September 12, 2013

Next steps on Syria still risky for Obama

By DAN BALZ The Washington Post

WASHINGTON – It's been said there are no do-overs in life. But President Obama may be getting the closest thing to it with his abrupt turn to diplomacy on Syria. Still, it is a path as fraught with problems and risks for the president as was his failing effort to win public and congressional support for targeted military action.

click image to enlarge

President Barack Obama, left, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, center, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, right, on stage at the Pentagon in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013, to mark the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Related headlines

When Obama spoke to the nation Tuesday night, he was in the middle of a dramatic and unexpected pivot. Given what had happened in the previous 36 hours, he had to make an awkward rhetorical transition from arguing for military intervention -- the original purpose of the prime-time address -- to arguing to give diplomacy a chance.

For now at least, the possible sequencing of what will unfold on Syria -- diplomacy before military action -- makes more sense than the zigs and zags of the past two weeks. The president can now pursue diplomatic efforts to force Syrian President Bashar Assad to turn over control of his chemical weapons to an international body, and eventually to see them destroyed. Failing that, he could then go back to Congress with a stronger case that he has exhausted peaceful efforts and that military action is the only course left to deter the Syrians from using those weapons again.

But Obama got to this place more by accident than design. Events have not left him in a stronger position politically at home as the next phase unfolds. Opposition to military action remains strong, and overnight reaction to the speech showed no particular uptick in his standing. How he handles what comes next is critically important.

So much remains uncertain. The new path elevates Russian President Vladimir Putin, Obama's nemesis and Assad's patron, and also leaves the reviled Assad as a central actor in a possible peaceful resolution. Obama provided few clues Tuesday night to his diplomatic strategy or to his patience. All he was willing to say was that it was "too early to tell whether this offer will succeed."

What was lacking in the president's address was any sense of a timetable for diplomacy or any indication of when he might go back to Congress to restart the clock on a resolution authorizing force. The reality, based on past history, is that these negotiations will be contentious and could drag on and on. Even if successful, the process leading to the eventual destruction of Syria's chemical weapons could take months, if not years. Meanwhile, Assad likely would remain in power and the civil war would rage on.

The president and his advisers have argued that it was only the threat of military action that brought the Russians and Syrians to this point. In his speech, he argued forcefully that the United States has a responsibility to act, militarily if necessary, in the face of the chemical gas attack that left killed more than 1,400 Syrians, including hundreds of children. He may have to make the same argument in a matter of weeks or months if the diplomatic efforts run aground.

Questions remain. One is how long Obama will give Assad and Putin to demonstrate that they are serious? Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has expressed great skepticism about the seriousness of both Putin and Assad, told reporters at a Wednesday breakfast hosted by The Wall Street Journal that it should be a very short deadline, perhaps 48 to 72 hours. "I worry a great deal that we kind of have a game of rope-a-dope for a while, and the slaughter goes on," he said, according to the Post's Anne Gearan.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has been as critical of Obama's overall Syrian policy as McCain and just as supportive of the president's call for military action, said on CNN after Obama's speech that whatever qualms he had about the seriousness of the offer by the Russians, diplomacy was worth the effort if only because it might lead to the elimination of the chemical weapons in Assad's hands.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)