ExplainthedecisionmakingprocessofObamaduringtheSyrian

crisisofAugustSpetember2013(TheissueofChemicalweapons,
theredline)

ObamasaysU.S.willtake
militaryactionagainstSyria,
pendingCongresssapproval
ByErnestoLondoo,Published:August31
PresidentObamaputonholdSaturdayaplantoattackSyriaforits
allegeduseofchemicalweapons,arguingthattheUnitedStateshada
moralresponsibilitytorespondforcefullybutwouldnotdosountil
Congresshasachancetovoteontheuseofmilitaryforce.
Theannouncementputsoffacruisemissilestrikethathadappeared
imminent,aprospectthathadtheregiononedgeandstokedintense
debateintheUnitedStates,wheremanydreadgettingdraggedintoa
newwar.
ObamadidnotindicatewhathewoulddoifCongressrejectsthe
measure.

LawmakersarescheduledtoreturnfromrecessonSept.9tobeginwhat
issuretobeacontentiousdebateabouttherisksofinjectingtheUnited
Statesintoaconflictinwhichithasfewreliablealliesandenemieson
bothsidesofthefrontlines.TheSenatewillholdcommitteehearingson
theproposedstrikethisweek,MajorityLeaderHarryM.Reid(DNev.)
announcedSaturday.
Thedecisiontoseekcongressionalapprovalforwhattheadministration
hassaidwouldbeashort,limitedengagementwasaremarkableturnone
dayafterSecretaryofStateJohnF.Kerrydeliveredanalmost
prosecutorialcaseformilitaryintervention.Obamamadethedecision
Fridaynightfollowingdaysofagonizingdeliberationswithmembersof
hisCabinet,accordingtoadministrationofficials.
ShiftingtheburdentoCongresspotentiallygivesthepresidentawayout
ofthepoliticalbindhecreatedlastyearwhenhesaidSyrianPresident
BasharalAssadsuseofchemicalweaponswouldbearedlineforthe
UnitedStates.Italsobuystheadministrationtimetoshoreupdomestic
andinternationalsupportforastrikethatmanycametoseeasahasty
responsewithpotentiallycatastrophicconsequences.
ThedecisioncouldworkinAssadsfavor,givinghimmoretimeto
prepareforanattackthatcouldultimatelybecomepoliticallyuntenable
forObama.
ObamaarguedSaturdaythattheUnitedStateswouldbesettinga
dangerousprecedentifitdidnotrespondtotheAug.21attackina
Damascussuburb,whichU.S.intelligenceofficialssaykillednearly
1,500civilians,including426children.
Thisattackisanassaultonhumandignity,Obamasaidinan
impassionedafternoonaddressintheWhiteHouseRoseGarden.Italso
presentsaseriousdangertoournationalsecurity....Itcouldleadto
escalatinguseofchemicalweapons,ortheirproliferationtoterrorist

groupswhowoulddoourpeopleharm.
SomemembersofCongressapplaudedObamasmove,astrikingly
unusualoneinpresidentialhistory,particularlyforaleaderwhohasbeen
criticizedfordodgingcongressionaloversight.Thepresidentdoesnot
needcongressionalapprovalforlimitedmilitaryinterventions,andthe
executivebranchhasnotsoughtitinthepast.
Atthispointinourcountryshistory,thisisabsolutelytheright
decision,andIlookforwardtoseeingwhattheadministrationbrings
forwardandtoavigorousdebateonthisimportantauthorization,said
Sen.BobCorker(RTenn.).
Otherschidedthepresident,sayinghewassettingatroublingprecedent
onthepresidentialprerogativetouseofmilitaryforce.
PresidentObamaisabdicatinghisresponsibilityascommanderinchief
andunderminingtheauthorityoffuturepresidents,saidRep.PeterT.
King(RN.Y.),whofavorsamilitarystrike.Thepresidentdoesntneed
535membersofCongresstoenforcehisownredline.
Ameasureauthorizingastrikewouldseemtohaveagoodchanceof
passingintheSenate,wheretheDemocraticmajoritywilllikelybe
backedbyinfluentialRepublicanswhofavorU.S.militaryintervention.
ItisexpectedtobeatoughersellintheHouse,wherebothwarweary
liberalsandconservativeandlibertarianRepublicanshavearguedthat
thebestofbadoptionsistoavoidthetemptationtousemilitaryforce.It
wasdifficulttopredictonSaturdayhowthedebatemightunfold.
HeresmyquestionforeverymemberofCongressandeverymember
oftheglobalcommunity:Whatmessagewillwesendifadictatorcan
gashundredsofchildrentodeathinplainsightandpaynoprice?
Obamaasked.

Thepresidentsaiditwouldbeseenagreenlightforadversariesseeking
tobuildnuclearweaponsandterroristgroupsthatgotaccessto
biologicalweapons.Makenomistakethishasimplicationsbeyond
chemicalwarfare,hesaid.
AftertelegraphinginrecentdaysthatanattackwithTomahawkcruise
missileslaunchedfromU.S.Navydestroyersintheeastern
Mediterraneanwasimminent,ObamasoughtSaturdaytomakethecase
thattimeisnotoftheessence.
ObamasaidthePentagonispreparedtostrikewheneverwechoose,
buttheformaldecisionwasnottimesensitiveandcouldcome
tomorrow,ornextweekoronemonthfromnow.Officialshavesaid
theyplannedanintense,shortbarragethattheyhopedwoulddeterAssad
fromusingchemicalweaponsagain.
DelayingtheattackwillallowObamatotraveltoSt.Petersburgfora
Groupof20meetingnextweekwithoutthemilitaryoperation
dominatingthenews.RussiacontinuestobackAssadandhaswarned
againstaU.S.strike.
Asthecongressionaldebateunfolds,theadministrationislikelyto
continuetoseeksupportabroad.AftertheBritishparliamentvotedlast
weekagainstinterventionandtheArabLeaguerefusedtobackastrike,
anadministrationthathasplacedahighpremiumoninternational
coalitionsfounditselfvirtuallyalone,withonlyFranceofferingto
participate.
Ithinkpartofthisisthepresidentstartedtoreadthetealeaves:There
isntalotofsupportforthis,growingquestionsfromCongress,and
questionsaboutourSyriapolicythatshouldhavebeenansweredalong
timeago,saidJuanC.Zarate,asenioranalystattheCenterforStrategic
andInternationalStudieswhoservedasatopadvisertoPresident
GeorgeW.Bush.Withallthat,hegrewtodoubtourabilitytoactwith

legitimacy.
Administrationofficialshavestruggledtoanswerafundamental
question:Ifthestrikewasnotaimedatchemicalweaponssites
becausehittingthemcouldresultinextensivecollateraldamagewhat
wasthemilitaryobjectiveoftargetingothersites?Syriasalleged
chemicalattackalsoaddedurgencytothepolicydebateoverwhetherthe
UnitedStatesshouldbeseekingAssadsoustereventhoughIslamist
rebelsaffiliatedwithalQaedaformamajorpartoftheoppositionforces.
Afterthepresidentsspeech,senioradministrationofficialsbegananew
pushtogarnersupportformilitaryaction.KerrycalledAhmadalJarba,
presidentoftheSyrianOppositionCoalition,tounderscorePresident
ObamascommitmenttoholdingtheAssadregimeaccountableforits
chemicalweaponsattack,theStateDepartmentsaidinastatement.
KerryalsospokewithhiscounterpartsinJapanandSaudiArabia.
DefenseSecretaryChuckHagelandGen.MartinE.Dempsey,the
ChairmanoftheJointChiefsofStaff,werescheduledtospeakto
lawmakersSaturday.
TheWhiteHousedidnotdetailthescopeoftherequestforauthorization
ofmilitaryforceitwillsubmittoCongress,buttherewasnosignitis
weighingmorerobustaction.
Iknowwellthatwearewearyofwar,Obamasaid.TheAmerican
peoplehavethegoodsensetoknowwecannotresolvetheunderlying
conflictinSyriawithourmilitary.
TheghostsoftheU.S.warinIraqwaradecadeagohaveloomedlarge
inthedebateoverwhethertoattackSyria.Iraqsambassadorto
Washington,LukmanFaily,saidhiscountrywillnotsupportastrike,
mindfuloftheU.S.militarystroubledlegacyinhiscountry.

Weasagovernmentandapeoplearenotadvocatingamilitary
solution,Failysaid.Weasapeoplehaveseentheresultsofsuch
strikeswithoutaclarityofthedayafter.
AnneGearanandScottWilsoncontributedtothisreport.

SyriadebateinOvalOffice
focusedonwhethertoputa
militarystrikebeforeCongress
ByScottWilson,Sunday,September1,2:01AM
PresidentObamacampaignedforofficeasacriticoftheBush
administrationslackofregardforinternationalconsensustoresolvethe
mostpressingissuesofthedaywhetherclimatechangeorthe
invasionofIraq.
Andyet,afteraweekofdiscussionsoverevidenceshowingthatthe
governmentofPresidentBasharalAssadhadusedchemicalweapons,

Obamawasbelievedbysomeofhisclosestaidestobewillingtolaunch
amilitarystrikeagainstSyriaevenifhisadministrationlackedthe
supportoftheUnitedStatesclosestally,Britain,andtheauthorization
ofCongress.Itwouldamounttoperhapstheweightiestandriskiestsolo
actionbyObamasincehisdecisiontoapprovetheraidthatkilledOsama
binLadenin2011.
At7p.m.Friday,ahandfulofObamasclosestaides,includingnational
securityadviserSusanE.RiceandWhiteHousechiefofstaffDenis
McDonough,weresummonedtotheOvalOffice,accordingtosenior
administrationofficials.Thepresidenthadconcludedhewouldallowa
sharplydividedandgenerallyhostileCongresstodebatewhetherthe
UnitedStatesshouldproceed.
ItwasnotthedecisionsomeofObamasadvisers,includingRiceand
DefenseSecretaryChuckHagelwhoweresaidtobeamongthe
officialsinfavorofamissilebarrageagainstAssadsmilitaryassetsin
thecomingdayswereexpectingtohear.
Aftertwohoursofdebate,however,Obamawasnotdissuadedinhis
determinationtohaveCongressdebatetheissue.
WhileIbelieveIhavetheauthoritytocarryoutthismilitaryaction
withoutspecificcongressionalauthorization,Iknowthatthecountrywill
bestrongerifwetakethiscourse,andouractionswillbeevenmore
effective,thepresidentsaidSaturdayinanaddressintheRoseGarden.
Weshouldhavethisdebate,becausetheissuesaretoobigforbusiness
asusual.
Senioradministrationofficials,manyofwhomspokeontheconditionof
anonymitytodescribeinternaldeliberations,saidthedebatelateFriday
focusedonthepossibleconsequencesofintroducingaproudly
obstructionistCongressintoanurgentforeignpolicyissue,the
implicationsofcedingexecutiveauthorityoverwarpowerstothe

legislativebranch,andtherisksofnotsettingatimeframeforaU.S.
militarystrike.
AidessaidthepresidentbelievesstronglythattheAssadgovernmentwas
behindtheuseofchemicalweaponsthatkilledalmost1,500people
nearlyathirdofthemchildrenandthatitneedstofaceconsequences.
Buttheyaddedthattheissueforthepresidentisnotsolelyabouta
humanitariancrisis,butalsoaboutcontainingchemicalweapons.
Thesituationwerepresentedwithisnotaprincipallyhumanitarian
interest,saidBenRhodes,thedeputynationalsecurityadviserfor
strategiccommunication.Wehavenotturnedtomilitaryactionfora
varietyofreasonsinSyria,inpartbecausewedidntthinkmilitary
actionwouldhelpthehumanitariansituation.
ButRhodesaddedthatObama,whohasmaderestrictingthespreadof
chemicalandnuclearweaponsachiefpolicypriority,assessesthat
takingactioninSyriawillalsofurtherhisgoaltolimittheuseofillicit
weaponsthatposeaseriousthreattoU.S.nationalsecurityinterests.
LateFridayafternoon,thepresidentwalkedaroundtheSouthLawn
groundswithMcDonough,aritualoftherestlesschiefofstaff.Obama
andhisaideshadspentaweekdiscussingwhattodo,poringover
gruesomeintelligencegatheredintheDamascussuburbs.
ThepresidenttoldMcDonough,aCapitolHillveteran,thathewanted
CongresstodraftnewauthorizationofmilitaryforceagainsttheSyrian
governmentandhavethevalueandlimitationsofanymilitaryactionput
upforavoteonthemerits.
ObamatoldMcDonoughtworeasonsforhisapproachtoenlistCongress
inanystrikeagainstSyria.Hewantedtheretobepoliticalaccountability
lawmakersfrombothparties,hebelieved,shouldbeontherecordin
supportoragainstthewar.Obamatoldadvisersthatcongressional

support,farfromcertain,giventheanimositythatextendsthelengthof
PennsylvaniaAvenue,wouldultimatelystrengthensupportforthewar
andperhapsprotectpublicopinionforasustainedoperation.
Theotherreason?UnliketheU.S.ledmilitaryoperationinLibyain
2011whichwassupportedbytheU.N.SecurityCouncilandtheArab
LeaguetheUnitedStatesdidnothavethesamelevelofinternational
backing.
ObamasproposaltoinviteCongressdominatedtheFridaydiscussionin
theOvalOffice.Hehadconsultedalmostnooneabouthisidea.Inthe
end,thepresidentmadeclearhewantedCongresstoshareinthe
responsibilityforwhathappensinSyria.
Asoneaideputit,Wedontwantthemtohavetheircakeandeatit,
too.

AsObamatakesSyriadecisionto
Congress,approvalforattackis
farfromclearcut
ByPaulKaneandEdOKeefe,Sunday,September1,

1:20AM
PresidentObamasannouncementSaturdaythathewillseek
congressionalapprovalforapossibleattackonSyriasetsthestagefor
themosttumultuousforeignpolicydebateonCapitolHillinmorethana
decade.
Andalready,anunlikelyalliancebetweenteapartyconservativesand
veteranliberaldoves,aswellasthememoryoftheIraqwardebate,has
castdoubtonwhetherthepresidentcanmobilizeenoughsupportinthe
countryandinCongresstopersuadelawmakerstoapproveevena
limitedattackinSyria.
AfterObamasdecisionSaturdaytoseekcongressionalapprovalforthe
militaryaction,HouseandSenateleadersbeganlayingthegroundwork
forvotesontheuseofmilitaryforceinresponseforthesuspecteduseof
chemicalweaponsbytheSyriangovernment.
TheSenatewillholdcommitteehearingsthiscomingweekandafull
debateandvotethefollowingweek,MajorityLeaderHarryM.Reid(D
Nev.)announcedSaturdayevening,whiletheHouseplanstosticktoits
originalscheduleofreturningSept.9anddeliberatingtheuseofforce
requestthatweek.Muchofthemechanicsofthedebateandtheexact
natureoftherequestremainedunclear;Obamadidnotinform
congressionalleadersofhisdecisionuntilSaturdaymorning.
Lawmakersandaidessuggestedthatthepresidentcouldfaceanuphill
fightinwinningapprovalinbothchambers,particularlyintheHouse.
There,theDemocraticcaucusisdominatedbyliberalveteranswhoare
stillbitteraboutthepassageofthe2002Iraqwarresolutionbasedon
faultyintelligenceofSaddamHusseinsultimatelynonexistent
stockpilesofchemicalweapons,andtheHouseGOPcaucushasan
increasinglypotentwingofisolationistlawmakerswaryofoverseas
entanglements.

EvenRepublicanswhohaveworkedcloselywithObamaonforeign
policyandfiscalissuesinrecentmonthswarnedthathisadministration
hadhardworkahead.
Nowthatthepresidenthasdecidedtouseforceandseekauthorization,
itisimperativethatheimmediatelybeginsusingeveryounceofhis
energytomakehiscasetotheAmericanpeople,saidSen.BobCorker
(Tenn.),whoisthetopRepublicanontheForeignRelationsCommittee
andisgenerallysupportiveofastrike.
Gearedupforfiscaldebates
Thedebate,whichiscertaintobeemotionalonbothsides,comesas
Congressissupposedtobeginaheatedfaceoffonfiscalmatters.Leaders
hopetopassaninterimspendingbillbySept.30tokeepthefederal
governmentoperating,whilefacinganotherdeadlineafewweeksafter
thattolifttheTreasurysborrowingauthority,orelseriskadefaulton
thenations$16.7trilliondebt.TheWhiteHouseandleadingSenate
Republicans,includingCorker,declaredanimpasselatelastweekon
thosefiscaltalks.
Therequestforcongressionalapprovalfollowedcallsfrombothsidesof
thepartisanaisleforavotesimilartotheoneheldlastweekinBritain,
whereParliamentvoteddownPrimeMinisterDavidCameronsrequest
tojoinU.S.forcesinastrikeinSyria.
Bytheendoftheweekmorethan140Housemembers,includingmore
than20Democrats,hadsignedaletterdraftedbyRep.ScottRigell(R
Va.)demandingthatObamagetcongressionalapprovalbeforelaunching
anyaction.
Adifferentletterdemandingdebatebeforeastrike,pennedbyRep.
BarbaraLee(DCalif.),theleadingantiwarliberal,gainedmorethan60
Democraticsignatures.

HouseMinorityLeaderNancyPelosi(DCalif.)hasemergedasthe
strongestsupporterofObamasplan.Militaryactioninresponseto
Assadsrecklessuseofdeadlygasthatislimitedinscopeandduration,
withoutbootsontheground,isinournationalsecurityinterestandin
furtheranceofregionalstabilityandglobalsecurity,Pelosisaidina
statement,referringtoSyrianPresidentBasharalAssad.
PelosihasdemonstratedanabilitytodelivervoteswhentheObama
administrationhasneededthem,butotherDemocratssaidSyriawillbea
toughersellbecausemanystillfeelstungbytheIraqwarvotes11years
ago.
TheshadowofIraqisthedominantinfluenceformostmembers,said
Rep.GeraldE.Connolly(DVa.).Connollysaidheisalsoconcerned
withhistoricparallelstomassacresinthe1990sthatdidnotgeta
forcefulresponse.SyriaisnotIraq,andObamaisnotBush,hesaid.
NooneiscontemplatinganinvasionofSyria.Theappropriate
analogiesareBosniaKosovoSerbiaandRwanda.Thetugofhistorical
analogiesisapowerfulforceinforeignpolicy.
HouseSpeakerJohnA.Boehner(ROhio)andhistoplieutenantsissued
anoncommittalstatement,praisingthepresidentforallowingCongress
toweighinbutnotassuringhowtheywouldvote.
HousemembershavebeeninvitedtoaclassifiedbriefingintheCapitol
onSunday,whentheycanreviewmoredetailedintelligenceaboutthe
Syrianattacksthantheyhavereceivedinaseriesofconferencecalls
withadministrationofficialsinrecentweeks.Itisunclearhowmany
lawmakerswillbeabletomakeitbacktoWashingtononshortnoticefor
theintelligencebriefing.
ClearerpathinSenate?
TheSenate,wheremuscularforeignpolicyviewsstilltendtoholdsway,

isbelievedtobeaneasierliftforObama.SeniorsenatorssuchasRobert
Menendez(DN.J.),BillNelson(DFla.)andJohnnyIsakson(RGa.)
wereamongthefewwhoissuedforcefulstatementsSaturdaysupporting
thepresidentsplanforlimitedmilitarystrikes.
However,apotentialblowcamefromtheSenatesmostprominent
hawks,JohnMcCain(RAriz.)andLindseyO.Graham(RS.C.),who
saidthatthepresidenthadnotgonefarenough.McCainandGraham
issuedajointstatementhintingthattheywouldopposetheresolution
becausethelimitedstrikesObamawasseekingtohaveauthorizedwould
notchangethemomentumonthebattlefieldandwouldleaveAssadin
placeinsteadoftheregimechangeObamahadpreviouslystatedwas
hisgoal.
Anythingshortofthiswouldbeaninadequateresponsetothecrimes
againsthumanitythatAssadandhisforcesarecommitting,McCainand
Grahamsaid.
Withouttheirsupport,itisunclearhowmanyRepublicanvotesthere
willbefortheuseofforceresolution,particularlywiththesmallbut
vocalwingoflibertarianRepublicansappearingpoisedtofirmlyoppose
thevote.
IamencouragedPresidentObamanowsayshewillfulfillhis
constitutionalobligationtoseekauthorizationforanypotentialmilitary
actioninSyria,Sen.RandPaul(RKy.),whoisconsideringseekingthe
GOPpresidentialnominationin2016,saidinastatement.Thisisthe
mostimportantdecisionanyPresidentoranySenatormustmake,andit
deservesvigorousdebate.
SenateMinorityLeaderMitchMcConnell(RKy.),whoisclosely
relyingonPaulssupportforhis2014reelectionbid,hasremainedsilent
forthepastweekonhispositiononSyria.

SpeakingtoreportersafterhisspeechattheAmericansforProsperity
FoundationsummitinOrlando,Sen.TedCruz(RTex.)saidhestill
needstobeconvincedthatitisinthecountrysintereststotakeaction.
Itisincumbentonthepresidenttomakethecasethatmilitaryactionis
infurtheranceofthevitalnationalsecurityinterestsoftheUnited
States,saidCruz,alsoapossible2016contender.Iamtroubledbythe
justificationsthattheObamaadministrationhasputforthsofar.Muchof
theirdiscussionhasconcernedwhattheydescribedasinternational
norms.
MateaGoldcontributedtothisreport.

Obama to take his Syrian case to

Congress
By Editorial Board, Sunday, September 1, 12:39 AM

PRESIDENT OBAMA said Saturday that the United States must

respond militarily to Syrias Aug. 21 gassing of its own people. We

agree. He also said he would seek congressional authorization before

proceeding. We think thats right, too, though the approach isnt riskfree.
The case for U.S. action is strong, as we have argued previously. For
nearly a century most of the world has united behind the idea that the
use of chemical weapons, so horrifying in World War I, is beyond the
pale. Waging war against his own people, Syrian dictator Bashar alAssad has used them previously during the past year, but never on the
scale of the Aug. 21 attack, in which thousands of people were affected
and at least 1,400 killed, according to U.S. officials. Rockets loaded
with a nerve agent were shot into residential neighborhoods of the
Damascus suburbs, constituting one of the deadliest uses of chemical
agents since they were outlawed nine decades ago.
If there is no response, the Assad regime will use them again, on an
even larger scale, and other dictators in future conflicts will calculate
that they, too, can use these ghastly weapons at no cost. And there will
be no response if the United States does not take the lead.
We also argued previously that Mr. Obama should seek the maximum
congressional buy-in consistent with operational imperatives. The
president said Saturday that there is no military reason for haste, but
there are nonetheless risks in delay. The Russians will do their best to
throw up diplomatic obstacles while they continue funneling arms to
Damascus. The U.S. position could be undermined if few other nations
offer support.
And Congress, like Britains parliament last week, could say no. A
current of isolationism is running strong in both parties, and many
Republicans welcome any opportunity to bloody the presidents nose.
We have enough faith in the institution and its leaders to believe that
they wont treat this vote as such an opportunity. They should convene
without delay. They should demand that Mr. Obama lay out his case
and his evidence; they should debate the merits with the seriousness
that any act of war demands; and then they should provide strong

bipartisan support for the kind of U.S. leadership upon which the
world depends and without which the world would descend into a
lawlessness that is terrible to contemplate.
Inevitably the debate will extend to Mr. Obamas larger Syria strategy,
or rather the lack of one. For more than two years he has insisted that
Mr. Assad must go, but has taken few steps to hasten that departure.
During this time millions of people have been displaced from their
homes, al-Qaeda has found a safe haven in the country and violence
has spread to neighboring Lebanon and Iraq, with Israel, Jordan and
Turkey also at risk. The United States has a strong interest in Mr.
Assads defeat and the victory of a coalition committed to democracy
and pluralism, and there are steps short of committing troops that
could make such an outcome more likely. Any response to the Aug. 21
atrocity should be framed with that larger goal in mind.

CONFLICT IN SYRIA
WHITE HOUSE MEMO

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He

Made

WASHINGTON President Obamas aides were stunned at what their

boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday
at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when
American missiles streaked again across the Middle East.
In a two-hour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the Oval Office,
he told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing
toward a military attack on Syria, he wanted to pull back and seek
Congressional approval first.
He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation
after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most
compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if
in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next
military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.
If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said,
would he get Congress when he really needed it?
He cant make these decisions divorced from the American public and
from Congress, said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss the deliberations. Who knows what were going
to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?
The Oval Office meeting ended one of the strangest weeks of the
Obama administration, in which a president who had drawn a red
line against the use of chemical weapons, and watched Syrian military
forces breach it with horrific consequences, found himself compelled
to act by his own statements. But Mr. Obama, who has been reluctant

for the past two years to get entangled in Syria, had qualms from the
start.
Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers
said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for
action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to
bless a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat
of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out
on a limb.
I know well we are weary of war, Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden
on Saturday. Weve ended one war in Iraq. Were ending another in
Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we
cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.
The speech, which crystallized both Mr. Obamas outrage at the
wanton use of chemical weapons and his ambivalence about military
action, was a coda to a week that began the previous Saturday, when he
convened a meeting of his National Security Council.
In that meeting, held in the White House Situation Room, Mr. Obama
said he was devastated by the images of women and children gasping
and convulsing from the effects of a poison gas attack in the suburbs of
Damascus three days before. The Aug. 21 attack, which American
intelligence agencies say killed more than 1,400 people, was on a far
different scale than earlier, smaller chemical weapons attacks in Syria,
which were marked by murky, conflicting evidence.
I havent made a decision yet on military action, he told his war
council that Saturday, according to an aide. But when I was talking
about chemical weapons, this is what I was talking about. From that
moment, the White House set about formulating the strongest case for
military action it could.
Last Sunday, it issued a statement dismissing the need to wait for
United Nations investigators because their evidence, the statement
said, had been corrupted by the relentless shelling of the sites. By
Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who had long advocated a

more aggressive policy on Syria, delivered a thunderous speech that

said President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of a moral obscenity.
By midweek, administration officials were telling reporters that the
administration would not be deterred by the lack of an imprimatur
from the Security Council, where Syrias biggest backer, Russia, holds a
veto.
Yet the presidents ambivalence was palpable, and public. While Mr.
Kerry made his fiery case against Mr. Assad, Mr. Obama was
circumspect, sprinkling his words with caveats about the modest scale
of the operation and acknowledgments of the nations combat fatigue.
We dont have good options, great options, for the region, the
president said in an interview Wednesday on PBSs News Hour,
before describing a limited, tailored operation that he said would
amount to a shot across the bow for Mr. Assad.
White House aides were in the meantime nervously watching a drama
across the Atlantic. They knew that Prime Minister David Camerons
attempt to win the British Parliaments authorization for action was in
deep trouble, but the defeat on a preliminary motion by just 13 votes
on Thursday was a jolt. Although aides said before the vote that Mr.
Obama was prepared to launch a strike without waiting for a second
British vote, scheduled for Tuesday, the lack of a British blessing
removed another layer of legitimacy.
Mr. Obama was annoyed by what he saw as Mr. Camerons stumbles,
reflecting a White House view that Mr. Cameron had mishandled the
situation. Beyond that, Mr. Obama said little about his thinking at the
time.
It was only on Friday that he told the aides, they said, about how his
doubts had grown after the vote: a verdict, Mr. Obama told his staff,
that convinced him it was all the more important to get Congressional
ratification. After all, he told them, we similarly have a war-weary
public.

And if the British government was unable to persuade lawmakers of

the legitimacy of its plan, shouldnt he submit it to the same litmus test
in Congress, even if he had not done so in the case of Libya?
Mr. Obamas backing of a NATO air campaign against Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi in 2011 had left a sour taste among many in Congress,
particularly rank-and-file members. More than 140 lawmakers,
Republicans and Democrats, had signed a letter demanding a vote on
Syria.
Moving swiftly in Libya, aides said, was necessary to avert a slaughter
of rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi. But that urgency did not exist
in this case.
Indeed, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told Mr. Obama that the limited strike he had in mind would be
just as effective in three weeks as in three days, one official said.
Beyond the questions of political legitimacy, aides said, Mr. Obama
told them on Friday that he was troubled that authorizing another
military action over the heads of Congress would contradict the spirit
of his speech last spring in which he attempted to chart a shift in the
United States from the perennial war footing of the post-Sept. 11 era.
All of these issues were on Mr. Obamas mind when he invited his chief
of staff, Denis R. McDonough, for an early evening stroll on the south
lawn of the White House. In the West Wing, an aide said, staff
members hoped to get home early, recognizing they would spend the
weekend in the office.
Forty-five minutes later, shortly before 7, Mr. Obama summoned his
senior staff members to tell them that he had decided to take military
action, but with a caveat.
I have a pretty big idea I want to test with you guys, he said to the
group, which included Mr. McDonough and his deputy, Rob Nabors;
the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, and her deputies, Antony
J. Blinken and Benjamin J. Rhodes; the presidents senior adviser, Dan

Pfeiffer; and several legal experts to discuss the War Powers

Resolution.
The resistance from the group was immediate. The political team
worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote, as Mr. Cameron did, and
that it could complicate the White Houses other legislative priorities.
The national security team argued that international support for an
operation was unlikely to improve.
At 9 p.m., the president drew the debate to a close and telephoned Mr.
Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to tell them of his plans.
<imgsrc="http://metersvc.nytimes.com/meter.gif"/>

Jackie Calmes contributed reporting.

CONFLICT IN SYRIA

Kerry Seeks to Reassure Syrian Opposition

Leader
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 31, 2013
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

WASHINGTON Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assure the

leader of the Syrian opposition on Saturday that President Obama was
still determined to hold the Syrian government accountable for a
chemical weapons attack near Damascus.
Mr. Kerrys call to Ahmed al-Jarba, the president of the Syrian
opposition, followed Mr. Obamas decision to postpone an Americanled military strike in order to seek Congressional approval.
Mr. Kerry delivered a similar message to Prince Saud al-Faisal, the
foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, which has been one of the main
backers of the Syrian opposition, State Department officials said.
But Mr. Obamas change in direction left some opposition officials
disillusioned. Some rebel officials said that the presidents continued
insistence that any strike would be limited in duration and scope had
prompted worries that if an attack eventually came, it would not
deliver a powerful enough blow to the Syrian governments forces.
There are many announcements that they wont make it long, said
Maj. Isam Rayes, an official who works for the Supreme Military
Council, the armed wing of the opposition.
I think that it will not be strong enough, he added in an interview via
Skype from a location in Syria.
The Obama administrations planning for a possible attack has been so

well telegraphed that the United States has forfeited the element of
surprise.
Much of the Syrian military has already left its bases, scattered and
dug into fortified locations. Opposition officials also assert that the
Syrian military has been moving documents and equipment into
civilian neighborhoods in Damascus that it knows the United States
would not strike and has even moved some troops into schools.
In his statement on Saturday, Mr. Obama said he had been assured by
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that
the effectiveness of any attack would not be diminished by the delay to
await Congressional action.
Some Pentagon officials put a positive face on the delay, and said that
as long as the Syrian governments forces were dispersed they would
be less effective. That dispersal may pose challenges to us as we track
and target them, but it also makes his command-and-control more
complicated, and certainly a little slower, a senior Pentagon official
said.
But that official also warned that the delay would give Syrian allies and
their militant proxies more time to plan possible retaliatory strikes in
response to an American attack.
Jeffrey White, a former analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency
who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, said that it would not take President Bashar al-Assads
government long to mobilize units if it came to the conclusion that an
American strike was not imminent and went on the offensive.
The regime has got to be thinking that they dodged a bullet here and
that maybe there are not going to be any bullets, Mr. White said.
Col. Edward W. Thomas Jr., a spokesman for General Dempsey, said
that in the coming days the military would continue to refine our
targeting based on the most recent intelligence and would be ready
with new targeting options when Mr. Obama wants to review them.

At the State Department, Mr. Kerry has been heavily involved in trying
to win Congressional support.
The British decision not to participate in an American-led operation
stunned many administration officials and has added to the doubts of
lawmakers.
Mr. Kerry is also calculating that a strong statement by the Arab
League in support of action might influence the American debate. The
Arab League blamed the Syrian government for the chemical attack in
a statement on Tuesday, but did not endorse a punitive American
military strike that would be carried out without the backing of the
United Nations.
But the leagues foreign ministers are scheduled to meet again on
Sunday and issue another statement.
As the president of the Syrian opposition, Mr. Jarba is scheduled to
speak to the group.
A senior administration official said that Mr. Kerry called Mr. Jarba on
Saturday to confer with him about his presentation to the league and
emphasized that Mr. Obama had decided to take military action. Mr.
Kerry also made the case that waiting to secure Congressional action
would be in the Syrian oppositions interest, as the Obama
administration would then be able to operate with more American
support.
Mr. Kerry stressed to his Saudi counterpart that the Arab League
meeting was important because it could help the administration build
its case with Congress for action. A former chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry also spent two hours on
Saturday in conference calls with lawmakers.

SAT AUG 31, 2013 AT 04:32 PM PDT

White House release:

Draft legislation for
Authorization for Use of
US Armed Forces
Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces
Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a
chemical Weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing
more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;
Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms
and the laws of War;
Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98
percent of the Worlds population are parties to the Chemical Weapons
Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition,
stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;
Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act of 2003,Congress found that Syrias acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East
and the national security interests of the United States;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540
(2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and
Security;
Whereas, the objective of the United States use of military force in
connection with this authorization Should be to deter, disrupt, prevent,
and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical Weapons or
other Weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a
negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the

conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the

Geneva process; and
Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will
send a clear signal of American resolve.
SEC. _ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization.- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in connection with the use of Chemical Weapons or other weapons of
mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to:
(l) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to
terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from
Syria, of any Weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or
biological weapons or components of or materials used in such
Weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the
threat posed by such Weapons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of
the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is
intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of requirements.Nothing in this joint resolution
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Questions and

Airstrikes
Why Congress needs to think hard about Obamas
Syria plan.
BY DANIEL BYMAN | AUGUST 31, 2013

President Barack Obama's surprising announcement that

he will put off action on Syria until Congress weighs in
offers a chance to consider, or reconsider, fundamental
questions regarding a U.S. military strike on Syria.
Congress should recognize that the president's decision to
consult has costs and that a limited military strike is likely
to accomplish little and could even make a bad situation
worse.
Congress's first question should be about the president's
claim that, "our capacity to execute this mission is not
time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week,
or one month from now." Yes, of course, the Syrian civil
war still will be raging weeks from now, and the U.S.
military will remain prepared to strike. But during those
weeks the carnage will continue, with jihadists growing
stronger among the opposition. The diplomatic moment
created by Bashar al-Assad's massive use of chemical
weapons on August 21 will fade as other concerns become
prominent on the international agenda.
Legislators must be pleased to have a say, but they should
also ask whether the delay in striking and the last-minute
decision to put the use of force before Congress affects U.S.
credibility on other issues. Will Israel believe America has

its back if the president must wait for Congress to approve

military action? Does any coercive threat regarding the use
of force against Iran's nuclear program now come with the
caveat that the United States would only strike after a
congressional vote? Iran's mullahs will no doubt enjoy this
fillip to democracy. In the end, the greater democratic
legitimacy that comes from congressional support may
make this worthwhile, but the decision is not cost free.
Beyond questions concerning Congress's role, the scale of
the use of force should be a top concern. Politically, a
limited bombing campaign that is of short duration and
hits few targets is easy: after a few days of media buzz, the
American people, and the world, will soon go back to
ignoring a conflict they'd rather forget. Militarily, however,
a short campaign will barely make a dent in the Syrian
regime's hold on power or ability to use chemical weapons
in the future. The regime has waged a life-and-death civil
war for more than two years: 50 or so Tomahawks lobbed
from the warships in the Mediterranean, though able to hit
targets the rebels cannot, will not fundamentally alter the
military balance.
Hitting chemical weapons storage areas has dangers, as
some of the chemicals may be released in the process.
So instead the United States may leave many stockpiles
alone and go after regime bulwarks like elite forces and
command-and-control sites, as well as air defense nodes.
Destruction of these targets would be a real blow to Assad,
though the administration would justify them as going
after the broader infrastructure responsible for chemical

use. But Assad is likely to see it as part of a broader

strategy of regime change. So although the administration
is trying to make this about chemical weapons, the Syrian
regime will interpret it as a much broader strike.
Because Assad clearly sees this as a life-and-death battle,
Congress should ask the administration what they intend
to do if the Syrian regime remains defiant. Obama has
tried to assure a war-weary American public that the
strikes are a one-off. But if the purposes are deterrence and
to enforce a norm against chemical weapons use, defiance
leaves America only worse off. My sense is that Assad will
be likely to avoid using chemical weapons again because he
fears escalation -- but like most analysts I also thought he'd
avoid a massive, obvious use in the first place. Assad may
also play it safe in terms of fomenting terrorism outside of
Syria against the United States or its allies, but again his
chemical weapons use and fear for his regime's survival
suggests that he may take foolish risks. Simply put, we
should admit we don't fully understand how Assad makes
decisions. So Congress needs to ask the administration
what it has in store if the worst case materializes.
Assad's friends, particularly Iran but also Russia, should
also be part of the discussion. Both may increase support
for the Syrian regime in the face of an American attack. So
while Assad's forces may take a pounding, he may gain new
arms, new fighters, and more financial support. Iranian
officials have even talked loudly if vaguely that someone,
somewhere, might retaliate in response to a U.S. strike.

The question of credibility should also be prominent in the

debate. President Obama and Secretary of State John
Kerry raised expectations that America would strike Syria.
Is there a price to backing down? It is easy to doomsay and
claim that every American enemy will become
emboldened. But hyperbole aside, escalating the rhetoric
and backing down in the face of, well, nothing suggests to
U.S. foes that Washington has little stomach for future
fights.
Finally, though I am skeptical U.S. strikes will change the
military balance, Congress should also explore whether we
are prepared for "success." Jihadists are running
amok in Syria, and the U.S.-backed moderate opposition
is weak. American programs to strengthen the jihadists
militarily, which received only lukewarm administration
support and (ahem, ahem) stalled in Congress until
July, are barely off the ground. Should Assad fall, Syria
would probably collapse into chaos and radicals would
control much of the country.
The debate in the weeks to come should be broad.
Legislators and the administration should discuss the
strategic and military implications of a congressional role
and think about the long-term effects of any U.S. military
action. In the end, a healthy debate might find that a
middle ground -- a strike that hits only a few targets and is
of limited duration -- may be the worst of all options. To
make a difference in the long-term, the United States
needs to do more, particularly with the opposition. And if

it won't do more, then staying out altogether may be the

best option.

On Syria, Obama
Administration Disproves
Obama Doctrine
Posted By Kori Schake
Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 6:33 PM
Share
President Barack Obama has turned to Congress for support and
legitimization of the military attack his administration is contemplating
against the Syrian government. The White House was smart to reverse
itself, seeing that nearly 80 percent of Americans believe he should seek
congressional support and nearly that proportion is skeptical of intervention
in Syria. It's judicious politics for him to win the argument and share
responsibility for military action in defense of an "international norm" that
does not directly affect our war-weary country.
The president asserted he did not require congressional authorization for
action in Libya because he had a U.N. Security Council mandate. Syria is
shaping up to be the mirror image: The president is seeking domestic
support because he cannot attain international backing.
It's never a good thing when our government's policy is indistinguishable
from Onion parodies of its policy. The unforced errors -- setting red lines
and then allowing them to be crossed, Gen. Martin Dempsey defending the
president's inaction in Syria just before the president decides action is
necessary, undercutting the U.N. by announcing our intelligence findings in
advance of theirs, torrents of leaks, the president's public vacillation -- are
alone enough to make one marvel at the breadth of our power that the
United States can remain so influential while being so ineffectual.
These latest turns of the Obama administration's Syria policy do more than
confirm the administration's strategic illiteracy; they refute the president's
broader claims about the international order and how America should
engage that order.
The president's National Security Strategy outlines Obama's vision of a
world in which countries refrain from the use of military force without
approval of the United Nations Security Council. Whether they believed
their policies would be so attractive that countries would not object or they

believed U.S. power should be restrained when it could not gain approval,
the president is now in the position of wanting to use military force to uphold
an international norm and being refused an international mandate from the
United Nations, from the relevant regional organization, the Arab League,
and even from that most reliable ally, Britain.
Another central element of the administration's doctrine is that cooperation
with adversaries can foster better foreign-policy outcomes. This idea formed
the basis for the Russia reset and included rejecting regime change as a
U.S. objective in Iran and elsewhere, hesitance about democracy promotion
efforts, and a tendency to whitewash depredations -- think Secretary Hillary
Clinton equivocating about China's human rights record or declaring Bashar
al-Assad a reformer while he was already killing Syrians. Now the
administration finds its policy preferences shackled by the very adversaries
it has been courting: Russia, China, Iran. The White House seems
surprised to find hostility enduring, didn't bother to understand the deep
roots of opposition and conflicting interests, and didn't build the bases for
preserving our autonomy and limiting their latitude.
And then there's leading from behind. The administration celebrated putting
others at the forefront, our role on the margins of effort (even as the White
House took credit for what others achieved). But that requires others willing
and able to do so. It's worth noting that only NATO among international
organizations has supported action against Syria; Europeans continue to be
the allies most likely to run risks to uphold norms and law. They were
perhaps winnable constituencies, if the president had expended the effort to
win them. Obama having such faith in his ability to persuade is disinclined
to engage in the retail work of building support. With Britain out and many
allies unwilling to act for the very reasons the Obama administration has
trumpeted to justify its own inaction, NATO's support will have little practical
effect. Having taken for granted the support of staunch allies, the
administration cannot even count on them.
"Smart power" in which the administration put such store has been buried in
the grave of urgency. When pressed to "do something," the something the
White House evidently selected is plinking military targets specially selected
not to have strategic resonance. Far from identifying a political end state
and then having the interagency fill in the diplomatic, economic,
intelligence, and military means to achieve it, the Obama administration is
using military force as an end in itself.
The president is thus left in the circumstance of arguing for the very
approach he condemned in his predecessor: identifying a systemic threat to
the international order that the international institutions will not address,

adversaries aligned to preclude the trappings of legitimization, asserting

that the will of the American people itself constitutes adequate allies,
regional organizations divided, and scrambling to drum up a "coalition of the
willing" in which the overwhelming burden will fall to the United States to
use military force whose effects could very well either be wholly ineffective
or worsen the threats to our country.
There's a wonderful passage in Shakespeare's Henry IV in which
Glendower claims to have the power to "call spirits from the vasty deep."
Hotspur deflates him by answering, "Will they come when you do call?" The
Obama administration believed in "the international community." The mess
Obama finds himself in on Syria suggests the international community
doesn't believe in him.

Obama's Syria Dilemma

Costantino Pischedda, Erica D. Borghard | August 30, 2013

The debate on the effectiveness of what appears to be an

imminent strike on Syria by a U.S.-led coalition has centered on
two opposite policy positions. Some observers have argued that
a limited missile strike against the Assad regimes command and
control assets would be insufficient to change Assads calculus
and deter future uses of chemical weapons; therefore, a more
robust intervention would be necessary to achieve these strategic
objectives and preserve American credibility. Others, however,
have voiced concern that even a limited missile strike would
represent a first step down an inevitable slippery slope, leading
to a more costly and prolonged intervention in Syria.
These contrasting positions get at the root of President Obamas
dilemma. On the one hand, Obama needs to send a strong signal
to the Assad regime to change its behavior. On the other hand,
the President must reassure the American people and
international audiences that the use of force would be limited in
scale and scope.
However, what this debate fails to appreciate are the deep
interconnections between the different kinds of risks associated
with the prospective intervention. Coercion theory sheds
important light on this. Coercion is the actual or threatened use
of force aimed at changing an adversarys behavior. Successful

coercion has two basic requirements. First, the target of coercion

must believe that the prospective pain inflicted on it will
outweigh the benefits of continued defiance. In other words, the
target must know that it would be made to pay an unacceptable
price for failing to comply. Second, and often ignored, the target
must be reassured that compliance will end or prevent the
punishment. If the adversary believes that punishment is
inevitable regardless of its behavior, then there is no incentive to
comply.
Also important in this context is the American political audience.
President Obamas goal is not only to send a message to Assad,
but also to assuage the concerns of a war-weary American public
that the intervention would not lead to further U.S.
entanglements in the Middle East. Domestic political
considerations are relevant to coercion because they affect the
adversarys perception of the probability that a given threat will
be carried out. Obamas statements about the limited nature of
the intervention may lead Assad to doubt the willingness of the
United States to inflict sufficient damage, thus convincing him to
stand firm.
The problem is that all of these concerns produce conflicting
imperatives. Obama, to put it figuratively, faces the classic
problem of a short blanket. Pulling the blanket in either direction
threatens to expose one of his weaknesses. A strong emphasis on
pain to come for the Assad regime may overshadow the message
that punishment is conditional on behavior, thus reducing the
probability of Syrian compliance and alarming the U.S. domestic
public. One does not need to plumb the depths of history to
identify relevant examples. Qaddafi failed to give in to Western

demands in the lead-up to the 2011 NATO intervention in part

because the Obama administrations talk about regime change
likely convinced him that he would be deposed regardless of his
behavior toward Libyas civilian population.
Conversely, Obamas efforts to reassure multiple audiences
about the limited nature of intervention may make Assad
confident that he can ride out the missile strikes, leading to
coercion failure. Arguably, an important reason for Milosevics
decision not to comply with NATOs initial demands in 1999
was his belief, based on NATO statements, that the intervention
would be limited in duration and intensity. As a result, NATO
was forced to escalate its bombing campaign up to the point
where the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo became a
concrete possibility.
These tensions are inherent in any attempt at coercion and are
hardly escapable. Nonetheless, policymakers need to fully
understand the competing requirements of coercion to avoid
blunders in one direction or another. Only this way can
policymakers hope to strike the right balance, which is necessary
to make the use of force a morally acceptable means to
legitimate political ends.
Costantino Pischedda is a Ph.D. candidate in political science
at Columbia University. His dissertation focuses on civil war
alliances.Erica D. Borghard is a Ph.D. candidate in political
science at Columbia University. Her dissertation concerns proxy
warfare and the conditions under which allies are drawn into
foreign policy misadventures.

The Gamble
Five big consequences of the president's call to let
Congress decide about America's Syrian intervention.
BY DAVID ROTHKOPF | AUGUST 31, 2013

For a man who is often so Hamlet-like he seems he should

be attending meetings in a black velvet doublet and whose
Syria policy in particular seems to have been defined
primarily by actions not taken and decisions not made,
Barack Obama made one of the most profound and
momentous decisions of his presidency on Saturday.
By announcing that he would require congressional
approval before taking action against Syria's regime for
gassing its own people, he took a step that seemed certain
to have multiple, potentially profound ramifications. Here
are just five:
1. A Syria attack isn't a sure bet.
Military action against Syria that seemed a "certainty" on
Friday is no longer assured. And if air strikes do take place,
their delay -- despite Obama's protestations to the contrary
-- make them likely to be less effective. While the
president, and particularly Secretary of State John Kerry in
his effective remarks on Friday, have made a compelling
case for American action in Syria, one can never
underestimate this Congress's ability to find reasons for
inaction, partisanship, or unproductive caviling. The far

right and left of the respective parties are disinclined

toward intervention. The more hawkish are disinclined
toward actions that are too limited. And many Republicans
are disinclined to do anything that might help Obama.
What is more, developments in the interim -- like
hesitation by other allies -- could make the United States
appear more isolated or the likely impact of attacks seem
less desirable. All these things could contribute to a "no"
vote that would make it very difficult for the president to
reverse course and take action anyway.
If the administration persuades Congress to support
military action, it will be seen as a victory for the president,
to be sure. But it may also have given the Assad regime
another two or three weeks to redeploy assets and hunker
down -- so that the kind of limited attack currently
envisioned has even more limited consequences.
2. Red lines ain't what they used to be.
The president has hemmed and hawed regarding his
supposed "red line" on chemical weapons use yet again,
further undercutting his credibility. When Obama first
suggested a red line, he cited movement or use of chemical
weapons as being intolerable. But movement and use have,
according to credible reports, occurred on multiple
occasions since then -- and the United States took no
action. This latest incident on August 21 was so egregious it
was impossible to continue looking the other way. (And it
was followed, apparently, by another on August 26.)
Taking action seemed the only way to restore a sense that

the president was a man who meant what he said. But

then, late this week, as Britain balked at supporting
Washington and domestic public opinion was seen to
oppose any U.S. involvement in Syria, a spirit of hesitation
seemed to grab the administration, culminating in
Saturday's bombshell. Even if the attacks do take place, a
new caveat will have been added to any future warning the
president may choose to make: We will act -- if the most
feckless Congress in memory chooses to go along with him.
3. He's now boxed in for the rest of his term.
Whatever happens with regard to Syria, the larger
consequence of the president's action will resonate for
years. The president has made it highly unlikely that at any
time during the remainder of his term he will be able to
initiate military action without seeking congressional
approval. It is understandable that many who have
opposed actions (see: Libya) taken by the president
without congressional approval under the War Powers Act
would welcome Obama's newly consultative approach. It
certainly appears to be more in keeping with the kind of
executive-legislative collaboration envisioned in the
Constitution. While America hasn't actually required a
congressional declaration of war to use military force since
the World War II era, the bad decisions of past presidents
make Obama's move appealing to the war-weary and the
war-wary.
But whether you agree with the move or not, it must be
acknowledged that now that Obama has set this kind of

precedent -- and for a military action that is exceptionally

limited by any standard (a couple of days, no boots on the
ground, perhaps 100 cruise missiles fired against a limited
number of military targets) -- it will be very hard for him to
do anything comparable or greater without again returning
to the Congress for support. And that's true whether or not
the upcoming vote goes his way.
4. This president just dialed back the power of his
own office.
Obama has reversed decades of precedent regarding the
nature of presidential war powers -- and whether you
prefer this change in the balance of power or not, as a
matter of quantifiable fact he is transferring greater
responsibility for U.S. foreign policy to a Congress that is
more divided, more incapable of reasoned debate or
action, and more dysfunctional than any in modern
American history. Just wait for the Rand Paul filibuster or
similar congressional gamesmanship.
The president's own action in Libya was undertaken
without such approval. So, too, was his expansion of
America's drone and cyber programs. Will future offensive
actions require Congress to weigh in? How will Congress
react if the president tries to pick and choose when this
precedent should be applied? At best, the door is open to
further acrimony. At worst, the paralysis of the U.S.
Congress that has given us the current budget crisis and
almost no meaningful recent legislation will soon be
coming to a foreign policy decision near you. Consider that

John Boehner was instantly more clear about setting the

timing for any potential action against Syria with his
statement that Congress will not reconvene before its
scheduled September 9 return to Washington than anyone
in the administration has been thus far.
Perhaps more importantly, what will future Congresses
expect of future presidents? If Obama abides by this new
approach for the next three years, will his successors lack
the ability to act quickly and on their own? While past
presidents have no doubt abused their War Powers
authority to take action and ask for congressional approval
within 60 days, we live in a volatile world; sometimes
security requires swift action. The president still legally has
that right, but Obama's decision may have done more -- for
better or worse -- to dial back the imperial presidency than
anything his predecessors or Congress have done for
decades.
5. America's international standing will likely
suffer.
As a consequence of all of the above, even if the president
"wins" and persuades Congress to support his extremely
limited action in Syria, the perception of America as a
nimble, forceful actor on the world stage and that its
president is a man whose word carries great weight is likely
to be diminished. Again, like the shift or hate it, foreign
leaders can do the math. Not only is post-Iraq, postAfghanistan America less inclined to get involved
anywhere, but when it comes to the use of U.S. military

force (our one indisputable source of superpower strength)

we just became a whole lot less likely to act or, in any
event, act quickly. Again, good or bad, that is a stance that
is likely to figure into the calculus of those who once feared
provoking the United States.
A final consequence of this is that it seems ever more
certain that Obama's foreign policy will be framed as so
anti-interventionist and focused on disengagement from
world affairs that it will have major political consequences
in 2016. The dialectic has swung from the interventionism
of Bush to the leaning away of Obama. Now, the question
will be whether a centrist synthesis will emerge that
restores the idea that the United States can have a
muscular foreign policy that remains prudent, capable of
action, and respects international laws and norms. Almost
certainly, that is what President Obama would argue he
seeks. But I suspect that others, including possibly his
former secretary of state may well seek to define a different
approach. Indeed, we may well see the divisions within the
Democratic Party on national security emerge as key fault
lines in the Clinton vs. Biden primary battles of 2016. And
just imagine Clinton vs. Rand Paul in the general election.

Obama's last-minute decision

to seek congressional approval
for Syria strike
By Jim Acosta, CNN Senior White House Correspondent

Washington (CNN) -- After signaling he was on the verge of delivering a

strike against Syria, President Barack Obama made a last-minute decision
Friday evening to seek congressional authorization before any military
action, senior administration officials told reporters Saturday.
The president announced the change in plans to his advisers at
approximately 7 p.m. Friday, officials said. Obama had also come to the
conclusion the United States should carry out a limited military strike to
degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities, they added.
After privately wrestling with the decision for the past week, the officials
said, Obama took what was described as a 45-minute walk with Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough around 6 p.m. Friday and then called his top
national security advisers into the Oval Office for a discussion.

Key Republican reacts to Obama decision

U.N. begins analysis of Obama decision

Senior administration officials say a heated debate broke out over the
president's decision. Those officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity
and asked not to be quoted, declined to say which advisers initially
disagreed with the call to seek congressional approval. The administration's
national security team, those officials added, is now firmly behind the
president.

The president later telephoned Vice President Joe Biden, Defense

Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry to relay his
decision, officials said.
Obama convened a "principals meeting" of his top national security and
intelligence officials Saturday morning to finalize his decision.
In addition to consulting with his top advisers, Obama also consulted with
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the
president a delay would not jeopardize a military strike against Syria,
officials said.
A senior administration official told CNN that Secretary of State Kerry has
"no concerns" about the president's decision.
"He was in the Senate for 29 years and has made consultation with
Congress a huge priority since he became secretary of state. He has been
on the front lines of briefing and consulting with Congress on every foreign
policy issue from one end or the other for years."
A senior U.S. official indicated Hagel was with the president on the move.
"As a former senator whose views on the limits of war are well known, it's
not hard for Chuck Hagel to agree with the president, " the official told CNN.
"Hagel, a combat veteran with two Purple Hearts, has a pragmatic
approach to the use of military force that involves the need to consider
American public opinion. At the same time. Hagel believes that the use of
force would be completely justified in the face of the reckless slaughter of
innocent Syrian civilians," the official said.
But the decision to wait and seek congressional authorization comes with
some risk, officials conceded. A vote to approve a military mission in Syria
could fail in Congress.
There is also the uncertain reaction from Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
Senior administration officials, who accuse al-Assad of gassing rebel
fighters along with innocent civilians, said the Syrian leader should think
twice before taking any drastic action. The president, those officials
cautioned, would hold al-Assad accountable.
Senior administration officials rejected the notion the president's decision to
seek congressional authorization undermines decades of entrenched
executive branch powers to take military action.
Asking lawmakers for approval, the White House argues, would strengthen
the president's position diplomatically. Officials insisted the legislative
branch is also responsible for holding al-Assad accountable for his alleged
use of poison gas, noting Congress ratified an international chemical
weapons convention in 1997.
To bolster their case to members of Congress, White House officials plan to

make available classified materials from the administration's intelligence

report on the August 21 attack around Damascus. National security officials
released an unclassified version of that assessment Friday.
Congressional leaders, senior administration officials maintained, were
supportive of the president's decision to ask for approval from Capitol Hill.
A top legislative aide, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity,
questioned the confidence of White House officials in the outcome of any
vote.
"It's going to take a lot of work from (the president) to sell it. It's all on him,"
the aide said.

U.S.militaryofficershavedeep
doubtsaboutimpact,wisdomofa
U.S.strikeonSyria
ByErnestoLondoo,Published:August30
TheObamaadministrationsplantolaunchamilitarystrikeagainstSyria
isbeingreceivedwithseriousreservationsbymanyintheU.S.military,
whichiscopingwiththescarsoftwolengthywarsandarapidly
contractingbudget,accordingtocurrentandformerofficers.
HavingassumedformonthsthattheUnitedStateswasunlikelyto
intervenemilitarilyinSyria,theDefenseDepartmenthasbeenthrust
ontoawarfootingthathasmademanyinthearmedservicesuneasy,
accordingtointerviewswithmorethanadozenmilitaryofficersranging
fromcaptainstoafourstargeneral.
Formerandcurrentofficers,manywiththepainfullessonsofIraqand
Afghanistanontheirminds,saidthemainreservationsconcernthe
potentialunintendedconsequencesoflaunchingcruisemissilesagainst
Syria.
Somequestionedtheuseofmilitaryforceasapunitivemeasureand
suggestedthattheWhiteHouselacksacoherentstrategy.Ifthe
administrationisambivalentaboutthewisdomofdefeatingorcrippling
theSyrianleader,possiblysettingthestageforDamascustofallto
fundamentalistrebels,theysaid,themilitaryobjectiveofstrikeson

Assadsmilitarytargetsisatbestambiguous.
TheresabroadnaiveteinthepoliticalclassaboutAmericas
obligationsinforeignpolicyissues,andscarysimplicityaboutthe
effectsthatemployingAmericanmilitarypowercanachieve,said
retiredLt.Gen.GregoryS.Newbold,whoservedasdirectorof
operationsfortheJointChiefsofStaffduringtherunuptotheIraqwar,
notingthatmanyofhiscontemporariesarealarmedbytheplan.
Newcycleofattacks?
MarineLt.Col.GordonMiller,afellowattheCenterforaNew
AmericanSecurity,warnedthisweekofpotentiallydevastating
consequences,includingafreshroundofchemicalweaponsattacksand
amilitaryresponsebyIsrael.
IfPresident[BasharalAssad]weretoabsorbthestrikesanduse
chemicalweaponsagain,thiswouldbeasignificantblowtotheUnited
Statescredibilityanditwouldbecompelledtoescalatetheassaulton
Syriatoachievetheoriginalobjectives,Millerwroteinacommentary
forthethinktank.
ANationalSecurityCouncilspokeswomansaidThursdayshewouldnot
discussinternaldeliberations.WhiteHouseofficialsreiterated
Thursdaythattheadministrationisnotcontemplatingaprotracted
militaryengagement.
Still,manyinthemilitaryareskeptical.GettingdrawnintotheSyrian
war,theyfear,coulddistractthePentagoninthemidstofavexing
mission:itsexitfromAfghanistan,whereU.S.troopsarestillbeing
killedregularly.AyoungArmyofficerwhoiswrappingupayearlong
tourtheresaidsoldiersweresurprisedtolearnabouttheloomingstrike,
callingtheprospectverydangerous.

Icantbelievethepresidentisevenconsideringit,saidtheofficer,
wholikemostofficersinterviewedforthisstoryagreedtospeakonlyon
theconditionofanonymitybecausemilitarypersonnelarereluctantto
criticizepolicymakerswhilemilitarycampaignsarebeingplanned.We
havebeenfightingthelast10yearsacounterinsurgencywar.Syriahas
modernweaponry.Wewouldhavetoretrainforaconventionalwar.
Dempseyswarning
Gen.MartinDempsey,chairmanoftheJointChiefsofStaff,haswarned
ingreatdetailabouttherisksandpitfallsofU.S.militaryinterventionin
Syria.
Asweweighouroptions,weshouldbeabletoconcludewithsome
confidencethatuseofforcewillmoveustowardtheintendedoutcome,
DempseywrotelastmonthinalettertotheSenateArmedServices
Committee.Oncewetakeaction,weshouldbepreparedforwhat
comesnext.Deeperinvolvementishardtoavoid.
Dempseyhasnotspokenpubliclyabouttheadministrationsplanned
strikeonSyria,anditisuncleartowhatextenthispositionshiftedafter
lastweeksallegedchemicalweaponsattack.Dempseysaidthismonth
inaninterviewwithABCNewsthatthelessonsofIraqweighheavilyon
hiscalculationsregardingSyria.
Ithasbrandedinmetheideathattheuseofmilitarypowermustbepart
ofanoverallstrategicsolutionthatincludesinternationalpartnersanda
wholeofgovernment,hesaidintheAug.4interview.Simplythe
applicationofforcerarelyproducesand,infact,maybeneverproduces
theoutcomeweseek.
TherecentlyretiredheadoftheU.S.CentralCommand,Gen.James
Mattis,saidlastmonthatasecurityconferencethattheUnitedStateshas
nomoralobligationtodotheimpossibleinSyria.IfAmericanstake

ownershipofthis,thisisgoingtobeafullthroated,very,veryserious
war,saidMattis,whoasCentcomchiefoversawplanningforarangeof
U.S.militaryresponsesinSyria.
ThepotentialconsequencesofaU.S.strikeincludearetaliatoryattack
bytheLebanesemilitantgroupHezbollahwhichsupportsAssad
onIsrael,aswellascyberattacksonU.S.targetsandinfrastructure,U.S.
militaryofficialssaid.
Whatisthepoliticalendstateweretryingtoachieve?saidaretired
seniorofficerinvolvedinMiddleEastoperationalplanningwhosaidhis
concernsarewidelysharedbyactivedutymilitaryleaders.Idont
knowwhatitis.Wesayitsnotregimechange.Ifitspunishment,there
areotherwaystopunish.Theformerseniorofficersaidthatthosewho
areexpressingalarmattherisksinherentintheplanarenotbeingheard
otherthaninaproformamanner.
PresidentObamasaidinaPBSinterviewonWednesdaythatheisnot
contemplatingalengthyengagement,butinsteadlimited,tailored
approaches.
AretiredCentralCommandofficersaidtheadministrationsplanwould
gravelydisappointouralliesandaccomplishlittleotherthantobeseen
asdoingsomething.
ItwillbeseenasahalfmeasurebyouralliesintheMiddleEast,the
officersaid.IranandSyriawillportrayitasproofthattheU.S.is
unwillingtodefenditsinterestsintheregion.
Still,somewithinthemilitary,whileapprehensive,supportstriking
Syria.W.AndrewTerrill,aMiddleEastexpertattheU.S.ArmyWar
College,saidthelimitedhistoryoftheuseofchemicalweaponsinthe
regionsuggeststhatamutedresponsefromtheWestcanbedangerous.

Thereisafeelingasyoulookbackthatifyoudontstandupto
chemicalweapons,theyregoingtotakeitasagreenlightandusethem
onarecurringbasis,hesaid.
AnArmylieutenantcolonelsaidtheWhiteHousehasonlybadoptions
butshouldresisttheurgetoaborttheplannow.
Whenapresidentdrawsaredline,forbetterorworse,itspolicy,he
said,referringtoObamasdeclarationlastyearaboutSyriaspotential
useofchemicalweapons.Itcannotappeartobescaredortepid.
Remember,withrespecttopolicychoicesconcerningSyria,weare
discussingdegreesofbadandworse.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/1000000024159
36/obama-seeks-support-on-syria.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYDhMmVLXI

Backtopreviouspage

InSyriadelay,Kerrymayprove
himselfateamplayer
ByKarenDeYoung,Monday,September2,2:58AM
TwodaysafterhestoodintheornateTreatyRoomattheState
Departmenttodeliveraforcefuladdressonthejustificationforan
imminentU.S.militarystrikeagainstSyria,SecretaryofStateJohnF.
KerryreturnedtothesamevenueSundaytodefendadifferentapproach.
InhismaidenappearanceassecretaryontheSundaytalkshows,Kerry
servedastheadministrationsspokesmanforexplainingPresident
Obamassurprising,lastminutedecisiontodelayanyattackuntil
Congresscouldvoteonit.
ItwasnotaconclusionKerryanticipated,accordingtosenior

administrationofficials.Butaftersevenmonthsinoffice,duringwhich
KerryhasoftenbeenportrayedaspushingforamoreassertiveMiddle
EastpolicythanObamawouldlike,thedelaymayultimatelyprovean
opportunitytosolidifyhisrelationshipwiththepresident.
ForKerry,itslike,look,theguysateamplayer,saidoneofficial
whospokeonconditionofanonymitytodiscussthesecretarysthinking.
Andifyouretalkingaboutconsultingabodythathewasapartoffor
almost30years,thatsnotaharddecision.
OthersinKerryscampsaidthathehadadvocatedmoreengagement
withthepublicandCongressduringlastweeksinternaldiscussions
aboutapossiblestrike.Theysaidhearguedthattherewasnowayof
knowingwherelawmakersreallystooduntiltheywerepresentedwith
evidencetheadministrationhadamassedthattheSyriangovernmenthad
carriedoutamassivechemicalweaponsattack.
KerrysFridayspeechhadfollowedaNationalSecurityCouncilmeeting
thatmorningthatincludedadiscussionoftheoutlineofhisremarksand
Obamathankinghimforhiseffortstomakethepubliccase,deputy
nationalsecurityadviserBenjaminJ.Rhodessaid.
WhiletheintelligenceKerrypresentedappearedtodolittletoshake
membersofCongressfromtheirdeterminationthattheadministration
neededtodomoreconsultationthatithadsofar,Obamaalonedecided
tosplitthedifference.OnFridaynight,hetoldhisstunnedadvisersthat
whileaU.S.attackwasjustifiedandhehadtheauthoritytolaunchit,he
wouldgiveCongresstheopportunitytovote.
Kerryhadnotadvocatedforaspecificdateforastrike,accordingto
officials,anddidnotargueagainstObamasdecision.
OnSaturdaymorning,theNSCmetagaintodiscusshowtocarryoutthe
newplans.CongressionalleaderswhowerenotifiedofObamasdecision

advisedagainstcallinglawmakersbackfromrecessbeforetheyare
scheduledtoreconveneSept.9,notingtheWednesdaystartofRosh
Hashanah,theJewishNewYear.
AfterObamaspublicaddressSaturdayafternoon,itfelltoKerryto
makefivestraightSundaymorningappearances.Herepeatedlycalled
Obamasdecisiontodelaycourageousandsaiditwasthepresidents
righttomakeit.
HerefusedtoaddressthepossibilitythatCongress,whereheservedin
theSenatefornearlythreedecades,couldnotbepersuaded.
Idontcontemplatethat,hesaidonABCsThisWeek.Ithinkthe
stakesarejustreallytoohigh.
DespiteinsistingearlylastweekthattheevidenceprovingSyrias
chemicalweaponsusewasundeniable,andinsistingonFridaythata
U.S.responsewasimperativeonmoralandnationalsecuritygrounds,
KerrysaidSundaythatdelaywouldprovideagreateropportunityto
buildthecasetobothCongressandtheAmericanpublic.
Moreover,hesaid,italsogivesustimetoreachouttoallies,friends
aroundtheworld,[and]buildsupportonaninternationalbasis.
Ultimately,hesaid,thepresidentcanproceedandournationcan
proceedfromamuchstrongerposition.
Asasenator,KerrysupporteddecisionsbytwoDemocratic
administrationsin1999intheformerYugoslaviaunderthe
administrationofBillClinton,andin2011inLibyaunderObamathat
thepresidenthadfulldomesticauthoritytoorderlimitedmilitarystrikes
shortofalloutwarifnecessarytoprotectU.S.nationalsecurity.
ButinYugoslavia,theUnitedStatesactedaspartofNATO;inLibya,
bothNATOandtheUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilapproved.

TheabsenceofinternationalalliesweighedasmuchontheWhiteHouse
asdomesticdisapproval,particularlyafterBritainsparliamentvoted
Thursdayagainstparticipation.FrenchPresidentFrancoisHollandesaid
Fridayhewasreadytoparticipate,butalsoscheduledadebateinthe
NationalAssemblyforWednesday,leavingtheUnitedStatesasthenon
democraticoutlier.
YoucoulddrawtwothingsfromtheBritishvote,thesenior
administrationofficialsaid.Oneis,boy,youbetternotgotoparliament
becausepublicsarewearyofwar.Or,youcouldtaketheinsideoutand
sayitspreciselybecausepublicsarewearyofwarandthesituationin
Syriahasbeensocomplicatedthatyouneedtoputthecountryona
strongerfootingandgotoCongress.
AsforeignpolicyexpertscontemplatedtheeffectofObamasdecision
onU.S.standingandcredibilityintheworld,legalscholarsjoineda
familiardebateoverwhetheritwasnecessary,ormerelyadvisable,for
theexecutivebranchtoaskCongressbeforeutilizingtheU.S.military.
InLibya,ObamadefendedhisprerogativetodeployAmericanaircraft
andmissileswithoutcongressionalauthorization.Theadministrations
legalanalysisfoundthattheabsenceofU.S.troopinvolvement,the
limitednatureoftheengagementandtheurgencyofthethreatallgave
thepresidentthepowertoactwithoutinvokingtheWarPowers
Resolution.
EachofthosejustificationswasinvokedlastweekregardingSyria.
Verybluntly,thepresidenthastheconstitutionalauthority,aformer
Obamaofficialsaid.HedoesnthavetogotoCongress....itisvery
unusualtoseekapprovalforwhatadministrationofficialshavesaid
wouldbeatwoorthreedaystrikeonSyrianmilitarytargets.
Butitcreatesapoliticalprecedentthatmaycomebacktohaunt

Obamaorhissuccessors,theformerofficialsaid.
CouncilonForeignRelationsPresidentRichardHaasschargedina
TwitterpostingafterObamasSaturdayannouncementthatthepresident
hadgonefromleadingfrombehindtonotleading.Obamasdecision
togotoCongress,Haasssaid,raisesdoubtsaboutU.S.reliability,
determination.
Kerryforcefullydisagreed,tellingCNNSundaythatObamawas
leadingintherightway.Ifhedidntdothis,Icanhearallofthecritics
sayingWhydidntthePresidentgotoCongress...hecouldhave
asked,hehadtimetoask.

CONFLICT IN SYRIA

President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria

Strike

Mohamed Abdullah/Reuters

Published: September 1, 2013 862 Comments

WASHINGTON The Obama administration began a full-press

campaign on Sunday for Congressional approval of its plan to carry out
a punitive strike against the Syrian government.
The lobbying blitz stretched from Capitol Hill, where the
administration held its first classified briefing on Syria open to all
lawmakers, to Cairo, where Secretary of State John Kerry reached Arab
diplomats by phone in an attempt to rally international support for a

firm response to the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of

Damascus.
Mr. Kerry appeared on five morning talk shows, announcing new
evidence that the neurotoxin sarin had been used in the attack that
killed more than 1,400 people and expressing confidence that
Congress would ultimately back the presidents plan for military
action.
Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, the administration presented
classified intelligence to any senator or House member who wished to
attend. About 80 did, but some from both parties emerged from the
briefing convinced that the draft language authorizing military action
would need to be tightened.
The rush of activity came a day after Mr. Obamas surprise decision to
seek the authorization of Congress for a strike on the Syrian
government.
Ahead of an Arab League meeting in Cairo, Mr. Kerry sought to
mobilize backing for American-led military action at a meeting the
group held on Sunday night.
A statement that was issued by the league asserted that the Syrian
government was fully responsible for the chemical weapons attack
and asked the United Nations and the international community to
take the necessary measures against those who committed this crime.
To the satisfaction of American officials, the statement did not
explicitly mention the United Nations Security Council or assert that
military action could be taken only with its approval. But it stopped
short of a direct call for Western military action against Syria.
Before the meeting got under way, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince
Saud al-Faisal, urged the international community to stop the Syrian
governments aggression against its people.
Saudi Arabia has been one of the principal supporters of the Syrian
opposition, and Mr. Kerry consulted by phone on Sunday with Prince

Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabias intelligence chief and secretary

general of its national security council.
The Obama administrations calculation has been that a call for tough
action by the Arab diplomats would enable the White House to argue
to members of Congress that it had regional backing for military action
and would make up, at least politically, for the British decision on
Thursday not to join the American-led attack.
But Syrias government on Sunday defiantly mocked Mr. Obamas
decision to turn to Congress, saying it was a sign of weakness. A staterun newspaper, Al Thawra, called the action the start of the historic
American retreat and said Mr. Obama had put off an attack because of
a sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies.
Syrias deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in
Damascus, It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and
disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama
yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.
In some measure, part of the challenge that the Obama administration
faces in trying to rally support at home for a punitive strike in Syria is
the result of the deep ambivalence it has expressed about becoming
involved in the conflict.
Part of the White House strategy for securing Congressional support
now is to emphasize not only what Syria did, but also how a failure to
act against Syria might embolden enemies of Israel like Iran and
Hezbollah.
Mr. Kerry, in his television appearances, said that if Congress passed a
measure authorizing the use of force, it would send a firm message to
Iran that the United States would not tolerate the fielding of a nuclear
device, and thus safeguard Israels security.
I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on
this moment, Mr. Kerry said on the NBC News program Meet The
Press. The challenge of Iran, the challenges of the region, the

challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally, Israel,

helping to shore up Jordan all of these things are very, very powerful
interests and I believe Congress will pass it.
One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified
discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political
Affairs Committee the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and said its
allies in Congress had to be saying, If the White House is not capable
of enforcing this red line against catastrophic use of chemical
weapons were in trouble.
Israeli officials have been concerned by Mr. Obamas decision, but
have been mostly restrained in their public comments. Mr. Kerry
talked on Sunday with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime
minister.
Both the House and Senate are expected to have votes sometime after
they return from recess on Sept. 9, although Senator Harry Reid, the
Democratic leader, said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
would convene hearings on the Syrian issue Tuesday afternoon.
While Mr. Kerry said he was confident Congress would vote to approve
the use of force, Representative Peter T. King, the New York
Republican and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee, said that if a vote in the House were held today, Mr.
Obama would likely lose as a result of the isolationist wing.
Much of the debate in Washington concerned the terms of the
resolution the White House has proposed for authorizing the use of
force.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, a senior Democrat from Maryland,
said that while the administrations resolution limited the purpose of
an attack to stopping the use of weapons of mass destruction, the
measure left the military too much running room and did not set
limits on the duration of the military operation.
Congressional advocates of strong action to help the Syrian opposition,

in contrast, have complained that the attack that President Obama

appears to be planning seemed to be too limited to have enough of an
impact.
Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, both Republicans, have warned that they would not support
isolated military strikes in Syria that were not part of a broader
strategy to shift the momentum on the battlefield. Mr. Obama is
scheduled to meet with Mr. McCain on Monday at the White House.
As the White House consults with Congress, Mr. Kerry is planning a
new round of diplomacy. He is planning to meet next weekend with
European Union diplomats in Vilnius, Lithuania, and with Arab
League diplomats in Rome.
After Mr. Obamas change in direction, the reaction in Britain and
France has largely been one of surprise and confusion. The French
government, which had said on Friday that it would support a military
strike, said it would wait for the American Congress to vote before
taking any military action.
President Franois Hollande still intends to proceed with a military
intervention of some kind in Syria, French officials said Sunday, but
France will await the decision of Congress before taking action.
We cannot leave this crime against humanity unpunished, said
Interior Minister Manuel Valls, speaking on French radio. But given
logistical questions of intervention capacity, Mr. Valls said, France
must await the decision of the United States.
France cannot go forward alone, he said. There must be a coalition.
A major question for military experts is what effect the delay in acting
might have if force was eventually used by the United States.
Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a retired fourstar general, said in an interview that time would work to the
advantage of President Bashar al-Assad as the Syrian forces would
have more opportunities to move artillery, missiles and other

equipment into civilian areas that they knew would not be struck.
Even Syrian command centers that could not be moved, he said, would
be emptied of sensitive equipment and personnel.
But Mr. Obama said that he had been assured by Gen. Martin E.
Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that a delay would not
affect the United States militarys ability to carry out a strike.
<imgsrc="http://metersvc.nytimes.com/meter.gif"/>

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington, David

D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo, and Steven Erlanger from London.

CONFLICT IN SYRIA
WASHINGTON MEMO

History Aside, Obama Bets on Congress

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Published: September 1, 2013

WASHINGTON In President Obamas telling, Congress plays host to

an endless parade of distractions and political posturing. It is the
challenging place where his second-term agenda meets Washington
gridlock, forcing him to issue executive orders and make appeals to the
public to get anything done.
Yet now the president has chosen to hand over one of his most
pressing foreign policy decisions to the very crowd that has vowed to
block him at every turn.
By asking Congress for authorization to retaliate against Syria for using
chemical weapons, Mr. Obama has put himself at the mercy of an
institution that has bedeviled his presidency for years. He has risked
his credibility at home and abroad on a bet that Washingtons
partisan divisions will take a back seat during this debate. And he has
bowed to the reality that some of the loudest demands for a Syria vote

have come from his allies on Capitol Hill.

You go to war with the Congress you have, not the Congress you wish
you had, said Matt Bennett, a former senior aide to President Bill
Clinton. He doesnt have a Congress he can trust, but he feels that this
is weighty enough that the Congress should be involved.
The week ahead will feature a high-stakes lobbying effort by the
administration for military action, some of it classified and behind
closed doors, even as lawmakers trickle back to Washington from their
summer break.
Despite assurances on the talk shows by Secretary of State John Kerry
that Congress will approve action, early indications suggest that the
Syria debate may face a version of the paralyzing politics that have
repeatedly blocked Mr. Obamas legislative proposals on gun control,
immigration, climate change, expanded preschool, infrastructure
spending, taxes, housing and the federal budget.
That could be especially true in the House, where a coalition of Tea
Party conservatives, liberal Democrats and libertarians already
appears to be preparing to oppose the use of military force in Syria.
And even some senators began lining up to announce their opposition
well ahead of the start of a debate in that chamber.
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said he would vote
no and predicted that lawmakers would not give the president the
authorization that he seeks. I dont think they will, Mr. Inhofe said in
an appearance on Fox News Sunday.
Mr. Obamas willingness to place his faith in lawmakers is particularly
unexpected for a president who has spent much of his second term
trying to find creative ways to work around their judgment.
When Congress refused to approve new spending on infrastructure
projects, he announced a faster process for getting federal permits.
When it balked at new gun laws, he signed more than 20 executive
actions to keep guns from criminals and people with mental illnesses.

In his State of the Union, he pledged to enact new rules to combat

climate change.
If Congress wont act soon to protect future generations, I will, Mr.
Obama said, promising executive actions to reduce pollution.
In speeches across the country on housing and education, every
mention of the need for Congressional approval for his proposals has
become a reliable punch line. In Scranton, Penn., last month, the
audience laughed when Mr. Obama said that some of his proposals for
college tuition would require action from Congress.
Thats always challenging, Mr. Obama agreed.
Earlier, in Galesburg, Ill., he laid out an economic vision for his last
three years and said, Were going to do everything we can, wherever
we can, with or without Congress, to make things happen.
White House officials are betting that a debate about attacking Syria
will be different, and that Congress will not shrink from what Mr.
Obama says is the need to hold the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad,
accountable for gassing his own citizens. By demanding a vote, the
president is essentially asking Congress to own the decision to go to
war.
David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to the president, said he hoped
members of Congress would treat the issue of a military attack
differently than they had many domestic issues.
It would be beyond tragic if, on an issue like this, people started
making political calculations about damaging the president, Mr.
Axelrod said. Hes chosen to put his faith, not necessarily in the
Congress, but in our laws and traditions. Itll be an interesting week to
see how that works out.
Dan Pfeiffer, the presidents senior adviser, said that the fact of
divided government and polarized politics is exactly why it is so
important that Congress play a role in such an important decision for
our country.

In 2011, Mr. Obama drew bipartisan criticism for not asking Congress
for authorization to participate in an air campaign in Libya that lasted
for weeks. The president and his lawyers argued that American law did
not require a vote in Congress for the effort, which was aimed at
preventing Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, from killing
rebels in his country.
Mr. Obama has at least one legislative advantage in the Syria debate:
Congressional leaders, including the House speaker, John A. Boehner,
Republican of Ohio, have already pledged to schedule an up-or-down
vote in both chambers. That is more than the president often gets in
the House, where Mr. Boehner frequently blocks a floor vote on the
presidents agenda.
But despite his first-term victories on health care and financial
regulation, Mr. Obama is not a president with a keen sense of how to
easily move his ideas through a reluctant Congress. With the Syria
vote, he must find a way to ensure victory without setting a precedent
that requires him and future presidents to do the same before
every strike.
Within moments of Mr. Obamas surprise announcement on Saturday,
even lawmakers who support military action against Syria expressed
doubt about the outcome of a Congressional vote. Representative Peter
T. King, Republican of New York, said on Fox News Sunday that the
presidents hesitation represented a clear failure of leadership.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, demanded even bolder
military action against Syria than Mr. Obama is contemplating. Mr.
McCain said he might oppose the use of force unless the president
agreed to a wider military effort. But agreeing to that would almost
certainly undermine support among many Democrats and some
libertarians.
And even Mr. Obamas call for a narrow, limited action has some
liberal Democrats worried. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat
of Connecticut, said he entered the debate as a skeptic and said he
was not convinced that it was a good idea to launch missiles against

the Syrian government.

Will a U.S. attack make the situation better for the Syrian people or
worse? he asked on Meet the Press.
The outcome of that debate may help determine Mr. Obamas foreign
policy legacy, which now is partly in the hands of his adversaries in
Congress. In a statement on Saturday, Senator Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky, the minority leader, hinted at the political impact for the
president if Congress refuses to give him the permission he wants.
The presidents role as commander in chief, Mr. McConnell said, is
always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the
Congress.

Backtopreviouspage

<atarget="_blank"href="http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa
%253DL%2526ai%253DB05
Qo8cpUvicCZGf8AOrr4Aw0pvpswMAAAAQASAAOABYgqqJ
2JgucDSgOwBggEXY2EtcHViLTM2NzEzNDY1NTEyMjE1MDmyAR
Z3d3cud2FzaGluZ3RvbnBvc3QuY29tugEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAEJ2gGS
AWh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2FzaGluZ3RvbnBvc3QuY29tL29waW5pb25zL
3VzLW1pbGl0YXJ5LXBsYW5uZXJzLWRvbnQtc3VwcG9ydC13YXIt
d2l0aC1zeXJpYS8yMDEzLzA5LzA1LzEwYTA3MTE0LTE1YmItMT
FlMy1iZTZlLWRjNmFlOGE1YjNhOF9wcmludC5odG1swAIC4AIA6g
IRNzAxL3dwbmkub3BpbmlvbnP4AoHSHpADyAaYA
ADqAMB0ASQTuAEAaAGHw%2526num%253D0%2526sig
%253DAOD64_0vDhBub7HLY3Kwkt0T4N2E7yzQZg%2526client

%253Dcapub3671346551221509%2526adurl
%253Dhttps://account.washingtonpost.com/acquisition/?
promo=dgboxad&wpsrc=CM0000002"><img
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?
id=CICAgIDQ68SDFRABGAEyCKmWLJAAFOO"width="160"
height="600"border="0"alt=""galleryimg="no"></a>

AwarthePentagondoesntwant
ByRobertH.Scales,Friday,September6,1:06AM
RobertH.Scales,aretiredArmymajorgeneral,isaformercommandant
oftheU.S.ArmyWarCollege.
Thetapestellthetale.Gobackandlookatimagesofournationsmost
seniorsoldier,Gen.MartinDempsey,andhisbodylanguageduring
TuesdaysSenateForeignRelationsCommitteehearingsonSyria.Its
prettyobviousthatDempsey,chairmanoftheJointChiefsofStaff,
doesntwantthiswar.AsSecretaryofStateJohnKerrysthundering
voiceandarmwavingredoundedinrageagainstBasharalAssads
atrocities,Dempseywaslargely(andrespectfully)silent.
Dempseysunspokenwordsreflecttheopinionsofmostservingmilitary
leaders.BynomeansdoIprofesstospeakonbehalfofallofourmen
andwomeninuniform.ButIcanjustifiablysharethesentimentsof
thoseinsidethePentagonandelsewherewhowritetheplansanddevelop
strategiesforfightingourwars.Afterpersonalexchangeswithdozensof
activeandretiredsoldiersinrecentdays,Ifeelconfidentthatwhat
followsrepresentstheoverwhelmingopinionofservingprofessionals
whohavebeenintimatewitnessestotheunfoldingeventsthatwilllead
theUnitedStatesintoitsnextwar.

Theyareembarrassedtobeassociatedwiththeamateurismofthe
Obamaadministrationsattemptstocraftaplanthatmakesstrategic
sense.NoneoftheWhiteHousestaffhasanyexperienceinwaror
understandsit.Sofar,atleast,thispathtowarviolateseveryprincipleof
war,includingtheelementofsurprise,achievingmassandhavinga
clearlydefinedandobtainableobjective.
Theyarerepelledbythehypocrisyofamediablitzthatwarnsagainstthe
returnofHitlerismbutprivatelyacknowledgesthatthemotivefor
riskingAmericanlivesisourresponsibilitytoprotecttheworlds
innocents.ProspectiveU.S.actioninSyriaisnotaboutthreatsto
Americansecurity.TheU.S.militaryscivilianmastersprivatelyare
proudthattheyaremotivatedbyguiltoverslaughtersinRwanda,Sudan
andKosovoandnotbyanysystemicthreattoourcountry.
Theyareoutragedbythefactthatwhatmayhappenisanactofwarand
awillingnesstoriskAmericanlivestomakeupforaslipofthetongue
aboutredlines.Theseactswouldbeforretributionandtorestorethe
reputationofapresident.Ourservingprofessionalsmakethepointthat
killingmoreSyrianswontdeterIranianresolvetoconfrontus.The
Iranianshavealreadygottenthemessage.
Ourpeoplelamentourloneliness.Ourseniorsoldierstakeprideintheir
pastcommitmentstofightalongsidealliesandwithincoalitionsthat
sharedourstrategicgoals.Thiswar,however,willbeoursalone.
Theyaretiredofwannabesoldierswhoremainenamoredofthelureof
bloodlessmachinewarfare.Look,onetoldme,ifyouwanttoendthis
decisively,sendinthetroopsandletthemdefeattheSyrianarmy.Ifthe
nationdoesntthinkSyriaisworthseriouscommitment,thenleavethem
alone.ButtheyalsowarnthatSyriaisnotLibyaorSerbia.Perhapsthe
UnitedStateshasbecometoousedtofightingthirdratearmies.Asthe
Israelislearnedin1973,theSyriansaretoughandmeanspiritedkillers
withnothingtolose.

Ourmilitarymembersunderstandandtakeseriouslytheiroathtodefend
theconstitutionalauthorityoftheircivilianmasters.Theyunderstand
thattheUnitedStatesistheonlyliberaldemocracythathasneverbeen
ruledbyitsmilitary.Buttodayssoldiersknowwarandresentcivilian
policymakerswhowantthemilitarytofightawarthatneithertheynor
theirlovedoneswillexperiencefirsthand.
Civiliancontrolofthearmedservicesdoesntmeanthatcivilians
shouldntlistentothosewhohaveseenwar.Ourmostrespectedsoldier
president,DwightEisenhower,possessedthegravitasandcouragetosay
notowareighttimesduringhispresidency.HeendedtheKoreanWar
andrefusedtoaidtheFrenchinIndochina;hesaidnotohisformer
wartimefriendsBritainandFrancewhentheydemandedU.S.
participationinthecaptureoftheSuezCanal.Andheresistedliberal
democratswhowantedtoaidthenewlyformednationofSouthVietnam.
WeallknowwhathappenedafterhissuccessorignoredEisenhowers
advice.Mygenerationgottogotowar.
Overthepastfewdays,theopinionsofofficersconfidinginmehave
changedtosomedegree.Resignationseemstobecreepingintotheir
senseofoutrage.Oneofficertoldme:Tohellwiththem.Ifthisguy
wantsthiswar,thenlethimhaveit.Lookslikenoonewillgethurt
anyway.
Soonthemilitarywillsaluterespectfullyandloosethehellofhundreds
ofcruisemissilesinaneffortthatwill,inevitably,killafewofthosewe
wishtoprotect.Theywilldoitwithalltheprofessionalismandskillwe
expectfromtheworldsmostproficientmilitary.IwishKerrywould
takeamomenttolookattheimagesfromthisweekshearingsbeforewe
gotowaragain.
ReadmoreatPostOpinions:DanaMilbank:TheWhiteHousesSyria
secretsAnneApplebaum:ObamasmixedmessagesonSyriaE.J.
DionneJr:SyriaandthereturnofdissentDavidIgnatius:Syrianearsa

turningpointGregSargent:WhyHouseDemsthinkSyriaresolution
couldstillpassRobertJ.Samuelson:SyriaandthemyththatAmericans
arewarweary

Backtopreviouspage

U.S.weaponsreachingSyrian
rebels
ByErnestoLondooandGregMiller,Thursday,
September12,3:30AM
TheCIAhasbegundeliveringweaponstorebelsinSyria,endingmonths
ofdelayinlethalaidthathadbeenpromisedbytheObama
administration,accordingtoU.S.officialsandSyrianfigures.The
shipmentsbeganstreamingintothecountryoverthepasttwoweeks,
alongwithseparatedeliveriesbytheStateDepartmentofvehiclesand
othergearaflowofmaterialthatmarksamajorescalationoftheU.S.
roleinSyriascivilwar.
Thearmsshipments,whicharelimitedtolightweaponsandother
munitionsthatcanbetracked,beganarrivinginSyriaatamomentof
heightenedtensionsoverthreatsbyPresidentObamatoordermissile
strikestopunishtheregimeofBasharalAssadforhisallegeduseof

chemicalweaponsinadeadlyattacknearDamascuslastmonth.
ThearmsarebeingdeliveredastheUnitedStatesisalsoshippingnew
typesofnonlethalgeartorebels.Thataidincludesvehicles,
sophisticatedcommunicationsequipmentandadvancedcombatmedical
kits.
U.S.officialshopethat,takentogether,theweaponsandgearwillboost
theprofileandprowessofrebelfightersinaconflictthatstartedabout
21/2yearsago.
AlthoughtheObamaadministrationsignaledmonthsagothatitwould
increaseaidtoSyrianrebels,theeffortshavelaggedbecauseofthe
logisticalchallengesinvolvedindeliveringequipmentinawarzoneand
officialsfearsthatanyassistancecouldwindupinthehandsof
jihadists.SecretaryofStateJohnF.KerryhadpromisedinAprilthatthe
nonlethalaidwouldstartflowinginamatterofweeks.
ThedelayspromptedseveralseniorU.S.lawmakerstochidetheObama
administrationfornotmovingmorequicklytoaidtheSyrianopposition
afterpromisinglethalassistanceinJune.Thecriticismhasgrownlouder
amidthedebateoverwhetherWashingtonshouldusemilitaryforce
againsttheSyrianregime,withsomelawmakerswithholdingsupport
untiltheadministrationcommittedtoprovidingtherebelswithmore
assistance.
Sen.BobCorker(RTenn.),whohaspressedtheObamaadministration
todomoretohelptherebels,saidhefeltembarrassedwhenhemetwith
SyriansalongtheTurkishborderthreeweeksago.
Itwashumiliating,hesaidinaninterviewWednesdaynight.The
presidenthadannouncedthatwewouldbeprovidinglethalaid,andnota
dropofithadbegun.Theywereveryshortonammunition,andthe
weaponshadnotbeguntoflow.

Thelatestefforttoprovideaidisaimedatsupportingrebelfighterswho
areunderthecommandofGen.SalimIdriss,accordingtoofficials,some
ofwhomspokeontheconditionofanonymitybecausepartofthe
initiativeiscovert.IdrissisthecommanderoftheSupremeMilitary
Council,afactionofthedisjointedarmedopposition.
U.S.officials,speakingabouttheprovisionofnonlethalaid,saidthey
aredeterminedtoincreasethecohesionandstructureoftherebel
fightingunits.
Thisdoesntonlyleadtoamoreeffectiveforce,butitincreasesits
abilitytoholdcoalitiongroupstogether,saidMarkS.Ward,theState
DepartmentssenioradviseronassistancetoSyria,whocoordinates
nonlethalaidtorebelsfromsouthernTurkey.Theyseetheirleadership
ishavingsomeimpact.
U.S.officialsdecidedtoexpandnonlethalassistancetoSyriasarmed
rebelsaftertheydeliveredmorethan350,000highcalorieU.S.military
foodpacketsthroughtheSupremeMilitaryCouncilinMay.The
distributiongaveU.S.officialsconfidencethatitwaspossibletolimit
aidtoselectrebelunitsinabattlefieldwherethousandsoffightersshare
alQaedasideology,U.S.officialssaid.
KhaledSaleh,aspokesmanfortheSyrianOppositionCoalition,said
Washingtonsrevampedeffortsarewelcomebutinsufficienttoturnthe
tideofthecivilwarbetweenrebelsandforcesloyaltoAssad.
TheSyrianMilitaryCouncilisreceivingsolittlesupportthatany
supportwereceiveisarelief,hesaid.Butifyoucomparewhatweare
gettingcomparedtotheassistanceAssadreceivesfromIranandRussia,
wehavealongbattleaheadofus.
Itsbetterthannothing

WhiletheStateDepartmentiscoordinatingnonlethalaid,theCIAis
overseeingthedeliveryofweaponryandotherlethalequipmenttothe
rebels.Anoppositionofficial,speakingontheconditionofanonymityto
discusscovertarmstransfers,saidU.S.intelligencepersonnelhave
begundeliveringlongpromisedlightweaponsandammunitiontorebel
groupsinthepastcoupleofweeks.
Theweaponrydoesntsolvealltheneedstheguyshave,butitsbetter
thannothing,theoppositionofficialsaid.HeaddedthatWashington
remainsreluctanttogivetherebelswhattheymostdesire:antitankand
antiaircraftweapons.
TheCIAshipmentsaretoflowthroughanetworkofclandestinebasesin
TurkeyandJordanthatwereexpandedoverthepastyearastheagency
soughttohelpMiddleEasternallies,includingSaudiArabiaandQatar,
directweaponstomoderateSyrianrebelforces.
TheCIAdeclinedtocomment.
Thedistributionofvehiclesandcommunicationsequipmentispartofan
efforttodirectU.S.aidtoSyrianrebelsinamoreassertive,targeted
manner.BeforeWardestablishedateamofabouttwodozendiplomats
andaidworkersinsouthernTurkey,Washingtonwasdoinglittlemore
thanpayingfortruckloadsoffoodandmedicineforSyrianrebels.U.S.
officialsconcedethattheshipmentsoftenwenttothemostaccessible,
andnotnecessarilytheneediest,places.
Boostingmoderatefactions
InadditiontoboostingsupportforrebelsunderthecommandofIdriss,
whospeaksfluentEnglishandtaughtatamilitaryacademybefore
defectingfromtheSyrianarmylastyear,U.S.officialsinsouthern
Turkeyareusingaidtopromoteemergingmoderateleadersintownsand
villagesinrebelheldareas.Acrossmuchofthenorth,Syrianshave

begunelectinglocalcouncilsandattemptingtorebuildcommunities
devastatedbywar.
Wardsteamworkingprimarilyoutofhotellobbieshasspentthe
pastfewmonthsstudyingthedemographicsanddynamicsof
communitieswhereextremistsaremakinginroads.TargetedU.S.aid,he
said,canbeusedtoempoweremerginglocalleaderswhoaremoderate
andtojumpstartbasicserviceswhiledimmingtheappealofextremists.
Wefeelwereabletogettheselocalcouncilsofftoagoodstart,said
Ward,aveteranU.S.AgencyforInternationalDevelopmentofficialwho
hasworkedinLibya,AfghanistanandPakistan.Wevetindividualswho
aregettingourassistancetomakesuretheyarenotaffiliatedwithterror
organizations.
Theassistancetolocalcommunitiesincludestraininginmunicipal
managementaswellasbasicinfrastructuresuchasgarbagetrucks,
ambulancesandfiretrucks.Theareasreceivingthisaidarecarefully
selected,U.S.officialssaid,notingthatextremistgroups,including
JabhatalNusra,aredeliveringservicestocommunitiesnewlyunder
rebelcontrol.
IfyouseenewfiretrucksandambulancesinplaceswherealNusrais
tryingtowinheartsandminds,thismightnotbeacoincidence,saida
U.S.official,whospokeontheconditionofanonymitytoexplaindetails
ofasensitivestrategy.
Theinitiativesarepartofa$250millionefforttosupportmoderate
factionsoftheSyrianopposition.Ofthat,theUnitedStateshas
earmarked$26.6millioninaidfortheSupremeMilitaryCouncil.The
deliverythatbeganthisweekdoesnotincludeitemsthattherebelshave
longidentifiedaspriorities:nightvisiongogglesandbodyarmor.
MohammedGhanem,directorofgovernmentrelationsattheSyrian

AmericanCouncil,whichsupportstheopposition,saidtheU.S.
initiativesarestepsintherightdirectionafteryearsofinactionand
misguidedpolicies.
Wevedefinitelyseenastructuralandconceptualevolutionintermsof
theirunderstandingofwhatsgoingonontheground,hesaidinan
interview.Ontheotherhand,werealwayslaggingbehind.Werenot
leading.Developmentsarealwayslikesixmonthsaheadofus.
GhanemsaidtheeffectofU.S.assistanceislimitedbythenumberof
proxiesthatWashingtonmustusetodeliverit.U.S.officialsinTurkey
relyonanetworkofcontractorsandsubcontractorstodelivertheaid.
WardsaidhehopestheassistanceeffortswillpositiontheUnitedStates
tohavestrongrelationshipsinapostwarSyria.
WhenyoufinallyhaveafreeSyriangovernment,youwillknowthem
andtheywillknowus,Wardsaid.Wewillhavebeenworkingwith
themweekafterweek,monthaftermonth.Thesewontbestrangers.

U.S. ties in Persian Gulf at risk as

Obama allows space for RussianSyrian plan
9
By Loveday Morris, Published: September 11 E-mail the writer

BEIRUT The United States risks damaging relations with Persian

Gulf states as it warily embraces a Russian initiative for Syria to
relinquish its chemical arsenal, analysts say, with Sunni monarchies
fearful that the U.S. pullback from military strikes will bolster
President Bashar al-Assad and the influence in the region of his ally
Iran.
Disappointment at the decision could further cool relations with gulf
countries already frustrated by a lack of U.S. leadership on Syria
during the 21 / 2-year-long conflict there. Increasingly sharp
statements from the normally imperturbable gulf nations reflect the
growing sense of unease.
Saudi Arabia, which is spearheading military support for the Syrian
rebels, had publicly backed the idea of U.S. strikes, and the rebels
themselves had said they hoped to capitalize on any action however
narrowly targeted to gain ground against government forces.
For gulf states including Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. ally, the fight to
oust Assad plays into a wider regional struggle against the influence of
Shiite Iran. And many in the region fear that capitulating to Russias
plan may do the opposite, bolstering Assad and his allies. Kuwait and
Qatar are among those that have signed a White House-sponsored
statement condemning Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack

Aug. 21 and calling for a robust international response.

The gulf feels misled, said Mustafa Alani, a Geneva-based security
analyst with the Gulf Research Center, referring to the U.S. shift.
Certainly, theres a fear that this means Iran will be much stronger.
Strategically speaking, the Iranian position is going to be enhanced in
the region.
One of the main worries for the Gulf Cooperation Council, he added, is
that Syria and its allies have gained the upper hand.
At a summit of the councils six member countries in the Saudi capital,
Riyadh, on Tuesday night, Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin
Ahmad al-Khalifa called for deterrent measures against Syria, telling
reporters that the Russian proposal is all about chemical weapons but
does not stop the bloodshed.
The statement issued at the summit expressed deep disappointment
and could be taken as an indirect criticism of the U.S., Alani said.
The cooling comes as the United States finds its other traditional
alliances in the region weakened in the wake of the Arab Spring. The
gulf countries, long mistrustful of the Muslim Brotherhood, have
backed Egypts new interim government, while the United States has
greeted it with caution.
Although analysts see little likelihood that economic and defense ties
between Washington and its allies in the region will change
significantly, some say gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, might
attempt to diversify their strategic relationships and strengthen
regional ties in an effort to counter Iran.
This de-escalation has proved that the priorities for these states and
the U.S. are different, said Ayham Kamel, an analyst with the New
York-based Eurasia Group. Privately, it will reinforce existing
tensions between the gulf and the U.S. regarding their partnerships

and what they entail there will be questions over the U.S. ability to
help counter Iran, protect the structure of these regimes and provide
broader security.
The Gulf Cooperation Councils skeptical position on the Russian plan
contrasts with that of the wider 22-member Arab League, which has
voiced support for it. The proposal has also won initial backing from
Europe, but Turkey, a staunch supporter of the Syrian opposition, has
said it would amount to a green light for more massacres, according
to comments by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu published in the
local media Wednesday.

Senateshelvesresolutionon
militarystrikeagainstSyria,
deferringtodiplomacy
ByKarenDeYoung,EdOKeefeandColumLynch,
Published:September11
TheSenateisshelvingfornowaresolutiontoauthorizetheuseofforce
againstSyria,deferringtodiplomaticeffortsasSecretaryofStateJohn
F.KerrypreparesforapotentiallycrucialmeetingThursdaywithhis
RussiancounterpartinGenevaonaproposaltodisarmSyriaschemical
weapons.
AnnouncingthemoveontheSenatefloorWednesdayafternoon,Senate
MajorityLeaderHarryM.Reid(DNev.)said,Weveagreedonaway
forwardbasedonthepresidentsspeechlastnight.Hereferredto
PresidentObamasnationallytelevisedaddressinwhichhesaidhe
wouldseizethediplomaticopeningofferedbytheRussians,whilealso
arguingthattheUnitedStatesmustretaliateforaSyrianchemical
weaponsattacklastmonthifthedisarmamenteffortfails.
ReidsaidtheSenatewouldmoveonsoasnottotreadwateronthe
Syrianissue.Buttalksonthewordingofanewuseofforceresolution

againstSyriawillcontinueamongmembersoftheSenateForeign
RelationsCommitteeandotherseniorsenatorswhoareofteninvolvedin
foreignaffairsandmilitarypolicy.
KerryandRussianForeignMinisterSergeiLavrovwilltrytoforge
agreementonhowtolaunchandenforceaninternationaleffortto
transferanddestroySyriasarsenalofchemicalweapons,whichthe
governmentofPresidentBasharalAssadallegedlyusedonAug.21to
killmorethan1,400civiliansinrebelheldorcontestedareasoutside
Damascus.
AlthoughRussiaproposedtheinternationaleffortMondayand
quicklyelicitedbackingfromSyriaLavrovandPresidentVladimir
PutinjustasquicklyrejectedaFrenchproposalforaU.N.Security
Councilresolutiontoestablishalegallybindingchemicalinspection
regime,backedbytheauthorizationtouseforceifSyriadidnotcomply.
Putincalledthethreatofmilitaryactionunacceptableandsaida
weaponsdealwouldworkonlyiftheUnitedStatesanditsallies
renouncedusingforceagainstSyria.
InhisspeechTuesdaynight,ObamatoldAmericansthathewouldtry
onelasttimetoeliminatetheoutlawedweaponsthroughdiplomacy.But
ifthateffortfails,hesaid,theUnitedStatesmustbewillingtolaunch
militarystrikesthatwoulddegradeAssadsabilitytousesuchweapons.
Ouridealsandprinciples,aswellasournationalsecurity,areatstakein
Syria,alongwithourleadershipofaworldwhereweseektoensurethat
theworstweaponswillneverbeused.Obamasaid.
Obamasmuchanticipatedspeechdrewlittlereactionfromworld
leadersovernightandmixedresponsesathome.
Sen.JohnMcCain(RAriz.)saidWednesdaythattheWhiteHouse

shouldputaveryshortdeadlineonnegotiationswithRussiaperhaps
48or72hoursandaddedthatRussiasoppositiontotheinitial
attempttodraftaSecurityCouncilresolutionisabadsign.
Putmedownasextremelyskeptical,McCainsaidataWallStreet
Journalmediabreakfast.Thepresidentwasarguingforactionandatthe
sametimearguingforapause.
ThepurposeofThursdaysmeetingbetweenKerryandLavrovisto
makesurethatwhatRussiahasinmindforSyriasweaponsis
comprehensiveandverifiableinthemidstofaprotractedcivilwar,a
seniorStateDepartmentofficialsaid,andtomakeclearthattheUnited
Statesanditspartnersinsistthattheproposalincludesconsequencesif
Syriadoesnotcomply.
Werewaitingforthatproposal,KerrytoldaHousecommittee
Tuesday,butwerenotwaitingforlong.Wewilltakeahardlookatit,
butithastobeswift,ithastobereal,andithastobeverifiable....If
theU.N.SecurityCouncilseekstobethevehicletomakeithappen,
well,then,itcantbeadebatingsociety.
RussiainitiallycalledforanemergencySecurityCouncilmeetingto
discussthestandoffoverincludingmilitaryauthorizationsintheU.N.
proposal.Butofficialsagreedafteratelephoneconversationbetween
KerryandLavrovthatthetwodiplomatsinsteadshouldmeetoneon
one.
RussiahashandedovertotheUnitedStatesaplanforimplementing
internationalcontroloverSyrianchemicalweaponsandhopesthat
LavrovcandiscussitwithKerrywhentheymeet,anInterfaxnews
agencyreporter,travelingwithLavrovinKazakhstan,wroteWednesday.
ObamasspeechTuesdaywasdeliveredat9p.m.Easterntimeafter
midnightinEuropeandwellbeforedawnintheMiddleEast.Buteven

onWednesday,therewaslittletosuggestthatthepresidentswordshad
sparkednewthinkingfromthenationsinvolvedintheinternational
debate.
FrenchPresidentFranoisHollande,whowithObamahasledthepush
formilitaryaction,saidhiscountryremainsreadytousearmsifefforts
tosecureaninternationalagreementfallthrough.
FrancewillremainmobilizedtopunishSyriasallegeduseofpoison
gas,Hollandesaidinastatement,whichalsonotedthatFranceis
determinedtoexploreallpathsintheU.N.SecurityCouncilthatpermit
theeffectiveandverifiablecontrolofchemicalweaponspresentin
Syria.
China,whichjoinedRussiainstronglyopposingtheideaofenforcinga
disarmamentagreementwiththethreatofmilitarystrikes,reiteratedthat
positionWednesday.ForeignMinistryspokesmanHongLeisaid
ChinasleaderswereawareofObamasrelevantspeechbuthadnot
alteredtheirviewsbecauseofit.
Chinaalwaysopposestheuseofforceorthreatstouseforcein
internationalrelations,Hongsaid.TheproposalraisedbyRussia
offeredanimportantopportunitytoamelioratethecurrentintense
situationandtoresolvetheconcernsoftheinternationalsocietyonthe
Syrianchemicalweaponissue.Wehopethatallsideswillinsiston
solvingtherelevantproblemsviapoliticalanddiplomaticmeasures.
AspermanentmembersoftheSecurityCouncil,ChinaandRussiahave
theabilitytovetoresolutions.Thetwocountrieshaveblockedthe
councilfromtakingstrongactionagainstSyriaseveraltimesduringits
brutal21/2yearcivilwar.
SincetheallegedchemicalweaponsattacksAug.21,Obamahas
repeatedlysaidthatiftheUnitedNationswouldnotauthorizeaction,the

UnitedStatesanditspartnerscouldonlaunchunilateral,targeted
airstrikes,intendedtodegradeAssadsabilitytodeploychemical
weaponsanddeterhimandothersfromusingthem.
ButaWednesdayeditorialinthePeoplesDailythemouthpieceof
ChinasrulingCommunistPartyemphaticallywarnedtheUnited
StatesnottotakemilitaryactionwithoutSecurityCouncilapproval.
OncetheU.S.launchesthemilitaryattackonSyria,asovereignstate,
withouttheauthorizationoftheSecurityCounciloftheU.N.,theyare
goingtohavetwowarshappeningthesametime,thePeoplesDaily
said.Itsnothardtoimaginehowadisastercouldoccur.Thesecurity
situationoftheMiddleEastiscomplicatedandsensitive.Itiseasyto
blastthepowderkegbutitismoredifficulttocontrolthesituation.
JustadayafterRussiamadethesurpriseweaponsproposalandSyria
immediatelyannounceditsagreement,theWesternpartnersremained
warythatitwasaploydesignedtoheadoffObamasplantolauncha
militarystrike.Kerryandothersenioradministrationofficialscontinued
previouslyscheduledcongressionalbriefingstobuildsupportforwhat
hasbeencalledalimitedattacktopunishSyria.
TheU.S.backedSyrianOppositionCoalitionwasunequivocalinits
assessment,callingtheinitiativeastrategytostallfortimeandan
inadequateresponsetoachemicalattack.
Crimesagainsthumanitycannotbeabsolvedthroughpolitical
concessions,orsurrenderingtheweaponsusedtocommitthem,the
coalitionsaidinastatement.
AlthoughSyriaisbelievedtohavelargestockpilesofchemicalweapons,
includingmustardgas,sarinandothernerveagents,itsgovernmenthas
neverexplicitlyacknowledgedpossessingthem.InaCBSinterviewlast
weekend,Assaddeniedthatanygovernmentchemicalattackhadtaken

place.Herefusedtoconfirmtheexistenceofthestockpilesandaccused
theoppositionofgassinghissoldiers.
ButinaninterviewTuesdaywithLebanesemedia,SyrianForeign
MinisterWalidalMoualemsaidthathisgovernmentwouldprovide
informationaboutourchemicalweapons,accordingtoRussiasstate
fundedRTtelevisionnetwork.Wewillopenourstoragesitesandcease
production.Weintendtogiveupchemicalweaponsaltogether.
MoualemsaidSyriafullysupportstheRussianinitiativeandintends
tojointheChemicalWeaponsConventionthatrenouncesallchemical
use.
ThetextoftheproposedU.N.resolutionwasoutlinedTuesdaymorning
inParisbyLaurentFabius,theFrenchforeignminister.Itwould
authorizeaninvestigationbytheInternationalCriminalCourtintowar
crimesperpetratedbytheAssadgovernment,accordingtoadiplomat
familiarwiththetext.
InadditiontoLavrovsrejectionofU.N.authorizationoftheuseof
force,aRussianForeignMinistrystatementindicatedthatMoscowdoes
notwantaSecurityCouncilresolutionatall.Instead,thestatementsaid,
Russiaenvisionsastatementbythecouncilspresidentwhorotates
andisnowanAustralianrepresentativethatwouldwelcomethe
plantomonitorandultimatelydestroySyriaschemicalweaponsand
calloninterestedpartiestocarryouttheplan.
InLondon,BritishPrimeMinisterDavidCamerontoldmembersof
ParliamentthatthebarebonesRussianproposalwasdefinitelyworth
exploringbutthatitmustbetestedoutproperlytoensureitwasnota
ruse.AnySecurityCouncilresolution,hesaid,mustincludeaproper
timetable,processandconsequencesifitsnotdone.
Justtwoweeksago,Cameronappearedtobecomeperipheralto

internationalactiononSyria,afterParliamentrejectedhisproposalto
jointheUnitedStatesinamilitarystrike.Buttheturnofeventsappeared
toplacehimbackinthemixasacloseU.S.partner,alongwithFrance.
TheArabLeague,whichtheUnitedStateshaslookedtowardforsupport
foramilitarystrikeonSyria,welcomedtheRussianproposalTuesday.
SpeakingatitsorganizationsCairoheadquarters,ArabLeaguehead
NabilElarabytoldreportersthatithadalwaysbeeninfavorofa
politicalsolutiontotheSyriancrisis,theAssociatedPressreported,
sayingthatElarabyadded,ThankGod.
Iran,amongAssadsstrongestsupporters,alsovoicedsupportforthe
plan.QuotingHosseinAmirAbdollahian,Iransdeputyforeignminister
forArabandAfricanaffairs,theofficialIslamicRepublicNewsAgency
saidthatDamascusandTehranwelcomedtheproposalasawayof
preparingthegroundforresolvingtheSyriancrisisthroughpolitical
means.
TheIraniannewsagencyalsosaidthedeputyministerexpectedthe
entireregiontobeclearedofweaponsofmassdestruction,notingthat
Israelsundeclarednuclearweaponsshouldalsobetakeninto
consideration.
LynchreportedfromtheUnitedNations.DebbiWilgorenandAnne
GearaninWashington,MichaelBirnbauminBerlin,WillEnglundin
MoscowandWilliamWaninBeijingcontributedtothisreport.

Senate sets aside resolution on

military strike against Syria
1

By Karen DeYoung and Ed OKeefe, Thursday, September 12, 2:43 AM E-mail the
writers

The Senate on Wednesday at least temporarily put aside a resolution to

authorize the use of force against Syria as the Obama administration
appealed for patience while it explored Russias proposal to monitor
and ultimately destroy Syrias chemical weapons.
Some senior lawmakers continued to discuss whether to amend
President Obamas pending request for authorization to reflect the new
circumstances. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the

Senate would move on to other issues, as Obama had urged in his

nationally televised address Tuesday night, so as not to tread water
while the administration tests the viability of the Russian initiative.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry will take a team of weapons and
disarmament experts to Geneva for meetings Thursday and Friday
with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the State Department
said. Lavrov is expected to bring his team of experts to discuss a
proposal that has so far been presented in only the barest terms.
I would characterize it more as ideas than as a lengthy packet, State
Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said of missives that have arrived
from Moscow since Lavrov announced the offer, which received quick
agreement from the Syrian government, on Monday.
Part of this effort is to figure out how to make the destruction effort
logistically and technically possible in the midst of Syrias raging civil
war, Psaki said. It would be challenging.
In addition to holding Congress at bay, the administration deflected
action at the U.N. Security Council, where France appeared to have
jumped the gun early Tuesday with a proposed resolution tying a
Syrian agreement to surrender its chemical weapons to authorization
for international military action if President Bashar al-Assad reneged.
After Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that there would be
no deal under the threat of military force, the five veto-wielding
council members Russia and China on one side and Britain, France
and the United States on the other also seemed to be treading water
in a closed-door meeting in New York on Wednesday. No further
action was announced.
U.N. chemical weapons inspectors are expected to release a report
Monday that reinforces U.S. and European claims that the Syrian
government used chemical weapons against its own people, according
to senior U.N.-based diplomats. The report will not directly accuse the

Syrian regime, the diplomats said. But it will offer a strong

circumstantial case that points in the direction of Syrian government
culpability.
I know they have gotten very rich samples, biomedical and
environmental, and they have interviewed victims, doctors and
nurses, a senior Western official said. It seems they are very happy
with the wealth of evidence they got. The official, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because of the secrecy surrounding the
investigation, could not identify the specific agents detected by the
U.N. team but said that you can conclude from the type of evidence
the identity of the perpetrator.
Obamas address Tuesday in which he said he would test the
Russian offer while keeping the threat of a U.S. military strike against
Syria alive left many perplexed.
I really do think theyve hurt our credibility around the world just in
the muddled way that they have dealt with this Syria issue, Sen. Bob
Corker (Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations
Committee, told CNN.
Before the Russian offer, Obama had scheduled a lunch with
Republicans and the Tuesday address to press an increasingly
reluctant Congress to approve military action against the Syrian
regime.
Most Republicans at the lunch, Corker said, would have believed last
night he was going to make the greater case, the strategic case for us in
Syria. I heard no word not one word of it. ... He just cannot follow
through. He cannot speak to the nation as commander in chief. He
cannot speak to the world as commander in chief. He just cannot do
it.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was
among those arguing that Obama should change his original appeal to

Congress from an authorization to use force to punish Assad for

chemical weapons use and deter him from doing it again, to
threatening a strike if Syria cheats on an agreement to destroy its
chemical weapons.
Assad and his Russian backers ... are unlikely to follow through if
that threat does not remain credible, Levin said in a breakfast meeting
with reporters. The result, he said, would be to push them closer to an
eventual political settlement of Syrias civil war.
While the administration claimed credit for using the threat of a
military strike to force Russia and Syria to the bargaining table over
chemical weapons, it does not want that same threat to drive them
away before a weapons deal can be tested.
We are doing the responsible thing here, White House press
secretary Jay Carney said.
Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.

September 11, 2013

As Obama Pauses Action,

Putin Takes Center Stage
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

MOSCOW President Vladimir V. Putin has been many things to

President Obama: a partner at times, an irritant more often, the
host of the elusive Edward J. Snowden and the bored kid in the
back of the classroom who offered so little on the
administrations foreign policy goals that Mr. Obama canceled
plans to hold a summit meeting in Moscow last week.
Yet suddenly Mr. Putin has eclipsed Mr. Obama as the world

leader driving the agenda in the Syria crisis. He is offering a

potential, if still highly uncertain, alternative to what he has
vocally criticized as Americas militarism and reasserted Russian
interests in a region where it had been marginalized since the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
Although circumstances could shift yet again, Mr. Putin appears to
have achieved several objectives, largely at Washingtons expense.
He has handed a diplomatic lifeline to his longtime ally in Syria,
President Bashar al-Assad, who not long ago appeared at risk of
losing power and who President Obama twice said must step
down. He has stopped Mr. Obama from going around the United
Nations Security Council, where Russia holds a veto, to assert
American priorities unilaterally.
More generally, Russia has at least for now made itself
indispensable in containing the conflict in Syria, which Mr. Putin
has argued could ignite Islamic unrest around the region, even as
far as Russias own restive Muslim regions, if it is mismanaged. He
has boxed Mr. Obama into treating Moscow as an essential
partner for much of the next year, if Pentagon estimates of the
time it will take to secure Syrias chemical weapons stockpile are
accurate.
Putin probably had his best day as president in years yesterday,
Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk
consultancy, said in a conference call on Wednesday, and I
suspect hes enjoying himself right now.
In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times released on
Wednesday, Mr. Putin laid down a strong challenge to Mr.
Obamas vision of how to address the turmoil, arguing that a
military strike risked spreading the conflict far beyond Syrias
borders and would violate international law, undermining
postwar stability.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in

foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,
Mr. Putin wrote. Is it in Americas long-term interest? I doubt it.
When Mr. Putin returned to the presidency a year ago, he moved
aggressively to stamp out a growing protest movement and silence
competing and independent voices. He shored up his position at
home but, as his government promoted nationalism with a hostile
edge, passed antigay legislation, locked up illegal immigrants in a
city camp, kept providing arms to the Syrian government and
ultimately gave refuge to the leaker Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin was
increasingly seen in the West as a calloused, out-of-touch modernday czar.
Now he appears to be relishing a role as a statesman. His
spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said in an interview that the
Russian president was not seeking ownership of the initiative,
but wanted only to promote a political solution to head off a wider
military conflict in the Middle East.
Its only the beginning of the road, Mr. Peskov said, but its a
very important beginning.
To get started, Mr. Putin sent his foreign minister, Sergey V.
Lavrov, to Geneva on Thursday to meet with Secretary of State
John Kerry, in hopes of hammering out the myriad logistical
details of putting a sprawling network of chemical sites under
international control in the middle of a deadly civil war.
Even that step was another indication of just how much the
circumstances have changed in such a short time. Only a week
ago, Mr. Putin was accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to Congress about
the presence of militants allied with Al Qaeda in Syria. Hes
lying, he said in televised remarks. And he knows hes lying. Its
sad.

On Wednesday, when Russia submitted a package of proposals to

the Americans and others ahead of that meeting in Geneva, Mr.
Peskov again used the opportunity to try to paint Russia as the
peacemaker to the United States war maker. Mr. Peskov declined
to release details of the plan, other than to say Russias most
important condition was that Syrias willingness to give up its
weapons could only be tested if the United States refrained from
the retaliation Mr. Obama has threatened. Any strike will make
this impossible, Mr. Peskov said.
From the start of the war two and a half years ago, Russia has been
Syrias strongest backer, using its veto repeatedly to block any
meaningful action at the Security Council. While Russia has ties to
the country dating to the Soviet era, including its only naval base
left outside of the former Soviet republics, Mr. Putins primary
goal is not preserving Mr. Assads government despite arms
sales that account for billions of dollars as much as thwarting
what he considers to be unbridled American power to topple
governments it opposes.
Mr. Putins defense of Syria, including continuing assertions that
the rebels, not government forces, had used chemical weapons,
has at times made him seem intent on opposing the United States
regardless of any contrary facts or evidence. Russia has long had
the support of China at the Security Council, but Mr. Putin had
won support for his position by exploiting the divisions that
appeared between the United States and its allies. That was
especially true after Britains Parliament refused to endorse
military action, a step Mr. Putin described as mature.
He also slyly voiced encouragement when leaders of Russias
Parliament suggested they go to the United States to lobby
Congress to vote against the authorization Mr. Obama sought
something he himself would deride as unacceptable interference if
the table were reversed.

Mr. Putins palpable hostility to what he views as the supersized

influence of the United States around the world explains much of
the anti-American sentiment that he and his supporters have
stoked since he returned as president last year after serving four
years as prime minister under his anointed successor, Dmitri A.
Medvedev. It was under Mr. Medvedev that Russia abstained in a
Security Council vote to authorize the NATO intervention in Libya
that ultimately toppled that countrys dictator, Col. Muammar elQaddafi. Mr. Putin has made it clear that he would not repeat
what most here consider a mistake that unleashed a wave of
extremism that has spread across the region.
For now, Mr. Putin succeeded in forcing the international debate
over Syria back to the Security Council, where Russias veto gives
it a voice in any international response. With Russias relations
with Europe increasingly strained over economic pressure and
political issues, the Security Council gives Russia a voice in
shaping geopolitics.
At the same time, Mr. Putin carries the risk of Russia again having
to veto any security resolution that would back up the
international control over Syrias weapons with the threat of force,
as France proposed.
Not surprisingly, given the Kremlins control over most media
here, Mr. Putins 11th-hour gambit was nonetheless widely
applauded. The Russian president has become a hero in the
world these days, the newscast of NTV began on Wednesday
night before going on to note that Mr. Putin should be nominated
for a Nobel Peace Prize if he averted the American strike.
There was also satisfaction that it was Mr. Putin who gave an
American president whom he clearly distrusts a way out of a
political and diplomatic crisis of his own making. Aleksei K.
Pushkov, the chairman of the lower house of Parliaments foreign
affairs committee, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Obama should

gratefully grab Russias proposal with both hands.

It gives him a chance not to start another war, not to lose in the
Congress and not to become the second Bush, Mr. Pushkov said.
Andrew Roth contributed reporting from Moscow, and Rick
Gladstone from New York.

September 11, 2013

A Rare Public View of

Obamas Pivots on Policy in
Syria Confrontation
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON When President Obama strode into the Rose

Garden last month after a week of increasing tension over Syrias
use of chemical weapons, many assumed it was to announce that
the attack that had been broadly hinted at by his own aides had
begun. Instead, he turned the decision over to Congress. And

when Mr. Obama appeared on television Tuesday night, a speech

initially intended to promote force made the argument for
diplomacy.
Over the last three weeks, the nation has witnessed a highly
unusual series of pivots as a president changed course virtually in
real time and on live television. Mr. Obamas handling of his
confrontation with Syria over a chemical weapons attack on
civilians has been the rare instance of a commander in chief
seemingly thinking out loud and changing his mind on the fly.
To aides and allies, Mr. Obamas willingness to hit the pause
button twice on his decision to launch airstrikes to punish Syria
for using chemical weapons on its own people reflects a refreshing
open-mindedness and a reluctance to use force that they
considered all too missing under his predecessor with the Texas
swagger. In this view, Mr. Obama is a nimble leader more
concerned with getting the answer right than with satisfying a
political class all too eager to second-guess every move.
All the critics would like this to be easily choreographed, a
straight line and end the way theyd all individually like it to end,
said David Plouffe, the presidents former senior adviser. Thats
not the way the world works for sure, especially in a situation like
this. I think it speaks to his strength, which is that hes willing to
take in new information.
But to Mr. Obamas detractors, including many in his own party,
he has shown a certain fecklessness with his decisions first to
outsource the decision to lawmakers in the face of bipartisan
opposition and then to embrace a Russian diplomatic alternative
that even his own advisers consider dubious. Instead of displaying
decisive leadership, Mr. Obama, to these critics, has appeared
reactive, defensive and profoundly challenged in standing up to a
dangerous world.

Theres absolutely no question hes very uncomfortable being

commander in chief, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a
Republican who worked with the White House to support force
against Syria, said in an interview. In personal meetings, he
comes across very confident. I wish I could deliver a speech as well
as he does. But its like he wants to slip the noose. Its like
watching a person whos caged, whos in a trap and trying to figure
a way out.
For good or ill, and there are plenty who argue both points of view,
Mr. Obama represents a stark contrast in style to George W. Bush.
The former president valued decisiveness and once he made a
decision rarely revisited it. While he, too, changed course from
time to time, Mr. Bush regularly told aides that a president should
not reveal doubts because it would send a debilitating signal to his
administration, troops in the field and the country at large.
Mr. Obama came to office as the anti-Bush, his candidacy set in
motion by his opposition to the Iraq war amid promises to be
more open to contrary advice, more pragmatic in his policies and
more contemplative in his decisions. When it came time to decide
whether to send more troops to Afghanistan in 2009, he presided
over three months of study and debate that even aides found
excruciating at times but were presented as a more thoughtful
process.
Known as a disciplined candidate and personality, Mr. Obama
earned praise for boldness with the daring Special Forces
operation in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, although that
obscured the months of secret deliberations the public did not see.
He likewise expanded drone strikes against people suspected of
being terrorists and until recently expressed little doubt about
their wisdom and necessity.
President Obama was elected in part because when Washington
followed the conventional wisdom into Iraq, he took a different

approach, said Dan Pfeiffer, his senior adviser. The American

people appreciate the fact that he takes a thoughtful approach to
these most serious of decisions.
But Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign
Relations and a former State Department official under Mr. Bush
who broke with his old boss and has been supportive of Mr.
Obama at times, is highly critical of the way he has handled Syria.
Words like ad hoc and improvised and unsteady come to mind,
Mr. Haass said. This has been probably the most undisciplined
stretch of foreign policy of his presidency.
With the civil war in Syria, Mr. Obama has telegraphed
uncertainty for two years, clearly pained by the deaths of 100,000
people yet unsure what the United States could do about it that
would succeed without dragging the country into another
quagmire. He set a red line against the use of chemical weapons
without defining what it would entail.
Once a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 civilians,
according to American intelligence, Mr. Obama agreed that a
military response was needed while making clear how much he
wished it were not.
I would much rather spend my time talking about how to make
sure every 3- and 4-year-old gets a good education than I would
spending time thinking about how can I prevent 3- and 4-yearolds from being subjected to chemical weapons and nerve gas, he
lamented during a visit to Sweden last week. Unfortunately, thats
sometimes the decisions that Im confronted with as president of
the United States.
Despite his penchant for process, he decided to ask Congress for
authorization over the objections of his staff and without
consulting his secretary of state, John Kerry, or his secretary of
defense, Chuck Hagel. When Russia proposed averting a strike by

having Syria give up its chemical weapons, Mr. Obama cautiously

embraced the same concept even after Mr. Kerry had dismissed it
as implausible and unworkable.
Each time hes done an about-face or a sharp turn, other people
who kept marching in the same direction look kind of foolish,
said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who worked on
the National Security Council staff under Mr. Bush and Bill
Clinton. Its clear he didnt fully think through the implications of
going to Congress and prepare for that.
Defenders said that too much attention was being paid to the path
instead of the destination, and that if Syria gave up its chemical
weapons, all history would remember is that Mr. Obama had
made it happen. Id rather always have a president who will make
the right decisions at the right time, said Representative Steve
Israel, Democrat of New York, than a president who makes the
wrong decisions because he doesnt want to give more time.

U.S.RussiatalksonSyria
chemicalarsenalbeginontense
note
ByAnneGearanandKarenDeYoung,Friday,

September13,1:31AM
GENEVAU.S.RussiatalksovereliminatingSyriaschemical
weaponsbeganhereThursdayonawaryandstiltednote,asSecretaryof
StateJohnF.KerrysaidU.S.militaryforcesremainpoisedtoattack
Syriaifacredibleagreementisnotrapidlyreachedandimplemented.
SyrianPresidentBasharalAssadaddedtothetensionbysayingthathe
iswillingtoplacehischemicalarsenalunderinternationalcontrolbut
onlyiftheUnitedStatesstopsthreateningmilitaryactionandarming
rebelforcestryingtounseathim.
Assad,inaninterviewwithaRussiantelevisionstation,saidheis
preparedtosigntheinternationalconventionbanningtheweaponsand
wouldadheretoitsstandardprocedureofhandingoverstockpiledata
amonthlater.
Kerrymadeclearthathehadamuchshortertimeframeinmindandthat
Assadwasnotapartytothenegotiations.Thereisnothingstandard
aboutthisprocess,Kerrysaidasheheadedintoaninitialmeetingwith
RussianForeignMinisterSergeiLavrov.
ThewordsoftheSyrianregime,inourjudgment,aresimplynot
enough,hesaid.
Afteranhourlongsessiontooutlinethelogisticsandagendaforthe
talks,bothmenandtheirdeputiesdepartedforajointdinner,whileU.S.
andRussianteamsoftechnicalexpertsstayedbehindtoironoutthe
details.AseniorStateDepartmentofficialsaidthefulldelegations
wouldreconveneFridaymorning.
Theemergencytalksareaimedatlayingdownablueprintfor
internationalseizureoftheweaponsthattheUnitedStateshassaid
Syrianforcesusedtogastodeathmorethan1,400peoplelastmonth

nearDamascus.Russia,Syriasmaininternationalbackerandarms
supplier,offeredMondaytonegotiatetheissue,afterPresidentObama
sentU.S.warshipstotheMediterraneanandaskedCongresstoauthorize
amilitarystrikeagainsttheSyriangovernmentforitschemicalweapons
use.
Thelegislation,anuphillbattleforObamaamidlawmakersskepticism,
isonholdpendingtheoutcomeofwhatarelikelytobetwodaysoftalks
inGeneva.ThepausebuttonalsohasbeenhitattheUnitedNations,
wheretheUnitedStates,BritainandFrancehavebeenreadyinga
SecurityCouncilresolutiondesignedtoauthorizetheuseofforceif
SyriadoesnotadheretoanyU.S.Russiaagreementontheweapons.
AnopenletterfromPutin
AsKerryandLavrovmetbehindcloseddoors,publicstatementsflew
fromMoscowtoWashingtonandbackagain.
RussianPresidentVladimirPutin,inanopenlettertotheAmerican
peopleandtheirpoliticalleaderspublishedontheNewYorkTimes
opinionpages,saidanyuseofforcewasaviolationofinternationallaw
andwouldconstituteanillegalactofaggression.
TheUnitedStates,hesaid,wasdevelopingahabitofmilitary
interventionthathadgiventhecountryanimageofpreferringbrute
forceoverdemocracy.NotingObamasreferencetoAmerican
exceptionalismduringaTuesdaynightaddresstothenationonSyria,
Putinwrote,Itisextremelydangeroustoencouragepeopletosee
themselvesasexceptional,whateverthemotivation.
Therearebigcountriesandsmallcountries,richandpoor,thosewith
longdemocratictraditionsandthosestillfindingtheirwaytodemocracy.
Theirpoliciesdiffer,too,hewrote.

Obamadidnotdirectlyrespondduringbriefremarksattheopeningofa
CabinetmeetingattheWhiteHouse.Hesaidhewashopefulthatthe
Genevatalkswouldyieldaconcreteresult.
Later,WhiteHousepresssecretaryJayCarneysaiditwasclearthat
PresidentPutinhasinvestedhiscredibilityintransferringAssads
chemicalweaponstointernationalcontrolandultimatelydestroying
them.Thisissignificant.RussiaisAssadspatronandprotector,andthe
worldwillnotewhetherRussiacanfollowthroughonthecommitments
thatitsmade.
Asfortheeditorial,Carneysaid,youknow,werenotsurprisedby
PresidentPutinswords.ButthefactisthatRussiaoffersastarkcontrast
thatdemonstrateswhyAmericaisexceptional.Putinsgovernment,he
added,wasisolatedandaloneinbackingAssadsassertionsthat
Syrianrebelswereresponsibleforlastmonthschemicalattack.
OnCapitolHill,lawmakerswereevenlessdiplomatic.HouseSpeaker
JohnA.Boehner(ROhio)saidhewasinsultedbyPutinsarticle.
Despitethetensions,KerrysaidtheUnitedStatesisseriousabout
engaginginsubstantive,meaningfulnegotiationsevenasourmilitary
maintainsitscurrentposturetokeepupthepressureontheAssad
regime.
Headdedthatdiplomacycannotbecomeadelayingtactic.
Thisisnotagame,hesaid,asthetalksbeganinthisSwisscity,once
thesiteofhistoricU.S.Russiaarmscontroltalksandtheoriginal
internationalcovenantbanningchemicalweaponsasatoolofwar.
KerryandLavrovdidnottakequestionsattheirjointappearancebefore
reporters.Lavrovmadeapointofsayingthatthediscussionsshould
movethissituationfromthiscurrentstageofmilitaryconfrontation.

Weproceedfromthefactthatthesolutionofthisproblemwillmake
unnecessaryanystrikeontheSyrianArabRepublic,hesaidthroughan
interpreter.
Kerryrespondedthatitwasonlythethreatofmilitaryactionthathad
createdthediplomaticopeningandthattheUnitedStateswillremain
readytostrike.
Internationalinspections
InabriefingforreporterstravelingwithKerry,seniorStateDepartment
officialssaidtheU.S.delegationwouldpresenttheRussianswith
informationaboutsiteswhereU.S.intelligencesuspectsSyrias
estimated1,000tonsofchemicalweaponsarestored.Officialsexpect
theRussianstoprovidetheirownassessment,presumablywith
informationfurnishedbytheSyriangovernment.
Theofficials,whospokeontheconditionofanonymity,saidtheyalso
expectedtodiscusssecurityconcernsregardinginternationalarms
inspectors.WevesuggestedtotheRussianstheycomepreparedto
discussit,aswell.Itiscertainlynotapermissiveenvironment,one
officialsaid.
FarhanHaq,aspokesmanforU.N.SecretaryGeneralBanKimoon,told
reportersthattheUnitedNationshasreceivedadocumentfromthe
SyriangovernmentindicatingitscommitmenttoaccedetotheChemical
WeaponsConvention.Itwasnotclearwhetherthedocument,whichhe
saidwaswritteninArabicandwasstillbeingtranslated,includedany
preconditions.
Thisstartstheprocessofbecomingamemberoftheconvention,Haq
said.
SecurityCouncilmembersareexpectedtomeetMonday,whenBan

wouldbriefthemonthefindingsofaU.N.chemicalweaponsteamthat
probedtheAug.21attack.
Theinspectionteamwasmandatedonlytodeterminewhethertheattack
hadoccurred,nottoaffixblame.ButaseniorWesternofficialatthe
UnitedNationssaidtheinspectorscollectedawealthofevidencethat
formedacircumstantialcaseagainstAssadsforces.
InhisTuesdayinterviewwithRussiasRossiya24television,Assadsaid
terrorists,thetermhehaslongusedtorefertorebelfighters,are
tryingtoinciteaU.S.attackagainstSyria.Repeatinghischargethatthe
rebelswereresponsibleforthechemicalattack,hesaidthatthereare
countriesthatsupplychemicalsubstancestotheSyrianopposition.
ItwasonlyTuesdaythatAssadsgovernmentacknowledgedforthefirst
timetheexistenceofitschemicalweaponsstockpile.AlthoughAssad
saidhehadagreedtosignthearsenalovertointernationalcontrol,he
insistedthatitwouldhappenonlywhenweseethattheUnitedStates
trulydesiresstabilityinourregionandstopsthreateningandseekingto
invade,aswellassupplyingtherebels.
KerryalsometThursdaywithLakhdarBrahimi,theU.N.ArabLeague
envoyforSyria,andspokebytelephonewiththeleaderoftheSyrian
OppositionCoalitionandwithGen.SalimIdriss,therebelmilitary
commander.
TherebelshaveexpresseddismayatObamasdecisiontocalloff
militarystrikeswhilethediplomacyplaysout.AStateDepartment
officialsaidKerrymadecleartothemthathewasseekingtangible
commitmentstoastrong,credibleandenforceableagreementand
reiteratedthatPresidentObamasthreatofmilitaryactionverymuch
remainsonthetable.
NoSyrianswereexpectedtoattendtheGenevanegotiations.

DeYoungreportedfromWashington.WillEnglundinMoscow,Colum
LynchattheUnitedNationsandEdOKeefeinWashingtoncontributed
tothisreport.

Rare agreement between left and

right: Obamas foreign policy is a
disaster

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: September 13 at 12:00 pmE-mail the writer

The presidents foreign policy collapse has unsettled a flock of

liberal pundits. Joe Klein, for example, writes, He willingly
jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has
damaged his presidency and weakened the nations standing in
the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable
displays of presidential incompetence that Ive ever witnessed.
The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of the
Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign
policy all by his lonesome. This has been the most closely held
American foreign-policy-making process since Nixon and
Kissinger, only theres no Kissinger. And no Nixon.

President Obama (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Likewise, Jeffrey Goldberg, long-time defender of Obamas Middle

East dealings, now argues: All Assad has to do to forever stave off
a punitive strike is to keep promising that hes in the middle of
giving up his chemical weapons. (No one, by the way, has
addressed the fate of his biological weapons.) This is a process that
could go on for months, or even years. He warns that if Putin
and Kerry have indeed constructed, intentionally or not, an
offramp for Obama, Assad can continue with real impunity now
to slaughter civilians without foreign interference. He may be
Hitler, as administration officials and their surrogates keep
suggesting, but a Hitler were content to see remain in power. The
opposition in Syria will see all of this as a betrayal, and could

become further radicalized as a result.

The disdain for Obamas Syria stumbling extends to foreign
policy professional from the center-left, including those who once
worked for him. Ex-State Department official Rosa Brooks attacks
her former boss: Like millions of other Americans, I listened to
President Obamas speech last night with a sense of growing
dismay. We wanted decisiveness; we got delay. We wanted clarity;
we got contradictions. We wanted strategy; we got simplistic
moralism. We wanted principle; we got peevish pedantry. We
wanted honesty; we got hypocrisy.
Leslie Gelb, the embodiment of Georgetown conventional wisdom,
likewise declares: Well, President Obama mixed in in Syria two
years ago without the semblance of a coherent strategy. Its a sorry
record. Mr. Obamas reputation and clout have suffered. He
writes, The main lesson to be learned from the last two years is
that whatever happens with these resolutions, the Obama White
House must now have a coherent strategy for Syria. At this
moment, no strategy can solve the Syria problem. Indeed,
promoting yet another new one would be a mistake. The only
viable strategy at this point is to help prevent things from getting
worse.
By far the most entertaining, however, is David Rothkopf. He
muses:
<atarget="_blank"href="http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa
%253DL%2526ai%253DBVkwl0MzUrbnCI2
waDuYDwBZKssNQDAAAAEAEgADgAWLrl0MlqYLnovoDUAYIB
F2NhLXB1Yi0zNjcxMzQ2NTUxMjIxNTA5sgEWd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0
b25wb3N0LmNvbboBCWdmcF9pbWFnZcgBCdoBhwFodHRwOi8vd3
d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9ibG9ncy9yaWdodC10dXJuL3dw
LzIwMTMvMDkvMTMvcmFyZS1hZ3JlZW1lbnQtYmV0d2Vlbi1sZW
Z0LWFuZC1yaWdodC1vYmFtYXMtZm9yZWlnbi1wb2xpY3ktaXMtY
S1kaXNhc3Rlci_AAgLgAgDqAiI3MDEvd3BuaS5vcGluaW9ucy9ibG9
nLy9yaWdodC10dXJu
AKB0h6QA8gGmAPgA6gDAdAEkE7gBAGgBh8%2526num
%253D0%2526sig%253DAOD64_1_SyrJts3G3kEMyvzYeaZ7Z5SAw

%2526client%253Dcapub3671346551221509%2526adurl
%253Dhttps://account.washingtonpost.com/acquisition/?
promo=dgboxad&wpsrc=CM0000062"><img
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?
id=CICAgMDO3_bj3QEQARgBMghwml_WQfd7Q"width="300"
height="250"border="0"alt=""galleryimg="no"></a>
Every so often, a blind squirrel finds a nut. This is unquestionably
good news for the squirrel, provided that what he has found is
actually a nut and not some other less savory thing lying around
on the forest floor. But the same blindness that afflicted the
squirrel before his fortunate discovery will almost certainly make
it impossible for him to see the potential consequences of his
seeming good fortune. Which, if the squirrel is the president of the
United States and the nut is the hint of an opportunity to find a
diplomatic fix for the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, may
not be a good thing for U.S. interests in the Middle East or around
the world.
Even the most charitable of interpretations by the presidents
most loyal supporters (and I voted for him twice, so I count myself
in that group) would have to rank the past couple of months as
among the worst of his administration in terms of national
security policy mismanagement. From the muddle of our Egypt
policies to the ham-fisted and tone-deaf response to the NSA
scandal and its international aftershocks; from the first
contradictions around the presidents improvised and then
seemingly regretted red line in Syria to Tuesday nights big
speech, which was flat, familiar, and contradictory, and ended in
a punt to an indefinite future, the otherwise often self-assured
White Houses recent handling of our international policies has
been, well, a bit squirrely.
Conservatives finally have company in their contempt for the
current presidents national security debacles, but this is more
than Schadenfreude. There are the seeds of some sort of
bipartisan agreement on at least what we should not do in the

Middle East and elsewhere. We should not waffle, let problems

fester or imagine we can let others take up our slack. We should
not imagine the threat of violent jihadism is behind us, or that
knocking off a few terrorist leaders is a substitute for a coherent
foreign policy.
There is a growing understanding that we need to return to some
more sober, deliberate policy in the Middle East which defends
our interests consistently, providing foes and friends with a clear
view of what American will and will not tolerate. The freedom
agenda doesnt have to be an obscenity, as it was for the left
under President George W. Bush; we can now all recognize that it
is in our interests to support non-jihadi nations and groups who
will provide a more stable environment and a decent life for their
people. We can reach consensus that failed states invite terrorism
and instability that will not be contained within national borders.
That does not mean we utilize military action primarily or
frequently, but instead requires a very long-term commitment to
nurturing tolerant, free societies and robustly opposing tyrannical
ones. This is not an endeavor that will take months or merely a
couple of years.
We can all agree that we must go outside terribly flawed and
counterproductive international bodies to act (economically,
militarily, or diplomatically) alone if need be or with other
countries with similar interests (this does not include Russia).
Legitimacy comes not from Turtle Bay, but from our own
Constitution and our defense of freedom and determination to
abate violence and repression. We can reach consensus that it is
bad for America and the world if Russia is top dog in the Middle
East. We can insist on electing a president prepared to lead.
There will be plenty to disagree about on the details and execution
of post-Obama foreign policy. But in seeing the worst and most
clumsy foreign policy apparatus in American history, maybe we
can find a smarter, bipartisan policy that can repair American
stature and undo the damage of the last 4 1/2 years.