Michael Barone makes some sensible observations about Obama’s fumbling foreign policy over Syria, which began with ill-conceived bombast and would-be military adventurism, and ends by making Russia’s Putin more powerful than ever:
It can be argued that Obama’s decision to hold off on air strikes and negotiate with the Russians is better for the United States in the short run than the other two alternatives on offer—ineffective air strikes or a landslide repudiation of the commander-in-chief by Congress. But in the long run it’s a terrible setback for America.
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger muscled the Soviet Union out of Middle East diplomacy back in 1973. In the 40 years since, American presidents have kept the Russians out. Now they’re back in. A nation with a declining population, a weakened military and an economy propped up only by oil and gas exports has suddenly made itself the key interlocutor in the region. Obama has allowed this even though it’s obvious that effective disarmament is impossible in a nation riven by civil war and ruled by a regime with every incentive and inclination to lie and conceal.
At a time when Putin’s fascistic “managed democracy,” complete with anti-gay laws and thuggish street violence, should render him an international pariah, Obama has managed to make Putin the big political kahuna over the hide-saving fig leaf that Syria is going to turn over its chemical weapons (which even now it’s scattering and hiding) thanks to Putin’s benevolent intercession. Ah well, at least the Obama-Putin pact is sure to give us peace in our time.
More. How the world now sees Putin.
14 Comments for “Putinism Triumphant”
posted by Don on
I’m sorry you don’t like how things turned out. But after all, it was Roger Ailes’ idea. Is it that Ailes hates America? Or that he wants America to lose to Russia? I’m having a hard time figuring this one out.
I’m just glad there isn’t another bombing campaign that a president promises won’t turn into a war that does. And that the American people (and the British) were pretty against the whole thing. And that Republican congressmen were all for it until Obama was for it, then they had to be against it.
The levels of cluster f*****g in this thing knows no bounds. Frankly, I can’t think of single politician of whom I am proud of how they handled this thing. I’m just glad it got diffused. Hopefully the hype of the fallout as a result of the deal is as far off as the hype of the need for a new war was.
posted by Houndentenor on
I suppose some Republicans were only against bombing Syria because Obama was for it, but a lot of the younger Republicans are more libertarian leaning on foreign policy and not the old neocons. In addition, the public was very much against American intervention in Syria (some polls as high as 90-9 against). Both the Republican and Democratic leadership went out on a limb and then realized they had no support from their voters. It’s 2013, not 2003. We didn’t want it and it would have been foolish for either the executive or legislative branch to forge ahead on such an unpopular agenda. Putain offered a way out and they took it. I’m not sure there was any other sane option.
posted by Jorge on
I wish I had noticed this topic before I went and pulled up an ancient history post to say something about the anti-gay law.
Anyway, I supported a military response very strongly, but as a Catholic I have no shame in saying that I am very satisfied with this idea. The Pope wants peace. It’s ridiculous. It’s out of this world. Syria used chemical weapons. But you want us to pray for peace, I’ll pray for peace. Well the whole world prayed for peace and look what we got: we got peace.
And not just mamby-pamby, turn the other cheek appeasement peace. This is peace we’ve got to work for. This is peace that promotes justice. We must figure out how to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons. The slightest deviation in resolve, honor, or dilligence will lead to war, and a tremendous opportunity will be lost, by our own hands. It’s almost enough to make me wish I was an atheist.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Most Americans understand that our country can oppose a country’s internal abuses of human rights but cooperate with that country to influence a rouge state’s behavior. Some do not.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Hillary said it best: we have a possible diplomatic solution here only because President Obama threatened military force… And if some on the left or right or in the pundit class chose to ignore that and give Putin (or Roger Ailes) credit in some sort of crossfire-esque score keeping, then shame on them for treating this like a game.
Real people are dying. We ought not to lose sight of that.
posted by Houndentenor on
So is it the chemical weapons that makes this slaughter different from the dozens of mass murders we’ve just ignored (Rwanda, Darfur, et al.)? Is that it? Or do we just care when it happens someplace with oil reserves? Yes, this was horrible. Horrible things happen every day. After trying to get anyone to give a crap about Darfur I figured out how our foreign policy works and it has nothing to do with human rights.
posted by Doug on
Don’t forget that we helped Iraq use chemical weapons against Iran too. We are only outraged when is serves our purposes. I hate to say that but it’s true. Doesn’t say much for American Exceptionalism.
posted by Jorge on
What does Roger Ailes have to do with Syria? (looks it up)
Oh.
So is it the chemical weapons that makes this slaughter different from the dozens of mass murders we’ve just ignored (Rwanda, Darfur, et al.)? Is that it? Or do we just care when it happens someplace with oil reserves?
Well, look, I can understand you might believe that if you really believe Obama when he says we can’t be the world’s policeman.
But the fact is we are the world’s policeman. Better us than anyone else. Except maybe France.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Wow, once again a complicated, serious policy issue — with global implications — is quickly reduced to a ‘Well, clearly the hippie, limp-wrist, egg head Democrats are bowing before [Soviet?] Russia ‘.
2. Yes, I was also involved in trying to get more Americans to care about was going on in Darfur. Their was indeed a brief moment of national charitable interest, but it quickly subsided to make room for some vapid news story about celebrities or something else that was not really important.
I remember a line from the movie “Hotel Rwanda” where the journalist explains to the hotel manager that Americans will see the genocide on the news and say, “my god, that’s horrible” and then they will go back to eating dinner.
I think that sort of applies with Syria. Also the U.S. (in)action in Rwanda had probably been driven by recent memories. Likewise, people that were all gung-ho about Iraq are suddenly going to become “doves” when it comes to Syria.
People are dying and being oppressed in Syria — granted that oppression and injustice are not limited to one nation or region (and the opposition in Syria is probably much like the Iraqi opposition…mixed bag in terms of human rights or democracy or fair play).
I suspect that their is something that can be done about — in terms of the gassing of people in Syria and probably even trying to settle the vicious civil war peacefully.
But, I fear that many folks are more interested in turning it into a Democrats versus Republicans beltway-arm-chair-game.
posted by Jorge on
I suspect that their is something that can be done about — in terms of the gassing of people in Syria and probably even trying to settle the vicious civil war peacefully.
But, I fear that many folks are more interested in turning it into a Democrats versus Republicans beltway-arm-chair-game.
So speaking of how complicated and serious policy issue this is, what do you make of the pros and cons of the Obama vs. Putin game?
I think the quote from Barone above describing Russia’s power as having such a weak foundation cuts the legs out of the argument that giving them greater prestige is so catastrophic to our national interest. Putin wants to say Snowden needs to stop harming our American friends, let him say that. Russia wants to bring a startlingly good peace proposal, let them bring it. I’d rather be at a an even match with a country that is a mix of good and evil than at an advantage against a country that is all evil.
posted by Peter on
Putin is pretty cool. The cannibal-rebels are committing acts attributed to their victims, and all (supposedly Republican?!) IGF worries about is whether Obama has a BSD?
posted by Jorge on
Saying it does not make it so. Neither does citing Putin’s op-ed.
posted by Rob Tisinai on
If this works out (and Putin looks good only if it does), then Obama “bumbled” his way to achieving his goal without starting a war — as opposed to Bush and Rummy, who confidently strode into total disaster.
Obama’s the winner on this one.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—what do you make of the pros and cons of the Obama vs. Putin game?
Playing games with people lives is — as I said — not something that I am particular fond of, especially within the context of foreign policy.
Snowden is not a hero in my book (or a comic book villain either) and I hardly characterize living in Russia as being ‘free’. I doubt Mr. S is going to try and pull a similar sort of ‘sunshine-wikipedia’ policy against the Russian government.