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
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×