Making the Case Against Syria

Members of the local Syrian community rally against the United States' involvement in Syria, Aug. 27, 2013 in Allentown, Pa. (AP Photo/Chris Post)
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Aug. 28, 2013, 2:13 p.m.

It was per­haps the greatest “Perry Ma­son mo­ment” in the his­tory of the U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil. When U.S. Am­bas­sad­or Ad­lai Steven­son chal­lenged his So­viet coun­ter­part, Va­leri­an Zor­in, to ad­mit that the USSR had in­stalled of­fens­ive mis­siles in Cuba in 1962, Zor­in replied, “I am not in an Amer­ic­an courtroom.” Steven­son swiftly re­tor­ted:  “‘You are in the courtroom of world opin­ion right now, and you can an­swer yes or no.” Us­ing pho­to­graph­ic evid­ence of So­viet mis­siles gathered from spy planes, Steven­son went on to make a power­ful case be­fore the world that the U.S. was jus­ti­fied in tak­ing hos­tile ac­tion — in this case a block­ade — against Cuba.

A little over 40 years later, in early 2003, Sec­ret­ary of State Colin Pow­ell had far less suc­cess be­fore the same U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil when he in­fam­ously dis­played a lot of trumped-up in­tel­li­gence to make the case for war against Ir­aq.

When it comes to Amer­ica’s cred­ib­il­ity, things have pretty much gone down­hill from there. And that may well be the biggest prob­lem Pres­id­ent Obama faces in the next few days.

Now Obama must put his in­tel where his mouth is — back­ing up the un­com­prom­ising as­ser­tions made by his ad­min­is­tra­tion in re­cent days that Syr­i­an dic­tat­or Bashar al-As­sad used chem­ic­al weapons against his own people. And the pres­id­ent will have a very high threshold to clear when he makes his case this week. It’s not just that the world re­mem­bers well how shoddy the case against Ir­aq was. Obama is also dogged by sus­pi­cions about the in­tel­li­gence that un­der­lies his ag­gress­ive drone pro­gram, and he’s un­der cri­ti­cism from gov­ern­ments around the world over how he col­lects in­tel­li­gence through the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s sur­veil­lance pro­grams.

The stakes in Syr­ia are not quite as high as the Ir­aq in­va­sion, of course, and cer­tainly they are noth­ing like the Cuban Mis­sile Crisis, when nuc­le­ar war hung in the bal­ance. By most ac­counts, Obama plans a very lim­ited air strike, per­haps with cruise mis­siles, that will en­tail little risk to Amer­ic­an lives. Non­ethe­less, there is con­cern about how well the ad­min­is­tra­tion will make its case at a time when anti-Amer­ic­an feel­ings are already run­ning high in the Ar­ab world and al-Qaida-linked groups are on the rise again.

Ac­cord­ing to a seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial who is privy to the in­tel­li­gence case be­ing pre­pared, the plan is that “once our in­tel­li­gence com­munity has made a form­al as­sess­ment, we will provide the clas­si­fied as­sess­ment to the Con­gress, and we will make un­clas­si­fied de­tails avail­able to the pub­lic.  I ex­pect that will oc­cur some­time this week.”

Though the ad­min­is­tra­tion is be­ing vague about how the case will be presen­ted, early sig­nals in­dic­ate that it will steer clear of any­thing as dra­mat­ic or de­tailed as Pow­ell’s ap­pear­ance be­fore the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil, which in­cluded highly un­usu­al ref­er­ences to Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency sig­nals col­lec­tion.  “It is im­port­ant to re­mem­ber that the pro­tec­tion of sources and meth­ods must be taken in­to ac­count when the in­tel­li­gence com­munity de­term­ines what in­form­a­tion can be de­clas­si­fied and re­leased to the pub­lic,” said the of­fi­cial, who would dis­cuss the rol­lout only on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity.  “While the Con­gress will re­ceive a clas­si­fied ver­sion of the as­sess­ment that in­cludes the broad range of in­tel­li­gence col­lec­ted, the in­tel­li­gence in­form­a­tion we are able to provide pub­licly will be lim­ited in scope.”

But the Syr­i­ans along with their Rus­si­an al­lies, and even many in Con­gress, are already rais­ing ques­tions about the le­git­im­acy of an at­tack, again put­ting Obama’s cred­ib­il­ity on the line. In a let­ter to U.N. Sec­ret­ary Gen­er­al Ban Ki-moon, the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment claimed that rebels them­selves are us­ing chem­ic­al weapons, and it asked the U.N. to in­vest­ig­ate that con­ten­tion. Rus­si­an for­eign min­istry spokes­man Al­ex­an­der Lukashev­ich, in a state­ment, pree­mpt­ively sug­ges­ted Obama was already at­tempt­ing to “by­pass” the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil  “to cre­ate ar­ti­fi­cial ground­less ex­cuses for a mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion.”  Xin­hua, the of­fi­cial Chinese news agency, said the West was rush­ing to con­clu­sions about who may have used chem­ic­al weapons be­fore U.N. in­spect­ors had fin­ished their in­vest­ig­a­tion.

Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, are be­gin­ning to de­mand in­sist that Obama get con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al for any strike. “It is es­sen­tial that you provide a clear, un­am­bigu­ous ex­plan­a­tion of how mil­it­ary ac­tion “¦  will se­cure U.S. ob­ject­ives and how it fits in­to your over­all policy,” House Speak­er John Boehner wrote in an open let­ter to Obama. ” I re­spect­fully re­quest that you, as our coun­try’s com­mand­er-in-chief, per­son­ally make the case to the Amer­ic­an people and Con­gress for how po­ten­tial mil­it­ary ac­tion will se­cure Amer­ic­an na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests.”  

It wasn’t en­tirely clear wheth­er Boehner was in­sist­ing on a con­gres­sion­al vote, but he told Obama, “it is es­sen­tial you ad­dress on what basis any use of force would be leg­ally jus­ti­fied and how the jus­ti­fic­a­tion com­ports with the ex­clus­ive au­thor­ity of Con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion un­der Art­icle I of the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein, chair­wo­man of the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, said in a state­ment Wed­nes­day that she had already seen enough to be con­vinced. “I have been briefed by the in­tel­li­gence com­munity on last week’s chem­ic­al weapons at­tack in Syr­ia and I be­lieve the in­tel­li­gence points to an at­tack by the As­sad gov­ern­ment, not the op­pos­i­tion,” Fein­stein said. 

But the ques­tion re­mains: Will the pub­lic, and the rest of the world, see and hear enough to be as per­suaded as Fein­stein is? For­eign Policy magazine re­por­ted this week that, in ad­di­tion to the hor­rif­ic video im­agery of dead wo­men and chil­dren and chem­ic­al ana­lys­is, a key piece of evid­ence against the Syr­i­an re­gime con­sists of “in­ter­cepts” of tele­phone con­ver­sa­tions between an of­fi­cial at the Syr­i­an Min­istry of De­fense and a lead­er of a mil­it­ary chem­ic­al weapons unit. If so, the NSA was prob­ably in­volved in pick­ing up that bit of evid­ence, and in or­der to de­liv­er up his best case the pres­id­ent will have to thrust an un­pop­u­lar agency back in­to the news. 

It won’t be easy.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 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
35 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
35 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
35 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:
×