I Was Wrong About Syria

I Was Wrong About Syria

By Wade Lee Hudson

As he threatened to bomb Syria, on September 3, in “Manufactured Crises” I wrote the following with Obama on my mind:

One result is that elite administrators choose not to “rock the boat.” They go along to get along in order to gain status and credibility. If they are lucky, they’ll leave a legacy for future generations.

The next week, still puzzled by Obama’s motivation, I once again cast aspersions on his motives when in “Obama and Syria” I wrote:

Obama by and large is non-ideological, which I like. But his claim that chemical warfare is qualitatively different from routine warfare is an abstraction of the highest order. 

I can only conclude that once again American foreign policy is being driven by internal domestic politics -- in this case, Obama not wanting to go down in history as "the President with the disappearing red line."

I have now decided that chemical weapons are qualitatively different. They are cheap, can be easily produced, and are most effective against civilian populations. If Syria were to disintegrate into a failed state with no centralized control over its chemical weapons, those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists who could use them against nearby Russia and China, and perhaps the West.

Chemical weapons are also different in that most nations, including the United States and Russia, have agreed to destroy their stockpiles and have already begun to do so.

Since writing those two posts, I’ve learned that Obama proposed to Putin last year at the G20 summit in Mexico that they work together to get Syria to destroy its chemical weapons. So clearly something like the current scenario has been on Obama’s mind for some time.

But Obama also knew that Putin, whether for reasons of ego or domestic politics, would likely never consent to an initiative that was perceived as led by the United States. Putin also objected to the U.S. effort to help overthrow Assad as head of Syria, partly because he does not want Syria to fall apart as other Arab nations have recently. Again, he was profoundly concerned about chaos leading to terrorists gaining control of chemical weapons.

Obama was also well aware of the election of a moderate as President of Iran. Unknown to me when I wrote those posts, Obama had already secretly communicated with Iran’s new President and the signs were favorable. Iran shares Russia’s concern about the potential transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons. Like Russia, Iran is in the same neighborhood, has a history of conflict with Muslim extremists, and had cooperated with the West in the past with regard to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Iran also has a great deal of influence over Syria. Obama no doubt saw Iran as another potential ally in an effort to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.

Obama was also likely aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union wanted the United States to stop trying to overthrow Castro. So Khrushchev installed nuclear weapons in Cuba, brought the world to the brink of catastrophe, “blinked” when the United States established a blockade, and got the United States to secretly promise to stop its attacks on Cuba and withdraw its missiles from Turkey, which pacified his domestic opponents.

Obama also knew that the Republicans in Congress would oppose anything that he does that could bring him credit, many Democrats would oppose military action, and he was on record as saying that Congress should be required to authorize military action (while also saying the opposite).

Obama also that knew Russia and China would block UN Security Council approval and numerous allies would object, so bombing Syria would contradict his many affirmations of the need for international cooperation.

So, bearing in mind that one can never believe anything any politician ever says, one possibility is that Obama threatened to strike Syria knowing that he might very well not have to do so.

When strong opposition emerged in Congress, he quickly agreed to wait for Congress to act. That decision was so quick and unexpected, he probably had it on his mind all along.

Then Secretary of State John Kerry made his apparently offhand comment about Syria destroying its weapons and Putin jumped on it quickly in large part because he feared that a US strike would loosen control over chemical weapons. Again, the speed of Russia's response indicates that this scenario was “on the table” all along in some fashion. As a result, Russia was able to claim credit for the initiative, thereby avoiding any domestic charges of being Obama’s “poodle.”

Now the weapons are being destroyed and plans are being laid for a regional peace conference, which likely will enable Assad to stay in power (over much of Syria at least), as the Cuban Missile Crisis protected Castro in Cuba.

The militaristic rhetoric voiced by Obama is disturbing. Ideally other options would work more effectively. And we’ll never know for sure what Obama’s real motives were. But faced with the proliferation of Syria’s chemical weapons as a real immediate threat, he may have acted wisely.

And while so doing, without firing a shot, he was able to protect his domestic image and that of the Democratic Party, whom the Republicans accuse of being “soft.”

It ain’t pretty, but not much is when it comes to politics.