Obama's Syrian Decision

As President Obama tries to rally support for a strike against Syria, he finds himself in a high stakes diplomatic chess match with no good outcome in sight.  Mr. Obama's stand on principle for the prohibition of chemical weapons use and the maintenance of international norms puts at risk the future of his presidency and his legacy.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless dictator determined to destroy his opposition using every weapon in his arsenal.  On Wednesday the New York Times said of Assad, "behind the veneer of normality, Mr. Assad has grown increasingly aggressive, declaring his determination to wipe out the opposition, insisting that he is standing against an imperialist enemy."

Syria's civil war has left more than 100 thousand civilians dead in that country.  Two million war refugees have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and about five million Syrians have had to flee their homes.  Meanwhile, Assad has been able to turn the tide of momentum to his favor.  His opposition is made up of a myriad of groups with differing ideologies and competing goals, which has made it difficult for America to provide military support.  So rebel fighters are inadequately trained and poorly armed. 

Perhaps emboldened by his improving position, Assad has resorted to chemical weapons to kill and demoralize his opponents.  The United States has overwhelming and convincing evidence that he is behind the attack two weeks ago, which killed more than a thousand civilians, including several hundred children. 

One year ago President Obama told a news conference, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."  He concluded, “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”  He did not specify any consequences at that news conference.

This past Saturday, the president announced he had decided on the consequences.  “After careful deliberation I have decided the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Mr. Obama said.  But he added that he would seek Congress's approval, even though he did not need to do so. 

The president and key members of his administration have "flooded the zone" in search of congressional support, as well as the support of key allies.  In a series of hearings, Secretary of Sate John Kerry has stressed that military action would not be directed a regime change, it would not be an open-ended intervention, nor would America put "boots on the ground" in Syria. 

But the administration has to overcome great skepticism for its case from a congress that was burned ten years earlier by false evidence of weapons of mass destruction from President George W. Bush's administration as justification for invading Iraq.  Meanwhile, according to recent polls, a war-weary American public is opposed to any military action against Syria.

There are no good options for the president.  Failure to attack Syria will only further embolden Assad who will continue to massacre his own civilians, and it will spur Iran to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons.  Worse, it will weaken America's standing in the world, at a time that Russia and China are expanding their ambitions.

On the other hand, a "limited" attack, which the president proposes, is unlikely to be effective in significantly degrading and deterring Syria's weapon's stockpile, much of which is hidden among civilians, or deter Assad from using them again and again if he becomes desperate.  An American attack is certain to result in civilian casualties, set off a wave of terrorist strikes against Western nations and Syria's neighbors, and further demonize the U.S. among some people in the region.
 
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved, by a 10-to-7 bipartisan vote, a resolution that would limit military strikes against the Syrian government to a 60-day window, with the possibility of a 30-day extension, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops.  The full Senate is expected to take up the measure early next week.  The prospects for success in the House of Representatives are uncertain.  If Congress fails to pass the measure it would be seen as a huge international embarrassment for the president.  

So momentum appears to be slowly building on Capitol Hill for support of military action against Assad's government, in part because it is the best choice from several bad options.  If an attack is approved and carried out by American forces, many nations may not like it.  But they will recognize that America, led by President Obama, has stood on a fundamental principle for the good of humanity. 

Putin's Stage

Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin loves being the center of attention. And his decision not to extradite fugitive Edward Snowden to the United States has now found him at the center of an East-West standoff.

Putin is an expert in espionage. In 1975, Putin began his 16-year career with the KGB. Among his duties were spying on foreigners and counselor officials in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg. His experiences were beneficial to his meteoric rise through Russia's hierarchy to become Russia's most powerful figure. For more than a decade he has ruthlessly ruled his country, and leveraged his power to maintain Russia's standing as one of the world's leading powers.

President Putin enjoys his place on the world stage. But his country is plagued by corruption and human rights abuses. Information is power, and the Russian government is a master at monitoring dissenting voices. Yet Putin's approval rating among Russians is high, in part because Russia has reasserted itself in global affairs, according to some observers.

On Tuesday, Putin gave the first direct confirmation that Edward Snowden was in an international transit area at the Moscow airport. “Mr. Snowden is a free man," Putin said, according to Russian news services, "The faster he chooses his ultimate destination, the better for us and for him.” Snowden is thought to be carrying a mother lode of U.S. intelligence information. But Putin said Russia's security services, “are not engaged with him and will not be engaged.” Really?

The Russian president said he would not extradite Snowden to the U.S. “As for the issue of the possibility of extradition,” Mr. Putin said, “we can only send back some foreign nationals to the countries with which we have the relevant international agreements on extradition. With the United States we have no such agreement.”

Putin seemed to be supportive of Snowden, and of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. "Assange and Snowden consider themselves human rights activists and say they are fighting for the spread of information." He continued, "Ask yourself this: should you hand these people over so they will be put in prison?" He concluded, "In any case, I'd rather not deal with such questions, because anyway it's like shearing a pig – lots of screams but little wool."

Putin's position is outrageous when weighed against the fact that so many Russian dissidents are in prison. For instance, some members of the punk-rock band Pussy Riot were imprisoned for staging a guerrilla performance in a Moscow cathedral. It led to a music video entitled, "Punk Prayer - Mother of God, Chase Putin Away!"

Putin has snubbed the West on a number of international issues. He has continued to support beleaguered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in that country's civil war, in the face of calls for his removal by the West. That civil war has resulted in 90,000 deaths. Russia maintains a naval base in Syria, and has long had a close alliance with the Assad regime. Putin recently said that there is no proof Syria used chemical weapons on its own people, despite the preponderance of evidence they did. And he opposes U.S. efforts to arm the Syrian rebels. Last week, he said, "If the United States ... recognizes one of the key Syrian opposition organizations, al-Nusra, as terrorist ... how can one deliver arms to those opposition members?"

The story is the same in Iran, long a close Russian ally. Putin congratulated the newly elected President of Iran, Hassan Rowhani, and promised to expand bilateral relations with that government. Iran is currently arming Assad's regime in Syria, as well as Lebanon's Hezbollah fighters, who have joined the government in that civil war. Meanwhile, Putin has said he has no doubt that Iran is adhering to international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation. He has also accused America of exaggerating Iran's intentions, "the United States uses Iran to unite Western allies against some real or non-existent threat."

New England Patriot's owner Robert Kraft learned first hand how President Putin operates. After offering the Russian president a chance to hold his Super Bowl ring, Putin pocketed it. When word of the incident made headlines, Putin had a suggestion. "I will ask a jewelry firm to make a really good and big thing, so everyone will see it is a luxury piece, made of quality metal and with a stone, so this piece will be passed from generation to generation in the team whose interests are represented by Mr. Kraft," he said. "This would be the smartest solution partners can ever achieve while tackling such a complicated international problem.”

For Putin, all of the world's a stage. But one prominent Russian businessmen said of Putin, "We have two Putins. There are lots of words, but the system doesn't work." Let's hope that Russians look beyond Putin's gamesmanship and grandstanding to see that Putin is just a bad actor.