Barack Obama: The Loneliest Man on the Planet?

The president, isolated internationally and domestically, tries to prevent the global system from ‘unraveling.’ Will Iran take advantage of his plight?

Getty Images
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
Sept. 6, 2013, 8:52 a.m.

Barack Obama looked like about the most isol­ated man on earth Fri­day. At his clos­ing news con­fer­ence at the G-20 Sum­mit in St. Peters­burg, Rus­sia, an ap­par­ently ex­hausted pres­id­ent lamen­ted that all the world’s good and great — from the U.N. to the pope — were lin­ing up against him, and that it was his lonely lot to pre­vent  in­ter­na­tion­al law from “un­rav­el­ing” over Bashar al-As­sad’s flag­rant use of chem­ic­al weapons.  “When there’s a breach this brazen of a norm this im­port­ant and the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity is para­lyzed and frozen and doesn’t act, then that norm be­gins to un­ravel,” Obama said. “And if that norm un­ravels, then oth­er norms and pro­hib­i­tions start un­rav­el­ing. And that makes for a more dan­ger­ous world.”

But Obama’s words are find­ing few listen­ers, either abroad or at home. Do­mest­ic­ally it is look­ing more and more that Obama made a po­ten­tially dev­ast­at­ing mis­take in go­ing to a Con­gress that has thwarted so many of his plans in the past. His own Demo­crats, as Obama ac­know­ledged in St. Peters­burg, are prov­ing at least as much trouble in sup­port­ing a res­ol­u­tion to at­tack Syr­ia as the Re­pub­lic­ans. As of this week­end, the pres­id­ent ap­peared to be los­ing the vote tally, at least in the House. If any House vote goes against him and he strikes any way, he could face a re­newed and dis­tract­ing (if ul­ti­mately un­suc­cess­ful) im­peach­ment drive from the hard right. If, on the oth­er hand, Obama backs down from his pledge to at­tack Syr­ia, he could eas­ily lose all cred­ib­il­ity abroad — and with Ir­an threat­en­ing to vi­ol­ate the nuc­le­ar “norm.” “I knew this was go­ing to be a heavy lift,” Obama said Fri­day, again rather wear­ily.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials now real­ize that the biggest obstacle on the Hill is not so much prov­ing what As­sad did it as mak­ing clear what they will do about it without drag­ging a war-weary na­tion in­to yet an­oth­er ex­ten­ded con­flict. They are push­ing all-out to make the case that the pres­id­ent can de­liv­er a lim­ited but ef­fect­ive strike against As­sad.

Per­haps, pick­ing up on the pres­id­ent’s words Fri­day, they would do bet­ter to ex­pand the case dra­mat­ic­ally bey­ond Syr­ia. The is­sue at stake is no longer just wheth­er Bashar al-As­sad will be al­lowed to get away with break­ing an in­ter­na­tion­al “norm.” It is also what mes­sage the world will be send­ing to As­sad’s next-door neigh­bor and ally, Ir­an. If Obama is forced to back down on Syr­ia, Ir­an will get an enorm­ous boost in con­fid­ence that no one will dare thwart its stealthy ef­forts to build a nuc­le­ar bomb.

Des­pite the elec­tion of a sup­posedly mod­er­ate pres­id­ent, the latest In­ter­na­tion­al Atom­ic En­ergy Agency re­port on Ir­an, which the or­gan­iz­a­tion’s board of gov­ernors will take up  in Vi­enna next week, shows that Tehran has con­tin­ued to build up its nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­it­ies.

Obama’s in this dif­fi­cult fix, of course, only be­cause he is in the un­en­vi­able po­s­i­tion of be­ing forced to en­force mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism uni­lat­er­ally (ex­cept for the French, that is). He is try­ing to shore up the U.S.-led mul­ti­lat­er­al glob­al sys­tem, one that was badly dam­aged by his pre­de­cessor’s uni­lat­er­al thrust in­to Ir­aq and the glob­al fin­an­cial crisis that Wall Street pre­cip­it­ated on George W. Bush’s watch, and which is in a state of near-dis­sol­u­tion now. His­tory sug­gests that without the lead­er­ship of a dom­in­ant power — in this case the U.S., be­cause there is no one else — aut­arky reins. If “norms” for use of WMD use go, the glob­al sys­tem of open trade and peace­ful re­la­tions may fol­low.

Per­haps Obama’s greatest frus­tra­tion was re­vealed in the com­ments he made about the irony of be­ing seen as a war­mon­ger. “I was elec­ted to end wars, not start ‘em,” Obama said. “I spent the last four and a half years to re­duce our re­li­ance on mil­it­ary power.” In­deed, be­fore be­ing con­fron­ted with Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons use, Obama had been lead­ing an ef­fort to ef­fect­ively de-mil­it­ar­ize Amer­ic­an for­eign policy. He stood against some of his seni­or ad­visors in avoid­ing any in­volve­ment in the Syr­i­an civil war, des­pite cries for hu­man­it­ari­an in­ter­ven­tion. In a ma­jor speech in May at the Na­tion­al De­fense Uni­versity, the pres­id­ent even in­dic­ated that he was down­grad­ing anti-ter­ror­ism from a war to a po­lice en­force­ment ac­tion. It’s time to nar­row and de-em­phas­ize the glob­al war against al-Qaida, Obama said, the bet­ter to fo­cus on “na­tion-build­ing at home,” his fa­vor­ite theme. Amer­ic­an de­ploy­ments will go back to the mea­ger pres­ence we had pre-9/11, be­cause, Obama said, “the fu­ture of ter­ror­ism” will be a smal­ler-scale “threat that closely re­sembles the types of at­tacks we faced be­fore 9/11.”

Now even his own mil­it­ary is lin­ing up against him, writes re­tired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales in The Wash­ing­ton Post. “Go back and look at im­ages of our na­tion’s most seni­or sol­dier, Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey, and his body lan­guage dur­ing Tues­day’s Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee hear­ings on Syr­ia,” Scales wrote in an op-ed Fri­day. “It’s pretty ob­vi­ous that De­mp­sey, chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry’s thun­der­ing voice and arm-wav­ing re­doun­ded in rage against Bashar al-As­sad’s at­ro­cit­iesDe­mp­sey was largely (and re­spect­fully) si­lent. De­mp­sey’s un­spoken words re­flect the opin­ions of most serving mil­it­ary lead­ers.” 

The lonely pres­id­ent has one more chance to win over his coun­try and the world, in a prime-time speech Tues­day night. To give Obama a little bit of com­pany, the White House re­leased a joint state­ment on Syr­ia signed by 10 al­lies: Aus­tralia, Canada, France, Italy, Ja­pan, South Korea, Saudi Ar­a­bia, Spain, Tur­key and the United King­dom. But the state­ment fell short of en­dors­ing a mil­it­ary strike, call­ing only for “a strong in­ter­na­tion­al re­sponse.”

Some­times, it’s not so good to be the king, or the pres­id­ent.

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:
×