Letting the UN Into Syria Could End Up Strengthening Obama’s Hand


All the chatter today on Syria is about the Kerry/Putin/Assad proposal that would put off U.S. military action while the UN talks about putting inspectors on the ground who would take control of Syria’s chemical weapons. (And its biological weapons too, presumably, though no one is mentioning that.) Ed Kilgore figures that Obama has three options now:

(1) Press forward with the original resolution….(2) Come up with an amended resolution that explicitly makes the authorization for military action contingent on the failure of a diplomatic initiative to remove or control chemical weapons within a given time-frame (45 days). This is the approach being worked on by Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, apparently in close consultation with the White House….(3) Take credit for the new peace initiatives and hold off on votes in Congress indefinitely.

….At this point I see no evidence the White House is going with the third approach, but I sure would if I were in their position. Yeah, you can say the French/Russian peace initiative will enable Obama to say tonight that being willing to go to war is the only way to get peace, but the problem with public opinion on Syria is that Americans aren’t sure anything that does or doesn’t happen there is worth the risk of war. The Manchin/Heitkamp approach doesn’t address this problem, either, and is certain to repel Republicans who don’t want the “fight” with Syria limited to the chemical weapons issue and/or don’t want a multilateral “solution.”

Not so fast. Actually, I think Option 2 has at least a chance of turning public opinion around. It’s true that there are plenty of Americans who just flatly don’t want to get involved in Syria, but it’s probably also true that at least some of the skeptics are concerned about whether we’re reacting to a one-off use of chemical weapons. If they were persuaded that Assad is likely to escalate and turn rebel-controlled areas into an abattoir of gas attacks, they might change their minds. If Obama goes along with the UN idea, and can then show that Assad is stalling and obfuscating, he could use this as evidence that Assad plainly has imminent plans to use his chemical arsenal as soon as the UN team is finished. At the very least, it would certainly strengthen Obama’s hand if Assad goes ahead and launches another gas attack after the UN team leaves.

I’d say that this is probably a slim chance. The more time that goes by, the more likely Americans are to forget the whole thing. And no one should underestimate Assad’s ability to tap dance for a long time with the UN inspection team. Still, if it’s handled right, I think it’s possible that letting the UN proposal play out could strengthen Obama’s hand with both the public and with Congress.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.