It’s true that President Obama televised speech last night was semi-moot because the real objective now is not so much to get congressional authorization to use military force as to get a U.N. resolution passed that will effectively disarm the Syrian regime of their chemical weapons stockpiles and their capacity to make more weapons. But the credible threat of force is what got Russia to come to the table on disarmament after a year of frustration.
In assessing Vladimir Putin’s thinking, I am forced to conclude that he did not think Obama could be deterred from acting by a defeat in Congress. I am not sure that he is correct about that, but I am glad, at least for now, that we don’t have to find out.
I want to reiterate that the foreign policy establishment in this country, including the president’s cabinet, believes that the civil war in Syria cannot be concluded in a tolerable manner unless Assad is forced to enter negotiations that will end with his resignation. They are probably correct about that, but we cannot produce that outcome without a serious military commitment that the president does not want to make. The proposed strikes against Syria were being sold as “incredibly limited,” but make no mistake that the opportunity to tilt the battlefield against Assad was not going to be lost. The president had lost control of his own foreign policy, and Putin gave him a lifeline.
Let’s be clear that the president, in seriously considering Putin’s offer, is bucking his own foreign policy establishment, although the Pentagon may be with him on this. The president is severely disappointing both Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who both thought the United States had been roped in to intervening decisively. The Israelis can’t be too displeased, as eliminating the chemical stockpiles in Syria will be a great stress relief for them. But they wanted more. Anyone who wants the Syrian civil war to end anytime soon with the Assad regime as the loser is going to be plenty miffed about the president’s lack of resolve.
But the limited punitive strike that was really intended to be something more was never likely to be successful unless in involved substantial mission creep. As I put it last week, “in for a penny, in for a trillion pounds.” That was the point, because the policy demands it. And the policy is extremely difficult to execute because it does not seek to depose Assad until such time that the human rights of religious minorities in Syria can be protected. The president is rejecting that plan in favor of something quite laudable that still won’t do a whole lot to advance the overall policy. He is still refusing to make Syria’s future our responsibility.
“I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force — we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.”
We should thank him for that, fully cognizant that he stands nearly alone against a foreign policy establishment that thinks we either have a military or a humanitarian imperative to end the civil war. It’s not an easy position for him to take, and it’s not clear-cut morally, but we don’t have the wherewithal to create the outcome we want at an acceptable cost, and we don’t have a united Congress or a willing public.
The president is pursuing a prudent course and he will take severe criticism for it. Remember that.
