President Obama and his advisers view the coming decision on military action against Syria as a potential turning point that could effectively define his foreign policy for his final three years in office.As he lobbied world leaders at a summit meeting here in person and members of Congress back in Washington by telephone on Thursday, Mr. Obama argued that a failure to act would be an abdication of the so-called indispensable role played by the United States since the end of the cold war, leaving no one to step in when international bodies fail to.
In private, Mr. Obama and his team see the votes as a guidepost for the rest of his presidency well beyond the immediate question of launching missiles at Syrian military targets. If Congress does not support a relatively modest action in response to a chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people in Syria, Obama advisers said, the president will not be able to count on support for virtually any use of force.
Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public’s will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.
As a result, Mr. Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of military force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria. Moreover, a rejection of the Syria strike would make Mr. Obama less likely to leave behind a robust force in Afghanistan after combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
“I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether it’s a yes vote or a no vote,” said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Mr. Obama. “If he ekes out a yes vote, he’s beholden to the Republicans.” But, she added, “if he gets a no vote and stands down on Syria, he’s permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking.”
Already a sometimes-reluctant warrior, Mr. Obama pulled out all American troops from Iraq, ordered a withdrawal from Afghanistan and lately has talked about scaling back his aggressive use of drones in Pakistan and eventually ending the war against terrorism. Some critics have argued that in subcontracting the Syria decision to Congress, Mr. Obama was looking for an excuse not to act and someone else to blame.
White House officials deny that, saying what the president really wants is a united front. But to opponents of a Syria strike, a retreat from further use of force in the wake of a Congressional rejection would finally reverse what they see as excessive militarism since Sept. 11, 2001. The restraint on future military flexibility that the White House professes to fear, in this view, would be something to celebrate.
It may be that the dire talk from the White House reflects a strategy to muscle Congress into line: Vote against this, the message being, and you vote against protecting Israel from Iran. And it may be that even if White House officials believe it today, Mr. Obama would still act to stop developments in the Iranian nuclear program or to address some other threatening circumstance if the moment ever arrived.
“Obviously defeat would be a blow to presidential leadership but I think not fatal to a decision to attack Iran because the stakes are different,” said Gary Samore, a former national security aide to Mr. Obama. “The danger is that Iran might misread Congressional opposition to a Syria attack as a green light to move toward building nukes, which would force Obama’s hand.”
Nancy Soderberg, who was a diplomat at the United Nations under President Bill Clinton, said a negative vote would cut Congress out of foreign policy. “Rather than tying the president’s hands for the next three years, a failure in the House would leave him more reliant on his inner circle and a few key world leaders in making the difficult choices between force and diplomacy,” she said.
But Mr. Obama and his aides are trying to thread a needle at home and abroad. Even as they argue that the stakes are profound, they assure that the intervention would be modest. While Mr. Obama argues that nothing less than world credibility is at stake, he is aiming only a “shot across the bow” to deter further use of chemical weapons not to end a civil war that has killed 100,000. That makes this situation different from, say, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo in the 1990s, when the United States led NATO forces to stop mass slaughter.
Mr. Obama presented his case to leaders gathered here from the Group of 20 nations, but found as much wariness as he has in Congress. While France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support such a strike, most of the others were more cautious, and the meeting’s host, President Vladimir V. Putin, was openly hostile.
Chinese officials warned that a strike would raise oil prices and upset the global economy, while Italy’s prime minister said he worried that it widen the conflict. From the Vatican, Pope Francis wrote a letter urging the leaders “to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution.”
Mr. Obama, who met separately with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, was hoping mainly to win support for the idea of holding Syria responsible even if not for his method.
The Group of 20 meeting put on full display the increasingly awkward and tense relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin. To protest Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed secret programs, Mr. Obama last month canceled a separate one-on-one meeting in Moscow and declined even a private session here in St. Petersburg.
As he arrived at Constantine Palace, Mr. Obama was greeted by Mr. Putin, and the two shook hands and smiled in a businesslike if not warm encounter lasting about 15 seconds. They did not pat backs or grab elbows as leaders often do, and at the opening session they sat separated by the leaders of Australia and Indonesia, with nothing to say to each other as long as the cameras were on.
Diving into the meetings, Mr. Obama tried to manage dual audiences, the one in front of him representing the world’s greatest powers and the one back home that holds the fate of his foreign policy in its hands.
“One thing for Congress to consider,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser, “is the message that this debate sends about U.S. leadership around the world — that the U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.”
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Smiling, Obama and Putin Mask Their Disputes
President Obama and his advisers view the coming decision on military action against Syria as a potential turning point that could effectively define his foreign policy for his final three years in office.As he lobbied world leaders at a summit meeting here in person and members of Congress back in Washington by telephone on Thursday, Mr. Obama argued that a failure to act would be an abdication of the so-called indispensable role played by the United States since the end of the cold war, leaving no one to step in when international bodies fail to.
In private, Mr. Obama and his team see the votes as a guidepost for the rest of his presidency well beyond the immediate question of launching missiles at Syrian military targets. If Congress does not support a relatively modest action in response to a chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people in Syria, Obama advisers said, the president will not be able to count on support for virtually any use of force.
Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public’s will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.
As a result, Mr. Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of military force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria. Moreover, a rejection of the Syria strike would make Mr. Obama less likely to leave behind a robust force in Afghanistan after combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
“I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether it’s a yes vote or a no vote,” said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Mr. Obama. “If he ekes out a yes vote, he’s beholden to the Republicans.” But, she added, “if he gets a no vote and stands down on Syria, he’s permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking.”
Already a sometimes-reluctant warrior, Mr. Obama pulled out all American troops from Iraq, ordered a withdrawal from Afghanistan and lately has talked about scaling back his aggressive use of drones in Pakistan and eventually ending the war against terrorism. Some critics have argued that in subcontracting the Syria decision to Congress, Mr. Obama was looking for an excuse not to act and someone else to blame.
White House officials deny that, saying what the president really wants is a united front. But to opponents of a Syria strike, a retreat from further use of force in the wake of a Congressional rejection would finally reverse what they see as excessive militarism since Sept. 11, 2001. The restraint on future military flexibility that the White House professes to fear, in this view, would be something to celebrate.
It may be that the dire talk from the White House reflects a strategy to muscle Congress into line: Vote against this, the message being, and you vote against protecting Israel from Iran. And it may be that even if White House officials believe it today, Mr. Obama would still act to stop developments in the Iranian nuclear program or to address some other threatening circumstance if the moment ever arrived.
“Obviously defeat would be a blow to presidential leadership but I think not fatal to a decision to attack Iran because the stakes are different,” said Gary Samore, a former national security aide to Mr. Obama. “The danger is that Iran might misread Congressional opposition to a Syria attack as a green light to move toward building nukes, which would force Obama’s hand.”
Nancy Soderberg, who was a diplomat at the United Nations under President Bill Clinton, said a negative vote would cut Congress out of foreign policy. “Rather than tying the president’s hands for the next three years, a failure in the House would leave him more reliant on his inner circle and a few key world leaders in making the difficult choices between force and diplomacy,” she said.
But Mr. Obama and his aides are trying to thread a needle at home and abroad. Even as they argue that the stakes are profound, they assure that the intervention would be modest. While Mr. Obama argues that nothing less than world credibility is at stake, he is aiming only a “shot across the bow” to deter further use of chemical weapons not to end a civil war that has killed 100,000. That makes this situation different from, say, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo in the 1990s, when the United States led NATO forces to stop mass slaughter.
Mr. Obama presented his case to leaders gathered here from the Group of 20 nations, but found as much wariness as he has in Congress. While France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support such a strike, most of the others were more cautious, and the meeting’s host, President Vladimir V. Putin, was openly hostile.
Chinese officials warned that a strike would raise oil prices and upset the global economy, while Italy’s prime minister said he worried that it widen the conflict. From the Vatican, Pope Francis wrote a letter urging the leaders “to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution.”
Mr. Obama, who met separately with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, was hoping mainly to win support for the idea of holding Syria responsible even if not for his method.
The Group of 20 meeting put on full display the increasingly awkward and tense relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin. To protest Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed secret programs, Mr. Obama last month canceled a separate one-on-one meeting in Moscow and declined even a private session here in St. Petersburg.
As he arrived at Constantine Palace, Mr. Obama was greeted by Mr. Putin, and the two shook hands and smiled in a businesslike if not warm encounter lasting about 15 seconds. They did not pat backs or grab elbows as leaders often do, and at the opening session they sat separated by the leaders of Australia and Indonesia, with nothing to say to each other as long as the cameras were on.
Diving into the meetings, Mr. Obama tried to manage dual audiences, the one in front of him representing the world’s greatest powers and the one back home that holds the fate of his foreign policy in its hands.
“One thing for Congress to consider,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser, “is the message that this debate sends about U.S. leadership around the world — that the U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.”
No comments:
Post a Comment