N.Y. TIMES
President Obama, facing implacable opposition to a strike against Syria in Congress and throughout the country, said he would hold off on military action for now and pursue a Russian proposal for international monitors to take over and destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. Speaking to the nation from the White House, Mr. Obama laid out his most extensive and detailed case for an attack to punish Syria for its use of chemical weapons. In the absence of a peaceful solution, [Obama stated] military strikes are the best way to deliver the message that President Assad has crossed an inviolable line.
Obama acknowledged that America is weary of war and a potential “slippery slope” but said he'd take pains to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria,” he said. “I will not pursue an open-ended war like Iraq or Afghanistan.”
[But] Mr. Obama instead offered a qualified endorsement of a proposal that his own advisers conceded was rife with risk, given Russia’s steadfast refusal to agree to any previous measures to pressure Syria, its longtime ally.
“It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments,” Mr. Obama said. “But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.”
The president said he had asked Congressional leaders to postpone a vote authorizing military action — a vote he was almost certain to lose — even while making the moral case for punishing Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons. What Mr. Obama did not say was how long he was willing to wait, what would convince him that the Russian proposal was credible, and what he would do if it was not.
For now at least, the debate will focus on the language of diplomacy — and particularly a Russian plan that has stirred doubt among administration officials, lawmakers and diplomats. Some of them said it would allow Syria to play for time and was calculated to undermine the drive for Congressional and international support for a strike. Others said the idea of securing chemical weapons stockpiles in the midst of a brutal civil war was fanciful.
Moreover, the diplomatic efforts — which began after Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, announced his proposal on Monday — quickly ran into trouble. A meeting of the United Nations Security Council was canceled Tuesday afternoon after Russia clashed with the United States and France over whether to make its proposal binding and back it up with the threat of force.
The emotional meat of his speech was....about the horrors of using chemical weapons against anyone. “View the videos of the attack,” he implored, before quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt as saying that America must act “when ideas and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Presidents have taken America to war on this basis before. George H.W. Bush did it in Somalia; Bill Clinton did it in Bosnia and Kosovo; Obama did it in Libya. But they’ve done so on their own authority, cognizant that the best they could hope from Americans was quiet acquiescence. Generally, presidents don’t ask Congress to vote on humanitarian wars. When Congress finally voted on a measure authorizing Clinton to bomb Kosovo in April 1999—after he had been doing so for a month—the measure failed.
Politically, Obama could have gotten away with striking Syria for a couple of days without asking for congressional approval, assuming no Americans had died. But in seeking that approval, he took on a burden that purveyors of humanitarian war cannot sustain. Instead of settling for the public’s passive acceptance, he asked for an affirmative statement of support. There was little sign before last night’s speech that he would get it. There’s little sign now.
However Russia’s plan for securing Syria’s chemical weapons plays out, the lesson of the last few days is clear: Americans can be convinced to support wars, but only against enemies they believe threaten their own safety. They may look the other way while presidents wage wars to defend things like “international norms.” But whether idealistically or foolishly, Obama wouldn’t let them look the other way. Now he’s paying the price.
GREG SARGENT WASHINGTON POST
....the White House has failed to focus directly enough on making a detailed case for why and how strikes will deter further chemical attacks.
But Obama’s appearance of being conflicted over various aspects of the Syria crisis — and changing course midstream as circumstances changed — is not one of the things about all this that deserves criticism. Indeed, it’s a good thing....Obama is making a case for an unpopular military adventure while simultaneously looking for an escape hatch in a diplomatic solution.
As Michael Cohen points out, it’s still unclear why strikes would deter other nihilistic actors from using chemical weapons, and the claim that acting now to protect American troops later strains credulity in a big way.
But the internal contradictions in Obama’s speech actually reflect the fact that he spoke to the moral and political complexities of a difficult situation in an unvarnished way. First, he argued he has the authority to strike alone but that going to Congress will ultimately make American stronger. Second, he argued strikes were a moral necessity to deter further action while simultaneously acknowledging public wariness of acting as “the world’s policeman.” Third, he made the case for war while simultaneously arguing a diplomatic solution would be preferable.
It’s hard to see why these contradictions and conflicts, in and of themselves, are problematic. First, whatever the motive, going to Congress was the right thing to do. If being “conflicted” on this led to the right outcome, that’s a good thing. If it results in a “defeat,” I don’t care what airhead pundits say about it showing “weakness.” If Obama heeds Congress, the public will applaud it as a show of what’s known as democracy. Second, the question of what role America should play in such situations is a difficult one, and the public itself is conflicted over it. As Stephanie Gaskill points out, offering a black-and-white answer to this question — as opposed to acknowledging its case-by-case complexity — is not something Americans would accept. Other lawmakers don’t have an easy answer either. As Gaskill notes, it’s a question that can’t be ducked, as America defines its role amid winding down the foreign entanglements of the Bush era.
Third, if the goal of getting involved in Syria in the first place was to halt the use of chemical weapons — and the possibility of a diplomatic solution that could realize that goal has arisen — why shouldn’t Obama adapt as he goes along and try to make that happen? Some will argue Obama wouldn’t be doing this if Congress were willing to authorize force, but I don’t buy it. What’s more, the unstated premise underlying the idea that this is an unacceptable or mock-worthy contradiction is that Obama should declare his intention to use force and stick to it no matter what changing circumstances dictate. Why would that be seen as a good thing? Have folks already forgotten what happened the last time a president approached foreign policy that way?