still, one of the more press­ing is­sues with this dip­lo­mat­ic deal is the stand­ing that it gives As­sad to con­tin­ue his reign in Syr­ia, at least un­til this chem­ic­al weapons is­sue is re­solved. However, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion still says it sup­ports the mod­er­ate op­pos­i­tion. In the heart of the ne­go­ti­ations between Lav­rov and Kerry, the U.S. an­nounced it would im­me­di­ately start arm­ing rebel fight­ers.

But after 100,000 people were killed and 6 mil­lion people dis­placed, this latest dip­lo­mat­ic move by the U.S. and Rus­sia could set the frame­work to a polit­ic­al set­tle­ment in the Syr­ia civil war, the pres­id­ent con­tends. 

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4440) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×