WarSclerotic

In a few weeks, Syria will be out of the news in the United States. That is exactly where U.S. President Barack Obama wants it, and it may be the only solace he obtains from his disastrous stewardship of American foreign policy the last few weeks in response to a chemical weapons use by Syria against its civilian population. Two weeks back, the president was ready to launch an “unbelievably small” operation, to use the vernacular of his verbally challenged Secretary of State John Kerry, against Syrian targets. The president and the secretary of state both signaled that the attacks would be symbolic, without any goal of changing the momentum on the battlefield between the Assad regime and the various rebel groups, and that it would be of short duration, maybe a day or two.

Administration spokespeople leaked to various media outlets that the attacks would include the firing of cruise missiles launched from destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, but under no circumstances would there be any American soldiers with “boots on the ground.” The president also stayed away personally from boots on the ground, choosing golf shoes, while teeing up a few more times (consistent with a five year pattern of hitting the links at a pace four times that of his predecessor) as the discussion about how to respond to the alleged heinous criminal act by Syria was debated in the media and Congress. The president’s relaxed schedule after his return from Europe belied the supposed seriousness of the Syrian use of chemical weapons, and the need for America to respond in some way (symbolically at least, if not meaningfully) to defend the “international norm prohibiting the use of such weapons.

The effort to inform Syria, the intended recipient of the cruise missiles, that our attack would be insignificant, seemed to some like an attempt to tell the world that we did not really want to do this. The comedian Albert Brooks tweeted on August 29: “I don’t know the right decision on Syria, but basically telling them Saturday between 3 and 4 seems stupid.”

When a liberal Democratic president is mocked in Hollywood, you might as well say that that president has hit bottom and lost his core constituency. And this was before the collapse of will in the week that followed.

After the British House of Commons voted not to support any U.S. effort against Syria, the president’s already cold feet on the use of force got noticeably frostier. He punted the decision to Congress, where he knew there was strong resistance to an attack within both political parties, and where passage in the House seemed highly unlikely, given the combination of a Republican majority in that body and numerous left wing Democrats pretty much opposed to all wars. The president had ignored Congress when he “led from behind” in the supposed humanitarian war in Libya, and had never argued that he needed Congressional authorization for striking against Syria, until British Prime Minister Cameron took the issue to the House of Commons and lost. Without the British as an ally in the fight, and with no authorization for military action from any international organization, the president retreated. Obama was, after all, the president, who based his campaign in 2008 on not repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration with its alleged unilateralism in Iraq (a coalition with 45 more countries than the president had secured for action against Syria), and for ignoring the will of the international community (though former President Bush had 12 more Security Council resolutions on Iraq to work with than President Obama had obtained for actions against Syria). After sending the military action resolution to Congress for a vote, the president seemed to argue that he could launch the strikes even if the effort went down to defeat in Congress, but few took that threat seriously.

With an embarrassing Congressional defeat staring him in the face, the president was saved from both Congressional defeat and an inconsequential and unpopular military engagement, by what seemed at the time as a Russian effort to capitalize on one more boneheaded comment by Kerry. In responding to a question on how a military action could be avoided, Secretary Kerry answered that Syria would need to turn over all its chemical weapons within a week. Almost immediately, the State Department walked back Kerry’s comment, issuing a statement that his remarks were hypothetical, not administration policy. Just as quickly, sensing an opportunity to force Obama to accept Russian goals with regard to the Syrian conflict, Vladimir Putin accepted the Kerry offer and “refined” it.

The New York Times showed their great respect for Putin’s diplomatic courage and effort by giving him an op ed to bash U.S. policy, while taking credit for saving the day and securing peace in our time.

Was the Kerry statement one that was in the works with the cooperation of the Russians, or merely an effort by him to show that he can say more inappropriate things than Vice President Joe Biden in any given period of time?

But there is a scarier prospect. Is American foreign policy actually being created by Albert Brooks? Here was the comedian’s tweet from September 7, two days before Kerry threw out his new chemical weapons alternative to avoid American military action:

“Russia and the U.S. could unite for one week, go into Syria, remove the chemicals, and let them continue fighting.”

The president, sensing the kind of outcome he wanted — a defeat by any other name, but one without the risk of military action and blowback from Syria or its allies, and without the humiliation of an overwhelming defeat on the resolution in the House, quickly caved and endorsed the Russian approach. Of course, the next day, he allowed AIPAC, whom he had strong armed, to send its emissaries on an utterly useless lobbying effort in Congress for a vote that would not take place, and praised himself for his steely behavior in threatening military force, which he claimed forced Russia’s hand. The AIPAC effort, of course, brought all the Israel haters and anti-Semites out of the closet to decry the Jews sending the U.S. to war again, as they have since the War of 1812. Of course, no one other than the president saw things this way, but who is to argue against success — if avoiding military action of any kind and avoiding Congressional defeats defines success as the leader of the Western world these days.

Within days the Americans and the Russians have announced agreement on a deal that would supposedly lead to Syria surrendering and or destroying its chemical weapon stores (now dispersed in dozens of locations throughout Syria, and it seems Iraq as well). Russia has again called the shots in forcing the United States to agree to drop any threat of military action for Syrian non-compliance, if it wants to see United Nations “action” during the nine months of the deal Putin effectively wrote.

At the start of Obama’s first term, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, beginning her million mile marathon as the nation’s chief diplomat, was giddy as she gave her Russian counterpart a button labeled “reset.” Supposedly U.S. Russian relations were now reset, and the two nations were on the same page and could work toward joint goals, such as reducing each side’s nuclear weapons arsenals. Now, in the first months of the president’s second term, we see Russia holding the cards in every showdown with the United States, from the Edward Snowden face-off to the “resolution of the Syrian crisis.” What we have witnessed is a complete American retreat on Syria, and Russians setting the terms for how the international community will act towards Syria. Most important, any momentum the rebels might have had from the expectation of some American military effort, however small, has been lost. Syrian President Bashar Assad is still holding power and on the offensive again against the regime’s opponents along several fronts.

One of Obama’s biggest fans is columnist Andrew Sullivan, who argued this week that Obama was the chess player in all this, not Putin. Sullivan of course is the same writer who has obsessed over whether Sarah Palin’s last child, the one with Down syndrome, was really her baby or actually her daughter’s child. Clearly Sullivan is an important thinker, not be to dismissed casually. Sullivan argued that the Middle East and Syria were Russia’s to deal with, and the United States could now abandon any pretense of a role; a strategic victory. That fits with the general sense of retreat and disinterest that Obama has been communicating for nearly five years, of course. Foreign affairs is messy, and the international community does not behave like lapdogs, as Obama’s allies do in this country. The president wants a war on coal, and maybe a war on Texas and its governor. His wife wants a war on bad school lunches, but war with Syria or Iran? Never mind. The president put up as much of a fight against Putin and Assad, as a first round opponent does against Serena Williams in a major tennis tournament. This was an easy straight set victory for Putin against an opponent with no will to fight. When the leader of the free world communicates confusion, incoherence, and weakness, it is inevitable that the world’s bad guys will get the message, and their provocations will find us. We will not need to go looking for them.