On the Verge of Appeasement in Syria

Obama’s “war weariness” smacks of the 1930s. Are the lessons the same?

President Barack Obama walks back to the Oval Office after he made a statement about Syria in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Sept. 1, 2013, 11:15 a.m.

World War II began 74 years ago Sunday when Ger­man troops in­vaded Po­land. The in­va­sion con­clus­ively dis­cred­ited the concept of “ap­pease­ment” as a for­eign policy for, well, the next 74 years. But if the U.S. Con­gress op­poses au­thor­iz­a­tion of the mil­it­ary mis­sion to Syr­ia that Pres­id­ent Obama has now handed off to it, and if Obama uses that as an ex­cuse to back fur­ther away from en­force­ment of his “red line,” the “A” word will likely come to dom­in­ate the in­ter­na­tion­al de­bate once again.

And Barack Obama, who in his first term was known as the van­quish­er of Osama bin Laden, could come out of his second look­ing more like Neville Cham­ber­lain.

I don’t want to over­state things. Bashar al-As­sad, a tin­pot dic­tat­or who is fight­ing only for his own sur­viv­al, is no Hitler. He’s not set to over­run an en­tire con­tin­ent. And the “les­sons of Mu­nich” and the dangers of ap­pease­ment are gen­er­ally over­drawn. But, after all, it was Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry who lumped As­sad with the Fuehr­er on the talk shows Sunday, say­ing that he “now joins the list of Ad­olf Hitler and Sad­dam Hus­sein [who] have used these weapons in time of war.” (Tech­nic­ally, Hitler’s only use of gas was not on the bat­tle­field but to kill mil­lions in ex­term­in­a­tion camps.)

These are also the clear im­plic­a­tions of the pres­id­ent’s own words. Already the United Na­tions, NATO, and Great Bri­tain have failed to en­force his red line against chem­ic­al weapons use. Only the United States, with the pos­sible help of France, stands in the way of al­low­ing As­sad to grin tri­umphantly atop the WMD mas­sacre he au­thor­ized, to do it again and again, and thus make it more ac­cept­able in­ter­na­tion­ally. As Obama said in his Rose Garden state­ment Sat­urday: “If we won’t en­force ac­count­ab­il­ity in the face of this hein­ous act, what does it say about our re­solve to stand up to oth­ers who flout fun­da­ment­al in­ter­na­tion­al rules? To gov­ern­ments who would choose to build nuc­le­ar arms? To ter­ror­ists who would spread bio­lo­gic­al weapons? To armies who carry out gen­o­cide?”

So the stakes look very high in­deed. All of which makes Obama’s oth­er an­nounce­ment on Sat­urday so un­set­tling. Obama said 1) Mil­it­ary force against Syr­ia is jus­ti­fied; 2) that he has de­cided to use it; and 3) that he be­lieves he has the au­thor­ity to do so right now. But then he de­clared that he’s go­ing to ask Con­gress for ap­prov­al that, by his own ac­count, he doesn’t need. Thus, a pres­id­ent who for the last four years has had no com­punc­tion about uni­lat­er­ally de­cid­ing whom to launch drone strikes against or whom to spy on has ef­fect­ively sur­rendered a chunk of con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity to a frac­tious, un­re­li­able and polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated Con­gress over the is­sue of re­dress­ing the per­il­ous pre­ced­ent set by As­sad.

It may well be that this is “the right thing to do for our demo­cracy,” as Obama said. But pre­vi­ous pres­id­ents, both Demo­crat and Re­pub­lic­an, have said oth­er­wise. They have de­clared even the War Powers Act (which gives Obama the au­thor­ity to at­tack Syr­ia for 60 days be­fore ask­ing for con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al) to be an un­con­sti­tu­tion­al in­fringe­ment of pres­id­en­tial power.

The risk of Obama’s han­dover to Con­gress is that, as Susan Page wrote in USA Today, “he has weakened his own pres­id­ency — what hap­pens if he doesn’t want to seek con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion the next time? — and even the pres­id­ency it­self. That ar­gu­ment is part of the reas­on that Ron­ald Re­agan didn’t seek con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion be­fore or­der­ing the in­va­sion of Gren­ada, why George H.W. Bush didn’t seek au­thor­iz­a­tion be­fore launch­ing mil­it­ary ac­tion in Panama, why Bill Clin­ton didn’t seek au­thor­iz­a­tion be­fore or­der­ing the bomb­ing of Kosovo.”

Obama is feel­ing lonely at the top be­cause he doesn’t have the U.N., NATO, or even the Brit­ish be­hind him this time. Still, it is more than a little odd that he is turn­ing for com­pan­ion­ship to the Con­gress that has made a mock­ery of his every ini­ti­at­ive un­til now. And Obama has not been con­sist­ent in this policy. “If from the be­gin­ning he said something to the ef­fect of, ‘I’m a con­sti­tu­tion­al schol­ar. I think the Con­sti­tu­tion in­tends for the use of mil­it­ary force to be jus­ti­fied, and Con­gress has to ap­prove. So I will use my pres­id­ency to make that a pre­ced­ent,’ then fine, no one would be see­ing it as an ab­dic­a­tion,” says one schol­ar of the eth­ics and leg­al­ity of war. “In­stead, it came across as ‘I need top cov­er be­cause our closest al­lies ever won’t fol­low us on this one.’”

What also smacks sadly of the ap­pease­ment era of the 1930s is all the talk about “war wear­i­ness,” from Obama and oth­ers. “I know well we are weary of war,” the pres­id­ent said Sat­urday. “But we are the United States of Amer­ica, and we can­not and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Dam­as­cus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an in­ter­na­tion­al or­der and en­forced the rules that gave it mean­ing.”

Yet that in­ter­na­tion­al or­der is what is now in some danger, 74 years later. After all, it was just this kind of war wear­i­ness that cre­ated Neville Cham­ber­lain, and his for­eign policy of “pos­it­ive ap­pease­ment” as he called it, in the years after the ter­rible blood­let­ting of World War I. If one be­comes un­will­ing to strike dic­tat­ors and mass mur­der­ers, all that re­mains is to ap­pease them.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4413) }}

What We're Following See More »
REGULAR ORDER
Ryan Pitching the Importance of Passing a Budget Today
1 minutes ago
THE LATEST

House Speaker Paul Ryan today is trying to convince his large but divided conference that they need to pass a budget under regular order. “Conservatives are revolting against higher top-line spending levels negotiated last fall by President Obama and Ryan’s predecessor, then-Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). GOP centrists are digging in on the other side, pledging to kill any budget that deviates from the two-year, bipartisan budget deal.” Ryan’s three options are to lower the budget numbers to appease the Freedom Caucus, “deem” a budget and move on to the appropriations process, or “preserve Obama-Boehner levels, but seek savings elsewhere.”

Source:
HEADED TO PRESIDENT’S DESK
Trade Bill Would Ban Imports Made with Slave Labor
33 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

“A bill headed for President Barack Obama this week includes a provision that would ban U.S. imports of fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh, closing a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law.” The Senate approved the bill, which would also ban Internet taxes and overhaul trade laws, by a vote of 75-20. It now goes to President Obama.

Source:
TRUMP UP TO 44%
Sanders Closes to Within Seven Nationally in New Poll
46 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Bernie Sanders has closed to within seven points of Hillary Clinton in a new Morning Consult survey. Clinton leads 46%-39%. Consistent with the New Hampshire voting results, Clinton does best with retirees, while Sanders leads by 20 percentage points among those under 30. On the Republican side, Donald Trump is far ahead with 44% support. Trailing by a huge margin are Ted Cruz (17%), Ben Carson (10%) and Marco Rubio (10%).

Source:
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

×