While the civil war in Syria might be the longest continuous revolution since the Arab Spring started in 2011, Egypt's revolution, some might argue, is the most prolific. Part of this is because Egypt is the largest Arab country in the world, so any revolution there should be considered a political benchmark for the region.
But, just like Syria's, it seems like Egypt's revolution is far from finished. What the world thought was a coup for representative democracy in 2011 has degenerated into a scenario that is, in my opinion, one step away from a civil war, replete with coups of a different, anti-democratic nature.
First, some context for those who need to be brought up to speed. In 2011, upon the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, who had been ruling Egypt with an iron fist for 29 years, Egyptians went to the polls and popularly elected the Muslim Brotherhood Party to be the majority in their fledgling parliament. "Majority" is a tad misleading, as with this being their first true democratic election - Mubarak had a rubber-stamp parliament - Egyptians had a plethora of parties from which to choose.
So, after its first free elections pretty much ever, Egyptians find themselves with an Islamist party having the most seats in its first de facto parliament. Forget the fact that Islamist anything is going to be a bitter pill for the West and Israel to swallow. You also have a secular military, moderate, secular Egyptians, and Coptic Christians who might be wary of Islamists being in a position of power. It turns out their concerns were warranted.
Simply put, the Brotherhood got greedy. When your constitution effectively shuts out opposition, pays lip service to freedom of religion while actually threatening it, and the fact that it was fast-tracked right at the same time that Morsi decreed himself sweeing powers, well, fears of Shariah law becoming commonplace don't seem that far-fetched anymore.
So, the world watched in July 2013 as the Egyptian military huffed and puffed and finally deposed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. A military coup; REALLY makes things complicated for the West, the United States, specifically.
Why? Because this isn't the Cold War anymore. During the days of the real-life game of "Risk" that was the Cold War, if a military deposed a leader whose interests were considered contrary to those of the United States - Salvador Allende in Chile is a good example - we tended to look the other way. Like "Risk", the two camps, US and Soviet, accumulated countries like cards.
However, due to changes in the geopolitical landscape since the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as due to obvious moral reasons, the United States tends these days to look down on military coups that depose popularly-elected regimes. In this case, though, if it were only that cut-and-dry. It is obvious that a military coup is anathema to democracy. That said, how do you balance moral sympathies with the the fact that, in this case, the deposed is anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Shariah, and was beginning to spread its autocratic wings. Forget American strategic interests; what about the threat that poses to secular and non-Muslim Egyptians?
That ambiguity, that muddle gray area that is now so endemic to international events, needless to say the Middle East, has put Obama between a rock and a hard place. Do you stand up for a government that is outspokenly anti-American, or do you endorse an anti-democratic coup? There are no good answers.
Just as Syria exposes a flash point in the New Cold War, this situation exposes a broader conundrum presented to foreign policy makers in Washington: we are increasingly seeing that the zero-sum outcomes of international events occurring in Old Cold War are being replaced by more and more situations where there are just no good outcomes for American strategic interests.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
Beyond Syria, The Big Picture
The sun is our anchor. It literally holds our planet, and the other planets of the Solar System, in its proverbial swim lane. It is, to use colloquial parlance, the center of our universe.
I saw a picture yesterday which blew my mind. Prompted by a CNN alert that Voyager 1 has become the first ever manmade object to leave the Solar System, I wanted to understand what "interstellar space" is and, from there, how our sun, the aforementioned center of our little universe, fits into the galaxy. I've seen pictures of the Milky Way and other galaxies, but I have never seen how the sun fits into the big picture.
For the first time, I saw a representation that includes our sun, but where our sun is not the center of something. Even in this interstellar cloud, our sun is absolutely negligible. It really makes you feel insignificant.
So, what does this have to do with Syria? Well, it also hammers home the concept of the big picture and how the big picture's components can sometimes seem much bigger than they are. Over the course of the last week, the events in Syria, which seem to mark a pivotal time in world affairs - and in many ways, they do - have demonstrated that they are just a small part of a very big picture.
First, the events. Kerry's off-the-cuff remarks led to a concerted proposal by the Russians and Syrians that Syria join the Chemical Weapons Convention - which they now have - and turn their chemical weapons - which they had heretofore denied they had - over to the international community where they would subsequently be destroyed. The Obama administration is taking this into consideration, but they have insisted on language that spells out consequences for Putin and Assad not sticking to their word - always a distinct possibility - which, unsurprisingly, the Russians and Chinese, permanent members of the UN Security Council, have heretofore nipped in the bud.
So, Obama is left with either accepting a proposal which would mean essentially caving to the Russians and the Syrians, or executing a half-hearted volley of tomahawk missiles that the American public does not want him to execute and would do very little to punish Assad.
My feeling all along has been we need to do something. I was talking to my uncle yesterday and he summed it up perfectly: "When I heard he used chemical weapons, I instinctively, without even thinking about it, thought to myself that we need to do something. But, when I stop and think about it, what is shooting missiles at him going to accomplish?"Obviously, if you shoot enough, it would do some damage, but he's right, considering Obama nor the people over whom he presides really want to execute a missile volley at Damascus.
Charles Krauthammer wrote a scathing op-ed piece today stating that any decisions Obama takes now are going to save his face, but embarrass the country while emboldening the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, and Lebanese Hezbollah. There are parts to this argument with which I totally agree. Richard Cohen, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed piece which was equally as scathing, but took the opposite tack: Obama should have done more much sooner and now the US needs to be the world's policeman, stand up to the Russians and their autocratic friends, and teach this thug Assad a lesson. There are parts to this argument with which I agree, as well.
My first takeaway from all of this is that Obama - and the United States - is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. There really is no good option at this point. But, a second takeaway has struck me as so profound, yet so fundamentally simple. This flash point in which we currently find ourselves - the United States and the great democracies of Europe on one side and Russia, Syria, China, and the emboldened 21st Century autocrats on the other - is just a manifestation of the new Cold War: representative government vs autocracy.
In my opinion, the allure of representative democracy declined dramatically after the US invasion and relative failure of the occupation of Iraq. In Iraq, the world witnessed firsthand a facade of democracy that quickly imploded under the pressure of sectarian differences. Democratization itself was an afterthought; it was only after weapons of mass destruction were not found that the Bush administration groped around at justifications for its war in Iraq and clumsily settled on democratization. It severely discredited one of the United States' keystone selling points. It also created a vacuum that authoritarian Iran was quick to fill.
Secondly, the global financial crisis exposed democracy's ricketiness and inefficiency relative to authoritarian regimes. One only needs to compare the United States' lackluster stimulus package in 2009 - replete with pork and guarantees to bloated unions - or the European Union's inability to get anything serious done on the profligacy of its southern members to China's dictatorial, yet streamlined and efficient, stimulus package to determine that, in this case, the liberal West turned out a sub-par product.
Having perceived over the last five to ten years that the US-led liberal west is waning, authoritarian regimes believe they are waxing. One regime of the latter group, Syria, is challenged from within and responds with characteristically brutal force. The players of the Realpolitik poker game - Russia, Iran, China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom - call, raise, and fold and now the pot is pretty big. This is a pretty significant standoff; nothing as big as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the invasion of Poland, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it will be remembered as more than a typical Middle Eastern crisis. It will be remembered as the confluence of representative government's (democracy) influence and autocracy's. One seems to be in decline, while the other ascends. Only time, and skillful diplomatic maneuvering, will show who wins this hand.
I saw a picture yesterday which blew my mind. Prompted by a CNN alert that Voyager 1 has become the first ever manmade object to leave the Solar System, I wanted to understand what "interstellar space" is and, from there, how our sun, the aforementioned center of our little universe, fits into the galaxy. I've seen pictures of the Milky Way and other galaxies, but I have never seen how the sun fits into the big picture.
So, what does this have to do with Syria? Well, it also hammers home the concept of the big picture and how the big picture's components can sometimes seem much bigger than they are. Over the course of the last week, the events in Syria, which seem to mark a pivotal time in world affairs - and in many ways, they do - have demonstrated that they are just a small part of a very big picture.
First, the events. Kerry's off-the-cuff remarks led to a concerted proposal by the Russians and Syrians that Syria join the Chemical Weapons Convention - which they now have - and turn their chemical weapons - which they had heretofore denied they had - over to the international community where they would subsequently be destroyed. The Obama administration is taking this into consideration, but they have insisted on language that spells out consequences for Putin and Assad not sticking to their word - always a distinct possibility - which, unsurprisingly, the Russians and Chinese, permanent members of the UN Security Council, have heretofore nipped in the bud.
So, Obama is left with either accepting a proposal which would mean essentially caving to the Russians and the Syrians, or executing a half-hearted volley of tomahawk missiles that the American public does not want him to execute and would do very little to punish Assad.
My feeling all along has been we need to do something. I was talking to my uncle yesterday and he summed it up perfectly: "When I heard he used chemical weapons, I instinctively, without even thinking about it, thought to myself that we need to do something. But, when I stop and think about it, what is shooting missiles at him going to accomplish?"Obviously, if you shoot enough, it would do some damage, but he's right, considering Obama nor the people over whom he presides really want to execute a missile volley at Damascus.
Charles Krauthammer wrote a scathing op-ed piece today stating that any decisions Obama takes now are going to save his face, but embarrass the country while emboldening the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, and Lebanese Hezbollah. There are parts to this argument with which I totally agree. Richard Cohen, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed piece which was equally as scathing, but took the opposite tack: Obama should have done more much sooner and now the US needs to be the world's policeman, stand up to the Russians and their autocratic friends, and teach this thug Assad a lesson. There are parts to this argument with which I agree, as well.
My first takeaway from all of this is that Obama - and the United States - is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. There really is no good option at this point. But, a second takeaway has struck me as so profound, yet so fundamentally simple. This flash point in which we currently find ourselves - the United States and the great democracies of Europe on one side and Russia, Syria, China, and the emboldened 21st Century autocrats on the other - is just a manifestation of the new Cold War: representative government vs autocracy.
In my opinion, the allure of representative democracy declined dramatically after the US invasion and relative failure of the occupation of Iraq. In Iraq, the world witnessed firsthand a facade of democracy that quickly imploded under the pressure of sectarian differences. Democratization itself was an afterthought; it was only after weapons of mass destruction were not found that the Bush administration groped around at justifications for its war in Iraq and clumsily settled on democratization. It severely discredited one of the United States' keystone selling points. It also created a vacuum that authoritarian Iran was quick to fill.
Secondly, the global financial crisis exposed democracy's ricketiness and inefficiency relative to authoritarian regimes. One only needs to compare the United States' lackluster stimulus package in 2009 - replete with pork and guarantees to bloated unions - or the European Union's inability to get anything serious done on the profligacy of its southern members to China's dictatorial, yet streamlined and efficient, stimulus package to determine that, in this case, the liberal West turned out a sub-par product.
Having perceived over the last five to ten years that the US-led liberal west is waning, authoritarian regimes believe they are waxing. One regime of the latter group, Syria, is challenged from within and responds with characteristically brutal force. The players of the Realpolitik poker game - Russia, Iran, China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom - call, raise, and fold and now the pot is pretty big. This is a pretty significant standoff; nothing as big as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the invasion of Poland, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it will be remembered as more than a typical Middle Eastern crisis. It will be remembered as the confluence of representative government's (democracy) influence and autocracy's. One seems to be in decline, while the other ascends. Only time, and skillful diplomatic maneuvering, will show who wins this hand.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Getting Syri-ous
Over a week has gone by since Obama announced he was seeking Congressional authorization and since such a period of time equates to a century during flash points like this, A LOT has transpired. That said, no authorization yet and no missiles have been fired.
So what has happened?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 to approve an authorization resolution to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. This was expected, though - as was the myopic grandstanding by certain Senators who are positioning themselves for a GOP Presidential primary in 2016. But, I digress.
What is not expected is in what direction the House of Representatives will go- considering how hostile they are to the Obama administration. Not only that, the House is and always has been more of a reflection of the American people as a whole, rather than a more detached Senate. With that being the case, I imagine then that it's going to take a total game-changer - like a Syrian missile attack against Israel or the American ships standing by in the eastern Mediterranean - to win enough votes in the House. The public just doesn't have the appetite for another foray into a Middle Eastern crisis.
As such, Obama and his staff are planning a full-court press this week. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough hit the Sunday talk shows yesterday to sell the case for intervention directly to the American people, where he sought to differentiate the case to involve ourselves in Syria from the case to involve ourselves in Iraq 10 years ago. Good luck. Obama, meanwhile, has been at the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia - oh, the irony - where he has tried, in vain, to acquire commitments from allies which go beyond verbal agreements that the use of chemical weapons on civilians is abhorrent. Apparently, it got testy and it really seems that Obama was the odd man.
Meanwhile, Russia, as Syria's chief benefactor, has turned up its stance to emboldened and almost bellicose. Putin has made it very clear that he supports Syria and has been sending Assad weapons and dispatched three ships to the area "in case of a possible evacuation of Russian citizens from Syria". Two amphibious landing vessels, a reconnaissance ship, and a third landing ship that is collecting unspecified cargo from a Russian port before joining the other three? That's a lot of hardware to evacuate citizens.
Another question I have is what are those landing vessels going to pick up in Syria once they unload their cargo. Could it be more sophisticated weaponry, perhaps the kind that effectively take out planes or even fire missiles at ships waiting out at sea? I doubt Putin would blatantly sell the Syrians the kind of weaponry they could - and, based on Assad's rhetoric with Charlie Rose this weekend, would - be used to engage the Americans head on, but then again Putin is dangerous, is very enthusiastic to project Russian power, and sees himself, and by extension Russia, as a counterweight to American hegemony.
Or might Putin and Assad be cooking something up? It seems as though today our Secretary of State stumbled ass-backwards into a way for Assad to squirm out of an American attack.
"When asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered:
'Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done.'"
The Russians and the Syrians have taken this seriously and now, apparently, the White House is taking a "hard look". Oy vey...
Where to begin. First, Russia cannot be trusted. The only reason it is involved is because it views Syria as being within its "sphere of influence", a Cold War-era term whose frequent use by Putin suggests his soft-spot for the good ole days of US-Soviet bipolarity. Syria is also its client and is the recipient of countless Russian weapons sales and transfers. Put simply, any deal brokered by Russia is going to aim to get Assad off completely.
More fundamentally, a diplomatic solution to this problem brokered by Russia would equate to a Russian win vis-a-vis the United States. We would be perceived as backing down and not sticking to our word. Furthermore, the perception would be that, as long as you get Russian support, you can do what you want. It would solidify a waning of US influence in the region and waxing of Russian influence. It would, thus, embolden Iran to continue their pursuit of producing a nuclear weapon and God knows what else. It would be opening Pandora's box. Period.
I sincerely hope that the policymakers in Washington - not the politicians themselves, but aides, staffers, and anyone else advising lawmakers - brush this aside for what it is: a ruse; a stalling tactic; a means for the Russians to help Assad escape punishment for killing over 1000 people with poisonous gas. That's what this is all about, right?
But, it looks as though the odds are stacked heavily against intervention. I suspect many a fence-sitter in Europe - and the US - will get with the Russian-Syrian program as a way to avoid yet another tangled mess in yet another Middle Eastern country. But, Obama has said explicitly that there will be consequences to Assad's use of chemical weapons. If he backs down when presented with a laughable Russian-brokered proposal, it will be detrimental to American influence for many generations. This has gotten quite Syri-ous.
So what has happened?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 to approve an authorization resolution to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. This was expected, though - as was the myopic grandstanding by certain Senators who are positioning themselves for a GOP Presidential primary in 2016. But, I digress.
What is not expected is in what direction the House of Representatives will go- considering how hostile they are to the Obama administration. Not only that, the House is and always has been more of a reflection of the American people as a whole, rather than a more detached Senate. With that being the case, I imagine then that it's going to take a total game-changer - like a Syrian missile attack against Israel or the American ships standing by in the eastern Mediterranean - to win enough votes in the House. The public just doesn't have the appetite for another foray into a Middle Eastern crisis.
As such, Obama and his staff are planning a full-court press this week. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough hit the Sunday talk shows yesterday to sell the case for intervention directly to the American people, where he sought to differentiate the case to involve ourselves in Syria from the case to involve ourselves in Iraq 10 years ago. Good luck. Obama, meanwhile, has been at the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia - oh, the irony - where he has tried, in vain, to acquire commitments from allies which go beyond verbal agreements that the use of chemical weapons on civilians is abhorrent. Apparently, it got testy and it really seems that Obama was the odd man.
Meanwhile, Russia, as Syria's chief benefactor, has turned up its stance to emboldened and almost bellicose. Putin has made it very clear that he supports Syria and has been sending Assad weapons and dispatched three ships to the area "in case of a possible evacuation of Russian citizens from Syria". Two amphibious landing vessels, a reconnaissance ship, and a third landing ship that is collecting unspecified cargo from a Russian port before joining the other three? That's a lot of hardware to evacuate citizens.
Another question I have is what are those landing vessels going to pick up in Syria once they unload their cargo. Could it be more sophisticated weaponry, perhaps the kind that effectively take out planes or even fire missiles at ships waiting out at sea? I doubt Putin would blatantly sell the Syrians the kind of weaponry they could - and, based on Assad's rhetoric with Charlie Rose this weekend, would - be used to engage the Americans head on, but then again Putin is dangerous, is very enthusiastic to project Russian power, and sees himself, and by extension Russia, as a counterweight to American hegemony.
Or might Putin and Assad be cooking something up? It seems as though today our Secretary of State stumbled ass-backwards into a way for Assad to squirm out of an American attack.
"When asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered:
'Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done.'"
The Russians and the Syrians have taken this seriously and now, apparently, the White House is taking a "hard look". Oy vey...
Where to begin. First, Russia cannot be trusted. The only reason it is involved is because it views Syria as being within its "sphere of influence", a Cold War-era term whose frequent use by Putin suggests his soft-spot for the good ole days of US-Soviet bipolarity. Syria is also its client and is the recipient of countless Russian weapons sales and transfers. Put simply, any deal brokered by Russia is going to aim to get Assad off completely.
More fundamentally, a diplomatic solution to this problem brokered by Russia would equate to a Russian win vis-a-vis the United States. We would be perceived as backing down and not sticking to our word. Furthermore, the perception would be that, as long as you get Russian support, you can do what you want. It would solidify a waning of US influence in the region and waxing of Russian influence. It would, thus, embolden Iran to continue their pursuit of producing a nuclear weapon and God knows what else. It would be opening Pandora's box. Period.
I sincerely hope that the policymakers in Washington - not the politicians themselves, but aides, staffers, and anyone else advising lawmakers - brush this aside for what it is: a ruse; a stalling tactic; a means for the Russians to help Assad escape punishment for killing over 1000 people with poisonous gas. That's what this is all about, right?
But, it looks as though the odds are stacked heavily against intervention. I suspect many a fence-sitter in Europe - and the US - will get with the Russian-Syrian program as a way to avoid yet another tangled mess in yet another Middle Eastern country. But, Obama has said explicitly that there will be consequences to Assad's use of chemical weapons. If he backs down when presented with a laughable Russian-brokered proposal, it will be detrimental to American influence for many generations. This has gotten quite Syri-ous.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Update on Syria
Since Friday, a lot of events have occurred, many of them contradicting each other, so I thought that 48 hours later, it might be a good idea to take stock of what has happened.
So far, France is our only ostensible ally in this venture, should we decide to pursue it. Yes, should we decide to pursue it because Obama has hit the ball into Congress' court. Yes, the same Congress that has tried to repeal Obamacare 72,000 times because they feel they have nothing better to do. But, I digress.
On Friday, the Secretary of State, John Kerry - who I think is fantastic in this role both in terms of his assertiveness and how he has been differentiating his tenure from that of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton - made a statement for the world that was just short of chest-thumping: he declared that Bashar al-Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons; he called Assad a "thug and a murderer" and left little doubt that the missiles were being loaded and pointed at Damascus. Despite the aforementioned assertiveness, one would think the declarative nature of this statement meant that his thinking aligned with Obama's.
Obama, however, decided to throw a curve ball when he gave his Rose Garden speech on Syria yesterday. He opened the speech by essentially reiterating Kerry's analysis from the day before. He used plenty of Obamaesque pleasantries, like characterizing Assad's chemical massacre as an "assault on human dignity" and "the country will be stronger if we take this course." Yes, yes, yes, but what did he really say? Well, despite the previous day's events in London, the President was "mindful that he is President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy" and decided to toss the matter over for debate to a very hostile Congress, in hopes they would authorize some sort of action against Assad.
The President made clear that action "against regime targets" would be "limited in duration and scope" and would require "no boots on the ground". Since Congress is in recess until September 9 - because, really, what better things do they have to do? - he offered no timetable for execution of a mission, but said we are "prepared to strike whenever we choose" and since we have the ships and missiles in position already, we could make it "effective whenever we want". Despite Cameron's setback, a war-weary electorate, and this Congress, the President said he was "confident of [his] decision" and that any mission we do execute "does not need [UN] Security Council approval." This last remark was obviously a jab at Russia, which is Syria's patron and has made it clear that they would veto any plan put forward in the UN.
According to a story that has been making the rounds today, Obama was ready to start firing missiles at regime targets on Friday. However, after a walk on the South Lawn of the White House that evening with his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, Obama came back inside the Oval Office, assembled his team, and informed them he was going to punt this issue to Congress for debate and, hopefully, authorization. I have to imagine Obama knew he was going to do this before the walk.
For one, this is classic Obama. It's a tough call and the majority of the American people do not want us to get involved. So, here's his choice: one, upset the electorate and fire some Tomahawk missiles at some regime targets which may or may not be strategic and may set the Syrian army back a little bit, but certainly not enough to do anything major or, two, stand by, do nothing, let Assad gas his own people with impunity, and embolden Russia. Sounds like a crappy choice to me. So, let Congress hold the bag.
Two, we apparently knew about a possible chemical attack at an unspecified time in the last year. If Obama was being briefed on chemical weapons available to and ready to use by the Syrian army, wouldn't he have by now arrived at a plan of how he would set the wheels in motion for a response to an attack with these weapons?
Three, the White House has been in constant contact with House and Senate leadership at least since Thursday.
I think Obama wants to take action, but is also mindful of the two wars we've been fighting for over 10 years and the backlash he got from some elements for bypassing Congress and helping Libyan rebels depose Muammar Gaddafi. I don't think he wants to stand by as Assad gasses his own people. I don't think he wants the US to suffer a crushing setback in international prestige, as an emboldened Russia and Iran would soar. I think the response to Assad's atrocities should be a relentless barrage of missile attacks against any military target our satellites can dig up. I think Assad needs to be punished and that Russia and Iran need to see that this guy isn't a pushover. Let's hope Congress doesn't cut off our international reputation's nose to spite Obama's face.
So far, France is our only ostensible ally in this venture, should we decide to pursue it. Yes, should we decide to pursue it because Obama has hit the ball into Congress' court. Yes, the same Congress that has tried to repeal Obamacare 72,000 times because they feel they have nothing better to do. But, I digress.
On Friday, the Secretary of State, John Kerry - who I think is fantastic in this role both in terms of his assertiveness and how he has been differentiating his tenure from that of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton - made a statement for the world that was just short of chest-thumping: he declared that Bashar al-Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons; he called Assad a "thug and a murderer" and left little doubt that the missiles were being loaded and pointed at Damascus. Despite the aforementioned assertiveness, one would think the declarative nature of this statement meant that his thinking aligned with Obama's.
Obama, however, decided to throw a curve ball when he gave his Rose Garden speech on Syria yesterday. He opened the speech by essentially reiterating Kerry's analysis from the day before. He used plenty of Obamaesque pleasantries, like characterizing Assad's chemical massacre as an "assault on human dignity" and "the country will be stronger if we take this course." Yes, yes, yes, but what did he really say? Well, despite the previous day's events in London, the President was "mindful that he is President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy" and decided to toss the matter over for debate to a very hostile Congress, in hopes they would authorize some sort of action against Assad.
The President made clear that action "against regime targets" would be "limited in duration and scope" and would require "no boots on the ground". Since Congress is in recess until September 9 - because, really, what better things do they have to do? - he offered no timetable for execution of a mission, but said we are "prepared to strike whenever we choose" and since we have the ships and missiles in position already, we could make it "effective whenever we want". Despite Cameron's setback, a war-weary electorate, and this Congress, the President said he was "confident of [his] decision" and that any mission we do execute "does not need [UN] Security Council approval." This last remark was obviously a jab at Russia, which is Syria's patron and has made it clear that they would veto any plan put forward in the UN.
According to a story that has been making the rounds today, Obama was ready to start firing missiles at regime targets on Friday. However, after a walk on the South Lawn of the White House that evening with his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, Obama came back inside the Oval Office, assembled his team, and informed them he was going to punt this issue to Congress for debate and, hopefully, authorization. I have to imagine Obama knew he was going to do this before the walk.
For one, this is classic Obama. It's a tough call and the majority of the American people do not want us to get involved. So, here's his choice: one, upset the electorate and fire some Tomahawk missiles at some regime targets which may or may not be strategic and may set the Syrian army back a little bit, but certainly not enough to do anything major or, two, stand by, do nothing, let Assad gas his own people with impunity, and embolden Russia. Sounds like a crappy choice to me. So, let Congress hold the bag.
Two, we apparently knew about a possible chemical attack at an unspecified time in the last year. If Obama was being briefed on chemical weapons available to and ready to use by the Syrian army, wouldn't he have by now arrived at a plan of how he would set the wheels in motion for a response to an attack with these weapons?
Three, the White House has been in constant contact with House and Senate leadership at least since Thursday.
I think Obama wants to take action, but is also mindful of the two wars we've been fighting for over 10 years and the backlash he got from some elements for bypassing Congress and helping Libyan rebels depose Muammar Gaddafi. I don't think he wants to stand by as Assad gasses his own people. I don't think he wants the US to suffer a crushing setback in international prestige, as an emboldened Russia and Iran would soar. I think the response to Assad's atrocities should be a relentless barrage of missile attacks against any military target our satellites can dig up. I think Assad needs to be punished and that Russia and Iran need to see that this guy isn't a pushover. Let's hope Congress doesn't cut off our international reputation's nose to spite Obama's face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)