Barack and Bill on Syria: What’s really happening
To understand the current Democratic president’s predicament, consider the last one’s experiences -- and commentary
Topics: Syria, Foreign policy, Bosnia, Rwanda, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Intervention, Humanitarian aid, Bashar al-Assad, Politics News
President Barack Obama joins former President Bill Clinton (R) at the Democratic National Convention in 2012. (Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed)When the most popular Democratic president since FDR takes a swipe at a sitting president of the same party, pay attention. Barack Obama’s recent decision to start arming the Syrian opposition was driven by many factors, and conceived well before Bill Clinton implicitly accused him of being a ”wuss” on Syria. Clinton didn’t turn a risk-averse president into a risk-ready one on Syria — how Obama wants to be remembered as a president did.
And that’s why the substance and timing of Clinton’s remarks matter.
Indeed, given the limited supply of weapons the administration is prepared to provide the rebels, Obama’s change of heart isn’t about overthrowing Assad or jumping militarily into Syria with both feet; it’s about protecting his own credibility, reputation and legacy in a second and final term.
The problem, of course, is that if arms to the rebels don’t answer the mail, the president may well be forced to do more – an uncertain road that could well end up damaging the legacy he so badly wants to protect. What prompted the administration of a cautious president to change course on Syria – even in a limited way — is still unclear. For a year plus, the president avoided militarizing the U.S. role. Indeed, he went to great lengths to do so, including allowing Secretary of State Kerry to play footsie with the Russians on a Geneva political track.
The administration decision-making narrative on Syria goes something like this: The decision to begin arming the rebels was made as early as April and validated by increasing evidence that Assad used chemical weapons – a self-described presidential red line. But it’s now June and this red line had already turned pink with no action being taken. It’s hard to believe this was the precipitating rationale for arming the rebels.
There’s another narrative that’s more compelling, and it goes like this: Barack Obama is the extricator-in-chief. His goal is to get America out of long and profitless wars, not into new ones.
He really didn’t want to go down this road. But he was pushed – certainly not by the public or even the Republicans. But by the reality that the Syrian civil war wasn’t going to end any time soon — and that while the public wasn’t pushing for America to end it, unless he did something his own reputation was going to suffer. Not in the current polls, but in the big poll that starts to matter to a second term president – the judgment of history.
Aaron David Miller is currently a Distinguished Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. For two decades, he served at the Department of State as an advisor to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East. More Aaron David Miller.








Comments
3 Comments