How It Can Still Go Wrong for Obama

His turn on Syria avoids a cliff, but it sets him on a rocky road that could still rattle his presidency.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) walks past U.S. President Barack Obama (R) during a group photo at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg September 6, 2013. 
REUTERS
Ronald Brownstein
Sept. 12, 2013, 4:05 p.m.

The sud­den swerve to­ward in­ter­na­tion­al dip­lomacy of­fers Pres­id­ent Obama the op­por­tun­ity of a bet­ter out­come in Syr­ia — at the risk of cre­at­ing an en­er­vat­ing stan­doff that weak­ens him in all the oth­er struggles bar­rel­ing his way this fall.

When Obama agreed this week to pur­sue the un­ex­pec­ted Rus­si­an ini­ti­at­ive to place Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons un­der in­ter­na­tion­al con­trol for even­tu­al de­struc­tion, the most im­port­ant thing the pres­id­ent ac­com­plished was to de­fer the con­front­a­tion at home and abroad.

That of­fers him the im­me­di­ate up­side of avoid­ing a con­gres­sion­al vote he ap­peared likely to lose in the House and per­haps the Sen­ate, too. The down­side is, he’s en­sured that the Syr­i­an show­down will con­tin­ue for weeks, and likely months, cloud­ing everything else he wants to ac­com­plish.

By the time that pro­cess ends, Obama might have done much more to re­move the chem­ic­al-weapons threat from Syr­ia than he could have achieved in a mil­it­ary ac­tion short of out­right in­va­sion. Yet there’s equal risk that he will soon be so tangled in in­con­clus­ive in­ter­na­tion­al wrangling, he will wish he had uni­lat­er­ally made his point by quickly strik­ing Syr­ia in early Septem­ber. Obama steered away from the cliff for now, but he turned onto a rocky road that prom­ises more bumps ahead.

Un­less the talks with Rus­sia break down quickly (al­ways a pos­sib­il­ity), Obama must run a dip­lo­mat­ic gant­let to get a United Na­tions res­ol­u­tion passed to au­thor­ize in­ter­na­tion­al ne­go­ti­at­ors to cata­log and des­troy Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons. That ef­fort will re­quire tough ne­go­ti­at­ing, and al­most cer­tainly art­ful eva­sion, to de­vise lan­guage that car­ries dead­lines and a threat of con­sequences cred­ible enough to prompt Syr­i­an com­pli­ance, but not spe­cif­ic enough to spook Rus­sia or China.

Even as­sum­ing Obama crosses this hurdle, he would enter the more daunt­ing phase of ex­ecut­ing weapons in­spec­tions dur­ing an on­go­ing civil war. The pre­ced­ent of nearly four months of U.N. in­spec­tions in Ir­aq be­fore the 2003 in­va­sion shows how com­plex and mad­den­ing this pro­cess can be — even without an act­ive con­flict boil­ing around it. That in­vest­ig­a­tion pro­voked fre­quent com­plaints from both in­ter­na­tion­al in­spect­ors and the U.S. that Sad­dam Hus­sein was im­ped­ing the in­spec­tions (self-de­struct­ively, be­cause he had no ac­tu­al weapons of mass de­struc­tion to hide). At one point, an ex­as­per­ated Colin Pow­ell, then-sec­ret­ary of State, in­voked the Pink Pan­ther movies to warn that Ir­aq could not have in­spect­ors “play de­tect­ives or In­spect­or Clouseau run­ning all around Ir­aq look­ing for this ma­ter­i­al.”

The pro­spect of a com­par­able pro­cess in Syr­ia echoes with irony: After com­ing to na­tion­al no­tice largely by op­pos­ing the Ir­aq war, Obama now finds him­self launch­ing a search for weapons of mass de­struc­tion, backed by the threat of Amer­ic­an force, in an­oth­er Middle East­ern coun­try.

There are reas­ons to think in­ter­ven­tion might turn out bet­ter this time. The saber rat­tling and dip­lo­mat­ic swirl have already gen­er­ated a sig­ni­fic­ant be­ne­fit: Syr­ia’s ac­know­ledg­ment, for the first time, that it pos­sesses chem­ic­al weapons. Rus­sia, al­though Syr­ia’s prin­cip­al pat­ron, has an in­terest in con­trolling chem­ic­al weapons that could even­tu­ally drift in­to con­trol of Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ists op­er­at­ing in Chechnya. Ir­an has also ex­pressed pre­lim­in­ary sup­port for the Rus­si­an pro­pos­al.

The dip­lo­mat­ic route, even if it even­tu­ally fails, could also provide some oxy­gen to the fad­ing em­bers of Obama’s push for mil­it­ary ac­tion. It may be easi­er for le­gis­lat­ors to en­dorse Amer­ic­an force if Obama first tries to re­solve the crisis through mul­ti­lat­er­al ac­tion. Demo­crats, in par­tic­u­lar, may be more com­fort­able sup­port­ing the pres­id­ent “if people be­lieve he’s gone through a real [in­ter­na­tion­al] pro­cess,” notes lob­by­ist Steve El­men­d­orf, a former top House Demo­crat­ic aide. Per­haps even more rel­ev­antly, against the back­drop of frus­trated dip­lomacy, it might be easi­er for Obama to hit Syr­ia without ask­ing again for Con­gress’s ap­prov­al, as Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham, R-S.C., counseled on CNN im­me­di­ately after Obama’s speech.

Yet open­ing this dip­lo­mat­ic front car­ries real risks for Obama. A dip­lo­mat­ic agree­ment could con­trol Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons more ef­fect­ively than a mil­it­ary strike — which, the ad­min­is­tra­tion has made clear, would not tar­get such stock­piles dir­ectly. However, an agree­ment fo­cused nar­rowly on chem­ic­al weapons would also pree­mpt a broad­er mil­it­ary move that weak­ens Syr­i­an lead­er Bashar al-As­sad. Any chem­ic­al-weapons deal would likely im­prove As­sad’s job se­cur­ity.

At home, this path en­sures that Syr­ia re­mains in the head­lines for weeks. And if the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s cause there founders (either at the U.N. or dur­ing in­spec­tions), that will hurt Obama ex­actly as he’s fa­cing enorm­ous chal­lenges this fall: the con­tested launch of his health care ex­changes for the un­in­sured; show­downs with con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans over the budget and debt ceil­ing; and the up­hill climb to kick-start im­mig­ra­tion-re­form le­gis­la­tion now stalled in the House.

Rus­sia’s in­ter­ven­tion could pro­duce be­ne­fits in Syr­ia and bey­ond (per­haps even re­viv­ing nuc­le­ar ne­go­ti­ations with Ir­an). But there’s reas­on for skep­ti­cism as the de­tails un­fold. Vladi­mir Putin ac­ted at a mo­ment when not only the U.S. but the en­tire West­ern world had dis­played little stom­ach for con­front­ing Syr­ia, and whatever else can be said about him, the Rus­si­an pres­id­ent has nev­er shown him­self to be a man who re­wards weak­ness.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4441) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days 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
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×